Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2011

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.

Augustinian theodicy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently created this page and have been working on it since. I have the long term goal of getting this to Good Article status - I'd like feedback on how far I am to reaching that and what needs to be done to improve it.

Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • Contributions) 18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for this interesting article. I think it needs some work to get to GA and better follow the MOS, here are some suggestions for improvement. I will review both theodicy articles - this and Irenaean theodicy, so some of the comments will be the same on each PR.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs on religion at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Religion.2C_mysticism_and_mythology, which may be useful models. I was also not sure why this is in the Philosopy WikiProject but not Religion.
  • The lead is only three sentences and does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but this is only in the lead The theodicy was developed by Augustine of Hippo in his works, Confessions and City of God.[1]
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. However neither the Biblical basis, nor any of the criticisms seem to be in the lead now.
  • The article needs to do a better job of providing context to the reader - for example there is no real explanation or background on the problem of Theodicy, nor is there any information to put Augustine into context (when did he live, why did he write City of God)? See WP:PCR
  • Or who is Friedrich Schleiermacher and why is his critique important?
  • The article needs to do a better job with wikilinks. City of God and Confessions can both be linked. God should liked on first use, not its sixth use in the article (not counting City of God). Also does it help to link common terms most readers undertand like Perfect? See WP:OVERLINK
  • Some things in the article seem wrong - Evolution does not argue that life is "improving", just better adapted to its environment.
  • WP:See also says in general not to list links in the See also section which are already linked in the article.
  • Given Augustine's importance as a church father and the effect of his theology on centuries of western religious thought, I expected there to be more history. What was the previous widespread theodicy in the church? How long did Augustine's theodicy hold sway? Whom did it influence (not just who criticized it)? What role has it played in the general development of theodicy in Christianity and beyond?
  • several of the critiques are not attributed - who made these criticisms, when, and why?
  • A Good Article has to be broad in its coverage (a Featured article has to be comprehensive). This is not up to either of these standards yet.
  • References need to provide more complete information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure the sources used are reliable - see WP:RS. Augustine is very important in Christian theology and there have been a lot of books written on him, yet this article seems to mostly use some websites which are of questionable reliablity (what makes Scandalon.co.uk a RS?), and a textbook for A level students (again is this the best source possible??). Get thee to a library.
  • I noticed that this topic is not mentioned in the body of the article about Augustine (though it is a hatnote and See also link there)
  • Prose is decent.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irenaean theodicy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like this article peer reviews because I have recently undertaken to substantially improve the article. I hope to eventually get the article to Good Article status, so I would like to know what is working and what need to be improved.

Thanks, ItsZippy (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for this interesting article too. I think it also needs some work to get to GA and better follow the MOS, here are some suggestions for improvement. I have reviewed both theodicy articles - this and Augustinian theodicy, so some of the comments are the same on each PR.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs on religion at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Religion.2C_mysticism_and_mythology, which may be useful models. I was also not sure why this is in the Philosopy WikiProject but not Religion.
  • The lead is only four sentences and does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the time frame for Hick and Irenaeus are only in the lead (although the image caption of Irenaeus also gives his century)
  • I would tighten part of the current lead a bit It was formed by the 20th century philosopher and theologian John Hick, inspired by the ideas and writings of the 2nd century Bishop, Saint Irenaeus.[1] It is Saint Irenaeus after whom the theodicy is named. First off it is usually better to avoid passive voice, and second the named for bit can be combined with the inspired by part, so something like Twentieth century philosopher and theologian John Hick developed the theodicy, which was named for the second century Bishop Saint Irenaeus and inspired by his ideas and writings.[1]
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. However none of the criticisms seem to be in the lead now.
  • The article needs to do a better job of providing context to the reader - for example there is no real explanation or background on the problem of Theodicy, nor is there any information to put Irenaeus or Hick into context (when and where did they live, why should we care about them and this theodicy)? See WP:PCR
  • Watch typos like this ("whose" is meant) He used the Biblical example of Jonah who's suffering (in being swallowed by a whale)...
  • The article needs to do a better job with wikilinks. Link terms on first use and generally only once in the lead and once in the body (per WP:OVERLINK) It helps very little to link common terms most readers undertand like Perfect and Humans. See WP:OVERLINK
  • Where no link exists (like epistemic distance) perhaps link epistemic to epistemiology?
  • If Irenaeus wrote all this nearly 2000 years ago, why did it take until now for this theodicy to be developed?
  • Given the importance of Irenaeus and Hick in their respective centuries and and the effect of their theologic writings on western religious thought, I expected there to be more history. What was the previous widespread theodicy in the church when Hick developed this (or when Irenaeus wrote)? Why did Hick feel the need to develp a new theodicy? When was Hick's book first published? Whom did it and his theodicy influence (not just who criticized it)? What role has it played in the general development of theodicy in Christianity and beyond? Do people citicize Hick for hanging Irenaeus' name on his work - see Pseudo-Galen
  • None of the critiques are not attributed - who made these criticisms, when, and why?
  • A Good Article has to be broad in its coverage (a Featured article has to be comprehensive). This is not up to either of these standards yet.
  • References need to provide more complete information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure the sources used are reliable - see WP:RS. Irenaeus and Hick are important in Christian theology and there have been books written on them, yet this article seems to mostly use some websites which are of questionable reliablity (what makes Scandalon.co.uk a RS?), and some textbooks (again are these the best source possible??). Get thee to a library.
  • I noticed that this topic is not mentioned in the body of the article about Irenaeus
  • Prose is OK - there are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that make for choppy flow of the narrative
  • WP:See also says in general not to list links in the See also section which are already linked in the article.
  • 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 ><>°° 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second look
  • The lead is much better, but I always (re)write the lead last, after the rest of the article is done, to make sure it is an accurate summary of the whole. One idea I like is to imagine someone could only read the lead, not the rest of the article. Would they get all the important points and ideas from just the lead?
  • I do not think that Keats needs his own section as currently written - sections should be more than one very short paragraph.
  • It's is used where Its is meant
  • Headers need to follow WP:HEAD better - avoid repeating theodicy in the headers (since this duplicates part of the article title)
  • Sources are still a problem (and I see this was raised at the GAN too)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Stubbs

[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 split the article from a list and established it's notability by including sourced real-world content.

Thanks, Tellow (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several very short paragraphs (one- or two-sentence long) throughout this article. Aside from being an aesthetic negative, they make the reading experience choppy. Some parts (mostly Storylines) are also jarring as the context of an idea presented in a short paragraph has gaps in its linkage to the next point. The short paragraphs should be re-worked, merging them together or into other paragraphs. The bridges between the ideas should also be established; avoid making the reader wonder what happened in between or why the article is jumping from idea to idea. Of course, these bridges should not be of superfluous and trivial details. It might be that some sourced items would be out of place anywhere and might have to be deleted, which is perfectly fine since Wikipedia is a discriminate source of information (not everything that can be sourced should be written of). The lede of this article is also too short (one sentence). It should summarise the entire article; hence, it should give a very brief rundown on who Charlie Stubbs is, how he was conceived and received (see WP:LEDE). Last point, taking a screenshot of a copyrighted work does not give you copyrights over the underlying work; File:Charliestubbs.jpg cannot solely be released by you as "free" content (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death panel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to become "my" first GA. It deals with a factually deficient political outcry that almost stopped the recent health care reform in the United States (and it definitely stopped a specific provision that dealt with end-of-life care). I'd like to receive some tips to prep for a GA, and have it looked over for neutrality concerns. The topic attracted a couple editors who have now been blocked, but nowadays the content is pretty stable.

Thanks, Jesanj (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

The ASCO and AMA logos are WP:FAIR USE - their use in this article as mere decoration does not meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCC and they need to be removed from this article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A well-researched an interesting read Jesanj. It looks as if some of the initial criticism may have been politically motivated - which is a risk with any article about a political subject - but the tone is sufficiently neutral I think. Hypocaustic (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And thanks for the edit and checking it out. Jesanj (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'll be doing this in installments. Here's the first:

Lead

  • Since the audience you are writing for is international, I think you need to make clear in the opening paragraph that these events took place in the United States. Obama needs to be identified as the President of the United States, and you should use his full name on first reference. I'd suggest working this in somewhere before the Palin quote because you can't add words to the quote itself.
  • "the American Dialect Society said that it was their "most outrageous" word for 2009" - This sentence poked at me a bit because "death panel" is two words, not one.

Prelude

  • "the AARP said her claims were "'rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions' of a provision that 'would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed'". - I don't understand the nested quotation marks.
  • "Email and blogs were also conduits of the death panel myth. The Washington Post reported on August 1 that on "religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as 'guiding you in how to die,' 'an ORDER from the Government to end your life,' promoting 'death care' and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to 'kill Granny'". - The quotation marks make no sense here either. What are the single quotation marks doing? Where is the partner of the double quotation mark at the end?

Other

  • WP:MOSQUOTE#Block quotations suggests using blockquotes for quotations of four lines or more. Fancy quotation marks like the big blue ones in this article are generally deprecated.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one dead URL in the citations and three links in the text that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended target.
  • The Sarah Palin image in the upper right faces out of the page. If you can find another in the public domain that faces left (into the page), it would be better. The idea is to pull the reader's eye into the article.
  • WP:MOSIM says in part, "Images should be inside the major section to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)." Grassley and Gingrich will probably not fit inside the same section, and you might have to find another place to put one of them.
  • The two images of the same things in the "Uses" section creates a text sandwich. This is another MOSIM no-no. I'd simply delete one of them.
More to come. Finetooth (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Installment 2

  • I think the article meets the WP:NPOV guidelines.
  • It's an interesting, informative, and important article.
  • You have too many direct quotes, in my opinion, and some of the quotations are unnecessarily long. I think the whole article is longer than necessary because the material tends to be repetitive. Groups of politicians, physicians, and others tend to echo one another. Find ways to compress.
  • Recruiting an outside editor to copyedit the revised version would be a good idea. You can probably find someone via WP:GOCE.

First use

  • Nothing should be linked from within a direct quotation. The two links inside the long quotation in this section should be removed. You'll want to link these terms on first use if they occur outside of any quotations. Down syndrome, as noted earlier, should be linked in the lead.
  • What is the purpose of the single quotation marks inside the direct quotation? They surely were not part of the quoted material.
  • "Rep. Paul Broun (Republican-Georgia) " - Shouldn't this be R-GA for consistency within the article?

Support after

  • "He remarked that "the bill's 1000 pages"[34] and "it has all sorts of panels".[35] - Are some words missing after "pages"?
  • "Health economist Uwe Reinhardt responded Gingrich should clarify that the health care bill's provision... " - Shouldn't this be "responded that Gingrich should have clarified"?
  • "was far removed from 'death panels' or an intent to shorten life" - In some places "death panels" appears in double quotation marks and in other places without quotation marks and in other places in single quotation marks. Generally, single quotation marks are used to set off something that appears inside a set of double quotation marks; e.g., He said, "When I asked the raven, it said 'Nevermore'."

Legislation

  • "In late December 2010, a new Medicare regulation was reported that would consultations during... " - Words missing?

Rationing

  • "David Kibbe, MD, MBA" - Rather than using academic abbreviations, it's generally better to use a brief description like "David Kibbe, a physician".

Physicians

  • I think it would be good to compress this section by paraphrasing instead of using quite so many direct quotations.
  • All of the "Dr" titles should be deleted and in some cases replaced with a brief description.

Politicians

  • I don't agree with whoever added the tag calling for expansion of this section.

Palin's responses

  • "leading to so many replies from Brits" - "Brits" is slang. I'd recommend something like "British citizens".

Political

  • "contributing to Scott Brown's election" - I would add a brief explanation. Foreigners will wonder who Scott Brown is and why his election was seen as significant or unusual.
  • I'd turn the list into straight prose.

Other

  • Captions that are complete sentences take a terminal period. Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment take no terminal period.
  • Triple dates usually take a comma at the end; e.g., He chased the cat on July 1, 2001, after it scared the dog.
  • Linking a term once in the lead and once in the main text is usually sufficient. Linking Newt Gingrich more than twice, for example, will probably be seen as overlinking.
  • I would move the Wikisource link down to the "External links" section.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful indeed. I'm working on them. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan statue

[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 could use a proof reader and some help reorganizing the content.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

Surely the statue is a copyrighted work of art - as such the photo File:Monument to a great.jpg needs to be fair use and hosted on the English Wikipedia. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Glad to see the image is now fair use on WP. I will make comments as I read through, not sure about reorg as that usually requires me to read and think a while. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Gentry

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA. I seem to be the main contributor for country music GAs around here, so I'm following what worked with Joe Diffie, Shenandoah (band), The Kentucky Headhunters and Clay Walker as far as structure. There are already a couple things I know I need to work on (finding a wider scope of album reviews, expanding "musical styles" and sourcing the awards), but besides that, what else should be worked on?

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The year by year of Musical career makes this article seem more like a list of their albums; I would say the current length and content is giving it undue weight when compared to the rest of the other sections. This section probably requires pruning; the other sections should require more substantial expansions. I spot John Hood's interview with Troy Gentry in Rosanne Cash's Country Music Reader. Richard Carlin's brief entry in Country seems to have some little bits not in this article (or could be starting grounds to find the sources for them if this publication is deemed unreliable). Eddie Montgomery told a bit of his life in Charles Daniels's Growing Up Country He was also profiled (quite a big article) in Lisa Wysocky's Horse Country. He also revealed he was inspired by B Westerns (although I am not certain if this is significant to warrant notice) in American Cowboy. John Hartigan's Odd Tribes has an analysis on the band's "Hillbilly Shoes" and why it appeals to a certain crowd; it also states the band as "proudly waving the hillbilly banner" during the genre's resurgence. All in all, I think there are still several sources that could flesh the other sections (History, Musical styles, Personal life) and thereby better balance this article. Jappalang (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Reef, Utah

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was promoted to Good article status in December of 2010, and I plan on taking it to FAC within the next few months or so. From December 2010 to now, several editors and I have worked to ready this article for a future FAC, and since we're done with our biggest project (converting references to the {{sfn}} template), we're now moving on to the next step: peer review. I would like a reviewer/reviewers to review this article thoroughly and state what work we still have to get done in order to bring the article to FAC. I'd prefer the reviewer(s) comment section by section as the reviewer in this article's first peer review did here. Thanks, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Silver Reef, Utah/archive2.

Jesse Winters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Kindly review this please. I have chopped out lots of the unnecessary stuff, but I think there may be more that needs to be done.

Thanks! Alex (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well but needs more work to get ready for another try at GA. Here are my suggestions for further improvement.

  • I looked for but did not find a public-domain image of Winters. However, my search was cursory, and there may be one lurking somewhere. If you can find one and add it, that would be good.
  • To the extent possible, I would make the heads more telegraphic, and I'd avoid repeating words like "career" over and over in the heads. Under "Professional career", for example, the first subhead might be "Early years" rather than "Early professional career".

Lead

  • The lead, being a summary of the whole article, should include a brief mention of his life outside baseball. His tire business and his mayorship seems significant enough to mention.
  • The lead should not include important details that are not mentioned in the main text. I think it would be wise to move the direct quotations in the lead into the appropriate places in the main text and then to briefly paraphrase in the lead. Particularly striking are the claims in the lead that he was indifferent to the game and lacked ambition. Nothing in the main text seems to develop these ideas. On the contrary, the next to last section says he retired because of arm troubles.

Early and personal life

  • "For example, he is listed as Jesse Frank Winters" - Delete "for example"? The examples that follow make the point, and "for example" suggests that you know of others in addition to the ones you list. If so, what are they?
  • Did Winters marry? Did he have children? Is it known what other early interests he had outside of baseball? What did he study at the universities? Pre-med? Biology? What degree did he earn, if any?

Major league debut

  • "Prior to the commencement of the regular season, manager McGraw was "banking heavily" on the success of Winters and expected success out of him as a regular on the staff." - Tighten by deleting "and expected success out of him as a regular on the staff"? It seems redundant. Maybe "At the start of the season, manager McGraw was "banking heavily" on the success of Winters as a regular on the pitching staff"?
  • "Winters spent 16 games with the Giants... " - Maybe "Winters played in 16 games with the Giants... ".
  • "At the plate, he collected zero hits in three at-bats." - I'm not sure you need this detail since he was a pitcher with pretty ordinary batting skills, it seems. The sentence jumps out as special because it is a one-sentence orphan paragraph.

1920: Last year with the Giants

  • The "fistfight" link goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
  • "He would later be described by the The Oklahoma Miner as being temperamental and high-strung." - Tighten by deleting "being".
  • "He also had seven at-bats that season, going hitless." - Maybe not worth mentioning.

Back to the minors

  • "On May 16, due to his performance to that point in the season (he was 1–2 with a 4.60 ERA in seven games through that date)[33], Phillies manager Art Fletcher requested waivers for Winters, which could have potentially ended the pitcher's major league career at that point." - Too complex. I'd break this one into two separate sentences and eliminate the parentheses.
  • "After his final big league appearance, the Phillies sent Winters to the Hartford Senators of the Eastern League, with whom he played until the end of the season." - I'd merge this one-sentence orphan with the paragraph above it.

Post-playing career and death

  • "Following his death, he was interred at Elmwood Memorial Park in Abilene, Texas." - Three suggestions: Remove "following his death" since it could not be otherwise. Move this sentence up into the paragraph above it; one-sentence orphan paragraphs make articles look choppy. Provide a source for the claim.

References

  • Use "and" rather than an ampersand except where the ampersand is part of a formal name that uses the ampersand. I changed one of these in the main text, but I see another one in citation 1.
  • Citation 29 is broken.
  • Citation 9 lacks the author's name, Kyle Peveto, and the publication date.
  • Even when the source uses all caps for a title, Wikipedia uses its own house style. In citation 24, "YANKEE COLONELS SILENT ON STADIUM" should be rendered as "Yankee Colonels Silent on Stadium". Ditto for similar all-caps titles in other citations.
  • Citation 28 needs a page number and the place of publication.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Opera, London

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got the English National Opera article to FA recently, I thought it only right to upgrade the article on the other big opera company in London. Its history is shorter (first performance was in 1947) but crowded with incident. Grateful for comments on the prose, the shape and structure of the article, and the balance between mentions of singers, producers and conductors. And indeed anything else. – Tim riley (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby union positions

[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 in a week the 2011 Rugby World Cup starts and I am hoping some people new to the game will come onto Wikipedia looking for more information. This article focusses on the various positions and I would like some input from editors not familiar with rugby union to offer advice on making it more accessible for everyone. There is currently one up for peer review that focusses on the laws and I am working on one that will focus on gameplay.

Thanks,

Thanks, AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

  • "There are fifteen rugby union positions consisting of ..."
    Per WP:BEGINNING, the "article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject." Frankly speaking, most people would know of the game as just "rugby" and by attaching "union", one would be confused into thinking this is an article about an organization of rugby players to fight for their rights.
    The first three points of WP:BEGINNING, and WP:BOLDTITLE, thus allows us to rephrase the opening (without bolding or possibly confusing and awkward phrase) as:
    "In the game rugby union, the players on a team assume positions that comprise ..."
There is rugby league, which is a different game so it has to stay at rugby union. It is linked so it shouldn't be too confusing. I have rewritten the first sentence to reflect WP:Beginning better. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apart from a scrum there are no set positions on the field, although as the different positions suit certain skill sets and body types player generally specialise in one or two positions. At the scrum there must be eight players (providing a team still has fifteen on the field), three in the front row, two in the second, plus three loose forwards."
    Scrum is associated wrongly with position here (and scrum can be further made clear to the reader). Suggestion: "Rugby players can play in any position, although players generally specialise in one or two that are well served by their skills and body types. However, during a scrum (when players huddle together to restart play and grab for the ball), a team fields three forwards in the front row, two in the second, and another three loosely at the edges of the formation."
Had a go at rewriting this. I was trying to say that no matter the players position they can be anywhere on the field, as long as they are not offside. Their must be eight in a scrum however and it is the only positions in the law book that are defined. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wingers are the speedsters in the team and finish of many of the tries."
    "Speedster" is an informal word, not suitable for encyclopaedias. It would also be better to rephrase "finish of [sic] many of the tries" as "usually the ones who score by bringing the ball across the goal line."
Good point. I wikilinked tries.
  • "The centres main role is to provide space for the wingers."
    "The main role of the centres is to clear space for the wingers to run."
Tweaked
  • "Scrum-halves feed the backline and need a quick accurate pass."
    Why do they (the feeders) need someone to provide them with a "quick accurate pass"? I would rephrase as "Scrum-halves decide the team's tactics and are responsible for quickly passing the ball to the backline."
Feed was a poor word choice. Tweaked.
  • "Forwards compete for the ball in scrums and lineouts and are usually involved in rucks and mauls."
    "Forwards tackle opposing players and try to gain possession of the ball in the scrums." Needless to mention "ruck" and "maul" (rugby terminologies) at this time in the lede.
Removed ruck and mauls. I believe lineouts is important to mention as it is a key role in the forwards play (can be wikilinked).
  • "Locks are tall and jump for the ball at the lineout after the hooker has thrown it in."
    "Locks are tall and jump for the ball when it is thrown back into play."

Overview

  • "At lineouts there must be at least two players from each team positioned between five meters and fifteen meters from the touch in line with where the ball crossed from the lineout. ... the hookers throw the ball in and halfbacks are ready to receive the ball."
    The text description of lineouts do not tally with File:Avant touche ASM-AB.jpg and File:Springbok-All Black lineout in tri nations 2006.jpg, and is very confusing to me. After reading the rugby books again, I suggest, "In a lineout, the teams line up their forwards, facing each other, at least five meters from where the ball has gone out of bounds. The rest of the teams stand at least ten meters from these forwards. The team who last touched the ball is penalised; its opponent's hooker, standing behind the sideline, throws the ball back into play between the two lines of players, aiming for his locks. The forwards pass the ball to their halfbacks after gaining possession of the ball." Jappalang (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some factual inaccuracies in your suggestion so it cannot be copied verbatim, but I have had a go at rewriting this section using it as a guide. AIRcorn (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scrum must consist of eight players, unless for some reason (i.e. send off or injury) a team cannot field fifteen players."
    "Each team sends eight players to participate in a scrum; the number is reduced if a team has less than fifteen players on the field due to injuries and dismissals."
  • While it is nice to have a "free" photograph of a scrum set up, I think an SVG line diagram of the scrum setup would also work very well in tandem with the photograph. You cannot distinguish the positionings in the photograph and an illustration of the how players position themselves in a scrum would be much better than the template below.
  • I think there is too much of the "can" culture here. He can do this, he can do that, so on, so on. Try reducing it (see the lineout suggestion I made above).

History

  • "Early rugby did no more than distinguish in tactics between the great bulk of the players who played as forwards and the relative few who played back defensively as 'tends' (from 'goaltenders')."
    That reads a bit clumsy to me and I am not even sure what it is trying to say. My best interpretation would be "In early rugby, players were separated purely into two groups: the offensive forwards and the defensive 'tends' (from 'goaltenders'). Most players tend to play as the forwards."
  • "After a while, the attacking or at least counter-attacking possibilities of playing close behind the scrimmage (which later came to be called "scrummage") was recognised, and some players stationed themselves between the forwards and tends as "half-tends"."
    "After a while" can mean a few days, which is not likely here... "Eventually, players saw the possiblities of launching a quick attack by staying close behind the scrimmage (later called 'scrummage') and gaining the ball; those who stationed themselves between the forwards and tends came to be known as 'half-tends'."

Names of positions

References

  • Who is "Collins 2009"? This is not in the Bibliography.

I am stopping here. I think the content is all there and well structured, but the language needs improvement; I am not going to point out every statement that could be confusing to a layman. I advise to find a copy-editor who is not a rugby fan (a general liking for sports would be okay) to improve the language here. I have a marginal experience with the game (I prefer footer) and still I find some terms (or the way items are presented here) confusing.

One thing I believe that can really help make this article accesible to the layman is to include a derivative of File:Rugby formation.svg with every position in the Backs, Forwards, and Utility players section. Each of the derivative highlights the player position; e.g. for the Wing sub-section, the derivative of File:Rugby formation.svg highlights the Left-wing and Right-wing in red (circle in red). The picture can be paired with the current File:Mark Cueto.jpg there through {{multiple image}}. This would make it readily evident to the reader where those positions are relative to the others without having to flip back to the image page to have a look. Jappalang (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have made some changes to the article reflecting many of your suggestions. I will see what I can do with the File:Rugby formation.svg. AIRcorn (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Joplin tornado

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
According to the first GA nomination, User:Wizardman Suggested that "This can be re-nominated in about a month or so, whenever things seem to stabilize numbers-wise." Although my lack of edits on this page, I am confident I can address any questions on the article.

Thanks, intelatitalk 00:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend this not be nominated for GA or higher until information has been published in Storm Data (or the NCDC Storm Events Database). This is the official "final" data on any given storm event and until it is released all information is considered preliminary. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here is the NWS Service Assessment. It's not Storm Data, but information in this would be highly useful to the article. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jappalang

I agree with the sentiments that it would be better to wait for more reports. Events surrounding the tornado may not have settled or reached their full conclusion yet. That said, there are some things that can be done to improve the article.

  • Tidy up the references to a consistent standard. There are several that simply states the domain of the website (e.g. Joplinglobe.com). These should be formatted to follow the rest (all should be using {{citation}} or the cite templates) with author, date and other relevant information filled in.
  • I feel the reading quality of the article dives down after the first three paragraphs. From that point on, skimpy paragraphs of one to three short sentences tend to dominate. The flow is choppy and several times, the sentences do not flow to the next paragraph either because of jarring phrasings or non-sequitur contents.
  • There are too many links in the See also and External links section. Be selective. There is no need to provide a link farm; unless the direct link provides something that is not in the article but can be further of use to the reader, do not include them.
  • Why is there an inline link to DonorsChoose.org at the end of the article? Why is this charity mentioned here? What differentiates it from other organizations that are trying to help recovery from natural disasters? If there are no secondary sources covering this charity's activity, there should be no mention. Wikipedia is not here to promote such activities or organizations.
  • File:Joplin-tornado-map.jpg: Apparently, Kansas City has pulled this image from their flickr uploads. Other US Army Engineer diagrams still seem to be there. It may bear worth to investigate this. Is this map pulled from the uploads because it has errors (if that is the case, then it should not be used here)?

While waiting for the official reports and perhaps a few "look back" opinion pieces to be published, a copy-editing can be undertaken to make the article much more smooth in its language. Jappalang (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty

[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 have undergone a major expansion the article and plan to get it up to at least GA status. Comments or suggestions on how to improve this article would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Voice cast

  • This article is listed as under the provinces of WikiProjects Anime and manga, and Film. The style manuals for these two projects conflict here (I believe this article followed Anime and manga's); I believe Film's is much better in terms of presentation to the reader and abides with the MoS (I doubt a cast list can qualify as a "definition list").

    In line with Film's guidelines, the character descriptions are superfluous. They are stating what can be listed in Plot (and usually are) or can be discarded without hurting the readers' understanding of this article. In fact, this whole section might not be needed (see below).

Development

  • "Studio Ghibli officially announced on December 16, 2009, that their 2010 feature film will be entitled "Karigurashi no Arrietty"."
    This event has already passed; it is no longer "will be". The sentence structure also could be approved. Suggestion: "On December 16, 2009, Studio Ghibli announced Karigurashi no Arrietty as their film for next year."
  • "The director Hayao Miyazaki ..."
    Hayao Miyazaki was already mentioned earlier in "Studio Ghibli founders Isao Takahata and Hayao Miyazaki ...". He should be linked there, instead of here. Furthermore, the titular "director" is needless at this point.

Casting

  • This is basically repeating the core of the Voice cast section in prose form.

Music

  • First paragraph is unsourced.
  • "... when she sent them a fan letter ..."
    When did she send this?
  • "the Apple's store"
    "the Apple store" or "Apple's store"?
     Done --Lionratz (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Though this is clarified, the sentence it is part of is not rather fluent; spot the number of "in"s in "The song made its public debut in a presentation of the song by singer Corbel and percussionist Marco in Apple's store in Shibuya, Tokyo, on 8 August 2010." I also feel "made its public debut in a presentation of the song" seems somewhat awkward. See the later query on "present" below. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This album managed to achieve the 31st position on the Oricon charts at its peak."
    I do not see what kind of difficulty it faces to warrant a "managed to". "The album's listing on the Oricon charts peaked at the 31st position." would more than suffice.
     Done --Lionratz (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • "During the film's debut weekend in Japan, the film was screened on 447 screens throughout the whole island."
    "The film was screened in 447 theaters throughout Japan during its debut weekend."

Home Media

  • "The DVD version of the film is in the region 2 format, and it contains two discs."
    I would argue this sentence is phrased wrongly. "The DVD version of the film" would mean the DVD discs; therefore, the version cannot "contain" discs. It would be more correct, in my opinion, to say "The DVD version fo the film comprises two discs."
     Done --Lionratz (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

  • "1,038,138 people went to see the film ..."
    WP:ORDINAL: "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems."
  • "According to the Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan, Arrietty is the top grossing Japanese film in the Japanese box office for the year for 2010. In total, it grossed around 9.25 billion yen in Japanese cinemas for the year 2010."
    Too many "Japan"s and other excessive words: "According to the Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan, Arrietty is the top grossing local film at the box office for 2010; it grossed approximately 9.25 billion yen."
    The above suggestion was adopted but with "Japanese film" instead of "local film". I am not certain why it must state "Japanese film" (since the organization and context is indigenous to the locale), but I am not going to harp on this point. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the use of "over" with figures, it is more precise and preferred to use "more than".
     Done --Lionratz (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still "over 12 million audiences" in Release. Further note: "audiences" is wrong here; I believe the intent is not "more than 12 million shows", but "more than 12 million tickets (sold)", right? The sentence might still have to be rephrased if that is the case. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... allowing the film to gross of over US$1.4 million that week."
    The customers do not "allow" a product to "gross" and is the "of" supposed to be there?
    "Gross of" has been corrected, but the phrasing of "allowing ... to gross" still strikes me wrong. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "As of September 2011, review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 100% of critics have given the film a positive review, based on 20 reviews, certifying it "Fresh" with an average rating of 7.6/10."
    This is a weaselly phrased sentence. The reader would be impressed with 100% and already biased before other things are introduced; Rotten Tomatoes does not consider every reviewer (especially the foreign ones) and it does not review the film; it just calculates the ratio of positive and negative reviews. A more neutral phrasing would be "All of the 20 reviewers selected by Rotten Tomatoes as of September 2011 have given the film positive reviews."
     Done --Lionratz (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why the "certified Fresh with numbers" must be there, but I am not going to harp on here. Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film manga

  • Please rephrase or explain the term. While anime/manga enthusiasts are likely to understand this term, the common reader will be puzzling over the meaning.
     Done --Lionratz (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. This has been restated to be simply manga. However, the source states the "adaptations" to be film comics, which are simply printed volumes of the film that use selected film cells overlaid with all the film's dialogue. It is more of a dead-tree version of the film than an "adaptation". Jappalang (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • Please weed out the list of links here. Some are not needed even, one (Rotten Tomatoes) is even already used as a source.

Image

Aside from the above, I think the language still need some polishing. I think the current content is too skimpy for GA; there might be more after its release in the US, but that remains to be seen. Jappalang (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Comments from Lionratz

"Casting" and "Voice Cast" sections: I disagree with Jappalang, and think they serve different purpose. The Voice Cast section should detail more about the character in the film, and give just the name of the voice actor doing the voicing of this character. On the other hand, the Casting section should include a brief background of the cast members and how they got the role. Perhaps we should just remove the role reference in this section. But I do not think it is wise to merge these two sections.

I also think that the content is a tad too brief for a GA-article.--Lionratz (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate. The Voice cast is not giving any substantial information that is not already present in the Casting. Both are stating "so and so" character is voiced by "so and so". The current details about the characters in Voice cast are superfluous. Whatever mentioned there is not relevant to "voice cast" (as the section is supposed to be about), should be worked into the Plot, or simply unimportant to the Plot or to any other aspects of the film (Production, Reception, Themes, etc). If you cut those details, what you have left is again "so and so" character is voiced by "so and so" (parroting the core of Casting).
What you seem to be looking for in "Voice cast" would actually be "Characters"; even then, I would say that such a section would be about character analysis (cited to reliable secondary sources), elaborating the personalities and designs of the characters, as well as any thematic study on the subjects (characters) themselves. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DragonZero

Minor things I noticed though not sure if they have been covered. Tress MacNeille is missing a source. The Release section contains a single sentence and should be combined with a paragraph. Do Accolades really need a table if only one award for given? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accolades section should be placed in a table, because the information is easy to read and there is no guidelines as to how many accolades the film must be given foe this section be formatted in a table. Anyway, this might not be a finalized list of awards the film will receive, so this might be different in future. As for your other observations, I have taken them into consideration and made the necessary changes.--Lionratz (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Award for Best Actor

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what needs to be done to make it a FL. This is a first time I'm trying for any non-sport article, and honestly I'm not much aware of the subject. This award is like Oscar or BAFTA of Indian film industry. All feedback and suggestions are welcomed!.

Thanks, — Bill william comptonTalk 14:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the PDF citations, I would put the name of the particular award ceremony that it is referencing in order to remove redundancy and make it clearer. For example, instead of "Award for Best Actor" as the citation title, I would put something like, "31st National Film Festival (June 1984). DrNegative (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FLC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Since you compared this to the Oscars or BAFTAs, there are some FLs that may be useful models. List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year and List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances are lists of actors nominated for Oscars, while List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film may be useful as it lists all nominees and winners in a category.
  • The lead is too short and does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • I would explain how an actor can win for two films in a single year (1968, 1990, 1994) and also how two actors can share the award in a single year (1998, 1999, 2011). As someone used to the Oscars, where neither of these can happen, I thought this was interesting / unusual.
  • For those years where an actor won for two films, I would make it clearer what the two films were - on my browser the column for the film titles is fairly narrow so that the names are often on two or three lines. Conversely the actors names have lots of extra space (and the overall table is not 100% wide on my monitor). I would make the column for titles wider to better accommodate these.
  • The column for titles is labeled "Film" - since more than one is listed in six cases, shouldn't it be "Film(s)"?
  • The three years where there were two joint winners are especially confusing as the names of the actors are right on top of each other, as are the titles of their films. I would see if a line or space could be added between the two better separate them. So for example on my monitor "Adaminte Makan" are one line and "Abu" are on another line, so I was not sure if it was for one film or two.
  • Are nominees announced, or just the winner(s)?
  • Almost all of the sources are to the award's own websites - aren't there any histories of Indian film that could be cited?
  • The many PDFs with the same title are incorrect - when you look at the PDF itself, the title is customized (in this example) 52nd National Film Awards 2005
  • If there are articles on the overall awards each year, those could be linked via the year
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer 10

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article about a historically important unmanned spacecraft that set several key precedents, including being the first mission to an outer planet (Jupiter), the first to pass through the asteroid belt, and the first to achieve escape velocity from the Solar System. I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked to expand and cite the content, to the point where I think it is no longer a C-class article. Please let me know what you think needs to be done to further improve the article and get it up to a GA level or even satisfy the FA criteria.

Unfortunately I can't do anything about the poor image scanning quality at present.

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I have no particular expertise in space travel, but I'm able to advise on Manual of Style issues and to make general observations.

  • All the illustrations should have captions.

Lead

  • "is a 258-kilogram robotic space probe" - Normally quantities like this are also given in imperial units. I like using the {{convert}} template, which does the spelling and abbreviations automatically; e.g., 258-kilogram (569 lb). The adj=on parameter adds the hyphen. Ditto for the other metric quantities, including temperatures, in the article.
    • I think WP:UNITS applies here. Most publications use either SI or cgs when discussing the spacecraft. RJH (talk)
  • "NASA Ames Research Center" - NASA might not need to be spelled out (though I'd be inclined to spell it out on the first use), but I'd add ARC in parentheses so that its use elsewhere as an acronym makes sense to everyone; i.e., "NASA Ames Research Center (ARC)".
  • A brief explanation of "bus" might be helpful to readers. Perhaps a link to an explanation would be OK if you can find one that's appropriate.
  • "Following a launch on March 2, 1972, it became the first spacecraft to traverse the asteroid belt between July 15, 1972 and February 15, 1973." - I'd replace "it" with "Pioneer 10" for clarity, but I'd also recast the sentence to avoid ambiguity. Maybe: "Pioneer 10 was launched on March 2, 1972. Between July 15, 1972, and February 15, 1973, it became the first spacecraft to traverse the asteroid belt."
  • "Asteroid belt" should only be linked on the first instance.
  • "Because of power constraints and the vast distance of the probe from Earth (12 billion-kilometers (80 AU) as of January 2003)," - Nested parentheses are best avoided. The conversion of 12 billion kilometers will create another pair. Find a way to recast the sentence to eliminate nesting, if you can.

History

  • "These were be launched in 1972 and 1973 during favorable windows that occurred only a few weeks every thirteen months." - Word missing, "were to be launched"? Also, numbers bigger than nine are usually presented as digits; i.e., 13 months.
  • "Launch during other time intervals would be more costly" - "Would have been" rather than "would be" since this is all in the past.
  • "later they would be named" - "Were named".
  • "Yielding to multiple proposals" - Maybe "based on" or "melding" rather than "yielding to"?
  • The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose where feasible rather than using bulleted lists. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. The two lists in this section could easily become part of prose paragraphs.
  • "the effect the environmental radiation surrounding Jupiter would have to the instruments" - "on the instruments" rather than "to the instruments"?
  • "The TRW team that assembled the spacecraft were led by B. J. O'Brien and Herb Lassen." - It's usually better to use active voice when a sentence like this is easy to flip; i.e., "B. J. O'Brien and Herb Lassen led the TRW team that assembled the spacecraft."
  • "an estimated 25 million man-hours" - "Person-hours" would be gender-neutral.
  • "Heat is generated by the dissipation of 70–120 W" - I would write this one out as "70 to 100 watts".
  • The many short subsections in this section make the article look choppy and don't leave enough room for the illustrations. Images are best placed entirely inside the sections they illustrate and ideally do not overlap section boundaries or displace edit buttons. I'd suggest looking for ways to merge some of the subsections to make larger subsections into which the illustrations fit neatly.

Power

  • "Pioneer 10 used 4 SNAP-19 radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) (see diagram)." - Wikipedia normally avoids using imperatives like "see diagram". I would delete this one.

Computer

  • "A data storage unit was included to record up to 6,144-bytes" - No hyphen needed.
  • "The digital telemetry unit would then be used" - "Was" rather than "would then be".

Spacecraft design

  • "The Pioneer 10 bus measures 36-centimeters deep and with six 76-centimeters long panels forming the hexagonal structure." - "With" is awkward. Maybe "The Pioneer 10 bus measures 36-centimeters deep and has six panels, each 76 centimeters long, that form a hexagonal structure." You'll need to add the imperial conversions too.

Scientific instruments

  • This subsection has big problems. The list should be turned into prose. Not all of the illustrations will fit nicely in this small a space. The remaining illustrations will need captions. Links to external sites from within the article are a no-no; use inline citations instead. The extra bolding is a problem. WP:MOSBOLD suggests using italics for emphasis, if necessary.

Mission profile

  • I might move this section to the very end.

Encounter with Jupiter

  • "the vehicle would cross the bow shock" - "Crossed" rather than "would cross".
  • Too many images in too little space. I'd recommend trimming the collection here to perhaps the two or three that best illustrate the points made in the text.

Loss of signal

  • The tags in this section will need to be addressed.

References

  • I didn't check all of the citations, but here's a short list of small problems. In general, citations to web sites need author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.
  • Citation 1 appears to have an invalid ISBN. Also, even when a source uses all caps in a title (PIONEER ODYSSEY), Wikipedia house style is to change it to title case; i.e., Pioneer Odyssey.
  • Citation 4 and 40: p. rather than pp.
  • Citation 32, 33, 37 and maybe others: Use the same date formatting throughout the ref section. This guideline applies to the publication dates as well as the access dates.
  • Citation 60: broken
  • Citation 57: needs a page number.
  • Citation 26 needs a publication date.

Bibliography

  • Book entries should include the place of publication. You can usually find this information via WorldCat if you don't have it in your notes.
  • ISBNs should include the hyphens. A handy converter lives here.
    • This convention doesn't appear to be established in the MoS and it is widely not followed. RJH (talk)
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth review, Finetooth. This will be very helpful. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reshadieh class battleship

[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, after a major reorganization and expansion that I've done in the past day, I want to know what's left between her and GA. FAC is out of the question, at least until I learn turkish ;).

Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

  • "Only one of the class (Reshadieh) was completed, having been seized by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the First World War while under construction in Britain. This is regarded as one of the reasons Turkey entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers. The second ship, the Reshad-I-Hammiss, was cancelled and scrapped on the slipway in 1912, replaced by the Sultan Osman I. A third ship, the Fatih, ordered in 1914, was expected to be completed in 1917, slightly larger than the Reshad-I-Hammiss and Reshadieh. She was scrapped on the slipway in 1914. After her seizure, the Reshadieh was completed and renamed HMS Erin."
    "All three were under construction during the outbreak of the First World War. The Royal Navy seized one of them, the Reshadieh. The seizure is regarded as one of the reasons Turkey entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers. The other two ships in the class were never completed and were scrapped during the war. The Royal Navy completed the Reshadieh and renamed her HMS Erin."
    • Reshadieh was done when the Rn seized her. I'll try to rework this.

Design

  • Why is a Turkish battleship designed by a British man?
    • umm, I don't know how that would be weird. They ordered them from Britain, so Britain would be designing them.

and .... stop and consider anew

Okay, those would have been my initial points before I paused and wondered what the heck was going on with these ships. I think a restructuring of the article is needed (and a few points made clear). From reading the lede, I would have thought that the ships were being constructed in Turkey, and Great Britain somehow seized a ship and brought it to an allied port to complete it, thus antagonising Turkey. If I skip the lede and jump straight into Design, I would have thought the Reshadieh is a British ship.

Restructuring the article

  • Background:
    • relationships between Turkey and Great Britain (can be skimped for GA, but necessary point is to state that Turkey contracted Great Britain to build ships for them)
    • Who ordered the ships, what are the costs and terms of payment?
    • Where would they be built and by who?
  • Design
  • Description
  • History (fates of the three ship)

I think such a structure would be more helpful to the reader.

Images

  • File:HMS Erin.jpg: If this was indeed taken from the Imperial War Musem photo archive, then the Reference Number and/or Collection Number should be supplied so that others can verify the information per WP:IUP. If it was taken from a book, the title of the book and page number should be supplied. Currently, the information for the image fails WP:IUP.
  • File:HMS Erin (1913).jpg: From the "Collection of Lieutenant Commander P.W. Yeatman, USN (Retired)" might not mean that Yeatman is the author (or that the author is a US navy personel). A check is recommended.

-- Jappalang (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I've sprinkled tags where things need to be clarified or rewritten.
Attempted to fix, could you please look them over? Buggie111 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you have an extra four here: The class was propelled by four four shaft
Fixed.
  • You're using singular person (it) when describing the design, which is really a collective noun for the three ships laid down using the design. It reads very awkwardly to me and I'd prefer to see "they" used instead.
  • What aforementioned 6-inch guns? This is the first mention of the secondary armament.
Fixed.
  • Were the torpedo tubes above water or underwater?
  • Describe the turret armour. And what about the barbettes and deck armour?
  • Use DMY format since you're writing or should be in British English.
  • Standardize your citation format.
  • Link ship breaking or scrapped.
  • Too many she, she, she in History. Change it around to reduce the repetition. I use she, the ship and the name to mix things up.
Started working on it.
  • Explain that Sultan Osman I was bought by the Turks from the Brazilians whilst under construction. Link only on first appearance.
Links removed.
Done. Buggie111 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments

Jovan Vladimir

[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 a feedback on its prose, and fresh eyes to see if anything needed additional clarifications. I think that after a proper copy-editing this article could be nominated for FA status.

Thanks, Vladimir (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faryl Smith

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm hoping to get this article to featured status, but my previous nominations on a similar topic did not pass first time. I feel that the article is comprehensive and my sourcing is good, but I worry the writing may not be great in places. I welcome any and all comments. Thanks in advance. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Whaler

[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 added the entire History of the Design section to the article and I want to get any advice on any changes that I should make and what else I should add to the article. My longterm goal with this article is to get it to Good Article and if possible Featured Article status. Please help me achieve this by sending in any advice that you think will help make this article better.

Thanks, Haydenowensrulz

Brianboulton comments: This request for a peer review is rather premature. Please note that, as per WP:Peer Review, this process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate". I see that the nominator has done some recent work, but at present the article still looks to be in its earliest stages of development with much still to do; there is a citation tag in place dated March 2009. Some of the principal issues to be resolved are:-

  • The article requires a lead section, which should provide a concise summary of the main article's content. See WP:LEAD for guidance on lead (otherwise known as "lede") sections.
  • Sources: the article is heavily dependent on [this source. Why should this be considered a high-quality reliable source, particularly as it carries this disclaimer: "This information is believed to be accurate but there is no guarantee. We do our best!"
  • Another of your sources, http://bostonwhalerforum.com/forum.php, produces te message: "Sorry. The administrator has banned your IP address. To contact the administrator click here".
  • Citations need to be properly formated. Consult WP:Cite for information about how to do this
  • The article is entirely dependent on online sources, which may be the most convenient but which are not necessarily the most reliable or comprehensive. What steps have you taken to research print sources?
  • The prose contains a number of fairly basic errors. I haven't been right through, but I found these in the History section:-
  • "Fisher graduated Harvard University ..." → "Fisher graduated from Harvard University..."
  • "Richard Fishers friend" → "Richard Fisher's friend"
  • "dingy" → "dinghy"
  • Grammar: "Fisher was very pleased with this new building materal that he showed it to Ray Hunt..."
  • "1920’s" → "1920s"
  • "When the boat had a heavy load and was not planning..." Are you sure you mean "planning"?
  • You should not use abbreviations such as "prop" in an encyclopedia article.
  • As a general point, much of the prose is repetitive and needs to be edited into a much tighter form. There are far too many verbatim quotes which you need to paraphrase, otherwise the tone comes across as informal and unencyclopaedic.
  • Sections should be written in prose, not bullet points

In short, the article needs top-to-bottom overhaul, and should not be resubmitted for further review until some considerable further work has taken place. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum wage

[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 several editors have worked on it for the last few years, and we want to nominate it for GA and eventually FA status.

Thanks, LK (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This article has accumulated thousands of edits over the years, yet in WP terms it still looks very much like work-in-progress. Possibly this is a case of too many cooks...? I don't know. I haven't had time to study the prose in detail, but there are some fairly obvious issues that require attention before the article could seriously be considered a contender for either GA or FA status:-

  • For an article of this length and detail, the lead is inadequate. It needs to be expanded into a proper summary of the whole article.
  • Although the article carries over 90 inline citations there is considerable under-citation within the article. There are several citation tags throughout the article, some from as long ago as February 2010. Some whole paragraphs - even whole sections - are uncited, and there are many instances of paragraphs ending with uncited statements. As a rough guide as to what is the acceptable level of citation I would say that every paragraph requires at least one citation, and that every paragraph should end with a citation.
  • Citations should be to specific pages, not to whole books
  • The formats of the citations that you have require a lot of attention. As aminimum, each reference should show title, publisher and, for online references, last access date. Authors and dates should be given where possible. Citations should be in a consistent format; bare urls such as are given in 33, 34, 55 and others are not acceptable. For information on how citations should be formatted you can consult WP:CITE. You may find using citation templates is helpful.
  • There are at least two dead links.
  • A bibliography would be a considerable help in enabling an overall assessment of the sources to be made.
  • Scanning through the prose, I see instances where bullet-point lists have been used. This is notably in the "Debates" section; these lists should be converted to standard prose.
  • The graph caption should help readers to interpret the graph. At present it is uninformative.
  • Why so many "See also" entries? What specific use are these to readers of this article?
  • Likewise, are all the External links necessary?

I suggest that these fairly basic points be worked on, and perhaps a copyedit, before the article is submitted again to peer review. It's an important article, well worth persevering with, and I look forward to seeing its further development. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon (2006 film)

[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 related to a school assignment involving expansion of a lacking article. Any editorial feedback regarding this article's suitability or necessary revisions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sarah.J.Campbell (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to see that some schools are actively allowing/encouraging students to learn about the project. I was never allowed to do so! It looks like you've already expanded the article considerably from the stub it used to be. The best way to see what an article is lacking or needs is to look at our featured articles. These exemplify the very best quality work on Wikipedia. Film Featured Articles are listed under Media. You can check some of those articles out to compare with Dragon. Of course, not every article has the same information available about it, so you don't need to try and make it a section by section copy. However, there are some important details which this article needs for it to be improved:
Lead and infobox
  • The lead should be a bare bones overview of the rest of the article. In this case, it should discuss the director(s), what it is about, have a mini plot synopsis, say who played the roles of the main characters, and discuss the release (theatrical and home media). See WP:LEAD for more details on that.
What did it make at the box office? There are websites out there which can track that kind of detail.
Sourcing
  • References should be to reliable, secondary sources wherever possible. Anything added that could be considered original research by another editor should be backed up by a citation.
  • What makes Horrortalk a reliable source?
  • Some of your citations are formatted and others are not. I recommend using the templates at WP:CITET for easy and consistant sourcing models.
  • I highly recommend you archive all active weblinks. If a website is remodelled links can be lost permanently, meaning that the information can no longer be verified. As time goes on this can happen, and the information can be lost forever. It's a tedious process, but entirely worthwhile. WebCite is excellent for this. All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the citation templates.
Files
Soundtrack
  • Can you provide any more details? When was the album recorded? How long is the album? What is on it (you can use {{tracklist}} for that - it is simpler than it looks)? You can use the album's liner notes to source this, along with any other references you find.
General prose
  • Dragon only needs to be bolded the first time it is mentioned in the lead. All other instances throughout the article should only be in italics. Since Eragon isn't the subject of the article, it shouldn't be bolded at any time.
Reception
  • Different reviews don't need their own paragraph. You can combine several reviews into one paragraph to give an overview.
  • many drawing a parallel between the release of Dragon and the film adaptation of Eragon → who?
  • Consider adding info from Rotton Tomatoes and Metacritic. Most film articles have them, and they are very useful. They could lead you to more reviews to integrate into the prose as well.
  • Is there any more critical reception to add? Did it win or get nominated for any awards (or Raspberries)?
Missing sections
  • Production and filming — all the details about what went into the filming process (writing the script, casting, budget, where it was filmed, how long it took, details on CGI, etc.)
  • Release — where and when. Did it have a theatrical release? How many cinemas? What was the box office take? What medium was it released on for homes (VHS, DVD, BD, digital download, etc.)? Any sales info? How about merchandising tie-ins?

I hope that this helps a bit. WikiProject Film is the WikiProject which devotes itself to creating and building up articles on movies. Check there; they will probably have some useful links you can use; not only for what details the article needs, but where you can find those details. You've chosen to improve an article that is, so far as I can tell, fairly obscure, which might make your task a bit tough. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia though is that any article can become Featured if enough hard work is put into it. If Google sarches aren't providing enough information for you, try searching through some databases. You may find some information in there. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a line here or on my talk page. Good luck! Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Francis

[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 changed according to the results of two previous reviews and I feel it necessary to think about the finishing touches necessary for requesting GA-status, including adding an image that breaks what a reviewer has caled the "wall of words" in this article. Since there are no pictures of Paulo Francis in Commons, we must request fair use for adding an image, and that image has to be itself discussed in this PR. Personally, I would favor this picture: [2]; it's a very common one, showing Francis in his late fourties, which was selected various times by him for both covers and blurbs of his books.

Thanks, Cerme (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments
  • A fair use image is generally acceptable on biographies whose subjects are dead. The image suggested seems fine - low res and commonly used for him. See WP:FAIR USE and please ask if you have any questions.
  • The lead needs to summarize his whole life and the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in some way in the lead - see WP:LEAD
  • Make sure the headers follow WP:HEAD - do not repeat his name in a header if at all possible and avoid the use of "The" in headers if at all possible

Hope this helps, more to come eventually Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang
  • As said by Ruhrfisch above, the lede is insufficient for an article of this size; it should roughly be four paragraphs worth of material summarized from the main article text. See WP:LEDE.
  • The same also for the section headers and a fair use image can be used (but make sure to state the copyright holder and the page, not direct image link, where the image is hosted) with the proper rationales.
  • There is no need to boldface "Born Franz Paul Trannin da Matta Heilborn into ..." in the main article text. See WP:MOSBOLD.
  • A copyeditor, who is experienced in dealing with professional English and distant from the subject but with an interest in it, should be brought in. A few incidents of the language that makes me suggest this are listed as follows:
    • "... during the early 1950s, but, although he received an award ..." would have been easier reading if "but" is replaced with a fullstop.
    • The opening of "Therefore also his empiricism and his scorn for theory: during his later life, according to one of his biographers, Bernardo Kucinski, Francis would always express his boredom with the academic method of intellectual analysis, describing it as conventional and unimaginative." is ungrammatical.
    • There are several phrases that seems inappropriate for an encylopaedia, e.g. "And indeed, ...", "However, what these same critics acknowledged ..."
  • There are several uncited sentences, e.g. "Therefore the young Francis' peculiar mix of pro-Americanism and Left radicalism.", "Francis left the Folha during 1991 and began writing his column for the O Estado de São Paulo.", "Soon after, he suffered a fatal heart attack, dying in New York on February 4, 1997. He was buried in Rio de Janeiro, and was survived by his wife, fellow journalist Sonia Nolasco.", etc.
  • Please use a consistent format throughout the Notes section: either use {{citation}} or the various "cite xxxx" (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, etc.) templates
  • The header for the References section does not need the "quoted more than once in the footnotes".
  • In the References section, the last name of the authors are not supposed to be in upper case (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters).
  • This action ("I have added the 'supposed' for the fact that I suspect the trip to be bogus") is disturbing. You are introducing your own opinion into the statement while attributing it to the source (Veja, issue 1,333, March 30 1994). This is not done. If there are sources that contradict the statement, then integrate them into the article. If not, drop the information from the article and put a notice about why in the Talk page (or as inline comments). Such actions only cast doubts on the accuracy of the information presented with respect to the sources. It is not certain to me whether there are subtle shifts and introductions of personal opinions into the other sentences, especially since most of the sources are offline and in a foreign language.
  • I am not certain here, but it seems there is a decided loss of focus by spreading a lot of information about the man among three chronological sections. It seems too tidy to categorize a lot of items that could have affected him or were in play throughout his life into a particular period of time. In my view, the lengthy mixing of analysis of his character/career/style with chronological events loses the reader's interest. If one is only interested in Francis's political leanings or writing style, they have to spend so much work just to find the relevant details.

Personally, I found this article hard to read for the last reason stated. A more effective structure would attract more readers in my opinion and help generate more feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the 10 days since I made my first comments, there has been no repsonse, nor has there has been any response to Jappalang's comments (which I agree with). Looking at the article, no fair use image has been added, the headers still violate WP:HEAD, and the lead is still inadeaquate. I also note that in PR 1 (which I did in April) I said to expand the lead, and the reviewer in PR 2 from this summer did the same. I have better things to do than keep saying the same things and have them ignored. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruhrfisch: I have seem the comments and taken note of them, but have lacked to act accordingly time due to personal issues. Please wait until I can answer to the comments with the amount of attention they rightfully deserve. I could only make a few changes in punctuationCerme (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have expanded the article but my style is rough and I am sure I have made some grammar and stylistic (and probably spelling :S) mistakes which need to be addressed. I would like to know whether the article can be submitted for a GA or (doubtfully) FA review. I would welcome and address (if possible) all suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks, Gligan (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll start the peer review, although others are welcome to join. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been speculated that Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople was an illegitimate son of Ivan Shishman." -- It has been is generally considered a weasel term, and the speculation is unreferenced. Could you please either add more than one reference, or cite a specific source explicitly?
I will try to find a source. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a work of Plamen Pavlov on Joseph II. It is available in the Internet but is in Bulgarian. If "It has been" is inappropriate, change it. --Gligan (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The peer reviewer tool notes that you have mixed British and American English. You should decide on one and standardize it.
I use British English, if there is American English, then it should be corrected. Can you point out the words that need to be corrected? --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done it. I usually use -ize and meter instead of metre because since I started editing, my British terms were several times corrected to the American. That I can bear, but I cannot stand spelling neighbour or colour the American way... --Gligan (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images look fine, all PD. However, having ALT texts would be better in my opinion.
I have added alternative text to the images but since this is my first time, I don't know whether I have done it properly. Perhaps you should check that. --Gligan (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgarian rulers, especially during the Second Empire are known by the two names. For example, there was a ruler Ivan Asen III but Ivan Shishman cannot be referred to as Ivan VII or Ivan VII Shishman (as his number should have been if the previous rulers were regarded only as "Ivan"). --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very skilful in doing things properly :D:D Probably you should make one or two references with that template, so that I can have an example to follow. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gligan (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and what about the references "Божилов, Гюзелев"? I simply don't know what to do in that case, because both are equally important to be mentioned in the note but I don't know whether both names can be added in the "last" section. The same problem is with "Георгиева, Генчев 1999". What do you suggest? --Gligan (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is done now. --Gligan (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • I've done a quick copyedit as well. You may want to double check that I didn't change the meaning. Your style relies heavily on simple sentences, so I'd suggest getting a copyedit and help with someone from the Copyeditor's Guild to take a look before you go ahead with a nomination.
The meaning is not changed, thank you for the copyedit; it seems that the article really needed it. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one statement that is unsourced and possibly contentious. I've tagged it with a "Who" tag.
Yes, that is your first remark, I will try to find a source. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Culture and Religion" could probably be its own section, as he himself was not a major figure in it.
My logic for including it as a subsection is that it refers to the culture and religion duing his rule, it includes the progress done in that period; while the following sections deal with legends and mythology that have no historical ground. --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the main problem with the medieval Bulgarian rulers and history as a whole - there are simply not enough primary sources; the Bulgarian archives were destroyed and the sources (almost all of them foreign - mainly Byzantine) are incomplete and often inaccurate. Thank you for the work you have done so far :) --Gligan (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And something else - you have used "Hmm" on enlightener. That is the closest English term about the people who perticipated in the National Revival Period during the Ottoman rule; called in Bulgarian будители (something like "those who awake"). Actually Paisius of Hilendar was considered to be the first enlightener. --Gligan (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the standard translation, I have never seen any other. I have added a note concerning the term. As for the references, I have added the whole information I could find. Some of the earlier books, especially the Bulgarian (but probably from the other socialist countries), simply have no ISBN. I found an url of the Delev book and I added it but the location is not mentioned, although I am 99,9% sure it is Sofia. --Gligan (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even there the location of Delev's book is not mentioned :) --Gligan (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union laws

[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 in a week the 2011 Rugby World Cup starts and I am hoping some people new to the game will come onto Wikipedia looking for more information. This article is supposed to focus on the laws and I would like some input from editors not familiar with rugby union to offer advice on making it more accessible for everyone. I am currently working on one that will focus on gameplay to complement this one.

Thanks, AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I know very little about this sport, so I hope that makes me a useful reviewer. Thanks for your work on the rugby union articles, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I could not find a FA on a sport's laws / rules, but there are 6 FAs on rugby union: Crusaders (rugby union), England national rugby union team, France national rugby union team, New Zealand national rugby union team, Rugby World Cup, and Wales national rugby union team so there are lots of FAs where you can look at how people write about rugby.
  • Toolbox on this PR page finds one dead external link
  • The lead image is not great - too dark hard to see - imagine there are many rugby goals that could be photographed on a sunny day....
  • MOS says not to both bold and link a term in the lead.
  • The article has a lot of typos and rough spots that need to be polished. For example in just the lead, this sentence has an unclear antecedent The objective is to score more points than the opposition through tries and goals. Since the previous two sentences were about the laws, shouldn't it be made clearer that this is about the sport's objective?
  • Missing apostrophe A try is scored when a team grounds the ball in the opposition[']s in-goal. and in The ball has changed too, going from a pig[']s bladder to a rubber bladder
  • Avoid needless repetition, use hyphens as needed A conversion is then attempted by kicking a goal by either place[-] or drop[-]kicking the ball between the H[-]shaped goal posts and above the crossbar
  • Provide context to the reader _ see WP:PCR - for someone who does not know rugby grew out of football, this is confusing The rules of early football games were agreed upon before the start of the match, with the first known written set appearing in 1845.
  • MOS says to us "double quotes" not 'single quotes' so fix things like Rugby clubs broke away from The Football Association in 1863 after they left out rules for 'running with the ball' and 'hacking'.
  • Not a very grammatical sentence - clauses do not have parallel construction, tenses are not consistent, and the meaning is not super clear The point value for tries increasing from zero to five, penalties increasing to three, drop goals dropped to three and the goal from mark has been done away with.
  • MOS says to give Englsih units (feet or yards) in addition to meters - the {{convert}} template does this well
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the Variations do not seem to be in the lead
  • This is just prose and MOS issues in the lead - this needs a lot of work and a copy edit.
  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Objective section and the first paragraph of History have no refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, File:RugbyPitchMetricDetailed.svg which is labeled in a forein language using the Cyrillic alphabet, should be updated to an English version
  • WHy is there a page number in the general book ref : International Rugby Board (2011). Laws of the game: Rugby Union. International Rugby Board. pp. 189. ISBN 978-1-907506-09-3.
  • 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 ><>°° 05:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone cluster

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Considering bringing this to FAC. Would first appreciate an independent party's assessment of article's current state. Thanks much.—DCGeist (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for a very interesting article. I like the music of Charles Ives and enjoyed learning more about it. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Most of the FAs on music are about songs or albums, but Choral symphony and Backmasking may be useful models.
  • One dab link here
  • One dead link too
  • In the lead I would avoid vague time terms like "today" . Today, tone clusters play a significant role in the work of free jazz musicians ... - one of the musicians listed is 82 and may not be active in the field much longer. Use more specific time terms where possible (in the 21st century? in the 2010s?)
  • More sound files might help - I know this is done for the 13th chord collapsed, but if other examples could be given that might help reader comprehension.
    • I missed the inline examples at first, but still think File:Cowell tone clusters.png would benefit from two sound files to show what each sounds like.
  • I thought this was refering to keyboards at first Boards of various dimension are sometimes employed, as in the Concord Sonata...
  • Not clear what year is meant for writing (and there are two battles of Manassas) The next known composition to feature several clusters—though not, in this case, specifically notated—is the solo piano piece Battle of Manassas, written that year by "Blind Tom" Bethune and published in 1866.
  • "piano writing" sounds clunky to my ear in Isaac Albéniz's use of them in Iberia (1905–8) may have influenced Gabriel Fauré's subsequent piano writing. I thought it meant musical compositions, but the next sentence refers to books, so I am confused.
  • The antecedent of "its" is unclear in [23] Joseph Horowitz has suggested that the "dissonant star clusters" in its third and fourth books were particularly compelling to Olivier Messiaen...
  • Another vague time term "for some time" in Though much of his work was made public only years later, Charles Ives had been exploring the possibilities of the tone cluster—which he referred to as the "group chord"—for some time. perhaps start the sentence with composition (In YEAR, Charles Ives began exploring..., though much of his work was made public only years later.)
  • Not sure the abbreviations are needed (or clear to all) here ca. 1904–15, publ. 1920, prem. 1928, rev. 1947
  • MOS says to give metric as well as English units (15 inches), the {{convert}} template works well for this
  • MOS says to have images that draw the reader's eye facing so that the lead the eye into the page and not out of it. Some images should thus be left justified
  • Since Ligeti is linked, is the [] needed in Robert Reigle identifies Croatian composer Josip Slavenski's organ-and-violin Sonata Religiosa (1925), with its sustained chromatic clusters, as "a missing link between Ives and [György] Ligeti."[56]
  • Is D add9 a typo? If not, needs more explanation In later rock practice, the D add9 chord characteristic of jangle pop involves a three-note set separated by major seconds (D, E, F♯), the sort of guitar cluster that may be characterized as a harp effect.[101]
  • I have to say that usually articles on a fairly specific topic not well know to the general public tend to become more specialized and technical (and harder to follow) the further down you read - this was the opposite. The lead is pretty technical and then as you read down there are more comprehensible explanations given (black and white keys). Since the lead is supposed to be a comprehensible overview of the whole article, I would try to put some of that in the lead. It may also be that I am more familair with the more modern music, which helped me.
  • I read closely to about the Cowell section and noted problem sentences. I did not read as closely after Cowell, sorry - hopefully Zeality will catch some of what I missed.
  • 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 ><>°° 12:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your time, attention, and clarity. This is very helpful. It will probably be a week before I can devote myself to implementing the responsive edits, which I look forward to doing. Every point here strikes me as worthwhile. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a pleasure to read. I printed out a hardcopy and worked backwards to the beginning of the article, but there wasn't really too much to correct...

  • As a style choice, you might look into finding sentences that start with prepositions (In [year]; After [event], etc.) and just making sure there aren't any cases of that three sentences in a row, and so on, just to mix it up a little. (There may not be any, of course.)
  • As a lover of putting samples of music into my articles, I strongly recommend finding some work (or recording yourself) playing a tone cluster section, and put a 30-second example of it somewhere. Since we're dealing with such old musical works here, you'll almost certainly be able to take a copyright-free sample of one of the many songs you speak of in the article, which would be a pleasureful tie-in for the reader. I was compelled to find some examples on Youtube after reading this.

Let me know if it hits FAC, and good luck! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Activity ] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already failed it FAC thrice. I want someone who can help me take the prose of this article to FA standard. I kindly request that someone, who is familiar with issues that are often raised at FAC, reviews this article. Please. I hope i am not asking for too much. IO do not want this to fail again and again.

Thanks, Jivesh 1205 (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 09:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'll try and give this a shot. It's been a while since I've done a Peer Review, but I've brought a few music articles to FA before (most of them taking multiple attempts to succeed) so I might be able to help a bit. I'll see what I can find. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Files
  • File:Halo.ogg — I feel like the rationale needs to be tightened up/improved somewhat. "It makes a significant contribution to the readers' understanding of the article and the song, which cannot be conveyed by words alone." - how does it do that? Is there any aspect in the article's prose (critical commentary in reception, discussion on the song's meaning/theme, etc.) which specifically relates to this sample? That will need to be tightened before FAC. See File:U2 Mothers of the Disappeared.ogg for an example of what I mean. You don't have to list ten or eleven points, but you do need to be more explicit in the rationale.
  • File:Beyonce - Halo.png, Kelly Clarkson, Halo live, and O2 Arena rationales all look good.
  • YouTube music video link - is BeyonceSME an official channel? If not, try and find one that is (a record label, Beyonce's personal channel, etc). If it is, you may still want to try and find an alternate from another official channel as the video is not available in all locations; I'm in Canada and cannot view it, so a lot of the world will probably be cut off from seeing it. This won't be an issue at FAC, just a personal quibble that you might want to look at to make sure that it's available to the widest possible audience :-)
I cannot access it either, but it comes from Sony Music Entertainment, Beyoncé's label. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ryan Tedder 3.jpg rationale is good, but consider cropping it so that the subject is the center of attention/focus. Cutting off a bit of stage that isn't adding anything to the picture will make it look better.
Sources
  • This will mean a lot of tedious work, but I highly, HIGHLY recommend you archive all active weblinks. If a website is remodelled links can be lost permanently, meaning that the information can no longer be verified. Sometimes articles are only available for a finite amount of time; then they're either taken down or hidden behind a subscription barrier, as happens with Hot Press and billboard.biz to name two examples. The latter can be satisfactorily saved with the use of {{Subscription}}, but if you don't have a text source to back it up (and since this is a recent subject you probably don't outside of the occassional newspaper article), the information can be lost forever. It's a tedious process, but entirely worthwhile. WebCite is excellent for this. All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates.
    As far as I know, Adabow (talk · contribs) archived all the links, so I'll ask him for them. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checklinks reveals a few issues with links. There are at least two dead links, and three or four others that may have connectivity issues. Those dead links will need to be fixed or replaced before FAC. Again, I recommend archiving so that this doesn't affect the article in the future.
  • Don't forget to add authors to citations. Most refs have them but some, such as this, are missing them.
Prose
  • I'd consider reorganizing some of the content entirely. One article I worked on, "City of Blinding Lights", was in much the same state yours is now. During the FAC or a PR (I can't remember which), an editor suggested reorganization. The end result looked a lot better and flowed much more nicely, and it passed at FAC. I've made a suggested reorganization at User:Melicans/Halo. All of the content is identical (except for the non-free files which I removed only because they aren't allowed on user pages), it's just in a different order. Some images may need resizing or shuffling around, but I think as a narrative it flows much better. Theme has been added to "Composition". All the compenents dealing with the release (music video, promotion, release dates) are now under a general "Release" section. Live performances have been split off into a separate category. All aspects of critical reception (reviews, chartings, awards, covers; basically all the stuff that makes the song notable) have also been grouped together. Subheadings remain.
  • I concur with previous FAC reviewers in that I am leery about having a section titled "Controversies". It's inherently not a NPOV. I'm unsure what it could be renamed to, however. Perhaps another option would be to amalgamate that information elsewhere in the prose; but that raises the question of where. Perhaps under Writing/Production or Release? Your call, but I think that it will be one of the biggest obstacles at the next FAC.
  • Prose is admittedly not my strongest suite (which I know you won't find very helpful, since it is specifically what you asked for help on). That said, there are some things that even I noticed which need to be fixed. Here are some examples:
  • It was composed by Ryan Tedder, Evan Bogart, and Knowles within three hours in Tedder's studio. According to Bogart, the track was inspired by Ray LaMontagne's song, "Shelter". → It was composed by Ryan Tedder, Evan Bogart, and Knowles in three hours. The track was inspired by Ray LaMontagne's song, "Shelter". The lead should be a concise overview of the article as a whole. All the little nitty-gritty details should be saved for the meat below.
  • Its instrumentation essentially consists of a piano, and keyboards and synthesizers. The music provided is further amplified by the soul claps and step stomps. The lyrics to "Halo" lyrics describe a sublime love. → The song consists of a piano, and keyboards and synthesizers. The music is further amplified by soul claps and step stomps. Thematically, the lyrics to "Halo" describe a sublime love. Careful of repeating words ("The lyrics to 'Halo' lyrics"). Keep it concise.
  • The song was originally written for Knowles, but it was rumored to be intended for Leona Lewis. Kelly Clarkson, who worked with Tedder in 2008 for her album All I Ever Wanted, claimed that Tedder used the same musical arrangement of "Halo" in her song "Already Gone", which was serviced as the third single from her 2009-released studio album by her record label against her will → "Halo" was written by (who? Bogart? Tedder? Both?) for Knowles, but it was rumored (by who?) to be intended for Leona Lewis. Kelly Clarkson, who worked with Tedder on her 2008 album All I Ever Wanted, claimed that he previously used the musical arrangement of "Halo" in her song "Already Gone". Again, extraneous details. The lead should be bare bones, not the meat and gravy.
  • The lyrics to "Halo" have been changed twice in live versions: first into a tribute to Michael Jackson following his death, and secondly into a tribute to the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Not relevant or notable for the lead. Many, many artists change the lyrics of their songs in the live setting. That she did it for this song is just business as usual. The tributes are fine in the actual body.
  • Concerning the composition of "Halo", Knowles elaborated as follows: → Knowles described the theme as "angelic..." resume rest of quote. Blockquote probably isn't necessary, it would fit just fine as part of the regular prose.
  • According to Simon Cowell,[24] the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, the British singer Leona Lewis. However, Tedder commented that Cowell was upset that the single's writing was intended for Knowles, and Knowles eventually claimed the song.[1] David Balls, editor of the British media website Digital Spy, interviewed Tedder about the rumor. Balls asked Tedder if "Halo" was originally penned for Leona Lewis, and Tedder answered that he had only tentatively offered the track to Lewis after Knowles took a long time to record it → Following "Halo"'s release, Simon Cowell claimed that the song had been written for his client, Leona Lewis. Tedder responded that he had tentatively offered the track to Lewis after Knowles took a long time to record it. A lot of repetition there. You only need to establish it once. I'd suggest making one or two of the blockquotes into {{Quote box}}es. It looks nice (you don't have one or two lines of regular prose sandwiched between blockquotes), and allows you to tell the different viewpoints without devolving into 'he said/she said'.
  • The first time you mention it in a new section or subsection, you should refer to it as "Halo", not "the song" or 'the track".

Those are only a few examples to get you going on the kinds of things that need tweaking. There is much more in there, all on similar lines. I don't have time to copyedit the whole article, unfortunately. The biggest thing is to just be as clear and concise as you can. Get rid of the extranneous words, don't use the same words multiple times in consecutive (or even the same) sentences, and it will be a huge improvement.

Other things that don't really have a category
  • External links - Why not add a link to Knowles' website? Presumably she has a discography or lyrics section which holds the lyrics to the song. It's always a good link to have.
  • Track listing - consider converting the raw prose to {{Tracklist}}. I find it makes it look more neat, though that is of course a personal preference and not mandated by any WikiProject or policy so far as I know.
  • Consider adding a "Personnel" section.
    I removed this section to avoid many tables the article already have. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these points help. Good luck with the fourth attempt at FAC! Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. This is the best peer review I have seen in two years. You are simply GREAT. I have no other word to qualify what you have done for me. I express you my heartfelt thanks. If I need help, may I contact you here itself, I mean if ever I do not understand some of your points. For now, I am not very active on Wikipedia. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! If you have any questions after the review is closed, my talk page is always open too. Melicans (talk, contributions) 12:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are very kind. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the previous FAC failed. The article needs both a WP:MOS review and an WP:NFCC review. I hope to get both in one PR, but realize I may need to open a second dedicated review.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did this help?-SCB '92 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jivesh

 Doing... Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
Lead
General comment on Lead: Please do not get me wrong but the lead is not a good one. You stress too much on cover versions

Guidelines for a lead (good one)

Do the pointers below apply to a song of this age and one with two really prominent versions? Looking at WP:FA and the 5 songs within 10 years in either direction from this song ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone", "Layla"), all but one of the WP:LEADs is only 2 paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph:

  • Song, recording artist, album
  • who wrote it, produce it
  • Any information about background (was it originally for another artist, was it leaked....)
  • What motivated its development

Second paragraph

  • Genre(s) of song

Any influences or display of elements of other musical(s) genre(s)

  • characteristics (ballad, etc)
  • Did it gain any comparison?
  • What does the lyrical content refer to?

Third paragraph

  • What did critics say?
  • commercial reception?
  • Live performance

Fourth paragraph

  • Cover version

Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix these issues first. Quite a lot of work awaiting you. Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in a while. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 04:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original version
Looks fine to me now. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. My mistake. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another excellent example of how Ray Charles was able to fuse blues and country, 'Here We Go Again' is a soulful ballad in the Southern blues tradition. Lyrically, it has a resignation and pain that makes the blues, simply, what it is. The recording has a simple and sterling gospel arrangement and, in retrospect, is one of Charles' finer attempts in the studio from the 1960s."
Won't this fit better in composition section?
It looks good now. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why three paragraphs for Chart performance? Can't they be merged?
You have not replied to this. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are separate subjects. The first describes the overall success of all tracks on the album at first. Then, there is a paragraph specific to this song domestically. The third paragraph is for the song on international charts. Maybe the 2nd and 3rd might be merged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments by Efe

Jivesh boodhun, can you comment on my progress on the above issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply. I will do so in 5 hours. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 03:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best if you can strike issues as they are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond later today or tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Did you give any reconsideration to the LEAD considering what type of public information is available for 44 year old songs and in the face of other FAs of songs of similar age.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get a response before the bot closes this discussion. I will ping your talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jivesh boodhun, Still hoping for some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment

[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 point out that for the stationary aether calculations, it was assumed that the entire apparatus is indeed an inertial frame. I would suggest the Sagnac effect is negligible here and that further proof, probably via math, of the validity of SR, is required. I believe it is inconsistent to have half this experiment to assume an inertial frame and then the other half to not. All that is measured here is the difference made by the different relative "linear velocities" of the top and bottom legs.

It would seem the same explanation that would validate SR also validates the entrained aether (or pretty much any model). Simply, there is a slight difference in the relative v between the mirrors in the legs parallel to the equator. Depending on direction, if we set the origin mirror as the frame of reference and consider the target mirror's component of velocity parallel with the origin's, one goes over the horizon and approaches the origin mirror (less distance and thus time) and the other comes over the horizon and lags the origin mirror (more distance and thus time). The rest of the logic is the same as in the PDFs as argued for the stationary aether. The other 2 perpendicular legs are equal and opposite of course.

There is nowhere near enough typical Sagnac effect (lateral motion of mirrors) here to rule out an entrained aether.

This experiment succeeds on the basis of variant c (stationary aether), so I believe the math for SR needs to show that it is also verified by the results in order to claim that SR is upheld here. The entrained aether has the same burden but would be virtually in the same boat as SR mathematically.

So this experiment either dismisses SR and an entrained aether, or it is consistent with both.

Thanks, Hosh1313 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Upon further thought, this is actually very embarrassing for Michaelson and, for the last 86 years, the entire physics community.

At the very top of page 138 of the "Part I" PDF we see that v (the relative velocity of the assumed stationary ether) is dis-guarded from the overall mathematics. So the only condition that needs to be satisfied is that v << c, which is most accurate, funnily enough, in the case where v = 0 i.e. a fully entrained ether.

If I see no argument against this within a few weeks then I will edit this page accordingly. Hosh1313 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Spinningspark. I am not sure that you have not misunderstood the Wikipedia Peer Review process and might instead have needed Request for Comment. Peer review on Wikipedia is not about scrutinising original work as it is in academia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not permit original research: anything added is expected to already be published in reliable sources. Peer review here is more about reviewing articles against Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style and for quality of prose. I would suggest that before adding to the article as you seem to want to do, that you first find up-to-date reliable sources that reach the same conclusions and verify that these represent the mainstream view. A minority view can also be included in articles so long as it can be shown to be notable and is not given undue weight over the majority view. Hope that is helpful. SpinningSpark 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to make it a least Good Article. All other superstars (Beyonce, Britney, Gaga) have a GA biography, I also think RiRi deserves it. Thanks to the reviewer that can help me in this. I would be greathful Thanks, Tomica1111 (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on my User page ages ago that I want to make the Rihanna bio a GA. Plus Tomica, it's far to early to do it in my opinion. All of info is derived from the albums and singles articles, it would only make sense to wait until more of her articles have been promoted to GA so that more info can be found. How can the Rihanna article be made a GA when so many of her articles are in such a bad state still? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, like look, I have never seen that you have wrote that you want to make Rihanna's article a GA. You made a bunch of them, and never seen that you want to put this one for review. Btw this article, uses only the main things from other Rihanna's article (songs, albums) so it means it could be made. And I'm asking just for peer review. This is not a nomination for GA. Tomica1111 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments by Efe

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PR bot closed the review because of practically no activity in the past month. So if you are going to comment, at least write something. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize that it has taken so long to review this article. Thank you for your patience. FYI, the PR bot will archive this PR now after 2 days of inactivity (no edits - minor edits do not count as activity) as it is over 30 days old. Thanks for your work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. As you note there are many music bios of good article quality, and there are quite a few music biography FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music_biographies
  • This PR page has a toolbox - the dab link checker finds two dab links that needs to be fixed here. These would need to be fixed before GAN or FAC
  • The PR toolbox also has an external link checker, which finds 10 or more dead ELs here. These would also have to be fixed for any GAN or FAC. If there is a link to a print source like a newspaper, it can stay in (as a print source is theoretically accessible at an archive).
  • Looking at the lead, since it is supposed to be a summary fo the whole article, it does not have to have references except for direct quotes and extraordianry claims.
  • I would drop the word "simply" from the first sentence as it seems a bit POV
  • I would add the year to She subsequently signed a contract with Def Jam Recordings after auditioning for then-label head Jay-Z.[2] See WP:PCR
  • Watch tense - this has past (released, peaked) and present (features) tenses in the same sentence In 2005, Rihanna released her debut studio album, Music of the Sun, which peaked in the top ten of the Billboard 200 chart and features the Billboard Hot 100 hit single "Pon de Replay."
  • I would also give the actual chart position reached (which peaked at number ten in the Billboard 200 chart) and not the more vague "in the top ten"
  • Ditto for which peaked within the top five
  • I would qualify extraordinary claims with the year, so [As of YEAR] Rihanna has sold more than 20 million albums and 60 million singles[5] which makes her one of the best selling artists of all time.
  • There are major problems with references - I went to curent ref 5 to see the year. It is from the German MTV website, but at the bottom of the page it says that the text is taken from the German Wikipedia - see "Ursprüngliche(r) Autor(en) des verwendeten Textes." which links to the German Wikipedia. Wikipedia (and mirror sites) are not reliable sources
  • Many of the refs cited are not complete in providing the required amount of information needed. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Use a decimal point (7.3 million), not a comma As of March 2010, Rihanna has sold approximately 7,3 million album units and over 33.7 million digital singles in the United States
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - I would only link words that the average reader does not know, or that add value to the reader. I am guessing the average reader knows what an ambassador is.
  • The language is pretty rough and needs a copyedit. Just in the early life section there are the following issues (not a complete list, just some I picked out).
    • This makes it sound like her mother was retired when Rihanna was born, which seems doubtful (most retired women are past child-bearing age) Rihanna was born Robyn Rihanna Fenty on February 20, 1988, in Saint Michael, Barbados, to Monica Braithwaite, a retired accountant,...
    • Saying the eldest of three siblings implies her brothers have the same parents as she does The eldest of three siblings, she has two younger brothers from the same two parents, Rorrey and Rajad Fenty.[15]
    • This has so many problems I am not sure where to start During her parents' marriage, she suffered from excruciating headaches that doctors thought she had brain tumour and underwent several CAT scans from the age of 8 till her parents separated.[20]
    • Her two bandmates are mentioned, but not that she was in a band (not super clear the trio was the band, assume so)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Clark

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Considering nominating this for FA. Would appreciate any comments/suggestions to improve the article.

Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

  • "William Smith Clark (July 31, 1826 – March 9, 1886) was a professor of chemistry, botany and zoology, a colonel during the American Civil War, founder and first functioning president of the Massachusetts Agricultural College (now the University of Massachusetts Amherst) and president of Sapporo Agricultural College in Japan (now Hokkaido University)."
    This seems to be an overload of the senses for the first sentence alone. It would be best to perhaps list his most prominent achievements first and separate things into more sentences, such as:
    "William Smith Clark (July 31, 1826 – March 9, 1886) was the founder and first functioning president of the Massachusetts Agricultural College (now the University of Massachusetts Amherst). He was also the president of Japan's Sapporo Agricultural College (now Hokkaido University). A professor of chemistry, botany and zoology, Clark took up arms and fought for the Union during the American Civil War, attaining the rank of colonel."
    Regardless, it seems as if the first paragraph is summarising the second and third (summarising a summary); I think a rewrite of the lede is in order. The entire lede should summarise the article, not itself.

Education and early career

  • "... graduating Phi Beta Kappa in the class of 1848."
    This seems wrongly phrased. I am used to hearing "graduating/graduated with XXX honours/degree". I am not familiar with "graduated <name of fraternity>". He was accepted into PBK because of his results.

Family

  • "Harriet Williston was the daughter of William and Clarissa Richards, ... Their father died in 1847 in Hawaii and Williston adopted both children."
    What happened to her mother? If her mother was still alive, why could Williston adopt her?

Civil War

  • "The cannon is today mounted inside Morgan Hall at Amherst College."
    The problems of using "today/now/currently" in articles. The cannon is now in Raleigh.[3] It is best to avoid using such words (See WP:DATED). The gun is a prime candidate for a photograph to be used in this article, I must say though.
  • "He therefore resigned his commission and returned to Massachusetts."
    What was the reaction (military and society) to the resignation of a "Hero" from the army?

Massachusetts Agricultural College

  • "He resigned his commission with the 21st Massachusetts Infantry a month after MAC was voted into existence by the Massachusetts Legislature."
    So did he resign because he "sought to play a key role" in MAC, or because he was "'disheartened and dissatisfied' with the government and the army"?

Japan

  • "... to establish SAC."
    Same point of abbreviations as above
  • "Despite the fact that teaching of the Bible was forbidden in government schools, ..."
    Suggestion: "Although the Japanese government prohibited the teaching of the Bible in government schools, ..."
  • "During his stay in Japan, Clark examined its flora, and was the means of introducing new species of shade trees into the United States."
    Suggestion: "During his stay in Japan, Clark examined the local flora, and introduced new species of shade trees into the United States."

Later career

  • "... buried in Amherst's West Cemetery."
    Sounds like a nice photo opportunity (if his original tombstone/grave still exists).

Legacy

  • Are there any Japanese sources that can vouch for "'Boys, be ambitious!' is 'almost immortal in Japan'" and "Clark's name appears on, 'schools, buildings, shops, confections and countless tourist souveniers'"? Although Wikipedia's preference is for English sources, I feel this sort of assertion of importance in a foreign country should be equally borne by that country's sources as well.
  • "Both universities maintain exchange programs through numerous academic departments today."
    Sources? Also note the validity of "today" if said programs are terminated.
  • "In recognition of this fact, and of Clark's role in establishing the two colleges, the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Hokkaido became sister universities in 1976. On February 7, 1990, further extending this bond, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the prefecture of Hokkaido became sister states."
    http://sapporo.usconsulate.gov/wwwhsistercity.html only states that Hokkaido and Massachussetts are sister states. It does not state that this was done in recognition of any relationship between the two universities. Ascribing such a statement to the Consulate would be original research.
  • "To mark the 100th anniversary of Clark's arrival in Sapporo, the statue of Clark at Hitsujigaoka observation hill was built in 1976. Etched on the base of the statue are Clark's famous words, "Boys, Be Ambitious." The site is a popular tourist destination."
    Where is the source for these statements, especially "popular tourist destination"? http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/international/WSClark.pdf does not back any of this up except that the statue exists at Hitsujigaoka (through a photograph).

I think the more serious issues are the information that is not backed by the cited sources. A brush up of the prose would also be a good idea. Jappalang (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these helpful comments. I will get to work over the course of this week in making the revisions. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this. I wanted to leave a "progress report" and again thank you for the comments. Your suggestions have definitely improved the article, I think. I have done the following:

  • I have re-written the lede, eliminating the redundancy you noted and also making sure it more adequately summarizes the article (previously it did not as some section had been added since the lede was written).
  • I eliminated the macron form. Not sure how that got in there to begin with.
  • I have, actually, read the expression "graduated Phi Beta Kappa" in a number of places, but it's probably not very good grammar. I have changed it.
  • I clarified re: his mother-in-law's whereabouts when his wife was adopted by Williston.
  • I have spelled out the abbreviations (I was following the Military History guidelines on rank which is to use the full title once and then the abbreviations...but I understand that in a non-military article that could be confusing).
  • I fixed the "today" issue with the cannon and inserted a photograph of the cannon. That was a great suggestion as that section really needed a photo.
  • As for the MAC and SAC acronyms, they are spelled out fully up in the lede.
  • With regard to his leaving the army at the same time the MAC was established, I reworded and hopefully it not longer reads as though his army resignation was caused by the establishment of the college. Personally, I believe there was a connection, but I don't have documentation for that.
  • I inserted your suggested copy edits in the Japan section.
  • On the gravesite, I do not have a photo. I don't get to Amherst often, but I will try to get a photo at some point.
  • I am presently hung up on the Japanese source re: his "almost immortal" presence in Japan. I am trying to find some histories online that were published in Japan but not in Japanese. Working on it, and confident that I can find one when I find a bit of free time...

That's where I am at present. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. That said, I hope you would not mind my crop of your photograph of the cannon (having the bannister as the central item seems to distract from the cannon). Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the crop on the cannon photo. That does look better. I think I've resolved the last of the issues, specifically the four citation issues you listed:
  • For a Japanese source confirming Clark's fame there and the legendary status of his "Boys, be ambitious" quote, I have cited the Japanese National Tourism Organization webpage about Clark's statue. It is an official agency of the Japanese government.
  • I have added a UMass website source further describing the student and faculty exchange programs.
  • As for the sister college and sister state relationship evolving from Clark's historical influence, I have added two more citations, one, the above UMass article which describes the historical connection, and also cited the pamphlet on the William S. Clark Memorial by Tuttle which describes the progression.
  • To support the Hitsujigoaka Hill site as being "popular" I again cited the Japanese National Tourism Organization.
I think this should do it. If you have any further comments let me know. And, again, thanks for the review. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

[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 looked into the original issues brought up and have tried to address them to the best of my ability, modelling a little of Advance Wars: Dual Strike which is currently a GA-article already. Many changes were contributed by other members as well:

  • Introductory paragraph -- the issue with the intro that was brought up a few times either involved its wordiness or its containing of content that was not mentioned again in the article. I've addressed the issue by generalizing the content and making it less detailed. Anything addressed in it is mentioned again later on in more detail.
  • Citations -- originally pretty weak but I've cleaned up some stuff and in comparison to Advance Wars: Dual Strike, it shouldn't be much weaker. There was a comment about citing the game itself, but I strongly believe it satisfies WP:NOR because all of the statements that use this source feature ideas that can be clearly witnessed in-game. There is no interpretation or subjectivity to the claims. All sources can be attributed to an author now do.
  • General language, mostly in regards to copyediting -- I've gone through the article and done it again to try to make the language as friendly and readable as possible for those who are not familiar with the game. As I am familiar with the game, please do let me know if any part of it contains language that a newcomer would not understand (with the exception, of course, to the Plot section which is going to be full of proper nouns and story bits).
  • Gameplay section -- I've cut down on some of it and regrouped them to reduce the amount of useless content. To me it looks neater than what AW:DS has, and it should be more concise/tightly-worded.

Now that I really look at it, I don't think AW:DS should be a GA article, but I want to try to make this one more fitting of the rank. An issue I had with adding content for this game is that this is about the extent to which there is verifiable, useful information. It's not as "grand" of a game as some better-known games, and I think this is about the extent to which content can be added. In either case, really looking forward to spending more time with this article and now actually trying to get it to GA status, haha.

Thanks,

♥puff! 01:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberwocky

[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'd like us to work up the page to GA status and would like some pointers.

Thanks, Span (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing....... Although Keats comes first in my priority list, and I'll prob just copy edit with a few suggestions here and there. Good luck though Spanglej, TK knows this work well so your lucky. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Span (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put up organized comments soon, but looking at it, I think it needs some explanation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and that Through the Looking-Glass was a sequel. This can probably be added to the "Origin and Publication" section. Also, I do remember reading somewhere that Tenniel was reluctant to do the illustrations but can't remember why - if a source can be found for that it might not be a bad idea to add because the illustrations are so iconic. More later. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Consider rewriting to reflect the full content of the article.
Origin and publication
  • As I mentioned above, try to add a very small piece of background here. I think it mention that Through the Looking Glass was a sequel, the dates of the books, that Carroll is a pen-name, and that he taught mathematics at Oxford.
  • The sentence about Darlington should be sorted out. This source is used to cite that he lived in Darlington and wrote the last stanza nearby. I can't find the info in the source, so it should be replaced. I know as a child he lived in Daresbury (have visited the church where his father was vicar) and that the family moved to Yorkshire later, and if it was to Darlington then that just needs a better source.
  • Interesting that the poem is based on an earlier German poem - perhaps move this information to a separate paragraph?
Structure
  • I'm wondering whether it might make more sense to have "Linguistics and poetics" following "Origin and publication", then "Lexicon" and then the "Translation" section. That would solve the problem of the bulleted list in the middle of the page by moving it down. Also, I have a paper on the structure of the poem, which I've added to the further reading section. I think the information should be added. Either I can do it, or I can send the paper on. There's a Jstor paper that should probably be looked at as well - I'll retrieve it and have a look at it to see if the material should be added. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • I think this section needs to be cleaned up and brought into focus or retitled "Reception and Legacy". I hate to see it devolve into the long list of popular culture stuff that's in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I think, depending on what the sources say, it would be best to discuss the reception at the time of publication, all the way to the present. This is touched on but needs more focus in my view.
Images
  • The Tenniel images are free, so fine. As originally published the poem had three images - it would be nice to add the one of the little boy with the sword if that can be found. I can look for it later if it doesn't get done.
Sources


Great. Thanks for your time. Span (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Keats

[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 work the article up to GA and then FA if possible.

Thanks, Span (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Looking forward to this. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks Span (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truthkeeper
Lead
  • Ceoil is right, the lead needs to be rewritten per WP:Lead to reflect the article as a whole. I'm not a great lead writer and often wait until the end to write the lead. After I've been working a page for a while all the information is in my head and at that point the lead writes itself, so if you're having difficulty you might want to try that strategy.
Early life
  • Second para mentions the instability in his life, which I assume refers to his father's death, mother's remarriage, etc. I think the organization needs some tweaking here because those events aren't presented until the next paragraph leading the reader wondering about the instability.
  • Changed.
Early career
  • The two properties he received in bequest is a bit confusing. From whom? I think the entire para may need to be reworked.
  • More bequest detail added. I attempted to keep it simple.
  • Can "dresser" and "junior house surgeon" be explained? I can make sense of "junior house surgeon" (I assume it's the equivalent to a resident or a Junior doctor but not "dresser" - is it similar to an orderly?
  • This sentence: "Keats's medical career took up increasing amounts of his writing time and exacerbated an ambivalence to anything other than poety" - I understand what it means but probably better to simplify a little if possible.
  • Just curious, but what made Woodhouse certain that Keats was talented? Do we know? If possible it would be interesting to explain this in a little more detail.
  • Mentions that he was ill in 1817 - do the sources tell any more? Exhaustion - or was he already infected with TB?
  • Biographers cannot be clear when he contracted TB. They disagree on any set date. It is significant that he was nursing his sick brother Tom in small rooms from 1817 but TB was prevalent and he was a non too robust doctor who could have picked it up anywhere. As is mentioned later in the article, there was stigma often attached to the disease and it's possible Keats refused to mention/write about it. June 1818 on Mull is often given as the turning point. Span (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big jump from April 1817 to June 1818 and seems a bit choppy - that section needs a little work.
  • Is Coleridge referred to as senior because he was older, or because from an older school of Romantics?
Wentworth Place
  • I think the reception to Endymion should be shortened, summarized with relevant information that's important for future events, and then move all the detail to a "Reception" or "Reception and legacy" section.
  • I moved the full quotes down to refs. I will start a notes section for these footnotes. The (reduced) damning is a big low point in the short story of Keats life building his sense of desperation (Bryon alleges that it ultimately killed him). Is it still too long for the biog section? Span (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if you can source that it effected him greatly, which it apparently did, then it's important to have and not to stuff in the refs section. Let me think about how to do this. I put a blockquote in The Sun Also Rises (in the "Reception" section) about Hemingway's mother's reaction to the novel. You could consider using a blockquote for this material, but let's let it sit for a bit and think about it. For sure it should probably all be added to the Endymion page, if it's not already there - sorry, haven't looked yet. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fanny Brawne and Isabella Jones
  • Needs a bit of reorg here in the first few paragraphs because for me the jump from Brawne to Jones back to Brawne was a bit jarring. I also see that these are the important events of 1817
  • I swapped the details around and added more detail. Ceoil, re your Q, Gittings, Bate and Motion describe Jones as beautiful, witty, sexy etc but they give no letter references. I have given biog page refs for the description. Span (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Death
  • I thought this was quite well done, very moving and sad. My only suggestion is that the section seems to be very stuffed - although I think a few of the sections are a bit long. I tend to do this too - am thinking how to suggest to you how to cut into subsections. It might not be possible because he was in Rome most of the period.
  • Split the death section and longer paras.
Poetry
  • Have you considered a "Style" section or a "Style and themes" or a "Themes" section? I think most of what is in the "Poetry" section would work for that and would simply need some reworking. Anything that doesn't fit could be moved a "Legacy / Reception" section. We have so many individual pages on Keats that it might be possible to take a bit from those as well.
  • I think to be comprehensive and to establish his notability it should have either a style or theme or combined style/theme section. Have a look at the biographies of Yeats, Mary Shelley and Ernest Hemingway to see variations of how this is done. I had to write the Hemingway style/themes section in a sandbox because it was the hardest part of the entire article. Feel free to rummage around to see how it was done, and I'd be happy to help build these sections. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Letters
  • Have only skimmed. Do you think some of this information could be grouped in a "Themes" section? I'm not familiar enough with his poetry off the top of my head to know, but am thinking that might work.
Biographical controversy
  • I haven't read this yet - but again, have you thought about making this a subsection of a "Reception" or "Reception and legacy" section?
  • Moved this up to reception
MoS
  • Remove wikilinks in quotes
  • I think this is done.
  • Remove brackets from ellipses
  • I think this is done.
  • Watch for overlinking - try to link only on the first occurrence
  • Does this apply to instances three or more paras below the first link?
  • I usually link in the lead and again on first occurrence in the body. I think a little flexibility exists - if I feel a term or title is really important that was linked in the first section but recurs again late in the article, sometimes I'll link a second time, but sparingly. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for consistency - titles of poems should be in quotation marks, not italics (but check MoS to be certain)
  • Some of Keats poems such as Endymion, Lamia and Hyperion are long poems that I think can be written in Italics.
  • Will return with more - or make some fixes as I'm reading
Images
References
  • I haven't looked at the sourcing and formatting yet. The sourcing is important for FAC - needs to be comprehensive (though with literature pages I find the compilations usually are fairly comprehensive and a good starting point). Comprehensiveness is less important for GA, fwiw. I'll have a look at the sources tomorrow or during the week.
  • I originally used eg <ref>Motion (1997) p57</ref> style citations. Ceoil has removed the Ps. Is there a preference? Is the first wrong?
  • He doesn't use the p. or pp. for pages, but there isn't a preferred style, just needs to be consistent. The only thing is, if you use p. or pp. then they should be formatted so that it's p. & pp. with a space before the page number/s which need to be separated by a hyphen (technically it's an endash, but I'll run a script for that). The two of you can sort out how to do it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the references, it seems that much of the article is cited to the ODNB, and two or three biographies. I haven't read the biography section, on my way now, but I'm wondering if more up-to-date scholarship exists. Maybe not - Hemingway, for instance really only has a handful of biographies that are worth using, and presumably you've used the best here. Usually to check modern scholarship, I have a look at The Cambridge Companion series to see who the up-to-date scholars are and if any are worth adding. The Keats Cambridge Companion is here at google books. The table of contents are always useful and if you think there are more scholarly points of view to be added this is a good starting point. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion's was the last major biography in 1997, 650 pages, pretty exhaustive. Gittings and Bate are the other two that are generally held as main biographers to my knowledge. Do you have access to the online ODNB? If not I can send details. Span (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny how that happens that some writers have tons of biographers and others not so many. I always like finding someone with fewer main biographers - less to read and synthesize. I don't have access to the ODNB - my email is enabled, if it can sent that would be nice, but it's a good source and reliable. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Generally looks good and I see that Ceoil has started copyediting, so that will help. I'll make more specific comments as I read more closely.
Overall
  • Most of the substance is here - and well presented. I think you might want to consider more paragraph breaks to ease the reader along, and maybe slightly less long sections, expansion in a few places for clarity, and maybe a little stitching together in a few places to avoid having a bunch of factoids - a mistake I tend to make in literature pages until I really work the prose and the sections to make it flow.
  • The death section is so moving and he was such a wonderful poet. I think it would be fine to add a bit more emotion along the way until the death section - it was such a short life after all.

Otherwise really nice job. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Truthkeeper. This is a good basis for work. Ceoil (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Span (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shirelles

[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 bring it to GA status and would like feedback as to what needs to be improved.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1 This is a pretty good piece of work. As it stands, it would be a fairly clear GA if I were reviewing and I think it is nicely on its way to FA. I've reviewed with FAC in mind, but I would suggest taking it to GAN before you do this. I've done some light copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you are not happy with. NB: I have not looked at sourcing at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "the first to have a number one single on the Billboard Hot 100": Aside from the fact that is is not quite clear of what they were the first, this fact is repeated later in the lead in what I think is a more logical place.
  • "after several months of courtship." A little imprecise: I'm not too fond of "courtship" and also it is not clear who was "courting": the company or the group.
  • Instances of close repetition in the lead: "girls … girls", "group … group".
  • "they were unable to keep their previous popularity": maybe "maintain" rather than "keep".
  • "due to the numerous girl bands…": Maybe "due to the success of numerous girl bands…"
  • "while several of their hits used strings and baião-style music": Not sure about using "while" here as there is no obvious connection with the previous part of the sentence. A simple "and" would be enough, unless there is a connection with these styles and their "sexual themes".
  • "They have been credited": By who?
  • "with much of their music reflecting its essence": Unclear what this means. Reflecting the essence of what? Does this mean that the "girl group genre" came to embody/contain/reflect many of the Shirelles "themes" (for want of a better word). Also, "with … music reflecting" is not great construction (noun-verbing): suggest "and much of their music reflected".
  • "Their multi-racial popular acceptance predates Motown…": I know what you mean here, but "multi-racial popular acceptance" is slightly ambiguous. It's not a big deal (and sounds quite elegant) but could it be pinned down slightly more?
  • "which has been noted as reflecting the early success of the African-American Civil Rights Movement.": Again, not too clear. Are you saying that the Shirelles were successful as part of the early Civil Rights success, or (as it reads to me at the moment) that Motown reflects this success? Also, for the uninitiated (and there might be some, somewhere!!) who don't know what Motown is, perhaps "predates the success of Motown music".
  • "They have received numerous honors, including receiving the Pioneer Award from the Rhythm and Blues Foundation, being accepted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996, and being selected as one of the 100 best acts of all time by Rolling Stone in 2004." Perhaps put this into a better tense. I would favour past tense, but at the very least "being selected" could be replaced with "were selected". Also, "received…receiving".
Initial career and success
  • "Shirley Owens Alston Reeves": I appreciate why her name is given like this, but why not "Shirley Owens (at that time Shirley Reeves)" or "Shirley Reeves (later Shirley Owens)" to make it easier to follow?
  • I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of them avoiding Greenberg without a little more explanation. Did they not want to join a record label, or did they want to sign for someone else. It just needs a bit more here.
  • Also (and just a personal thing), I really don't like lines like "The song combined doo-wop with pop melodies" in music articles; for the general reader, "pop melodies" is meaningless and I never like the use of "combined" like this. At the very least (and I still am not too struck) I think "The song was influenced by [the] doo-wop [genre?] but included [more populist?] pop melodies". But feel free to ignore this one.
  • "Flopped" does not sound completely encyclopaedic, but I think more precision would be better. Failed to chart? Reached only number 99?
  • "the low rating has been attributed to poor distribution": Who attributes it.?
  • "Greenberg made an agreement with songwriter Luther Dixon": Presumably to write for them? It needs to say so as the sentence is left hanging.
  • "booked to perform with several major artists" It would be nice to say who, where and when.
  • "it went on to become either the first Billboard Number One Hit by an African-American girl band[11] or the first Number One Hit by any girl band.": Why is there an either-or? Surely it either was or wasn't and if there is debate, the debate should be explained and spelt out.
  • "In 1963 Dixon left Scepter, which preceded a decrease in The Shirelles' charting ability...": In other words, they had less chart success? I think keep this simple.
  • "They did not, however, give up": Tabloidese? Maybe "However, they carried on performing/recording".
  • "and has been theorized as having been a blow to their creativity": Theorized by who? And to be honest, it sounds a bit wishy-washy anyway.
  • "In a 1981 interview with Bruce Pollock, Owens said that Greenberg has put on a "mother routine", which she and her bandmates had "fall[en] for ... completely"." Don't quite get this; what is she saying? Was Greenberg responsible for the non-existent trust, did the group blame her? This sentence needs to link to the previous stuff a little better.
Later career
  • Could we say when the contract expired with Scepter?
Style
  • "has been described": By who?
  • All the quotes in this section need in text attribution (i.e. XXX said that "blah blah blah")
  • "The other members, on background...": Maybe "as backing singers"?
  • "with numerous instances of syncopation.": I'm no music expert, but this sentence implies that syncopation is an exclusive feature of Brazilian baião, which is not the case.
  • "in their acceptance by Whites": Not sure about capitalisation here, and it sounds uncomfortable. What about "across racial demographics"? And again, there was other music that crossed the "divide" before this, I believe.
  • "and strings sounding White": Again not sure about either "white" or "White" here, and how on earth can strings sound white?
  • "She noted that "the people who love[d them] and [they] loved [were] right [there]."" The parentheses make this uncomfortable reading; why not just quote it as it was said?
Stage musical


Reply
  • I've done most of it. The source does not state which artists, although I remember seeing a biography of one of their chaperones that may have the information. The sources say different things, but its not really a debate. Both sources seem equally reliable, so I'm not comfortable choosing one. I'd appreciate a bit of feedback regarding the changes thus far. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally looks OK. "after several months of avoiding her" sounds a little clumsy and "sounding like something from white-people's music" sounds a little odd. For the latter, I might suggest something like "and string section influenced by music popular among [white audiences may sound better here than "white people"]." And "and insisted they only sang for fun" I assume refers to the group, so it may be better to say "as they only wanted to sing for fun" or "they did not want to sing professionally/seriously". My only other suggestion is to watch out for close repetition of "group" or "girls". Nothing specific, but I think these may be (perhaps unavoidably) over-used. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Certainly a very good shout for GA as it stands. My only remaining quibble (not a GA issue at all) is the first sentence which was changed to "The Shirelles were an African-American girl group that achieved popularity in the early 1960s, consisting of schoolmates Shirley Owens, Doris Coley, Addie "Micki" Harris, and Beverly Lee." Now, the "consisting of" clause could refer to "the early 1960s". It obviously doesn't, but this is the sort of thing that gets picked up at FAC. The only problem with switching it around is that you end up with comma overload because of the list of names. A possible solution would be to return it to two sentences. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ghmyrtle

[edit]

As an outsider with no particular experience of WP:GA criteria, my main comment is that I don't like the style of the opening paragraph. It's too long, and goes into too much obscure detail. It doesn't present a very clear overview of the group's career and influence - it picks out certain points and, in my view, gives them undue prominence. If I were writing it, I'd have a short introductory paragraph something along the lines of:

The Shirelles were an African-American girl group that achieved popularity in the early 1960s. They were the first such group to top the Billboard Hot 100, with the song [not "their" song, in the sense that they didn't write it] "Will You Love Me Tomorrow." The original group [not "band" - they didn't play any instruments] consisted of schoolmates Shirley Owens, Doris Coley, Addie "Micki" Harris, and Beverly Lee.

The second paragraph would then summarise the key points of their career, but not go into unnecessary detail. The sentence, "The Shirelles were unable to maintain their previous popularity due to the numerous successful girl bands following their lead and ongoing British Invasion" seems to me particularly redundant - words like "due to" are often a sign of WP:OR and the wording in the Allmusic bio doesn't use that terminology. For example:

"Formed in 1957 for a high school talent show, they were signed by Florence Greenberg of Tiara Records and their first single was released the following year. After a brief and unsuccessful period with Decca, they went with Greenberg to her newly-formed company Scepter Records where, working with Luther Dixon, the group had their first hit with "Tonight's the Night". In all, the group had seven top twenty hits in the US between 1960 and 1963. Their popularity diminished after the British Invasion, although The Beatles were among those to cover their songs.

This shouldn't be taken in any way as criticism of all the excellent work done on this article - just a commentary on the style of the opening section which, in my opinion, doesn't really succeed in meeting WP:LEAD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I'd expect "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" to be in the lead as it was their first number 1 (and the first number one by a [African-American?] girl group), so it is important enough. I like your suggestion to change band to group, so I will implement that. Regarding the influence of the other girl groups, Wadhams et al. write "...competition from hundreds of girl groups following The Shirelles' lead simply overwhelmed them..." (page 62), so I don't think it should be left out willy-nilly. Perhaps the "Last Minute Miracle" bit could be cut? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that their original name, and the reason they left Scepter, are too detailed for the lead - but the lead should state that they had several major US hits (I'd suggest seven top 20, or 25 Hot 100). My objection re the declining popularity is mainly to the words "due to" - that idea of causation isn't really supported by the sources. If they'd changed their style or had better material they may have stayed popular. The Supremes, for example, didn't have a decline of popularity "due to" the "British Invasion" (a wholly US-centric term that I often object to, by the way!) - it was changing tastes that were the factor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked it into my preferred style, which you can either agree or disagree with! I don't think the bit about avoiding Greenberg is necessary to the lead - it's basically anecdotal trivia - and I think describing Motown as a "powerhouse" is unencyclopedic and WP:PEACOCK. I'm uncertain about the term "Hot 20" - as a Brit it's not a term I know or use, as we would use "Top 20" or "Hot 100" (for the Billboard chart), but there seem to be a lot of Google hits for it. My view on the opening paragraphs is simply that the maximum amount of information should be conveyed in the opening two or three sentences, and the later paras of the lead should develop those - hence my suggestion to separate out the essential facts into a short first paragraph. In my opinion that style accords with WP:MOSBEGIN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm as much to blame as anyone, but the article should be consistent as to whether "The Shirelles" takes a singular or plural verb. "The Shirelles was a group...." or "The Shirelles were a group...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a another copy-edit. I prefer my earlier formatting of the lead, but this way is okay too. I have no problem with your rewording of the information in the lead. Regarding the singular/plural divide, it seems to all be plural. I have not seen anything like "The Shirelles has..." or "The Shirelles is..." in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Shirelles were...... It consisted of....." I know that they "were" a group, and the group "was...", but it seems slightly odd to me to move from plural to singular in that way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

I feel that the recent copy edits have improved the article to the point where it is now worth nominating for Good article status. Any remaining 'issues' that exercise unearths, can then be addressed. I think this is a logical step forward, and then any further 'tweaks' would leave the path clear towards potential FA. At present, the article does not seem to have any quality rating. This appears to be an easy omission to rectify, whichever way the nomination process deliberates.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I do not mean to suggest it had to be done yesterday. Patience is a virtue, as my granny used to say, dipping into another bowl of sherry trifle.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cityrail railway stations

[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 looking for further feedback on this list. My goal for this article is for it to become a featured list by the end of this year. I notice that there are a few images that are missing and hopefully me or someone who lives around those stations can get the time to take a few pictures. Apart from patronage which I can see that most other 'List of metro services' have, the information is not generally given to the public by Cityrail unfortunately. Other than that is there anything else that is missing for this list to become featured?

Thanks, YuMaNuMa (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a very impressive list, and with at least 95% of the stations represented photographically I can imagine the amount of work that has gone in to putting it together. A few suggestions and/or queries:-

  • Is it "Cityrail" per the article's title, or "CityRail" per the captions to the maps? Both forms occur in the lead text.
It is meant to be CityRail. Unfortunately when I first requested the article to be moved, I didn't take in account the specific capitialisation of each letter. In the process of another request to move the article and the lead has also been edited to reflect this. YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly concerned that the article's title doesn't give any indication as to the location of this railway system. It may be that those familiar with worldwide rail networks will immediately recognise that "CityRail" means Sydney, Australia, but most of us have no idea. As there are similarly-named systems based in other cities and regions, maybe the title should be more geographically specific.
  • Whatever happens with the title, the first sentence of the lead should state clearly where this network is to be found. The words "centred on Sydney, Australia", or similar phrasing, should be inserted after "commuter-based network"
Unfortunately the network serves multiple areas with stations in areas hundreds of kilometres away from Sydney metro so it would be unfair to title the article "List of Sydney Railway Stations" as it initially did. I have however added the location in the first sentence of the lead as you said. :) YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, avoid the close repetition of "network" in the first sentence.  Done
  • Why have you downsized the lead maps to 150px? This has the effect of making them look small and insignificant. I also don't think it is necessary to include the instruction "click to enlarge", as this is a generally known procedure for all thumbnail images.
It looked a bit messy and cramped up the table but you do have a point about it looking insignificant. I have up'd to the 250px.YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Lines" column of the table, individual lines are accompanied by unexplained coloured dots. What do these signify? Some kind of key is necessary.
The colour dots are the line's respective colour scheme. The name of the line is respectively next to each dot. I don't know if a key would still be appropriate. YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that most of the mileages in the lower part of the table are cited to sources, hough none of those in the upper part of the table are. Is there a reason?
I have added reference in the column header. YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the publisher of the Rolfe Bozier websites?
  • Be consistent in formats of access dates ("retrieved" versus "Accessed")  Done
  • I am unsure how the two external links actually assist this article.
I have removed 1 external link but the other has each station listed with facilities that are available on each station. YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The toolbox identifies a single dead link. I can't spot where this is in the article, but it should be investigated.


That's about it. As I have said, a pretty impressive piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time in reviewing this article. :D YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA and I'd like to hear some feedback.

Thank you, Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • See here for a list of potentially problematic links
  • WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms like United States, and don't link the same terms multiple times
  • Avoid vague time statements like "in recent years" where possible
  • Spell out numbers under 10
  • Check punctuation throughout, particularly hyphens/dashes
  • Prose in general is a bit dense and inaccessible to non-specialist readers
  • When a measurement is being used as an adjective, be sure to employ the adjective parameter of the convert template
  • Spell out "%" in article text
  • Don't use contractions outside of direct quotes
  • What is "water intrusion"? "sense of arrival"? Check for potentially unfamiliar terms and phrases
  • Don't italicize organizations, languages, etc
  • Be consistent in whether you use hyphens, dashes or slashes when notating an academic or fiscal year
  • Citation(s) for Pep Band section, Rose Parade section?
  • Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text
  • No citations to Powell 1956. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments Nikkimaria, I'll work on them ASAP. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  15:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folie à Deux (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has never been assessed and since it is as well developed as it is without assessment I would like to see how it can be developed further. Thanks, Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be placed in the article. AJona1992 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English meaning of Folie a Deux is in the article; it's in the lead and has an entire section in the body. I have no idea what lang-en is so ignore what I said if I'm going on about something different. Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't there.  Fixed it Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It actually was in the article's introduction but it belongs at the top anyway, proved with edit. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All album/song articles not in English are asked to for translation. Secondly, does it state so in the article? If not, then it shouldn't be in the lead section per WP:LEAD. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section 3 is titled "title and artwork" the first paragraph is about the naming of the album with an english translation. Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on albums that seem like they would be good models.
  • Two dab links that will need to be fixed here
  • Three dead external links here - at FAC all the i's need to be dotted and all the t's crossed.
  • For most articles at FAC the most difficult criterion to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. This is decent, but there is some rough prose.
    • In the lead Wentz's lyrics were rarely autobiographical for the first time on a Fall Out Boy release, leading to a musical style change and resulting in a further musical departure from the band's previous albums. not sure how to fix this one...
    • collaborators? Aren't they usally called guest artists? And "in various tracks" adds little: For Folie à Deux, Fall Out Boy recruited several collaborators to participate in various tracks. Perhaps something like just For Folie à Deux, Fall Out Boy recruited several guest artists.
    • The conjunction "and" seems odd here - would "but" be better to show the contrast? it debuted well, but was not as successful as its predecessor? The album debuted at number eight on the US Billboard 200 chart and was less commercially successful than Infinity on High.
  • Provide context to the reader - Folie à Deux stands as the final Fall Out Boy studio album recorded before the band's [2009] hiatus. could use the year the hiatus began
  • I would somehow identify who Patrick is here Wentz explained that the process was the same as usual: "I'll go over to Patrick's house ...
  • At the same time, MOS says to use just the last name once a person has been introduced with their full name, so fix Pete Wentz was once again the primary lyricist of the band during the production of the album.
  • Avoid vague time terms like currently Wentz currently owns the original painting.[19] I would use As of YEAR... instead.

Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragaphs and sections as the interrupt the narrative flow.

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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U2 concert in Sarajevo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone,

It's been over a year since this article was last at Peer Review. Good progress has been made ever since then, and we're interested in taking this article to FAC shortly. But first we would like some feedback on the current state of the article. As ever prose is something to be looked at, but we'd love any and all feedback that you have. Thanks, Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see a PR was started for this article. I was about to suggest it be done myself. I've made some minor contributions to this article, and feel that there's a few minor things that should be taken care of:
  • Citations after "Protest and Sikter" – I don't think that four citations are needed to show that these groups were the opening acts
  • Non-free ticket image – Not really an issue, but I nominated this for FfD because I don't think it really satisfies WP:NFC#8.
  • First performance of "Miss Sarajevo" – This should be noted that the first performance wasn't by all of U2, but rather Bono, Edge, Eno, and Pavarotti (as Passengers). This would mean that the Sarajevo performance was the first for Adam and Larry (and all of U2).
  • Kosevo Stadium image – A better caption would be better than simply "Kosevo Stadium".

–Dream out loud (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After a successful GAN review, I now plan to place it at FAC. I am not sure what else to do for the article so I would appreciate any comments that will help improve the page. GamerPro64 00:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lead
The plot description in paragraph 2 makes it sound like the game was completed, but then the third paragraph undermines that by noting a final was never released. Does the beta go through the entire game? If not, the plot description shouldn't be made with the authortive prose that one could complete the game. If so, the 3rd paragraph should note that one or both releases can still beat the game.
Characters
Should also link to List of Chrono Trigger characters like the previous section.
You should also link to indivisual names.
Development
around "98% complete" - that seems like its part of a larger quote. If so, it would be better to extend the quote a bit and get all the relevant info or remove the quotation marks. The way its structured there only raises a red-flag that things might not be paraphrased enough.
Reaction
Wired.com -> Wired (do not use the .com for this site as its just an extension of their magazine)
Why single out a specific province, Quebec, and not particular provinces elsewhere? That seems like a kind of bias.
Finally, that last section should probably be moved right below development. It's similar to a "release" section in most of games.陣内Jinnai 22:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain Dreamtime is linked to the correct wikilink for what they are describing?∞陣内Jinnai 00:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A thought, but you may want to talk with the team and see if they'll release their artwork of the original characters such as King Zeal, Kashmir and others under CC so you can get more images.∞陣内Jinnai 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse panbronchiolitis

[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 feel it has the potential to become a featured article.

Thanks, Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Hi Rcej, I'll give this a going-over for prose and MOS-compliance. I won't be much help on content accuracy, you might want to recruit someone from WP:MED to review specifically for that. Will take me a few days. Sasata (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thx ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st pass through comments - I read up the end of "Pathophysiology", and the refs. More later. Sasata (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DPB)[1] is" what are you citing here? If it's the abbreviation, it's unnecessary
  •  Done
  • inflammatory lung disease" - the MOS says to avoid consecutive wikilinks like this, and I think most readers will already be familiar with lung and disease. Perhaps link lung disease?
  •  Done
  • "The term "diffuse" refers" the use of quotes and italics is redundant
  •  Done
  • "to the lesions which appear" which -> that
  •  Done
  • bronchioles is linked twice in the lead paragraph
  •  Done
  • is there a good link for nodule?
  •  Done
  • link incidence
  •  Done
  • "Obstructive respiratory functional impairment, synonymous with emphysema; wheezing, reminiscent of bronchial asthma; and coughing with sputum production that resembles chronic bronchitis can all be found with DPB." I'm not found of the awkward construction of this sentence-it sets up a list before it tells the reader that a list is coming.
  •  Done Ce'd.
  • "describes disease-inspired inflammation" inspired is an interesting choice of word here (I see it used later too)
  •  Done Axed.
  • "life threatening" needs a hyphen
  •  Done
  • "The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) is a large genomic region found in most vertebrates that is associated with mating and the immune system." Associated with mating? How so?
  •  Done Removed cupid ;)
  • second paragraph of "Cause" needs a citation
  •  Done
  • "putative" - rather than link to wikt, how about just substituting a more common word?
  •  Done
  • I think "on the chromosome" is more grammatical than "at the chromosome"
  •  Done
  • neutrophil granulocytes should be linked earlier than they are now
  •  Done
  • link allele
  •  Done
  • make sure there's a non-breaking space in the short form binomials to avoid ugly line breaks
  •  Done
  • I think some of the two-sentence paragraphs could be combined with others
  •  Done
  • "inflammation is leukotriene B4 (LB4)" there's no need to define an abbreviation if it isn't used later
  •  Done
  • "frequency of Adult T-cell leukaemia" is adult supposed to be capitalized?
  •  Done
  • jumping to the refs:
  • ensure that the journal names are consistently abbreviated, or not. Personally, I think full journal titles are good for an encyclopedia, where average readers might not know what "Am J Respir Crit Care Med" means, but it's your call.
  •  Done
  • be consistent on whether the journal dates are given as (month year) or just (year)
  •  Done Added month when it was given.
  • make sure the journal titles consistently capitalized in title case (eg. see "Canadian respiratory journal : journal of the Canadian Thoracic Society")
  •  Done
  • need consistency with author presentation (eg. "Chen Y, Kang J, Li S" vs. "Ryu, J. H.; Myers, J. L.; Swensen, S. J.")
  •  Done
  • there must be a better way to format the several OMIM citations… I think we need to see the title, author, publisher, date last updated, and accessdate
  •  Done These of course are multi-sourced webpages, so the creators of the page aren't specifically journal contributors. I stuck with title/OMIM number/accessdate.
  • dab to sinus needs fixing
  •  Done
  • Congratulations, you're no longer a newbie! The refs are looking spiffy. I read through the rest of the article a few days ago, and made a few corrections myself, but it looks to be broadly compliant with the MoS. I'll read through it again with a finer-toothed comb in the next couple of days and see if can find some more prose nitpicks. You might consider placing a request at WP:MED to see if anyone from there could take a look at content; FAC tends to be very tough on med-related articles (for good reason) and I've seen them quickly go down in flames, so the more eyes you can get on this beforehand, the better. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Sasata (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • have you given thought to removing the citations from the lead? Everything there is cited later, right?
  •  Done
  • caption "A detailed diagram of the human respiratory system" - "detailed" is subjective; I'm sure to an expert it's a highly simplified diagram
  •  Done
  • dab incidence
  •  Done
  • "It was initially considered to be a distinct new disease in the early 1960s, and was formally named "diffuse panbronchiolitis" in 1969." This information does not appear later in the article, but it should (is there enough info to warrant a "History" section?) I think a citation to the first paper to use the term would be appropriate (not in the lead, in a history section)
  •  Done History section, but not a lot of meat on that bone for history..
  • "Prevalence in Japanese and Koreans was first described in 1983 and 1992, respectively.)" Not sure that this tidbit belongs in the lead…
  •  Done Axed.
  • "production of mucus).[5][2][8][9]" a minor detail, but the citations should be in numerical order (check throughout for other instances). While we're here, have a look at the FAC talk page for some reviewer opinions about citations in the lead, and the use of multiple citations. Sasata (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last bit of the "Classification" section sounds like a differential diagnosis
  •  Done Split out.
  • watch out for overlinking: things like oxygen, blood, tissues, bacteria, viruses, kidneys, look like low-value bluelinks; for example, "… via chemotaxis (the attraction of …" note that the piped link to attraction redirects back to chemotaxis! I'd suggest reviewing the links carefully throughout, and removing those that say a grade 12 student would probably know about.
  •  Done
  • "…dilation (enlargement) of the bronchiolar passages." dilation has already been glossed in the previous section
  •  Done
  • "antigen presenting" needs hyphen
  •  Done
  • "which the amino acids alanine and glycine are present, respectively, at positions 665 (ALN665) and 687 (GLN687)" the three-letter codes for alanine and glycine are ala and gly, respectively; please check the source to see if something is mixed up here
  •  Done My bad ;)
  • "This also strongly supports the idea that genes directly involved in HLA contribute to causing DPB." Be very careful about emphatic wording ("strongly suggests") that is sourced to primary research (they'll rip ya to shreds at FAC for stuff like this)… does one of the reviews corroborate this conclusion? Would "stongly suggest" checking throughout the article for similar instances where primary research is cited.
  •  Done Removed.
  • "In some cases of DPB, bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa inspire the proliferation" there's that word "inspire" again ;)
  •  Done
  • "is the leukotrienes." is -> are
  •  Done
  • "…from essential fatty acids, that play a role" that->which (which typically follows a comma)
  •  Done
  • "Elevated levels of IgG and IgA (classes of immunoglobulins) may be indicated" indicated has a specific meaning in medicine (see the example in WP:MEDMOS), and I think its use here is potentially confusing
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • "period lasting longer than 2 or 3 years" spell out #'s less than 10, says MoS
  •  Done
  • link oxygen therapy
  •  Done
  • "DPB now has a much longer life expectancy" individuals with DPB have a much longer…
  •  Done
  • "Rarer cases of DPB, being those in individuals" noun +ing (next sentence too)
  •  Done
  • "Long-term treatment in DPB reportedly denotes that an individual with the disease has been or will be treated…" I'm not sure if you're subtly implying something with the phrase "reportedly denotes" ?
  •  Done
  • "Allowing a temporary break from erythromycin therapy in these instances has been suggested to reduce the possibility" somewhat awkward construction with passive voice
  •  Done

Just noting that my concern from two years ago that modern sources do not treat COPD as a generic designation (as is quite clear by the COPD article itself). It would appear the generic which is used on en: is Obstructive lung disease. Circéus (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done COPD
I'd say that opening the "Classification" section with "DPB is similar to many chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.", though an improvement, displays the exact same issue of misrepresentation of COPD I raised originally. Circéus (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to redo this section :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, its going to take a bit longer to straighten out than I thought! A bit overwhelmed by my large number of sources...what was I thinking? ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 02:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of 7 sources that were unnecessary, and reduced/reallocated citations throughout the article. We are finished with round two! Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out Ucucha's new script (see here) that identifies duplicate links; there's a few left in the article. I'll make a final read-through in the next few days, but I think my work here is mostly done! Sasata (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Coke

[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 shove it up at FAC, and would like a decent screen and copyedit beforehand. Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Coke's Reports redirects to this article
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Source links for File:Court_of_King's_Bench.JPG are dead
  • File:Richard_Bancroft_from_NPG.jpg: it was donated before 1939, but was it displayed at that time? Same with File:John_Selden_from_NPG_cleaned.jpg
    As works owned by the United Kingdom's national gallery, I would imagine so.
    In any case, precisely why does it matter? With the age of the figures depicted, and the fact that both are (presumably) life portraits, the works would be out of copyright by a couple of centuries by 1939.
  • "William Coke in the hundred of South Greenhoe" - what's the meaning of "hundred" in this context?
    Hundred (county subdivision); fixed.
  • Why is Dr. Bonham's Case italicized but Lord Cromwell's Case is not?
    Fixed.
  • Is any more information available about Dacre's challenge?
    None that I'm aware of.
  • Don't repeat wikilinks, especially not in close proximity - for example, you link Statute of Uses twice in three paragraphs
    Fixed; let me know if you find any others.
  • Solicitor-General or Solicitor General? Attorney-General or Attorney General? statute of Monopolies or Statute of Monopolies? Magna Carta or Magna Carta? Check for internal consistency throughout
    Fixed
  • "600,000 marks" - I'm assuming this is currency? If so, is there either a more specific name or a page to link the term to?
    Fixed.
  • "ex officio oath that deliberately trapped people" - in what way?
    If they told the court what the court wanted to hear, they were guilty. If they told the court they were innocent, they were lying, and therefore breaking the oath, and therefore guilty.
  • "based on their internal thoughts" - as opposed to external? Suggest "private thoughts and beliefs" or otherwise rephrasing
    Fixed.
  • "From Bacon's point of view, the King's Bench was a far more precarious position for someone loyal to the common law rather than the monarch.[120] His first case of note..." - "his" here seems to refer to Bacon
    Fixed.
  • "This was followed by a wave of protest occurred at the expansion of the system" - check grammar/meaning
    Fixed.
  • What is "lieved"?
    No idea, but it doesn't appear in the article text.
  • Was any explanation given for the search and seizure of Coke's manuscripts?
    Nope, but given that he'd spent the last couple of decades getting on the royal tits it's fairly clear.
  • "On 13 August 1582 Coke married Bridget Paston, daughter of John Paston, a Counsellor from Norwich.[165] Paxton came from a long line of lawyers and judges – William's great grandfather, another William Paston" - confused. Who is the first William? Are Paxton and Paston the same person? If so, is it Bridget or John?
    Fixed.
  • "who his daughter declared was..." - do we know which daughter?
    not to my knowledge.
  • "The fifth part, published in 1605, is arranged similarly, while the sixth (1607) is the first to include post-1605 cases" - seeing as the sixth was the first to be published after 1605, it seems only logical for it to be the first to include post-1605 cases. Am I missing something?
    Fixed.
  • "Coke had no truck for such concepts" - what does this mean? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at as I would at FAC.
  • Lead:
    • Shouldn't bold "Sir", it's not his name.
    • I detest the habit of putting in incomprehensible abbreviations after the name in the lead sentence... what the heck does SL and PC mean? Yes, it's linked, but it's not obvious and you lose the reader when you do it.
    • Jargon alert: "before earning enough political favour to be returned to Parliament" ... elected or selected? Non-Brit's aren't going to understand the "returned to" bit
    • "...he led the prosecution in several notable cases, including Robert Devereux, Sir Walter Raleigh and the Gunpowder Plot conspirators."... wouldn't it be "he led the prosecution in several notable cases, including those against Robert Devereux, Sir Walter Raleigh and the Gunpowder Plot conspirators."?
    • "During his time as an MP he wrote and campaigned..." MP isn't explained
    • "to grant patents" .. need explanation of "patents"
    • You've linked "Dr Bonham's Case" twice in the lead .. once in the 2nd paragraph and once in the 3rd.
    • Need to explain briefly what the Third/Fourth/Sixteenth amendments to the US Constitituon are. Also probably do NOT need to link United States in the last sentence.
  • Family background:
    • "can be traced back approximately 400 years before Edward Coke's birth, to a William Coke in the hundred of South Greenhoe, now Swaffham." Suggest since we haven't really introduced Edward's birth year yet, that we state "back to 1150" or whatever. Also, is it clear and provable that these guys were Edward's ancestors?
    • "barrister" is double linked ... once in the first paragraph, once in the second.
    • "Bencher of Lincoln's Inn who" Bencher??? Jargon.
    • Shouldn't it be "Winifred Knightley" without her married name added?
    • "A property trafficker, Bozoun was noted for his piety and strong business acumen..." no clue what "property trafficker" is...
    • "with the eventual goal being that by sixth-form level the students have learnt" sixth-form? No clue what that is either.
  • Education:
    • ARGH! Another link to Dr Bonham's Case!
    • And another "barrister" link also!
    • And double linking "Inner Temple" - last sentence in third paragraph and second sentence in fourth paragraph...
    • And double linking "called to the Bar" - second paragraph and fourth
  • Practice:
    • Really.. .ANOTHER link to barrister in the first paragraph??? I think we've got it...
    • You've already linked Earl Arundel and Thomas Gawdy earlier, really don't need to link them here too.
    • You mention the "Howards" without explicitly linking them to the Dukes of Norfolk...
  • Attorney General:
    • I think we're missing some essential background to the politics of the reign here ... I'm quite at a loss as to why Coke is being berrated by the Queen and why Bacon is opposed to him and why he was supported by the Cecils but opposed by the Devereux's...
    • Double linking - Church of England - last paragraph of Solicitor and second paragraph of Attorney General
    • "Devereux was found guilty and executed; the Earl of Southampton reprieved." I think it's a bit TOO short here... suggest "Devereux was found guilty and executed; the Earl of Southampton was reprieved."
  • James:
    • "...and the Cokes immediately began ingratiating themselves with the new royals. Elizabeth Hatton, Coke's wife, travelled to Scotland itself..." First, when did he marry??? And second, "Scotland itself"? suggest removing "itself" as it's merely fluff.
    • "...according to one of Coke's biographers..." who?
    • Probably need to explain who Arabella Stuart is...
  • Court:
    • Who said "could hardly fail to produce an atmosphere in which principles and issues would crystallize, in which logic would supplant reasonableness"?
    • I think the sentence starting "The High Commission tried people for heresy, based on their private .." probably belongs after the sentence starting "His first target was the Court of High Commission, an ecclesiastical court established by the monarch with near unlimited power..."
    • Don't we have a link for "non-conformity"? I'm afraid that some readers may think non-conformity to say fashion or something else...
    • link for "writs of prohibition"?
    • "On 6 November 1608, the common law judges and members of the High Commission were summoned before the King and told that they would argue and allow him to decide.[101] Unable to even argue properly, instead "[standing] sullen, merely denying each others' statements", the group were dismissed and reconvened a week later." this makes no sense to me, they were told they would argue and then they weren't allowed to? Why weren't they allowed to?? And who is the source of the quotation?
    • This last paragraph is entirely too much quotation and needs some sort of secondary sourcing rather than the long strings of quotes.
  • Dr Bonham's Case:
    • The second sentence of the last paragraph is very long and convoluted and I got lost somewhere in it and couldn't figure out why I got lost but I still got lost and it should probably be broken down into two or three parts instead. (grins).
    • "Academics have argued that Coke's work in ..." which academics? The next phrase implies only ONE academic argues this...
  • King's Bench:
    • "...presumably because Bacon and the king..." you've consistently used "King" before this.
    • "which James I used in this case to allow Richard Neile to maintain his bishopric and associated revenues without actually performing the duties"... Maintain? I think you mean "which James I used in this case to allow Richard Neile to hold his bishopric"... And why are we using "james I" here? There is no real need to, since the next royal James isn't close in time frame...
    • "This was greeted by "deep resentment" in the country" why the quote for "deep resentment"? Who thought that?
    • Likewise "and set up a commission to "purge" the Reports" Why is purge in quotes?
    • And same for "some "colorable excuses" were produced" and "uttering "high words of contempt" as a judge"?
  • Return to politics:
    • "... who "expected support from Privy Councillor Coke and had no inkling of the trouble he was bringing on his own head"." who is the source of this quote? At first, I thought it was the king, but surely not...
  • Monopolies:
    • "To boost England's economy, Edward II began encouraging foreign workmen and inventors to settle in England, offering "letters of protection" that protected them from guild policy on the condition that they train English apprentices and pass on their knowledge. The first recorded letter of protection was given in 1331." Okay, if Edward II did them first, the date is wrong, or if the date is right, we have the wrong king - Edward II was deposed in 1327 (and most likely died later that year).
    • "offering "letters of protection" that protected" why is letters of protection in quotes?
    • "The letters did not grant a full monopoly; rather they acted as an extended passport, allowing foreign workers to travel to England and practice their trade." PASSPORT?? I hardly think that any passports were issued during Edward II or III's reign...
    • "because of the potential for raising revenue; A patentee was" why is A in capitals?
    • Why is "These "odious monopolies" led" in quotes?
    • Who said "which were "now grown like hydras' heads; they grow up as fast as they are cut off"."?
    • "This was followed by a wave of protest at the expansion of the system." Expansion of what system? The last system mentioned is the system of removing monopolies ...
    • "and he would "give Life to it, without alteration", but by" why is that phrase in quotes?
  • Liberty:
    • "The common law judges declared this to be illegal..." who are the common law judges?
  • Petition:
    • "churchbells" shouldn't that be two words?
  • Retirement:
    • "When Parliament was dissolved in 1629, Charles took the decision to govern without one..." "took the decision"??? Odd phrasing.
    • "As he was on his deathbed the Privy Council ordered for his house and chambers to be searched..." "ordered for his house" odd phrasing.
  • Personal life:
    • Was Bridget an only child?
    • "Paston was noted as an "incomparable" woman who had "inestimable value clearly manifested by the eulogies which are lavished on her character"." who stated this?
    • "descrbed as "enchanting, with a legend for every turret... A splendid gallery ran the length of the house, the Great Hall was built around six massive oaks which supported the roof as they grew"" who states this?
    • ""at the wrong time"," why is this in quotes?
    • Likewise "abject submission"?
  • Reports:
    • Why is "in the traditional manner" in quotes?
    • Likewise "such as could be found"?
  • INstitutes:
    • Why is "ostensibly" in quotes?
    • Who said "It was a double vision; the Institutes as authority, the Reports as illustration by actual practise"?
    • "it was carried to the United States" .. awkward ... exported?
    • "where it was first printed domestically in 1812" .. domestically is confusing here, suggest removing it.
  • Jurisprudence:
    • Who said "what amounted to an infinity of wisdom"?
    • Who said "a sort of anti-textbook, a work whose very form denied that legal knowledge could be organised. The original edition could not be used for reference purposes, as Coke had published it without an index...It is a book to be 'read in' and lived with, rather than consulted, a monument to the uselessness of merely written knowledge unless it is internalised in a trained professional mind"?
    • Why is "intellectual beauty" in quotes?
  • Character:
    • Why is "these things were side matters" in quotes?
    • Why is "purile insulting remarks" in quotes?
  • General:
    • One thing I'm noticing is the large number of unattributed quotations throughout the text. As a general rule, if you quote something, you need to state who said it in the text, not just relegate this to a footnote. Otherwise you risk the implication that it is Wikipedia itself that holds those views.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bronnitsy

[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, after a large expansion lasting several months involving me and NVO (emphasis on NVO), I've come ot the conclusion that maybe, possibly, I'll be able to attain at least a shade of the dream I had in late -09, which was to bring this to FA level. I now think that GA wouldn't be too far away from where the article currently stands. I'm fine with any article coming under review, but would like the part written by NVO (no offense) to be scrutinized extra, as to me it sounds a bit rusty in terms of Russian-English translation.

Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting and not too far from GA, but will need a fair amount of work before it would have a chance at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are about 60 FAs on cities at Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles which seems like it would offer many potentially useful models.
  • One of the FA criteria is comprehnsiveness and GA requires broad coverage of the topic. Looking at some of the model FAs, this article is missing anything on geology and climate, to name two topics usually found in articles on cities / towns.
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article and as such should at least mention all of the important points. I try to see that every header is mentioned in the lead in some way, but I do not see anyhting on sports and education.
  • In general, all metric units need to also have conversions to English units. This is done in a few places, but not in most. The {{convert}} template works well for this task.
  • Toolbox on this PR page finds several dead links that will need to be fixed before GAN or FAC
  • The porse is OK, but not great and does read in places like it was translated and needs to be polished a bit. I would make sure this has a copy edit before taking it to GAN. Ask at WP:GOCE or someone listed at WP:PR/V in the copyeditor section. I would fix the other issues first though.
  • One way to improve the prose would be to avoid almost all short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, as they impede the narrative flow of the article.
  • Another way to improve the prose would be to avoid bullet point lists / plain lists in most cases - for example in the lead there is just a string of population data and years with no real explanatory text. I doubt that level of historical detail is needed in the lead which is an overview / summary of the rest of the article, but narrative reads better than just lists.
  • There are places in the article that need references - for example the first and last paragraphs in Geography have no refs and need them. Much of Education and sprots also needs refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Make sure that enough information is given that someone could look up a ref and find the specifics cited here. This ref does not meet that standard: See for example entries in 19th century gazetteers: ... Need to be much more specific. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Headings need work - I doubt most people think the Modern age ended in 1897 ;-)
  • There is no history in that section post-1964 - nothing has happened of note in the past nearlt 50 years?? What about the fall of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union?
  • Since the rowing schools are mentioned a few times, could a photo of them or of rowers from the schools be obtained and uploaded here?
  • The mOS says to use numbers if over ten so 300 and 31,000 in By 2007 three hundred out of 31 thousand victims of political terror in Moscow Oblast were identified as residents of Bronnitsy.[47]
  • I just get the feeling reading this that I am not getting the whole story. For example we are told of the cathedral and then the Jerusalem church and the tower. Cathedrals (at least in the west) are the seat of a bishop, which is usually a person of some importance and power. There is one mention of an Archbishop, but it is not clear if he was in Bronnitsy or not (I doubt such a small town would be the see of an archbishop!). If this is a cathedral without a bishop, that needs to be explained too.
  • Captions could be better - for example the File:Bronnitsy Cathedral Square Mar 2010 06.jpg should identify the buildings shown - my guess is that the belltower is the red brick structure at left, the Jerusalem church may be the white building in the center, and cathedral is at right. The caption should make this clearer and giving years would help too.
  • Or the caption on File:Bronnitsy Sovetskaya 55 Mar 2010 01.jpg is just "Barns on the main street." My guess is that these are horse stables (which are not really barns), but who built them and when? Are they from the Tsarist time?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks. As I'm currently in the US, and my next trip is next year, I"m gonna have to wait on several of these points. But, I"ll get to work on the others. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

István Szabó

[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 on Wikipedia. I'm looking for general feedback/assessment. I've completely rewritten the article to add detail and depth, improve structure, improve style, increase the impartiality of the section on Szabó’s informant activities, add and improve references, add images, and reformat and expand the filmography. How would you rate it? What would it need to atttain Featured Article status? Thanks, Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks very creditable for a first article. I have not had time to look closely at the prose, but I have identified some issues that require attention if the article is to move towards Good Article standard. I would not advise you to think in Featured Article terms just yet (the FA criteria are very demanding), though this can clearly be a target for the future:-

  • The lead should be expanded into a summary of the whole article. Perhaps look at WP:LEAD for guidance
  • A much more extensive level of citation is required throughout the article. As a rough rule of thumb, every paragraph should have at least one citation, and every paragraph should end with a citation.
  • The list of "References" does not indicate how these most of these sources have been used in the preparation of the article. Many of them may be better described as "Further reading", if they have not been used specifically in the creation of the text. If they have they should be cited.
  • The style of your citations and references is somewhat rudimentary. You should study Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style for instruction on the proper ways in which these should be formatted
  • You should also familiarise yourself with the WP:Manual of Style. For example, n-dashes, not hyphens should be used in date or page ranges. Thus "1981–1988", not 1981-1988; "116–117" not 116-117, etc
  • Another MoS issue relates to the use of capitals in section titles, which except for proper names is limited to the first word. Thus "Hungarian films" not "Hungarian Films"; "International co-productions featuring Brandauer"; "1991–present", etc
  • Who is "Brandauer"? He is introduced into the text without explanation; I assume he is an actor, but he needs proper introduction and identification.
  • How does Image:Sunshine_1999_film_Adam_Sors.jpg‎ "illustrate the article's description of a Hungarian family experiencing anti-Semitism" (your fair use rationale)? In fact, where does this description occur in the article?
  • Likewise with File:Mephisto Brandauer Makeup.jpg, the fair use claim that this image "illustrates the article's discussion of the themes of theater, role playing, and identity" is not apparent in the article. How are you claiming that the image does this?

My advice is that you should attend to these issues initially. When you have done so I will be happy to look at the prose if you contact my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian! I appreciate your time, and will attend to your suggestions.Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond films

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a new, un-reviewed and un-assessed list; it is also an important list as it is the lead for the numerous Bond films. The aim is for this list to achieve Featured list status.

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 13:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List looks pretty good. Just a few points.
  • I think the "Main article" in "See also" section should just be another bullet point, preferably the first one in the list though, to indicate its importance. It's not really used in the summary style method that the template is usually used for.
  • For Casino Royale, "(parody)" doesn't need to be italicized. Also for that film, where it says "and others" as directors, perhaps say "and X others" like "and five others" or however many it is, so at least it'd provide some useful info without requiring to add all the names?
  • "Actual (Millions)" and "Adjusted (Millions)", "millions" should be lowercased I believe.
  • For the lead image, perhaps indicate how long the logo has been in use? Is that info easy to get? Has it been in use since the series' inception, and so, perhaps indicate that, either with years (19xx–present), etc.
  • I personally prefer placing commas after years, but I think it's optional. However, consistency is required. So if you got "in 1962, Broccoli" then I believe you need a comma after "In 1961".
That's about all I can catch for now. Just some minor, copyediting things that you need to look out for that will be caught at FLC. There might be more, and they would probably be similar to these ones, but I haven't seen them yet. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

  • The lead could perhaps be in chronological order (for instance, you jump from the overall series being the 2nd highest grossing to the spoof Casino Royale). The 2nd top grossing statement just seems odd where it is. But if you have a good reason for keeping lead as it, then by all means leave it :)
  • Ref 3: Judge McKeown. Do you have a first name?
  • Eon Productions series of films -> Series of films by Eon Productions? Or something similar (the current heading looks a bit awkward).
  • "...who plans to irradiate the gold supply of Fort Knox, making it worthless, increasing the value of his own supply." -> making it worthless and increasing the value of his own supply
  • Add TBA or TBD to Bond 23 synopsis?
  • The Guardian is italicized
  • Ref 8 confuses me. At the provided url, It says the article was taken from an issue of Goldeneye (Issue 3, vol. 1) but in the ref, you have Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
  • It's The New York Times
  • I would add publishers to all references, but that's just a personal opinion (Citing The Numbers and Box Office Mojo would look better with their publishers)
  • Ref 37: Use consistent date formatting
  • Add city for University of Wisconsin Press

That's all I got right now. As always, my comments are subjective (feel free to ignore them if you want!) Ruby comment! 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruby, Thanks for doing all this. I've followed all bar two of your suggestions:

  • Ref 37 is a template, so we can't alter the format. As you're not the first person to have mentioned this on articles I've worked on, I've left a note on the template page to see if there is an alternative way round it. Cracked that bit too, now!
  • Your point on the lead in chronological order is the other area I've shied away from. It can be done that way, but what we've done in other areas (on the James Bond in film page, or on the Films Template is to deal with the Eon films, then move onto the non-Eon films. It does mean that, for example, the gross sits in the middle of the paragraph, but as the "grossing series" applies only to Eon and not the others, there is a logic there! I've tweaked that particular sentence so that it reflects the circumstances.

Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think the long listing of James Bond's titles in the opening sentence is a bit too much detail for this list. To open up the first paragraph, maybe consider moving up the lines about how many films there have been and how much they've earned. The more specific detail can then cover it in the following two paragraphs.
  • In the first paragraph of the lead, David Niven is listed as an actor in the series. However, instead of listing him last, he should be included chronologically with his portrayal, leaving Daniel Craig as last in the list.
  • "The series has since compassed 22 films..." Consider a different word choice, I typed a portion of the phrasing in Google, and it got less than a dozen hits. Maybe "encompassed" if you want to stick with that wording?
  • "...sold to producer Gregory Ratoff, later passing on to Charles K. Feldman ." To help break up this sentence, consider stopping it at "Gregory Ratoff." and rewording the next sentence to "After Ratoff's death, the rights were passed on to Charles K. Feldman who subsequently produced the satirical Bond spoof Casino Royale in 1967."
  • In the second or third paragraph, are there any awards the franchise has received that could be mentioned? Don't need to list all of them, but a brief overview on par with the box office sentence would be helpful.
  • The table lists the box office and budget in millions, but need to indicate if that's in dollars or other currency). Also indicate if adjusted millions is supposed to be for 2011 dollars. Okay, just saw the notes at the bottom. I think it would be better off to list it in the table itself instead of sending readers to the bottom of the list to get those details that can be briefly covered in the table.
  • For consistency, keep the film descriptions to the same length. Some would then either need more/less detail.
  • Consider linking the first occurrence of "SPECTRE" and other topics related to the franchise (since some of the villains are linked). Be selective though, don't need too many links.
  • "...assassinate James Bond; Bond in turn uses her to get a Soviet decoding machine." "...assassinate Bond; he in turn..."
  • "...devastate the North American coastline." Which coastline?
  • "...meets his greatest enemy..." I'd consider rewording that, as I'm sure there's some difference in opinion with all of the various villains in the franchise.
  • "...Bond falls in love with and marries a crime lord's suicidal daughter." Mention that she dies so readers don't think he's married throughout the rest of the films in the franchise.
  • "...still have a connection ... and a plan." Reword.
  • "...responsible for the death of Vesper Lynd..." Mention her in the description of Casino Royale to tie the two films together.
  • Extend the "TBA" for the 23rd film over to the box office, budget, and RT score.
  • "Sir James Bond 007 comes out of retirement..." Don't need the full title after only using "Bond" in the other descriptions. Also, move the parody mention away from the film title and include it in the description.
  • The non-Eon films box office/budget numbers are formatted inconsistently in relation to the above table.
  • Reword the title of reference number 37. The index includes 2011, not just up to 2008.
  • Are there any relevant external links that can be included?

Good work so far, most of these should be quick fixes. Let me know if you need further clarification on any of these. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference one is the title of the page even to this date - and also, it's template-based... igordebraga ≠ 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says it in the top of the browser if you click through to it but the actual title on the page only says "Consumer Price Index (Estimate) 1800-". Does the template need to be updated then? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a request on the template talk page to alter it accordingly. I think these are all done now (a couple by me, largely by igordebraga), except the awards and additional external links: I'll add these in the next day or so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • For ref 3, you should state which language the source is in
  • Link publisher in ref 6
  • The refs seem to be inconsistent. Some cite only works, while others do the work and publisher
  • For ref 13, The Numbers should not be in italics as it is an online source
  • Personally, I think that all 6 directors should listed for the 67' parody

Overall, a good list. Crystal Clear x3 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for doing that. I've made the corrections as you suggested, with two exceptions:
  • Ref 3: Are you sure you mean ref 3? That one is in English, so the language doesn't need to be flagged.
  • Ref 13: The Numbers is italicised as it is the name of the work: Nash Information Services, LLC. is the un-italicised source.
Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaluru International Airport

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article has undergone major changes over time. Any more inputs into improvement are welcome, the ultimate aim, of course, is to get to GA/FA. Thanks, Lynch7 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm not sure if this comes under the Geography category, but I took a shot. Do let me know if it is to be listed somewhere else. Thanks! Lynch7 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Niagara

  • The section on the runway neglets to mention basic information about it (namely length, runway heading, etc.)
  • It may be worthwhile to merge the "Construction", "2009 proposed renaming", and "2010 airport expansion plans" sections into a general "History" section (with sub-sections as needed). Ideas for additional information to add to it include what was before the current airport (i.e. where did one fly into Bangalore before Bengaluru International).
  • "Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) enabled check-in counters: 54 and 20 self check in counters." — Sentence fragment, also explaining what CUTE-enabled is would be a good idea.
  • "...an Indian flight to Singapore left Bangalore International Airport," — A little confusing as there is no mention of other names of the airport in the lead.
  • The "Road" section does not mention access via NH-7.
  • Measurements like 2,000 cars, 600 passengers should have a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) between the number and the unit of measure.
  • "...the year 2011." — Is there need to always introduce a year by saying "the year"?
  • What public domain material is from the AFHRA?
  • Look at articles like Port Columbus International Airport and Chicago Midway International Airport to get an idea of what a GA airport article looks like.

If these comments were helpful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camberwell Cemeteries

[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 the work that has recently taken place has moved it from Start status and I would like a peer review to give pointers how it can eventually be moved towards GA status.

Thanks, Nshimbi (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments This article has potential but is not nearly ready for GAN. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • I would mention England in the first sentence.
  • The lead should be a brief summary of the whole article and should not include anything important that does not appear in the main text sections. WP:LEAD has more information about writing the lead.
  • Careful copyediting is always good for articles. The first sentence of the lead is a run-on. You need a full stop between "South London" and "both". Either a terminal period or a semicolon would be OK. About five lines from the end of the article, a line reads "and is notable for it's beautiful stained glass window". The "it's" should be "its". After you finish making changes and additions to the article, you might look for a copyeditor at WP:GOCE.
  • Extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sentences make an article choppy. I'd be inclined to expand shorties like "In July 1944 a V1 flying bomb landed in the cemetery. The blast caused damage to surrounding properties."
  • It's not desirable to include bylines like "- geograph.org.uk-839996" in the captions. This kind of information belongs on the image license page.
  • The Camberwell Cemetery Board controlled the old cemetery. The passive-voice sentences in the Camberwell New Cemetery section don't reveal who controls the new cemetery. I would suggest including that bit of information and converting some of the sentences to active voice.
  • I would not link common things like "20th century" or "meadow" that are already familiar to readers of English.
  • All of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date if all of those are known or can be found. I like to use Cite family of citation templates to help me organize my ref sections. WP:CIT has details. You don't have to use templates, but just looking at them will remind you of what to include and how to arrange it. If you use templates, don't mix the "Citation" family with the "Cite" family; pick one and stick with it. You can look at articles that are already GA or FA to see how other editors have handled the citations.
  • Citation 17 has dead URL.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jones AT&T Stadium

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've looked over the existing GA and FA articles but I'm still looking on how to expand this article. I've tried moving as much information out of the history section as possible, into new topic specific sections but I don't know just how much to keep/add in the history section and what new sections should be created. Also a few random questions:

  • Is the record attendance section appropriate for Wikipedia?
  • Can the seating capacity be incorporated into the article to reduce the 7 extraneous lines from the infobox?
  • As the only complete section of the article, how would the Coaches All-America Game section fare in a GA review?

Thanks, NThomas (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article and your interest in improving it. Peer review is ideally for well-developed articles, which this definitely is not. I can point out what needs to be improved, but asking if a section would pass GA is like asking if a headless torso might win a beauty pageant if the other parts were there - difficult to say. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree that a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Not sure if you have seen all 4 stadium FAs, which seem like they would be useful models: City of Manchester Stadium, Herschel Greer Stadium, Old Trafford, and Priestfield Stadium
  • There is one circular redirect in the article that needs to be fixed see here
  • Two dead external links found using the PR toolbox external link checker see here
  • Biggest problem I see is a lack of references. Many sections and paragraphs have no references at all - this would be a quick fail at GAN.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • If a paragraph has a ref, then sentences without a ref follow that ref, those sentences also need references
  • The references that are there are not always in the format expected or do not provide all the information required. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Also make sure that references used meet WP:RS and that, wherever possible, reliable third-party sources independent of Texas Tech are used too (newspapers, magazines, books)
  • The current lead is far too short - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way The article may need fewer sections / header too Please see WP:LEAD
  • It always helps to provide context to the reader. I would start History with some background - a few sentences on when Texas Tech was founded, when it began playing football, what the previous stadium(s) were like, and why they decided to build this one.
  • The orgnaization is a mess. Look at Modernization - paragraph years are 1999, 2000, 2009, 2003, 2006, 2006, 2008, 2008, 2009. Any reason not to follow chronological order? Also this hides the fact that the 2009 expansion by 6,100 is described twice (3rd and last paragraphs). Unless there are good reasons not to, follow chronological order, and always avoid needless repetition.
  • Irealize it is easier to find recent sources, but there is a real WP:Weight issue here - three sentences on expansion of seating capacity from 27,000 to 48,000 (and by the way the infobox contradicts this and says the seating capacity was 47,000 in 1972 - which is it). Then nine paragraphs on expansion in the last decade or so that added 12,000 seats.
  • I would put the Usage material into history, as it seems like it would fit better there. Even in the two best developed sections (in Usage) the chronology is all tangled up, which is needlessly confusing.
  • I would also move the playing field material to history (grass, atroturf, more modern stuff)
  • It might help to have a brief description and statistics for the 2011 stadium early on in the article (seating capacity, scoreboard, field) and then go into detail in History on how it got there. Anything that needs it own section can have it later (the scoreboard).
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • More pictures please, especially of the inside of the stadium
  • 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 ><>°° 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to three questions above:

  1. Record attendance - look at FA model articles and see how they treat attendance records. I think the top record is fine - am not so sure about the top 10.
  2. I would only have the current seating capacity in the infobox. The infobox is a summary of the article and everything in it should be in the article too - this data (seating capacity over time) could be a little table, or a paragraph in the article.
  3. Chronlogy in Coaches All America Game is still confusing - I think I would say something like the game, which had started at X Field in Buffalo (years), and moved to Y Stadium in Atlanta (years), came to Jones Field in Lubbock in YEAR when attendance became an issue in Atlanta. Then talk about the Jones years.
  • One more point - it has only been AT&T Jones Satdium since 2008. Do not call it that when the article is talking about past events before 2008. The Coaches All America Game was played in Jones Stadium (NOT AT&T Jones Stadium).

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS This makes no sense to me - which set of stats is correct?? The Red Raiders have a posted a 330-156-13 (.673) record at Jones AT&T Stadium record through the 2010 season.[5] Through the 2010 season, in Jones AT&T Stadium, the Red Raiders have posted a record of 181–74.[5] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Prince

[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 reviewer has advised that I seek input from other editors before nominating it for GA. Any comments or suggestions of how to improve the page is welcome and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Lionratz (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments This sounds like a likeable film. You have the basics here, but the article has many small prose problems that would prevent its promotion to GA. I make quite a few specific suggestions below, but I ran out of time at the end of the "Release" section. A quick glance at the remaining material assures me that similar errors appear in the last sections. Unnecessary use of passive voice and a tendency to repeat the same word several times in a short span are two of the recurring prose problems. You might try fixing as many as you can by yourself and then enlisting the aid of a copyeditor. I think you can find one at WP:GOCE.

  • You may have trouble convincing reviewers that two fair-use images are necessary for a reader to understand the subject.

Lead

  • "Actress Marino Kuwashima, also making her debut appearance, will play the role of Sayo, the best friend of Sota." - "Plays" instead of "will play"?
  • "The film received mixed reviews from film critics, and grossed $845,375 from its screenings in Japan and Singapore." - This suggests that the income resulted from the mixed reviews, and it repeats the word "film". Would this be better: "The film, which grossed $845,375 from its screenings in Japan and Singapore, received mixed reviews from critics"?

Plot

  • "70 years earlier" - The Manual of Style says to avoid starting sentences with digits. This should be "Seventy years earlier".
  • "To save up money for the painting paper,: - Tighten by one word by deleting "up"?
  • "In spite of the difficulties he faces... " - Tighten to "Despite the difficulties he faces... "?

Cast

  • "She is a member of the rich Arima family, and thus her father opposes to her relationship with Sota." - Delete "to"? Otherwise the sentence does not make sense. Done
  • "and his daughter Sayo because he hopes to marry her off to a rich family... " - "Marry her off" is slang. Maybe "and his daughter Sayo because he hopes she will marry into a rich family... "
  • "She is caught between her husband's order of not letting Sayo see Sota and her belief of the freedom to choose who one loves." - A bit awkward. Perhaps "She is caught between her husband's resistance to Sota and her belief in romantic love.
  • "Tadanobu Asano as the circus clown, Hagio." - Hagio or Haigo?

Development

  • "The screenplay was written by Kundo Koyama." - Generally it's a good idea to use active voice rather than passive, especially when it's easy to do; i.e., "Kundo Koyama wrote the screenplay."
  • "which won the Best Foreign Language Film award at the 81st Academy Awards" - I'd add "in Hollywood" to this. Readers might think it means Japan otherwise.
  • "In the movie, the dog used was an Akita dog, instead of the Flemish dog used in "A Dog of Flanders"... " - I'd look for some way to say this without repeating "dog" four times.

Casting

  • "He has also starred in the television series like Mr. Brain (2009) and Diplomat Kosaku Kuroda (2011)." - Delete "the"?
  • "He plays the role of the circus clown Hagio" - Hagio or Haigo?

Filming

  • "The railway line featured in the film was taken at the old line of "Naruto no Kurikumada Koen Railway Line"... " - Recast to avoid repeating "line" three times.
  • "The lyrics of this song was written by songwriter Shinji Nojima." - Flip to active voice and simplify. Perhaps "Shinji Nojima wrote the song's lyrics".

Theme

  • "This was announced at a charity event on 1 November 2009." - What was announced? It's not clear what "this" refers to.
  • "The group was officially announced at an animal welfare organization event on 1 November 2009." - What does it mean to be "officially announced"? Why at an animal welfare organization event?
  • "Snow Prince Gasshōdan is made up of 10 boys, who together, have an average age of 10.5 years old at the time of the filming of this film." - "Had" instead of "have". Avoid repeating "film", "filming" by deleting "of this film".
  • "This makes the group Snow Prince Gasshōdan the youngest group in the history of Johnny Jr. to release a single." - I think you need to briefly explain what Johnny Jr. is. I see that it's linked, but something in the article text would be nice too.
  • "According to the movie's release committee, the group Snow Prince Gasshōdan will only existed until the end of 2010." - That time has come and gone. Did the group disband?
  • "Leader Shintaro Morimoto expressed hope the group can be reunited again after ten years." - "Could" rather than "can". Perhaps "Leader Shintaro Morimoto expressed hope that the group could reunite after 10 years."

Release

  • "The film was then released in Japan on 12 December 2009. It was officially released at a release ceremony... " - Rewrite to avoid repeating "release" three times in such a short space.
  • "Also, at the ceremony, it was also revealed to the media that negotiations... " - No need for two "also"s.
  • Ditto for three reps of "countries" in the next sentence.

References

  • Some of the citations have Japanese in bolded letters; others have "in Japanese" in a regular typeface. Be consistent.
  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. I see some like "2011-09-08" and others like "18 December 2009".
  • Some of the citations like 44 are incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and accessdate if all of those are known or can be found. It appears that in most cases you won't be able to find an author name and maybe not a publication date, but the rest of the info should be available.

Other

  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead URL. It's in citation 5.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note about tick marks: This is part of the PR instructions but sometimes gets overlooked: "The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in  Done/ Not done templates. Use the non-image templates,  Done/✗ Not done, instead." It would be helpful if you changed the templates, or you could just delete them. Finetooth (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titration

[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 a final polish before I submit the article for Good Article status. I would also like to know what would need to be done for the article to make a good FAC, though the primary focus is on GA.

Please specifically look for accessibility to non-scientists, and overly-detailed or boring sections. I'm sure I've missed several grammar and style errors as well.

Thanks for your time! Neonfuzz (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on improving this article. I think it will need a fair amount more work to be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which focus maily on MOS issues.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FA class Chemistry articles Category:FA-Class Chemistry articles here, which may be useful models.
  • There are some dab links that need to be fixed here
  • The lead is not really a summary of the whole article. It is only one paragraph and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but I see nothinhg on history or titration curves or endpoints. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Another major problem is the references, or lack thereof. For example the second and third paragraphs of Titration curves have no refs that I can see, and need them. Many of the items listed in Particular uses also lack references and need them.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Some of the references used are outdated or could be to better sources - for example ref 1 is from 1911, surely a newer ref has been published in the last century and could be cited here?
  • Or for example what makes http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-measurements-indicators a relaible source? There are many books on analytical techniques in chemistry, so why cite a website of debious reliablity?
  • The section headers need to follow WP:HEAD better. Avoid repeating the title of the article in headers if at all possible. So "Types of titrations" could just be "Types", or "Acid-base titrations" could just be "Acid-base" as we already know this is about titrations. In some cases the standard name includes the word titration, so include it, i.e. "Titration curves" or Back titration"
  • Some material seems to be factually inaccurate or at least contradicts the article itself. So the definition "Titration, by definition, is the determination of rank or concentration of a solution with respect to water with a pH of 7 (the pH of pure H2O under standard conditions).[4] refers to water, but titrations can be in other solvent systems (and Karl Fisher and non-aqueous titrations are mentioned in the article) or in the gas phase (also mentioned here)
  • The model of ozone depicted is structurally incorrect - O3 is not a ring molecule, so File:O3 8130.JPG is not a good image to use here. The Ozone article has some more accurate images. See also Cyclic ozone
  • Wikilinks should be used at the first instance of the word - so burette is used several times before it is linked.
  • Also watch out for WP:OVERLINKing
  • Watch out for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they impede the narrative flow of the article. Where possible, combine or expand these short paragraphs
  • I would also avoid bullet point as much as possible
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rooney

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to reach GA status, and need advice on what need fixes to get there.

Thanks,
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This article has thousands of edits, many of them non-productive (hence the protection). The article is viewed around a quarter of a million times a month. Despite all this attention it is in rather poor shape, probably because "too many cooks..." etc. Somebody, or bodies, really needs to get a grip on this article and turn it into something good. I have worked through the lead and the first few sections, and found persistent errors of grammar, poor prose, confusing statements, and other faults, which I have listed; it is likely that these errors persist through the rest of the article.

Lead
  • Rearrange some lead material so that, per MOS, the first paragraph gives a more emphatic statement of Rooney's notability.
  • Not all your readers will be au fait with football transfer procedures. The statement "before moving to Manchester United for £25.6 million in the 2004 summer transfer window" needs to be rephrased to avoid the impression that this was Rooney's personal fee.
  • "He also holds two runner-up medals from both the Premier League and the Champions League". Clarify: one from each or two from each?
  • "Rooney has won the Premier League 'Goal of the Season' award by the BBC's Match of the Day poll on three occasions." Don't use single quotes. Link BBC. Reword: "Rooney has won the Premier League "Goal of the Season" award, decided by the BBC's Match of the Day poll, on three occasions".
  • Rooney's annual income should be given in sterling, not euros followed by a conversion.
Early life
  • This skimpy information hardly justifies a section to itself.
  • "brought up Catholic in Croxteth" – "brought up as a Catholic in Croxteth"
  • Why are three references required to verify the names of Rooney's brothers?
Youth squads
  • "Rooney began playing for Liverpool Schoolboys and until May 2010 he held the record of 72 goals scored in one season". Clarify what this record is. For the club? For the league in which the club plays?
  • "At age nine" is not British English idiom. "At the age of nine..."
  • I'm confused. According to the text, Rooney aged nine played for a boy's club and scored 99 goals in his final season, i.e. he played for them in more than one season. But then: "Rooney joined Everton at age nine..." How could that be?
First team breakthrough
  • By "his senior debut" I think you mean his Premier League debut (see previous section)
  • Full stop or semicolon after "Tottenham", not comma. The words "at the time" are unnecessary.
  • "His first senior goals came on 2 October..." You said earlier that his first senior goals were in a friendly match on 15 July.
  • "...a record that has since been surpassed twice by both James Milner and James Vaughan" Delete the words "twice" and "both".
  • "Six days on from..." → "Six days after..."
  • "His first career red-card..." You need to link to red card.
  • Capitalise "boxing day"
  • Overdetailing? Is Rooney's first goal of 2003 particularly significant?
  • You need to explain what "The Toffees" refers to. Don't use italics here.
  • "His final goal of 2003 came on his 50th league appearance, netting the only goal in a 1–0 home win over Birmingham on 28 December." Not grammatical. "When he netted", not "netting".
  • There's far too much repetitive stuff about scoring goals. This tells us nothing about Rooney as a footballer. How about some details of his style and technique, skill, speed, resourcefulness etc?

My immediate advice is, fix the obvious points that I have identified. See how many of these faults persist in the remainder of the article, and deal with them, too. You'd be well advised to use one or more of the many Good Article football biographies as a model - or perhaps look at Thierry Henry which is featured. I note that many of these accredited articles have a "Style of play" section which is missing from the Rooney article. Get rid of the trivia ("He supports Celtic. He had a hair transplant" etc). Look again at the "Allegations of infidelity" section in the light of WP's BLP policies. There are numerous format errors in the references, but I wouldn't worry too much about these at the moment. Get the text right first. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the PR, I will address the above and rewrite the article.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Hepburn

[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'd like to nominate the article for GA but I'm not an experienced wikipedian so need some guidance on where it may be falling short of the criteria. Thanks --Lobo512 (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a really good article about one of my favorite actors. I don't imagine it would have much trouble at GAN. If you decide to take it to FAC at some point, you might consider using the "Further reading" material as sources rather than simply listing them at the bottom. Listing them almost always raises the question, "If they are important, why haven't you cited them"? That may lead to a second question, "Is the article truly comprehensive if major sources have been ignored?" However, those questions will probably not arise at GAN, where "broad in coverage" is a requirement somewhat easier to meet than "comprehensive". Here are a few suggestions:

Lead

  • "After being viewed in the early years of her career as arrogant and unrelatable... " - Maybe "distant" or "aloof" rather than "unrelatable", which may not be a real word.
  • "After being viewed in the early years of her career as arrogant and unrelatable, the public came to admire her fearlessness and she became a popular figure." - The opening clause seems to modify "public". Maybe "After being viewed in the early years of her career as arrogant and unrelatable, she became a popular figure admired for her fearlessness"? Or something like that.
  • I'd recommend spelling out as well as abbreviating RKO and BAFTA on first use; e.g. Radio-Keith-Orpheum (RKO) Pictures.

Early life and background

  • "and Dr. Thomas Norval Hepburn (1879–1962), a successful urologist and surgeon from Virginia" - The Manual of Style suggests using descriptors rather than academic titles. In this case, you already have the modifiers, "urologist" and "surgeon", and "Dr." is redundant. I would delete it, and I'd delete it from the infobox as well.
  • "she often credited them with giving her the belief and conditions with which she was able to make herself a success" - "Conditions" doesn't seem to fit well with "with which she was able to make". Maybe "she often credited them for creating conditions that helped her succeed"?
  • "Her parents were socially criticized for their progressive views... " - Tighten by deleting "socially"?
  • "She was a fan of movies from a young age, and would go to see one every Saturday night." - Straight past tense might be better here and in the next sentence; i.e., "went to see".

Instant success in Hollywood

  • "She is a distinct, definite, positive personality – the first since Garbo." - Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked since the link does not appear in the original. Ditto for the link in the Dorothy Parker quote not far below this one and for any other links inside quotations.
  • "ranked it amongst the worst films she ever made" - "Among" is preferred to the archaic "amongst".
  • "and Hepburn was slated by the critics" - Is "slated" the right word? I've never seen it used this way.

Career struggles

  • "Back on top, Berman allowed Hepburn to pick her next feature." - This suggests that Berman was back on top, but I think you mean Hepburn. Not sure.
  • "who's hair was cut like a boy" - Whose, not who's. Boy's rather than boy?

Revival

  • "These factors combined to 'recreate Katharine Hepburn' in the eyes of her audience. - Use double quotation marks rather than single except when single quotes are needed for nested quotes inside of other quotes. Ditto for other instances of single quotes later in the article. I fixed a few above this point.

Performances

  • "As Schickel explains, right, these self-assured characters tended to be humbled in some form and revealed to have a hidden softness or vulnerability." - This sentence, with "right" in the middle, threw me for a loop at first. It's generally not a good idea to direct the reader to some other part of an article. I'd recast somehow to avoid this.

On film

  • This subsection lacks inline citations to reliable sources.

Other

  • Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take terminal periods.
  • If you want to add the hyphens to the ISBNs, there's a handy converter here. I'm not sure it's necessary to add the hyphens since you've formatted the ISBNs consistently. Just a thought.
  • Book citations should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. If you don't have all the bibliographic information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard (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'd like to potentially take this article to FAC. So I'd like a reviewer who is familiar with the FAC process and can help fine tune the article.

Thanks, Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Reach

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking for more comments on all aspects, especially IRT line edits. Provide a solid edit and suggestions and you're more than welcome to badger me in the future for one :)

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are not consistent, ex: Retrieved 7/27/2011, May 30, 2011, 2010-02-24 and IGN, IGN, IGN.com. If you're going with "IGN", I think ".com" would only be used if the source address themselves with that, like 1UP.com.
  • Should MTV.com be in italics?
  • Remember, you can set |deadurl=no for archived urls that are still active.
  • Not sure about "US$" in prose. Is the first instance suppose to be wiki-linked? If so, I'm assuming after that only the dollar sign will be needed for the rest of the article. « ₣M₣ » 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'll get working on those tech things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a hardcopy copyedit. As usual, feel free to revert or modify any copyedited text. I'll try to target things that have gotten my FACs in trouble recently. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Only notes:
  • "Every interacting object in Reach produces two sounds"...something to clarify this statement. Readers might be expecting two sounds in the example, but there's only just the crunching metal one.
  • Apparently, there's a title update coming soon, with a lot of changes (like armor lock getting nerfed). Definitely needs to be written into the article once it comes out.
  • At this point, I would just recommend my "paragraph" approach, which means working on presentability in terms of paragraph aesthetics. If a sentence or trivium about something is hanging out there, find a paragraph to absorb it. If a paragraph in a certain section is looking small, see if it can be absorbed, or see if it can be beefed up. And then see if overly large paragraphs might be split, and so on. For me, this process always makes me look for more information to round out the subject, and also ensure the paragraphs follow logical orders and flow smoothly. (A lot of Reach looks good already, of course).
  • Oh, as a final thing, I know Wikipedia isn't a game guide, but some more on Reach's many multiplayer game modes might be warranted. There's a lot of extra stuff out there, like Living Dead or SWAT. Seasoned Halo players will know that these are in Reach or assume they're included, but non-initiates probably need to be exposed to this info in the article. Good luck. Tell me if it gets nominated for FAC. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I definitely need to add info about the title update, and you're right about the stubby sentences; I think it needs a little more expansion rather than cutting, but I do need to address that. I'm unsure about adding more about Reach's modes considering there's lots of opinion to the sense that it does fall under GUIDE, but I'll look into it. I tried reworking the audio part to make it clearer; how does it look? Thanks again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Too bad there are no official critical sources for how horrible Reach's netcode is. The bulltrue medal is utterly meaningless these days. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jappalang

Infobox

  • Why is the release date in bold-face?

Lede

  • "As the Covenant begin their assault on the planet, the UNSC begin their ultimately futile effort to repel the alien invaders."
    They begin and we begin... This sentence can be discarded without loss to the lede.

Gameplay

  • Although a substantial population has an inkling of how Halo is played, there should still be a brief detail of the basic gameplay in Reach. Five or six years later, there might be a bunch of new gamers who never played FPS (or the genre has moved beyond what is seen in Halo).
  • The use of "in-universe" terminology reminds me of the admonishments I received (from Laser brain or Ling.Nut?) in my earlier video game articles. I can easily picture their criticisms on reading "players could wield one-use equipment power-ups" and "'armor lock', which immobilizes the player". Such language are also present in later sections, e.g. "players drop skulls upon death".
  • Watch the noun plus gerunds. "Reach features new weapons fulfilling various combat roles, as well as updated versions of old weapons" in particular, is very ambiguous in that it can be read as "Reach features new weapons and therefore fulfills various combat roles".

Multiplayer

  • "'Generator Defense' pits three Spartans against three Elites (A type of Covenant soldier)."
    There is a misplaced capitalization. Furthermore, what is a Spartan (imagine that I never played Halo or read anything about the series; "This is not 300 (film)SPARTA!!!")?
  • "'Invasion' is a six versus six mode with three squads of two on each team. The gametype pits Spartans against Elites; Elites vie for control of territories to disable a shield guarding a navigation core. Once the shield is disabled, they must transfer the core to a dropship; the Spartans must prevent this. As the game progresses, new vehicles and areas of the map become open."
  • "In 'Invasion', twelve players are organized into two opposing teams—Elites versus Spartans. The Elites' goal is to conquer territories to approach a navigation core and steal the object back to their dropship; the Spartans' is to stop their opponents from doing so. The playing field expands and new vehicles are introduced as the game progresses."
  • "Alongside other multiplayer options is 'Firefight', a version of which appeared in Halo 3: ODST."
    Why not just "Another multiplayer mode is 'Firefight'."? A layman reader could care less when it first appeared; the main concern should be what is this mode of the game.
  • "In Firefight players take on increasingly difficult waves of foes in a game of survival. Players can customize Firefight options, including the number and types of enemies. Firefight versus allows a player-controlled Elite team to try and stop the Spartan team from scoring points. Game modes like Generator Defense are also playable in Firefight."
    Neither http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/109/1098584p1.html nor http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6265966/halo-reach-firefight-mode-hands-on has information about Firefight Versus. I have to go and find it in http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1106753p1.html.
    In Firefight, players control Spartans to fight increasingly difficult waves of foes, scoring points for each enemy killed and for each wave they survived. Firefight has variant modes of play: some incorporate the standard multiplayer modes such as Generator Defense and the others are originals such as Versus. Another player-controlled team is introduced in Versus; this team is composed of Elites and its goal is to kill the Spartans, interfering with the other team's scoring. The teams swap sides and objectives at the end of each round."
  • "Firefight games in Reach can be played locally or online with random players. ODST contrarily only supported matches among players that were on each others' friend lists."
    Unsourced (and what is the point of bringing in ODST here?)
  • "Forge, a level editor that first appeared with Halo 3, was updated for Reach."
    Same as with Firefight, I see no need to state Forge's first publication.
  • "Forge World itself is home to several Bungie-created Forge maps that shipped on-disc."
    Unsourced and I do not understand the sentence ("a large blank map is home to several maps").

Setting and characters

  • "Reach takes place in a futuristic science fiction setting during the year 2552, shortly before the events of the 2001 video game Halo: Combat Evolved, and during the events of the 2001 novel Halo: The Fall of Reach."
    The dates make this sentence messy. "Reach takes place in a futuristic science fiction setting; the year is 2552, and the game's events take place during those of the novel Halo:The Fall of Reach and before those of the first Halo game."
  • "... a UNSC special operations unit composed of elite supersoldiers known as Spartans."
    Only now are we introduced to the Spartans (see above)?
  • "Players assume the role of an unnamed new addition to the team, identified by the call sign Noble Six."
    There should be "and are" between "team" and "identified" instead of that comma; otherwise Noble Six can be misidentified as the team.
  • "together, Carter and Kat are the only two remaining original members of Noble Team."
    "Together" and "only two" are redundant/superfluous.
  • "The other members include ..."
    Since this follows "original members of Noble Team", this can be miscontrued as the other original members. I suggest "Other members of the current Noble Team are ...".

Story

  • "Soon after, the team is deployed to 'Sword Base', an installation belonging to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), to defend it from a Covenant vessel. The team meets the scientist Catherine Halsey, the mastermind behind the Spartan program and their MJOLNIR powered armor."
    "The team's next mission is to defend 'Sword Base', an Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) installation, from a Covenant vessel. They meet Catherine Halsey, a scientist and the mastermind behind the Spartan program."
  • "Jun and Six are dispatched on a covert overnight mission to assess the Covenant's strength and discover an invasion force."
    The enemies are already attacking and the scouts "discover an invasion force"?
  • "Noble Team leads UNSC forces in assaulting a Covenant ground base and removes fortified defenses at the base."
    The second part seems superfluous/pointless.
  • "... take part in a plan to destroy the carrier using a makeshift bomb."
    "... take part in a plan to destroy the carrier with a makeshift bomb" or "... take part in a plan to destroy the carrier and use a makeshift bomb to do so"? Or can we go with "... destroy the carrier with a makeshift bomb"?
  • "After defending a space station orbiting Reach until its defenses come back online, Jorge and Six use starfighters to infiltrate a smaller Covenant ship, prepare the bomb and set the ship on a docking course with the carrier."
    This sentence is quite messed up. "The pair defend an orbiting space station until its defenses come back online...." hold on... see below...
  • "When a massive Covenant super-carrier joins the fight, Jorge and Six take part in a plan to destroy the carrier using a makeshift bomb. ... Its timer malfunctions, so Jorge stays behind and sacrifices himself to destroy the carrier."
  • I believe all this can be summarised as follows (without getting into the confusing story above; furthermore, it seems some bits are not in line with the game's account): "A Covenant supercarrier joins the fight. Jorge and Six defend a spaceship research facility from enemy attack and use the facility's starfighters to infiltrate an enemy corvette. They plant a bomb onboard and set the ship to dock with the supercarrier. The bomb's timer malfunctions, so Jorge stays behind and sacrifices himself to destroy the carrier."
  • "Moments later, Covenant ships start arriving at Reach in huge numbers and begin a full-scale invasion of the planet."
    "Moments later, large numbers of Covenant ships arrive at Reach and begin a full-scale invasion."
  • "He or she aids ..."
    "The Spartan aids ..."
  • "However, they are forced ... sniper before they reach it."
    "However, the team is forced ... sniper along the way." (otherwise "they" would refer to the local military as well).
  • "Later recalled to Sword Base, Halsey ..."
    Halsey is recalled to Sword Base?
  • "... an ancient Forerunner artifact ..."
    I do not think it wise to introduce the Forerunner idea here (just "ancient artifact" will do), when it is not mentioned elsewhere or important to the plot. It just introduces more questions into the reader's mind than clarifies anything.
  • "En route to the Autumn's dry dock, Carter is critically wounded. He rams his ship into a Covenant mobile assault platform, allowing Six and Emile to safely reach the shipyard where the Autumn is located."
    The end is redundant (note the beginning).
  • "... ensuring the Autumn's escape. The Autumn flees from Reach and discovers a Halo ringworld, leading straight into the events of Halo: Combat Evolved."
    "... ensuring the Autumn's escape. In its flight from Reach, the Autumn discovers a ringworld, thereby starting the events chronicled in Halo: Combat Evolved."

Design

  • "... development studio Bungie broke into two teams."
    I think it is better to say "split" rather than "broke"... hold on... see below
  • "One began working on ... while another ... began work on what would become Reach."
    Similarly, "One of them started work on ... while the other ... was assigned to start a new project."
  • "After finishing Halo 3 in 2007, development studio Bungie broke into two teams. One began working on a standalone expansion project—Halo 3: ODST—while another, led by Creative Director Marcus Lehto and Design Lead Christian Allen, began work on what would become Reach."
    Okay, there is something wrong with these statements. Neither http://www.1up.com/previews/halo-reach nor http://kotaku.com/5354944/how-and-why-halo-3-odst-was-made-in-14-months suggests that Bungie "broke/split" into two. What happened was that two teams were created (the studio also has executives, managers, sales, etc): one was tasked to handle a movie project (that eventually switched focus to making ODST when the project was nixed) and the other took on Reach. Neither states that the other (Reach) team was working on an "unnamed" project that became Reach. The two sources also do not pinpoint the exact startup of the team for Reach, hence "After finishing Halo 3 in 2007" can be misleading (what if development on Reach, e.g. concept and design, began during the last stages of Halo 3?).
  • "Bungie focused on making sure players still felt a sense of accomplishment and success."
    That is an assertion unproven; the sentence implies that Bungie accomplished the objective.
  • "Community manager Brian Jarrard pushed for greater customization of the player character, including the ability to choose a female Noble Six and have the cinematics and dialogue change accordingly."
    You know... that is the only change (in my opinion) in the category, so "including" is not correct (what would the other changes be that would have "greater customization" in the single player campaign. I think the entire sentence needs to be rephrased.
  • "... redesign key enemies, weapons, and elements of the series, though 3D Art Lead Scott Shepard stressed that they remain true to the spirit of the original designs."
    I do not think "stressed" would follow the spirit of encyclopaedic content here, and "though" makes it seem like this sentence is a defence for the game's developer (in remaining true to the spirit of Halo). I think the last part can be dropped entirely.
  • "The final gameplay sequence at the end of the game ..."
    Final of an end (pretty redundant in my view)? Why not "The post-credit game sequence ..."?
  • "Executive producer Joe Tung ultimately noted, ..."
    Ultimately ("finally; in the end", "at the most basic level") does not fit in here; his comments is to the interviewer, not to the team during the decision making.

Technology

  • "For Halo 3, the first Halo game on the Xbox 360, Bungie had been forced to shrink parts of the game to fit the game engine's constraints. Bungie strove to capitalize on the Xbox 360 hardware to make Reach look better than its predecessors. The original plan for Reach was to port existing Halo 3 assets and update them, , but as Shepard noted, 'The more we started looking into this, the more we found that realistically we could rebuild each asset from scratch with a huge increase in quality without significantly investing more time.'"
    This reads a bit weird to me (especially the "Bungie strove to ..." bit); the jump to Halo 3 was jarring. I suggest a bit of rearranging and rephrasing.
    "Originally, the team decided to port components of Halo 3 to Reach and update them. During the older game's development, Bungie was forced to compromise on the quality of its graphics because the software for the graphics could not handle the amount of data needed to be displayed. Shepard noted that while working on Reach, 'The more we started looking into this, the more we found that realistically we could rebuild each asset from scratch with a huge increase in quality without significantly investing more time.'"
  • "Developers redesigned much of the engine."
    In line with the above suggestion, "The developers redesigned the game engine, the software that handles most of the game's algorithms."
  • "Rather than scripting enemy encounters, the developers focused on a more open world or sandbox approach to battles."
    "Open world/sandbox" (a game mode) does not tally with "scripting enemy encounters" (even sandbox games can have scripted events and encounters); furthermore, "sandbox/open world" strikes me as jargon, confusing to the layman. "Instead of programming enemies to operate fixed sequences, the developers adopted a more open approach; these computer-controlled characters would react to the actions of the player characters and situations with a variety of pre-programmed responses."
  • "Bungie completed Reach near the end of July/beginning of August 2010."
    Completed the entire game, or are we just talking about the software programming?

Audio

  • "Composing team Martin O'Donnell and Michael Salvatori returned to score Reach."
    When did they leave the Reach team?
  • "The music piece shown in the world premiere of Halo: Reach was the first music he wrote for the game, which he hoped he could use as a starting point for developing further themes."
    "The first music he wrote for Reach was played in the game's world premiere, and he used it as a starting piece to develop further themes.
  • "O'Donnell began work on Reach while ODST was still in production, ..."
    What does ODST have to do with this?
  • "O'Donnell was assisted by past Halo collaborators Salvatori, C. Paul Johnson, and Stan LePard, although with Reach he did not give them strictly divided responsibilities."
    "O'Donnell was assisted by Salvatori, C. Paul Johnson, and Stan LePard—previous collaborators on Halo. He did not assign them specific responsibilities."
  • "The works-in-progress they came up with were either touched up by O'Donnell or sent back to be finished by their composer."
    This left me a bit nonplussed. The way I read this, it means "O'Donnell touched up some of their works", but I am not entirely sure (due to the phrasing) if that is the intent.
  • "... was demoed in an in-game ..."
    "Demo" is informal, please use the full form.
  • "... due to the bands of colors differentiating materials."
    "... due to the bands of different/alternating colors on the objects and environment."

Announcements

  • I suggest changing the image's caption to "Reach's announcement at E3".
  • "... announced ... through a trailer ..."
    They just broadcast a trailer without saying it was about Reach?
  • "An accompanying press release announced that an invitation to the open multiplayer beta of the game would appear in spring 2010, later specified as May 3."
    I do not think the details of the date are that crucial. "An accompanying press release announced that the multiplayer beta would be open to certain people."
  • "Reach is the last Halo game developed by original Halo developer Bungie. Future Halo games will be overseen by Microsoft subsidiary 343 Industries."
    "Reach is Bungie's last game development for the Halo series. Responsibility for developing future Halo games fell to Microsoft subsidiary 343 Industries."
  • "... complete list of achievements ..."
    Assume that I never played Xbox 360: what are "achievements", why does a game have a list of "things done successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill"?

Multiplayer beta

  • "... causing back-end servers to struggle to handle the traffic. While the engineering team overestimated server load, bugs in server clusters caused game uploads to become backed up, slowing matchmaking to a crawl until the underlying issues could be fixed."
    I fail to comprehend the first part.... If "the engineering team overestimated server load", then why would their "back-end servers [...] struggle to handle the traffic"? What does "game uploads" mean here, why would they slow matchmaking?
  • "... large-scale rollout of the game ..."
    Is "beta" meant instead of "game" (which could confuse into thinking of Reach the final product).
  • "On Bungie's community site, Bungie.net, the Reach beta generated over 360,000 forum posts alone."
    "More than 360,000 posts on Bungie.net, the developer's community site, were about the Reach beta."
  • "Some player responses did not align with datasets from the game; multiplayer design lead Chris Carney ..."
    "Certain feedback from the players did not correlate with the statistical data obtained from the matches during the beta. Chris Carney, lead designer for the multiplayer mode, ..."
  • "By the end of the beta it generated the most kills in all games"
    "By the end of the beta, the weapon was used for most of the kills in all games."
  • What are "lurking variables"?

Release

  • "Reach was released in three retail editions on September 14, 2010."
    "Retail" is redundant here.
  • "Four days later, hackers managed to access, download, and distribute the game online;"
    "The game was, however, distributed online by hackers who illegally accessed and downloaded the material."
  • "Microsoft claimed to be actively investigating the matter. Halo 2, Halo 3, and ODST were similarly leaked ahead of release."
    I find this to be pointless in this article. There is no conclusion or purpose that pertains to Reach, and talk of previous leaks would be coatracks.

Marketing

  • "Brian Jarrard told The Seattle Times that the developers were planning a much more "grandiose" marketing effort than had been done for ODST."
    "According to Brian Jarrard, the team decided to have a much more "grandoise" marketing for Reach than that for ODST."
  • "Microsoft gave Reach its largest marketing budget, ..."
    Larger than those for Windows 7? The source states "biggest game campaign from Microsoft".
    "Microsoft's marketing budget for Reach was its largest for a video game at that time, ..."
  • "Reach was released Tuesday, September 14 in 25 countries."
    What is so special about Tuesday (aside from the fact that using it here means there is a missing comma after 14)?
  • "... could reverse 2010's sluggish video game sales."
    "... could reverse sluggish video game sales in 2010."
  • "... making it third in its console generation to surpass three million units its first month (alongside Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2)."
    "... making it the third game for its console generation (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) to sell more than three million units during the first month since release (alongside Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2)."
  • "In the United Kingdom, Reach's opening week ... dropped out of the top 20 best selling titles entirely its second week."
    All this seems a tad nitpicky to me. Why not just summed each region with "Reach was xxx position for yy weeks / Reach was the top 20 best selling title for yy weeks" or such.

Downloadable content

  • "Reach supports additional downloadable content (DLC). Bungie released their first DLC (dubbed the Noble Map Pack) on November 30, 2010."
    Since "DLC" is only used once, immediately in the sentence after the abbreviation and nowhere else, it might be preferable to simply not use the abbreviation at all.
  • "The Noble Map Pack contains three maps, unique in that they are not based on Reach campaign levels."
    "The Noble Map Pack contains three maps that are not based on any campaign levels in Reach."
  • "Microsoft partnered with Certain Affinity, who had worked on Halo 2 maps, to produce the second "Defiant Map Pack", made available for download on March 15, 2011."
    There were two "Defiant Map Packs"? The sentence is also a bit clumsy.
    "The second map pack was released on March 15, 2011. Titled 'Defiant', the contents were created by Microsoft and Certain Affinity, who was involved in making the maps for Halo 2. "
  • "The update also allows playlists for multiplayer through Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary."
    [[Halo: Combat Evolved#Anniversary|Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary]] directs to the article, not a section there.
    I also do not understand what this sentence is trying to say.

Reception

  • If you are going to use {{Video game reviews}}, then why are GameRankings and Metacritics's scores and number of reviews in prose and table?
  • Cut down the number of reviews in the table; the scores are pretty much consistent among the reviewers and having 18 entries is excessive (especially when a big white space is introduced beneath the prose). As such, the prose looks incredibly skimpy when compared with that long list.

Awards

  • Why are these here in a table, especially when {{Video game reviews}} provides entries for awards? I also think in the grand scheme of things, some of those awards are not noteworthy... (I would readily exclude the one from Drunk Tank).

External links

  • Why are there three "official" websites (the first three links)?

Request completed... It has been a long time since I looked closely at a video games article. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coal ball

[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 confident that I can get this to featured status sometime. I know it has the potential.

Thanks, →Στc. 08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... SpinningSpark 13:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • My immediate comment is that the length of the article is a little short, not much more than a thousand words of readable prose. While there is no length requirement for FA, there is a requirement for comprehensiveness. Google books shows a large number (many thousands) of books addressing the subject. So the question for you is do you feel you can justify that the article is comprehensive if it were challenged for this at FA? For instance, the very first sentence in the very first book in this search says that coal balls are found in the Permian. This fact is not mentioned anywhere in the article. It may be that there is not much more material out there, but it seems likely if I can find a new fact in the first sentence of a search, and if it is not out there you need to be prepared to explain this at FA.

Lede

  • "300 million years ago". It would be better if the entire phrase were linked, giving the reader a better understanding of where the link is going.
  • "widespread, both stratigraphically..." seems to imply that 300 million should be a range rather an exact point.
  • "Carboniferous Period" I think this would be better as a single link to Carboniferous piped as Carboniferous Period. WP:LINK avoids adjacent links, preferring to link the most specific term only, and it is not really necessary to link Period. It is, in any case, linked immediately in the more specific article should the reader need it.
  • The first sentence of the middle paragraph has two "and"s in it. It would be better if this was broken up.
  • "Since then, coal balls have been discovered in other countries and several theories on their formation have been proposed." There seems to be two unrelated statements joined with a conjunction... unless you really are saying that different theories were proposed as a result of discovery in other countries.
  • "...as compared to coal balls from Europe". Is this claim sourced? I don't see any expansion of this in the body of the article.

Discovery

  • "Coal balls were first reported by Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker and Edward William Binney in northern England in 1855, and European scientists did much of the early work on these objects". This is referenced to ref 2 but without a specific page number(s). Since ref 2 is used in multiple places but for different page numbers it might be better to use inline Havard refs - see Power dividers and directional couplers for instance. Same comment goes for several other refs.

Formation

  • Ref 2 mentions a theory that the calcium in coal balls might have a meteoric origin. That is quite an extrordinary claim. Is it worth including in the article?
  • All these "million years ago" links are a little troubling. As the unit, the ""million years ago" should really be within the link but given the number of time you have used it that is making for some ugly long links. I would be in favour of using the Mya abbreviation after defining it on first use. Such abbreviations are sometimes criticised as jargon but the level of the article should be taken into account and in my opinion it is justified in this article.
  • I have a problem with "which is commonly agreed upon in scientific papers" not least because specific pages are not given which makes it hard to find where in the paper the verification is supposed to be. Three references are given: ref 5 does not discuss alternative theories at all, baldly stating just the in situ theory. Ref 6 seems to come to the conclusion that both Hooker and Binney, and Mamay and Yochelson are both right or any partial combination of the two depending on the particular coal ball. Ref 7 does not seem to be discussing formation at all. Wikipedia should not survey the literature and come to a conclusion on what the mainstream position is. We should be referencing somebody else who has already done a survey of the literature for us.

Analysis

  • "liquid peel technique" should not be in scare quotes per MOS:BADEMPHASIS. If you wish to indicate that it is a term you should place it in italics.
  • "...grinding and cutting the surface of a coal ball, etching the cut and the surface..." I unserstand the grinding, but am confused on how the surface is cut.
  • "scattered intensity". This is another pair of adjacent links. The whole phrase should be one link to the most specific article (scattering).
  • "...with the result based on a function of..." This is a strange phrase and I am really not sure what is intended here. The results of the measurements are the results. Do you mean that "...with the measurements consisting of..." I presume you don't mean a mathematical function of the variables listed.

References

  • Ref 2 is missing some details; volume, pages, publication date. This seems to apply also to several other refs. Ref 5 is missing date of publication for instance. I am stopping checking for this, you need to go through all the refs yourself for completeness and consistency of format.
  • Ref 7 and ref 26. Student worksheets might not be considered a RS.
  • Ref 8. Tertiary source. Is this necessary?
  • Ref 12 and 13. You may have to justify these as RS.
  • Ref 20. Books should always reference some kind of catalogue index. If ISBN or ISSN are not available then use

The overall impression is that this needs a lot of work before it would be ready for FA, possibly with some substantial expansion. You are likely to get a hard time over the quality of some of the references and I would suggest seeking out more books and published papers to replace them. You may want to work on the article for a while before submitting to FA and if the changes are substantial consider another peer review first. SpinningSpark 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis. I will work hard to assure that the issues with the article are resolved, and the quality of the artifle goes above and beyond the qualifications needed for FA. →Στc. 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Punk

[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 of the considerable amount of work Noreplyhaha (talk · contribs) has put into the article, with both how well sourced and well written it is. It seems to miss a review section but this is because it is a Future class album page and has not relased yet. I also believe the background should to be assessed and to see how it can be split into different sections, as it is too long to navigate. Thanks, Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review closed without anyone helping, but thanks Jonjonjohny for noticing and making an effort to help. There's tons and tons that could be done to the article with a structure reflecting other Good/Featured Articles. So much information is on the internet, Soul Punk and Patrick Stump have had so much coverage in the past few months that I've fallen behind. This page could go FA with a lot of work, there's more than enough information for it. I've been extensively writing Fall Out Boy and their song and album articles, as well as Patrick Stump and his works, over the past year. My last year of high school is starting in 2 weeks so I won't be around to work on these Wikipedia pages, either someone else take over or likely no one will. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this album article. One problem I see with the article is that the album has not yet been released - once it has there will be more material to use in the article and more concrete information (not speculation). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • As noted above, there are many FAs on albums which would serve as model articles for this one. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow.
  • There is no way this would pass at FAC until after the album has been released and there has been some time for it to garner critical feedback and sales information. One of the FA Criteria is comprehensiveness and the article cannot be comprehensive until the album has been released.
  • My guess is that in six months time this article will look very different, as there will be mush more material available on the actual album and its singles and tour and whatever else. Right now there is an understandable WP:WEIGHT issue focusing on what is known before the release.
  • one dab link
  • Another major concern I have is the use of two very similar WP:FAIR USE images - I am not sure how the reader's understanding of the album is enhanced by the same image twice, once with the words "Deluxe Edition" added at the bottom. This fails WP:NFCC in my view (minimal use).
  • I would put the expected release date in the first sentence of the lead - upcoming is too vague.
  • In general avoid vague time terms like "so far" as they become dated quickly - use things like "as of October 2011" instead. The album has so far received extremely positive reviews from music critics.
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - the average reader will not know when Fall Out Boy's hiatus began, for example. See WP:PCR
  • Watch POV language like "ultimate" in The album features no guest artists and is the ultimate solo effort as Stump is doing everything entirely by himself: performing, composing the music, writing the lyrics, playing over ten instruments and producing the album.
  • MOS Says once a person is introduced the first time using their full name only to use the last name afterwards (unless there are more than one persons with the same last name, or it is in a direct quote). So avoid things like Patrick Stump has been often compared to Michael Jackson, whom Stump has cited as a major influence.[6]
  • The last sentence is a bit awkward with passive voice and two uses of Stump - how about something like Stump cites Michael Jackson as a major influence and critics have often compared the two artists' work. Not great, but maybe gives you an idea.
  • The lead seems overly concerned with minutiae to me - again I think part of this may be becasue the album has bot been released yet, but the album should be a nice overview and summary, not bogged down in details like With preorders from Stump's online store, a package with a lithograph by Roland Tamayo is available. I think this is probably OK to put in the article, but the lead??
  • One way to organize this might be to have a background section that briefly describes Fall Out Boy and their hiatus, and Truant Wave. Then perhaps a section on composition and recording, then release and any support. Again a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow.
  • There are quite a few places without refs that need them - any sentence(s) that come(s) after a ref but has no refs of its own needs at least one ref. A few examples Previously announced songs "Love, Selfish Love" and "As Long As I Know I'm Getting Paid" were released on his debut EP, Truant Wave, instead. A remix of "This City" was later released for streaming on the internet and sent to iTunes and radio in the lead up to the album's release. or this A music video has been made for it and it premiered on Vevo on September 20. or this Stump announced the release date of October 18, 2011 for Soul Punk. or almost all of the last section of History.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Musicianship looks like it could be in the recording section of History
  • 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 ><>°° 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think the article almost meets GA standards and may require a proof read and advice on where it is failing.

Thanks, Monkeymanman (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The nominator does not seem to have any edit history with this article, so it's not clear who, if anyone, will be addressing the points I raise. So I have restricted myself to some general issues, rather than a detailed critique of the prose.

  • Cites in lead: although WP policy does not prohibit citations in the lead, information that is covered in the main text, e.g. details of the subject's death, etc, should be cited there and not in the lead.
  • Although the article has 100+ citations, a significant number of statements in the article are at present uncited. These include:-
    • "Her mother also felt that the name Audrey may have indicated her British roots too strongly – an unwanted asset particularly as it could have attracted the attention of occupying German forces and resulted in confinement or deportation".
    • "Hepburn's subsequent first significant film performance was in Thorold Dickinson's The Secret People (1952), in which Hepburn played a prodigious ballerina; Hepburn performed all of her own dancing sequences". (Incidentally, what is a "prodigous" ballerina? I've never heard one described thus before.)
    • "Their collaboration in Sabrina developed into a life-long friendship and partnership; she was often a muse for many of his designs and her style became renowned internationally".
    • "Although initially feeling that she was badly miscast, her co-star Rex Harrison, as Higgins, also called Hepburn his favourite leading lady".
– and many more. There are numerous "citation needed" tags spread through the article. As a guide to citing, a rough rule of thumb is: Cite every quotation or paraphrased opinion; cite any in formation that might be challenged or queried; make sure that every paragraph has at least one citation in it; make sure that ever paragraph ends with a citation.
  • Stick to reliable sources. For example, www.elham.co.uk does not qualify. Formatting of references needs a lot of attention, too.
  • An images expert needs to check out the licencing of all the images and ensure that all of these are free to use. My own knowledge of image copyright issus is inadequate for me to attempt this, but if the article is to be taken forward, e.g. to GAN or FAC, this must be done.
  • Aside from issues of copyright, I believe there are too many images in the article. A lot of them are headshots that don't add anything to our knowledge; we don't need repeated reminders of Hepburn's appearance. Why are there two headshots taken Charade (and another with Cary Grant)?
  • The article looks pretty detailed, but some of the information smacks of trivia. For example, the (unreferenced) "Pets" section should be removed immediately - it's not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. And the "Misscellaneous" section is mawkish and sentimental - that needs to go, too.
  • An encyclopaedia article requires a certain formality of tone. Thus the subject should be referred to as "Hepburn", not "Audrey" as she is in a few instances. One or two other quirks need attention; for example, why is James Hanson referred to as "the young James Hanson"? Was there an old one in the background somewhere?

Thewse are, I realise, fairly general comments, but I hope they will prove helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FutureSex/LoveSounds

[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 have pretty much covered all information about the album, which is by far one of the most documented releases in 2006. I have listed this for peer review because I wanted it to improve more before submitting to FAC. Areas on critique that are much welcomed are on the comprehensiveness (checking on the lapses of the coverage), organization (as this is a huge article), internal consistencies (for compliance to MOS), and most of all clarity and tone. The prose must be excellent!

Thanks, Efe (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are two dab links that will need to be fixed
  • One dead external link
  • Language is not great. Just in the lead I found the following problems.
    • Not sure what "commonly" means here? Plus there seems to be a missing word "much [more] diverse" - Although the album commonly shares lyrical themes with Timberlake's debut album, Justified, FutureSex/LoveSounds is much diverse in its music. I think what is meant is something like Although the album shares lyrical themes with with Timberlake's debut album, Justified, FutureSex/LoveSounds is much more diverse in its music.
    • Really awkward, run on sentence, grammar problem "which occurred" The direction that Timberlake pursued for the album originated when he returned to collaborating with record producer Timbaland, which occur after a two-year hiatus during which time Timberlake felt unable to record new songs. How about something like After a two-year hiatus during which Timberlake felt unable to record songs, he returned to collaborating with record producer Timbaland. This led to a new direction for the album, which...
    • Not sure what this means Hosting a few collaborators, ...
  • "most of whose critics" is awkward and could just be "most critics": FutureSex/LoveSounds was released to generally positive reviews, most of whose critics noted the influences in the album and its collection of eclectic sounds.
  • Anyway this needs a serious copyedit before it would stand a chance at FAC - the most difficult criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a a professional levle of English - see WP:WIAFA
  • I would mention Timberlake's career in N'Sync at the start of Background in its own sentence - ask at WP:GOCE
  • Not sure what this even means In the following two years, Timberlake turned partially idle in the recording industry.[1]
  • The context section seems overly detailed - to pick one example, how does Later, he paired with American actor Jimmy Fallon on The Barry Gibb Talk Show. help the reader's comprehension of this album? Neither Fallon not the Brothers Gibb are mentioned later in the article that I can see.
  • I do not think "re-collaboration" is a word It was a re-collaboration with Timbaland,...
  • Does this mean they had a working title or not? Aside from having "Cry Me a River" to draw from, they had no "game plan" and a working title for the new album.[8]
  • I do not see a lot of organizational issues, the refs look OK, and the few images I checked were licensed properly.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhr. I'll just ask someone to copyedit the article. --Efe (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Agree that the article needs a thorough copy-edit
  • Be consistent in whether magazine/newspaper publishers are included and in parentheses or not
  • Can "Cultural impact" be three paragraphs instead of four?
  • Check for typos (ex. "MTV Bews")
  • Check for consistent italicization throughout
  • Make sure that referencing format is consistent
  • Captions should meet same standards for prose and verifiability as article text
  • FUR for File:Futuresex.jpg should mention that it's the main infobox image and should state who the copyright holder is. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
  • I echo both Ruhr and Nikkimaria on this. For me, there are two main problems: 1) the article doesn't seem to be very comprehensive. And I know we're dealing with quality and not quantity, but the article has bearly 100 sources. For me, this directly correlates to the short, choppy nature of the prose, with paragraphs made up of three, or even two sentences, and the cursory treatment of various aspects of the album. If this album is well-documented in the media, I'm sure you can find a lot more sources.
  • Thanks for this input regarding the article's comprehensiveness. While I have scoured much of what the Internet could give me, yet presently the article is comprehensive as per your observation. Can you specifically provide examples so that I can work on them particularly? --Efe (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a quick scan of the featured article "No Line on the Horizon." Compare its music section with this article. It may be asking too much, but are you able to discuss the musical variation of each song in FutureSex/LoveSounds? After reading the production section of the article, all I get from it is that some songs deal with sex and some deal with love sounds. And the same for music: it's varied. But what about the individual songs? Read the articles of each song on the album, because they have a great deal of information that you could incorporate in this article. You need to be giving an overview of the themes and the instrumentation for each song, and this will help you to expand on your assertion that the music (both themes and instrumentation) is varied. I'm looking for things like "'What Goes Around... Comes Around' explores themes of betrayal and forgiveness, and narrates a protagonist's discovery of his lover's deception".... "In 'Lovesoned', Timberlake compares sexual attraction to a state of drug-induced intoxication...." "In 'Until the End of Time' the narrator emphasizes his devotion to his lover..." Do you understand? I read the articles for the individual songs, and I see valuable information about Timberlake's beat-boxing for a number of songs, how his vocals were slowed down and dazed to match the theme of "Love Stoned", how his voice was muffled and distorted in "SexyBack" etc ect, notable information about the album's production that were all omitted from this article. I'm not asking that you go in depth and stretch the article to twice its size (and you may need to shorten parts of it). But you need to describe the songs that actually feature new wave music and opera, and not just say "songs feature new wave and opera" and leave it at that. Orane (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't like the approach in whihch each song gets treatment in that section. It geys sloppy and tends to be abused ny writers. While those songs, its music, contents, etc, etc, don't have to be mentioned in the album article, I will review what importants facts that need to be added (in a summarized form). Just want to leave the details on each song's available wiki page. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence or two about each song will only enhance the article, and only you can decide if it gets sloppy or not. I gave you the example from the U2 album above; here is another: Love._Angel._Music._Baby.. These two example are the two most recent featured articles about pop albums. An album comprises songs. There's no way to give a comprehensive account of an album without writing about its songs. As an example, you said the first half of the album deals with sex. That is a gross overgeneralization of the songs, even if you can source that point. What exactly is said about sex? How does he achieve this? The article is too broad in its concept and too theoretical. Do you want a great example of how that section should look? Here it is. Overlook the length and the occasional awkward prose and you have one of the best showcases for the discussion of an album's "music". And as a side note, I would omit the "collaboration" section from your article, as it adds nothing. Timberlake collaborated only with very few people, a point that the first sentence of the section makes clear. And, as a final thought, I can't force you to implement my changes. You're free to reject or embrace them. But when you're too focused on what you "personally" want, versus what would be the best for the article from a reader's perspective, then you meet into trouble. Orane (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well see. Most of the examples provided fail tto meet fa criterion 4 - overly detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for my opinion on the article, and I gave it. I'm not going to comment on it anymore if all you do is challenge my opinion on it. I'm done. Do whatever you want with the article. Just don't ask for my help anymore. Orane (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider your opinions. Mine is that I don't have to necessarily follow thr examplea given. Our list of FA quality albums offer so many examples. Thanks sp much Orane. --Efe (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) The prose is nowhere near professional. I know you've worked hard on it, but it is still lacking: tenses are confused, subjects and verbs conflict, words are missing. I know you asked me to copy-edit, but parts may need a complete rewrite (more research+re-write). Because of work commitments, I'm not even sure how much I can actually commit to the article. Orane (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klondike Gold Rush

[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 more than 1,000 people have worked on this article for 8 years and it could be interesting to hear the opinion of others who may know more about the subject and Wikipedia's standards than we do. Thanks, Soerfm (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • See here for a list of potentially problematic links
    • The links seem to work
  • Don't use contractions outside of quotes
    • That has been corrected
  • Section headings generally should not begin with "The"
    • They have been changed
  • Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods. Captions should be clear and relevant to the text. Captions should meet same standards for prose, MOS, consistency and verifiability as article text
    • Captions have been improved
  • Avoid stacking images or sandwiching text between images
    • Half of the images have been deleted
  • File:Dyea_Waterfront_March_1898_(Maslan)_1.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
    • Information has been added
  • File:Soapy_Smith_1898.jpg - who is the author, and what is his/her date of death? What is the source of this image?
    • Unfortunately, it cannot be found
  • File:Klondike_mining_camp.jpg - who is the author, and what is his/her date of death?
    • Information has been added
  • Organization needs work. Look at published overviews on this topic and see what structure they use. Avoid one-paragraph sections where possible. Use clear and encyclopedic section headings (for example, "The bottom line" is inappropriate)
    • Some headlines have been deleted
  • Because both Canada and the US are relevant to this topic, specify whether dollar values are given in USD or C$
    • Some mentionings of $ have been deleted in cases where no comparisons are made
  • This article would benefit from a thorough copyediting - you might consider asking for one at WP:GOCE
    • It has been requested
  • Avoid colloquial phrasings and maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times
    • A few corrections have been made
  • Check for consistency throughout - for example, "conman" or "con man"?
    • Con man has been corrected
  • Legacy section could stand to be trimmed
    • It has been trimmed
  • Reference formatting needs to be much more consistent and complete. Web citations need publishers and access dates. Multi-page sources need page numbers
    • Citations have been improved
  • Please ensure that all sources used are reliable
    • Some details have been deleted and some information made less specific in order not to say more than the source can verify. There is only one case where sources contradicts each other: one says that digging shafts was done in the winter, the other in the summer. The one that gave most information was preferred and the text based on it moved to a see also article.

I have re-rated this article as B-class, and it could likely achieve GA status with some concerted work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Vyborg (1710)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article already undergone successful GA- and A-class reviews, and I feel like it's time for the next step of promoting it to FA status. As the primary author of the article, it is difficult for me to impartially and independently assess my own work, so I need others' help in doing so.

Any sort of constructive criticism or comments would be helpful, and I would especially like to make sure the prose is good enough, seeing as there were issues with it before.

Thanks, Interchange88 ☢ 21:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from Nikkimaria
  • See here for a list of potentially problematic links  Done
  • File:Vyborg_1710_medal.jpg - since this is a coin, we need to determine both the copyright of the coin itself and the copyright of the photograph of it. To which does the licensing tag present apply, and what tag is appropriate for the copyright not represented?
  • Generally speaking, ellipses aren't needed at the beginning and end of quotes, but only in the middle where material is omitted.  Done
  • Kolobov harvlinks don't appear to be working  Done
    • I believe that if the date is unknown/unavailable in a work, the proper format for Harvard referencing is to put "n.d." I'm not sure why but this makes the links not work, so I removed it.
  • References need publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article as I would at FAC.
  • Lead:
    • Dates for the Great Northern War? Done
    • Date for the Battle fo Poltava? Done
    • When did the troops lay seige initially?  Done
  • Background:
    • Could we have a bit of background to the Great Northern War? A bit of understanding on why the Russians and Swedes were fighting might be nice...
    • "In 1710, the Russian army undertook an offensive in two directions: on the Baltic coast (where, in the fall in 1709, Riga was besieged).." Why are we mentioning actions that took place in 1709 if we're discussing offensive actions in 1710?  Done
    • I'm still clueless on why it was a surprise that the command staff was selected...  Done
    • "and to the west of the wall between Evrop Eleonora was another ravelin" what is "Evrop Eleanora"? And quickie explanations of bastions, ravelins and capioners... Done
    • "The garrison at Vyborg in 1710 stood at 6000 men;[5] modern historians B. Adamovich and A. I. Dubravin put the number at 4000." okay, who says the garrison was 6000 then???  Done
    • "The fort had 151 guns at its defense." This sentence would be better placed up with the dsecriptions of the various towers and stuff.  Done
    • "This was not the first time the Russian army had attempted to take Vyborg; in October of 1706, a siege corps was sent there under the command of Robert (Roman) Bruce." Several things wrong here - First "This was not the first time..." is informal, suggest something a bit more formal. Second, we do not use the construction "October of 1706" "October 1706" is correct per the MOS. Done
    • Is there an article for the 1706 seige? If so, we need to link to it, if not, we really should have one for all of these details, which belong there, not in the article on 1710 seige.
    • No need to link "fall" here or "bombardment" or "Saint Petersburg" again in the last paragraph.  Done
  • Russian attack:
  • Russian forces:
    • Why do we have three citations to the one block quote?  Done
    • No need to link "bomb"  Done
  • Number:
    • Instead of "(None of these historians referred to sources.)" suggest "N. G. Ustryalov believed that there were ten 12-pounders and five mortars, M. M. Borodkin counted 24 cannon and four mortars, and M. V. Vasiliev 12 cannon and four mortars, although none of these historians give their sources for their figures." Done
    • "(This was the only recorded time when Swedish artillery managed to disable Russian equipment.)" In ever recorded history, ever ever? Or just in this seige? Needs clarification.  Done
    • "Thus, it appears that there were originally 12 cannon brought to Vyborg, but only ten of them were used in the siege, as two of them were disabled." .. this is a conclusion of a historian, and needs attribution. Done
    • "This was because it was very difficult to move them over land, and there was not enough ice to bring them the same way the original cannon came." this is the first mention that the cannon came over the ice .. should be mentioned with the arrival, not here.  Done
  • Initial bombardment:
    • "April 1" but you've given all other dates as "1 April". Be consistent.  Done
    • "Either way, it is known that Russian fire began either in the last few days of March, or the very beginning of April." is redundant and should be removed.  Done
    • "However, the mortars inflicted great damage upon Vyborg and the fort, forcing citizens to find cover in cellars, while soldiers had to remain positioned on the mounds." the "while" implies that the cannon fire was what forced the soldiers to remain on the mounds, which is clearly not very sensible. Suggest replacing "while" with "although" or eliminating the last phrase completely.  Done
    • Why is "the production of an opening" in quotes?
  • Reinforcements:
    • No need to link Saint Petersburg here for the third time.
    • "The tools needed for the siege were taken from the.." tools? What sort of hammers and screwdrivers were needed for a seige???
    • NO need to link Kotlin Island again here.
    • "He could not postpone his sailing due to a shortage of ammunition and provisions at Vyborg." I'm not getting the connection between this sentence and the preceding sentence.
    • Why is "hauling a small cannon onto the bowsprit and dropping it onto the ice" in quotes? Someone stated it, so you need to attribute it.
    • "Many provision transport ships were driven off course by winds or ice, and they were barely rescued." I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean...does it mean that the provision ships were driven off course or that the transport ships were driven off course or both types? And how were they rescued?
    • No need to link "truce"
  • Final:
    • No need to link twilight.
    • Who said "there was made a great breach, that two battalions were lined up on either side to take the city"?
    • Why is "storm" in quotes?
    • No need to link surrender
  • Aftermath:
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jodeci discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a featured list. I believe the only thing holding this back is the prose and the music video section. Any comments will be appreciated!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have to apologize for taking so long to review this. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this peer review Ruhrfisch, I found it very helpful!
—Michael Jester (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena

[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 had performed a huge expansion on the article itself. While doing so, because the page is visited and is among the most traffic articles on enWP, a lot of criticism came along with it. The expansion was made back in July 2011. Ever since the expansion numerous prose errors were fixed, however, I am not a good very good writer. My proposal for the expansion was because the article did not include the major aspects and was not broad in its coverage. I am not here to criticize users who did put their time in having this article to become a featured article. Myself and the user who did nominate the article at WP:FAC are not the best buddies on here, we even clash sometimes. However, the article will be nominated at WP:GOCE once my other articles have been c/e. The article is currently a WP:FA, however, with my additions, it no longer meets the criteria and in order to lower tension and myself in the eyes on admins (in fear of being blocked), I have come to here. Sorry for this long message :)

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PR is not the appropriate forum in these circumstances. This article underwent a FA review a year ago, with a decision to keep. If you think that the article no longer meets the featured article criteria, then your best course of action is to renominate it at WP:FAR, with an summary explanation. You are not in danger of being blocked if you made your edits in good faith in a genuine attempt to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would like a review on what needs to be done. I just only explained the reason and history of the article. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brian. Since this already a FA, it should go to FAR (again). The language does not meet WP:WIAFA criterion 1a (a professional standard of English). The only possible alternative I see is to revert the recent changes and additions back to the version that passed FAR last year and work through the changes on the talk page. PR is for improving articles, but articles which are already FA have a special set of rules. I think something like the Hippocratic Oath should apply to FAs and changes in them - "first do no harm". Please also note that I have not checked the refs added, but there may well be issues there too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obernewtyn (novel)

[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 worked on this article for so long I am unable to see what needs changing, adding or removing from the page. I feel a fresh set of eyes is needed to look at it before I renominate it for GAN.

Thanks, Limolover talk 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Limolover. So, I've done a quick copy-editing, and most of the article is fine. The biggest issue I see right now is that your plot summary section is much too long. It needs to be cut down a lot. Take out anything that's not important in the long run to the plot, and stick to essentials. Brambleclawx 16:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the referencing is fine, but there are a few sources, especially reviews, that might be seen as unreliable; for example, the Need Coffee reference: I've never heard of the site, and Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. You're likely going to be asked "how is this site reliable?". Brambleclawx 00:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, plot summary shorter and remove blog reviews. Thanks Brambleclaw! --Limolover talk 03:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Cunard

This article is well developed but not ready for a good article nomination.

Lead

Composition

  • Isobelle Carmody has said that the character and life experiences of Elspeth are a reflection of her own. – for concision, revise to "Isobelle Carmody has said that the character and life experiences of Elspeth reflect her own."

    Replace the period with a colon to lead into the blockquote.

  • The author has named Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Doctor Doolittle and books about Pippi Longstocking as sources of influence. – revise to "The author named Narnia, ..." to convert the present perfect tense to the past, which makes the prose more engaging.

Synopsis

  • It is said to have been sent by Lud (God) to punish humanity. – it is said by whom?
  • My question is who said it was sent by Lud to punish humanity. I see you've revised it to "later said by the Herders (leaders of the new religous order)". That looks fine to me. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story is told in the first-person through the protagonist, Elspeth Gordie, a teenage girl who has secret mental powers such as telepathy and the ability to communicate with animals. – link to first-person narrative, telepathy
  • The story begins at Kindraide orphan home, where she and her brother Jes live, but the majority of the narrative is set at Obernewtyn, which lies in the northern mountains of the Land, the fictional nation in which the Obernewtyn Chronicles are set. – this sentence is a bit on the long side. Perhaps you can break it into two?
  • Back at the home, from her premonitions, and her cat Maruman's prophecies, Elspeth learns a keeper from Obernewtyn, a feared institution where the most afflicted Misfits are sent to work, will come to take her there, much to the fear of Jes. – perhaps repeat the mention from the previous section that Jes is her brother.
  • By mentally forcing Rosamunde to tell the keepers Elspeth is only having strange visions due to the tainted water she fell in, the nature of her true mental abilities remain secret. – this sentence is a bit convoluted and difficult to understand. It needs rewording for clarity.
  • which have caused Selmar and Cameo’s descent into madness – Selmar should also be possessive if he descended into madness.
  • Inside the cave-network – I don't think a hyphen is needed.
  • Inside the cave-network she finds a dying Cameo, who tells her the Beforetime weapons Alexi and Vega are searching for caused the Great White, but they do not know this; and that it is Elspeth’s destiny, as the Seeker, to destroy them. After mourning her death, Elspeth overhears that Rushton, imprisoned in the next cavern, is the true heir, as the son of the second Master of Obernewtyn, before she is captured by Ariel. Strapped to a table and the Zebrakhen machine, Elspeth is forced to hold the diaries of Marissa, the wife of the founder of Obernewtyn, and use her abilities to discover what Marissa was thinking when she wrote them to determine the weapons’ location. – the three consecutive long sentences leaves the reader a bit overwhelmed. To make this paragraph more engaging, perhaps rewrite to have some short sentences and some long sentences.
  • The plot comprises nearly half the article. I recommend condensing it by focusing less on the specific details and more on the generalities.

Reception

  • "The novel has also obtained an average rating of 3.96 out of 5 on goodreads.com." – Goodreads, a social cataloging, cannot be used as a reliable source. Because the ratings are aggregated from users and not from professional reviewers, this fact should be omitted. The rating can also be subjected to vote-stacking, which is why it is unreliable and generally excluded from articles.
  • Lloyd Alexander, an American fantasy author, comments – revise "comments" to "commented" for consistency with the rest of the section, where you use past tense.
  • For the third paragraph of the "Critical" Reception section, add an introductory sentence about how some reviewers had negative opinions about the book.
  • I dream of those other worlds and places where life is enchantingly complicated, more honourable, and where there is still room for noble deeds and great quests; a world in which even a Misfit might become a hero. – why is this quote included in the "Reception" section? It doesn't seem to belong.
  • The reception section reads like a quotefarm. I recommend summarizing and paraphrasing some of the reviews.

Publication history

  • link to the ISBNs using Template:ISBNT. Note the special format for tables.
  • Per WP:OVERLINKING, I recommend linking to the publisher on the first occurrence only for each table.
  • "Elspeth - Lady of Thought" – use an en dash in place of the hyphen

Adaptations

  • Are there secondary sources about the Corrugated Iron Youth Arts Theatre's adaptation? If not, they may not be notable enough for inclusion.

Sources

  • These two quotes are widely used both by the publishers and bookseller sites to promote the book, however I can find no independent source for them. Should I use the publisher's quoting of them? --Limolover talk 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about the book's themes. I recommend creating a "Theme" section, using the structure of the featured article To Kill a Mockingbird.

The most significant issues that bar this article's promotion to GA are the use of unreliable sources, the lack of a theme section, and the prose problems. Once these issues are resolved, the article will be prepared for a GA nomination. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks you Cunard for your thorough review. I have admittedly been having difficulty finding very reliable sources for some of these areas, but it seems silly to delete such information which is accurate merely because the sources are not well-known. --Limolover talk 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale for removing the sources is not because they are "not well-known" but because they are not reliable. The lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking for accuracy renders those sources unusable for a Wikipedia article. There are some sources at Google News Archive that you have not used in your article. Google Books may also be helpful. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Some of the sources are about the series as a whole or about the other books, though some will be helpful. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks for these Cunard. I was unaware this database existed. --Limolover talk 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty on the Inside

[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 feel that after working on it for nearly a year, it has reached the point where it qualifies for Featured Article status. Unreliable sources have been eliminated, more reliable ones have been added, phrasing and general copy-editing has been done and re-done countless times, the article flows nicely, it is informative, and provides a well-rounded overview of the subject with input from various resources.

Thanks, Scottdoesntknow (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This reads pretty well - thanks for all your work on it, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - assume you have already looked at some FAs on albums.
  • The main concern I have looking at the article is the amount of WP:FAIR USE material included. There is one sound clip (which is fine for an article on an album), the album cover (again, pretty standard), and then the rest are more problematic.
  • The guiding criteria here are in WP:NFCC. Basically any fair use media has to increase the reader's comprehension and not just be used as an illustration. File:HoleFirstSessionPromo.png to me is just used as an illustration - it is not really discussed in the article text that I can see and the band members are not even idetified in the caption. The band members are shown on the album cover, so what does this add to the article?
  • The album art work is discussed more in the article, so that may be OK. Generally the more the article discusses fair use media, the better, especially if it is discussed in terms of critical reaction. The press kit cutout seems to only be discussed in the caption, that I can see - how does this meet NFCC?
  • There are a few places that need references still -
    • The album was recorded over the course of four days and produced two newly-written songs, "Starbelly" and "Sassy", and recordings of songs that had rarely or never been performed live by the band, "Loaded" and "Good Sister/Bad Sister."
    • The album's closing track, "Clouds", is a musically and lyrically re-worked cover of Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides, Now", reduced to two chords accompanied by a wah pedal that give them an almost siren-like effect.
    • A great deal of religious imagery is also found in the songs.
    • but was never as popular as the band's later videos. For the music video, an alternate mix of the song by Gordon was used to eliminate profanity. Who says it was never as popular?
  • Reading the lead it seems odd to mention the producers before the members of the band. When I think of Hole, I think of Courtney Love.
  • I also found it odd that the lead did not mention all of the band members
  • MOS says once a person is introduced using their full name just to use their last name after that (with exceptions for people with the same last name, or known by a name other than their last name). So just Love (not Courtney Love) etc.
  • Some wikilinks seem unnecessary - does the average reader really need a link to wig, for example? See WP:OVERLINK
  • Be careful that references back up everything important in the part(s) of the article they are used as refs for. For example current ref 30 is just "Pretty on the Inside (1991) artwork, Caroline Records". While I can see that an educated person could look at the artwork and see that it is "a chaotic assemblage of scribbled and typewritten lyrics, personal "thank you" notes, cutouts of Catholic and Renaissance artwork, as well as childlike drawings and storybook pictures juxtaposed with photos of women in bondage." although it would be much better if this could be cited to an independent third-party source. However I fail to see how the artwork itself can be used to justify this claim The interior artwork ... reflects the disturbing and raw nature of the music. Without a ref, this reads like personal opinion / original research.
  • 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 ><>°° 13:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rambhadracharya

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been recently listed as a good article, and I will like a peer review so that we can meet the Featured article criteria. I will like to have comments on how this article can be improved to get the FA status.

Thanks, :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's review

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.

[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 been working on this article for nearly a year now and would like any suggestions to help improve it. A peer review earlier this year helped quite a bit, and the article has undergone some expansion and other significant changes since then. I think it is at at least GA status (pending review), but I would like suggestions that could help it meet FA status.

Thanks, AstroCog (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments This is good, and I think that with a few minor changes it would have little trouble making the grade at GAN. It's close to FA quality, in my opinion. However, I doubt that so many fair-use images would pass scrutiny there, and the nit-picky things I mention below need to be addressed. Your article has made me want to see the show, which I knew nothing about before today.

Synopsis

  • "Poole's nebbish personality initially clashes with Brisco's laid-back demeanor... " - Readers might have trouble with "nebbish". Would something else be more clear?
  • "Bowler begins bitter over the elder County's success and acts as a rival to Brisco." - Would "Bowler is initially bitter over the elder County's success and acts as a rival to Brisco" be better?
  • " "The orb was like the black rectangle in 2001, possibly from the future, possibly someplace other than Earth...I have a theory that [the writers] didn't even know and it would be whatever they needed it to be." - Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked since the link was not part of the original. The two links inside this quotation should be removed.
  • Fixed this in the synopsis. These links were added in good faith by a copy editor to the article. I didn't know about the style guideline here, so I left them in initially.AstroCog (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature show elements

  • The four links inside the Campbell quotations should be unlinked.
  • In the tag line at the bottom of the box quote, Starlog should be in italics.

Casting

  • "Carry seeing great potential in the character of Bowler." - Should "seeing" be "saw"?
  • Unlink "one-liner" in the Carry quotation.
  • Unlink the link in the Clemenson quote.
  • Unlink the links in the Rutherford quote.

Music

  • "is now known to television viewers beyond the show itself: in the mid-1990s, NBC hired Edelman to provide music for their sports coverage, including NFL games and the Olympics." - I would use a semicolon here rather than a colon, and I would use "it" for NBC rather than "their". I'd change the linked NFL to National Football League (NFL) on first use in the article. Ditto for NBC.

Pilot episode

  • "Initial critical reaction to pilot was positive" - Missing word? Maybe "to the pilot"?
  • thought that the pilot's "intelligent, satiral asides" were a "delight" - I don't think "satiral" is a word. Should it be "satirical"?
  • "Walter Goodman of The New York Times found the supporting characters lacking... " - Lacking what? I think you either need to say something like "weak" or "lacking depth".

References

  • Citation 45 lists "The New York Times: pp. D6", but this seems to be a single page rather than multiple pages. Use p. for a single page and pp. for more than one page. Citation 48 seems to have the same problem, and there are others.
  • Should Citation 54 include the publisher? Or is DVD Extra the publisher? Not sure. What about a date of publication? Better double-check any similar citations.
  • Citation 62 and others like it look odd to me. I think the correct form is "Christian Science Monitor, "Weekend", p. 11. Not quite sure, though.
  • Citation 6 has "Aired August 27, 1993". To keep the date formatting consistent, it should be "1993-08-27".
  • I've fixed the page number problem, which seemed to have been a bug in the reference generator I used. Other citations fixed, including the DVD commentaries and extras. I was originally following the format seen in the reference section of Featured Article Firefly (TV series), but frankly, I always thought it didn't look good. Glad to have it fixed now.AstroCog (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • You'll have a hard time convincing reviewers at FAC that four non-free images are necessary for readers to understand the text. WP:NFCC has the guidelines. If you need to eliminate some, I'd lose the anachronistic characters first and the orb second.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1930s jazz standards

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the third part in a series of lists of jazz standards, two of which are already featured. This one has been expanded quite a bit and I would like to hear ideas for improvement before taking it to FLC. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the long delay in reviewing this. PR has been gridlocked for a few weeks (chronic shortage of regular reviewers) but I hope I will be able to post some useful comments in a few hours. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I can't find a great deal to comment on. The list seems to follow the style and format of others in the series, is clearly set out, properly sourced and referenced. I have only a few minor comments:

Hardly worth the wait, I know, but this is a well-prepared article that is probably ready for FLC. Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments! Jafeluv (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Bizet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

One of the "might-have-beens" of Western theatrical music, Bizet struggled for success and recognition throughout his professional life. He found it with Carmen, but then died at 36, unaware that this final work, received indifferently at first, would become a worldwide and lasting triumph. A brilliant Conservatoire student, and a Prix de Rome laureate, he could not conquer the conservatism of French music during the Second Empire period, which stifled many a promising career. Had Bizet not written Carmen he might, like his friend Ernest Guiraud, be almost forgotten by now. Any biographical article on Bizet has to draw considerably on the work of Minna Curtiss and Winton Dean, though I have tried to spread the use of reliable sources as far as I can. All comments, criticisms, corrections etc gratefully received. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Brian, being very busy in real life, I only had the time today to speed-read your article. I found a few typos, but I was very impressed with the clarity of the discourse and the standard of the prose. Clearly, this article will be promoted to FA in good time. It's a damn good encyclopaedic synopsis of a composer that everyone has heard about but only a few know about (well, at least in my case). I am never sure about the correct usage of "though" and "although". I see that you have used "though" in your nomination and in the article. Since this is a PR and not and FA review, I feel that I can raise this trivial concern. Is this just a stylistic decision? I hope to add more . Graham Colm (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham. My dictionary gives exactly the same meaning ("despite the fact that") to both "though" and "although", so I think they can be used interchangeably. But I will check the matter out with Mr Riley (see below). Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley – I'll need to do this in stages. First few comments:

  • Lead
  • Conservatoire
    • "produce works of increasing sophistication and quality" – a citation for this statement would be good
      • This was actually covered in the previous cite (Dean, pp. 7–8) so I have moved the citatiion
    • "note for note in some passages" – ditto
      • Covered by the Curtiss cittion at the end of the para.
    • "Bizet's prize cantata" – do we know title or subject? It would be interesting, and wouldn't take much space.
  • Rome
    • "and which Bizet" – "and which he"? One less noun.
    • "Under its elderly director" – is Schnetz's antiquity really material here? (Parti-pris, moi?)
  • Paris
    • "State-subsidised" – capital letter wanted?
    • "L'Opéra and the Opéra-Comique" – French definite article for one and English for the other?
      • Damn. I will convert to English (as this is English wikipedia)
    • "Théâtre Italien specialised in second-rate Italian opera" – citation, if only to defend yourself from a lynch mob of canary fanciers
      • It's covered by the next citation (Steen)
    • "write a three-act opera… from a libretto…" – "to" rather than "from"?

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim. No comment means I've used your suggestion. I look forward to your further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final batch.
  • Marriage
    • "Ludovic wrote in his journal" – a while since the previous and thus far only mention of Ludovic. I wonder if calling him by both his names might be clearer for readers.
    • "and had completed it" – unclear why the pluperfect here.
    • "mother-in-law with whom he maintained" – comma needed before "with" (otherwise the ghastly prospect arises of several mothers-in-law of whom this is just one).
  • Late career
    • "a piano duet, Jeux d'enfants" – this would be one and the same, presumably, but it could be read either way.
    • "hoping that Fauré's approval might influence the directors of the Opéra" – not sure (speaking as Fauré's Vicar on Wikipedia) what influence Fauré was in a position to exert in 1872. As secretary of the Société Nationale de Musique?
      • The source says that Bizet hoped Fauré's "influence would thaw the frozen portals of the Opéra". I agree that it is odd that Fauré, then 27 years old, was considered to have much influence, but I am following the sources. Perhaps he had friends in high places? Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a bit of it! Fauré himself struggled and was an outsider until middle age. But Bizet and others had joined him the previous year in founding the Société Nationale, and I can only assume that it was to that that Bizet was pinning his hopes. Anyway, as you say, one must go by the sources. Tim riley (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Massenet, Saint-Saens and Gounod" – won't you give poor old Saint-Saëns his diaeresis?
  • Dramatic works
    • "one-act Conservatoire opera Le Docteur Miracle" – in what sense a "Conservatoire opera" as it was written for Offenbach's competition?
  • Legacy
    • Far be it from me of all people to object to the sudden appearance of that imperial beard, but some captious souls may wonder why Sir Thomas's recording of the C major symphony should be singled out for mention. (It's incomparable, of course, but no other modern performer's versions of any other work are mentioned.)
      • Well, Fritz Lehmann, Stokowski and Ansermet all recorded it before Sir Tom. I singled Beecham's out because Gramophone's reviewer (T.H. if you can identify) said, a propos the others: "What this symphony wants is a recording by a first-class stylist—Beecham, of course". And then Beecham obliged. Should I amend to "...and has been recorded many times"?
        • I think I'd amend as you suggest if I were you, but you could leave it and see what people say at FAC. T.H., by the bye, was Trevor Harvey - a good musician, perceptive critic, and collector of press clangers such as "In Going to My Naked Bed (unaccompanied)" and "Art Thou Troubled with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra". Tim riley (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. On the question of though/although above, Fowler's original disquisition made my eyes glaze over, but Burchfield's modern revision is clear enough: wherever "although" can be used, so, equally properly, can "though".

As discussed elsewhere I shall be gratefully cribbing from your footnote 1 here for the Offenbach article when getting it shipshape for FAC in due course.

This is another top-notch article. I enjoyed it immensely, learned a lot from it, and look forward to seeing it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I will look forward to the finally polished Offenbach. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Finetooth comments: Another excellent article, well-illustrated. Just a dabbler in music, really, I never tire of Carmen or of "Au fond du temple saint", and I enjoyed learning more about Bizet.

Lead

  • It might be useful to add the phonetic pronunciation of Bizet to the opening sentence.
    • I suppose you're right, though I find these phonetics play havoc with the first lines of articles and might well put readers off. Do you know how to transcribe "zhorzh beezay" into phonetic script. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, no. I was hoping you did. I suppose it's among those many things I should learn. Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frequently-performed works: - Delete hyphen?

Family background and childhood

  • "His father, Adolphe Bizet, had followed the trade of a hairdresser and wigmaker" - Tighten by changing "had followed the trade of" to "had been".
  • "who in the course of his career performed" - Tighten to "who performed"?
  • "at the age of thirteen" - Perhaps 13 for internal consistency and then 10 in "before he reached the minimum entry age of ten" a few lines later and 10th early in the next subsection in "two weeks before his tenth birthday"?

Conservatoire

  • "After this rebuff Bizet entered an opera competition for young composers organised by Jacques Offenbach, with a prize of 1,200 francs on offer." - This might be read to mean that Offenbach organized the composers. Would something like this be more clear: "After this rebuff Bizet entered an opera competition for young composers. Organised by Jacques Offenbach, it offered a prize of 1,200 francs"?
That works. I'd prefer "that" rather than "which", but this might be just a matter of style. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rome, 1858–60

  • "a 16th century palace that since 1803" - Hyphenate "16th-century"?
  • "As a condition of the offer was that the opera should be the composer's first publicly staged work, Bizet hurriedly withdrew La guzla from production and incorporated parts of its music into the new opera." - I stumbled here, attempted a fix, and then changed my mind. Maybe "Since a condition of the offer was that the opera should be the composer's first publicly staged work, Bizet... ".
    • Perhaps "Because..." is a better intro than either "As..." or "Since..."?
Agreed. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years of struggle

  • "so in December 1865 Bizet offered it to L'Opera, who rejected it" - "Which" rather than "who"?
  • "remained unperformed until 1946.[48][44]" - Reverse the order to [44][48].
OK. Not knowing anything about it, I wondered if performances were typically scheduled in discrete blocks (six threes or two nines), which might explain the identical numbers. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War and upheaval

  • "an outbreak of patriotic fervour and confident expectations of victory.[66][7]" - [7][66]
  • "with excerpts from works by Gluck, Rossini and Meyerbeer.[71][68] - [68][71]

Illness and death

  • In Note 8, would it be better to describe Gelma as a physician or something else rather than using the ambiguous "Dr"?

Orchestral, piano and vocal works

  • Owing something to Gounod, and with passages that recall Weber and Mendelssohn the work, says Dean, suffers from poor organisation and an excess of pretentious music; it is a "misfire". - Comma after "Mendelssohn"?

References

Looks like User:One Ton Depot fixed it. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • Is it useful to add OCLCs for books without ISBNs? WorldCat returns OCLC 505162968 for Bizet and his world and most likely can identify the others by number.
    • I'll work on this

That's it. I don't imagine this will have much trouble at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a most helpful review. As per normal, no comment means I've taken your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • "After his death his musical legacy, apart from Carmen, was generally neglected; manuscripts were given away or lost, published versions of his works were frequently revised and adapted by other hands." I think youre going to have to split this sentence somewhere, that comma should really be a semicolon and you can't have two.
Conservatoire
  • "solfège" Can some pipe be made to allow the reader unfamiliar with this term to not be totally at sea?
  • "but nor were any of the others" neither?
  • "with a prize of 1,200 francs on offer" Suggest that "on offer" adds no meaning.
  • "fellow-prizeman Perhaps "fellow laureate"?
Emergent composer
  • "at that time" omit, what other time would you be talking about?  :)
  • "State-subsidised" Almost certainly lower case.
  • "was paramount at this time" even though better justified, I'd still say "was then paramount"
  • "Bizet's third envoi ... " I would divide this paragraph, perhaps at the start of discussion of the Pearl Fishers.
War
  • "he would no longer be safe in the city," "he was no longer safe in the city".
Late career
  • " the director's unjustified closing" It's a fact that it was unjustified?
  • Something might be said about Bizet's finances in the early 1870s.
  • I'll have to think about this. The biographers are not very specific, but it is clear that the Bizets, though never wealthy, were reasonably comfortable - though Georges needed to earn a regular income, hence his continuing with publishers' hackwork and music lessons. There was probably some cushioning via the Halevy fortune; Mme Halevy was very well-to-do. Perhaps a line or two would be informative. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • "Owing something to Gounod, and with passages that recall Weber and Mendelssohn the work, says Dean, suffers from poor organisation and an excess of pretentious music; it is a "misfire".". I would rephrase to make for fewer commas, and also ensure that I cited this sentence..
  • " An exception is the set of 12 pieces " I guess the exception is to the amateur, rather than to the repetoire.
  • The subject of the first sentence is Bizet's piano music which is (a) rarely performed and (b) very difficult to play. An exception, i.e it is performed fairy frequently and isn't fiendishly difficult, is the set of 12 pieces etc. I think the sentence says what I want it to say. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of Bizet's songs were written in the period 1886–88." Surely a typo, given the circumstances?
  • "and a laborious plot" It has a plot? Never mind.
  • "opera's Far Eastern setting," Sri Lanka is Far East? Well, in a certain Kipling sense, I suppose.
  • "As Bizet moved away" I suspect this sentence should be split.
Legacy
  • "Officer of the Legion of Honour" Earlier you refer to Bizet as having been made a chevalier (lower case) of this award. Are these the same thing?
  • "a famous Parisien hostess " It might be wise to mention that it she was a social hostess. If so.
That's about it. An excellent effort, looking forward to seeing it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that urgently needs to be followed up on. The remaining points I could go either way on, so that makes it editor's judgment in my book.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have followed up your query about the Bizets' finances and not found anything specific in the sources that I can use. They were clearly never going to go bust (the Halevy money would have prevented that) but equally clearly, Georges needed to work to maintain their lifestyle. On the other hand, he could obviously afford to make principled stands, e.g. concerning the Opéra appointment, and in his brief career as a music critic. It's pretty much speculation, though, and I think I have to leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jappalang

General

  • I notice a lot of "Parisien"... is it not supposed to be "Parisian"?[6]
  • How was his relationship with his father? This seems to be missing, considering that his father raised his son as his half-brother (apparently because they shared a woman) and that elder Bizet attended the composer's funeral.

Lede

  • "... he died three months later, ..."
    Considering the age at which he died (and with no wars or epidemics at the moment), I think the probable cause should be stated here.

Family background and childhood

  • Is there any information on how the elder Bizet and Delsarte were introduced to each other?
  • The end of the first paragraph is a good place to state whether Bizet is the only child of the union or not.

Conservatoire

  • "... a feat which impressed ..."
    "... a feat that impressed ..."
  • "... and soon began to ..."
    "Soon" is redundant.
  • I wonder about NPOV when reading Lecocq's pique; it does not seem neutral to let a primary (biased) source comment on the subject's achievement without backing from other more secondary sources or a counter from a notable primary opinion biased to the subject.
  • "Bizet was awarded the prize after a ballot of the members of the Académie des Beaux-Arts overturned the judges' initial decision in favour of the oboist Charles Colin."
    I think "... judges' initial decision, which was in favour of the oboist ..." is needed for clarity (I somewhat confusingly read the sentence as the initial decision was overturned to favour Colin, then the prize was awarded to Bizet).
  • "... Bizet received a pension for five years, ..."
    Considering that the common definition for "pension" now refers to retirement (and that the form used here is chiefly historical),[7] perhaps another term would be better here (or define it here).

Rome, 1858–60

  • "Bizet relished the convivial atmosphere; in his first six months in Rome his only composition was a Te Deum written for the Rodrigues Prize ..."
    Those two clauses fail to gel for me... he relished the happy place (implying an environment for greater productivity) but produced only one work?
  • "A tendency to conceive ambitious projects, only to quickly abandon them, became a feature of Bizet's Rome years; ..."
    "In his years at Rome, Bizet developed/exhibited a tendency to conceive ambitious projects, only to quickly abandon them; ..."?

Paris 1860–63

  • "On 13 March 1861 Bizet attended the Paris premiere of Wagner's opera Tannhauser, a performance greeted by audience riots stage-managed by the influential Jockey-Club de Paris."
    There is possible ambiguity (to a casual reader) here... did the Jockey-Club [stage-]manage the performance or the riots?
  • "... Bizet revised his formerly negative opinion of Wagner ..."
    What was this "formerly negative opinion of Wagner"? The details were never mentioned earlier.
  • "... only at Reiter's death in 1913 did she reveal her son's true paternity."
    Did Bizet and his father know about this? Did they even know they slept with the same woman? My... my... "housekeeper", eh?
    • As stated above, the relationship between Mlle Reiter and Adolphe Bizet is conjectural. The inference in the sources is that Adolphe, by accepting paternity of the maid's son, was protecting Georges, but there really is nothing on which to develop this aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years of struggle

  • "... offered it to the Opera, ..."
    Missing diacritic?
  • "... who rejected it; it the work remained unperformed until 1946."
  • "In July 1866 Bizet signed another contract with Carvalho, for La jolie fille de Perth; the libretto of which, by J.H. Vernoy de Saint-Georges after Sir Walter Scott, is described by Bizet's biographer Winton Dean as "the worst Bizet was ever called upon to set"."
  • "... any of Bizet's other operas, the second act being hailed by ..."
    "... any of Bizet's other operas; the second act was hailed by ..."
  • "... Bizet was one of four composers who contributed a single act to a four-act operetta Marlborough s'en va-t-en guerre."
    I read this as meaning that the four of them contributed a single act, which I presume is not the case. "... Bizet joined three other composers to write a four-act operetta Marlborough s'en va-t-en guerre; each composer contributed one act."

Marriage

  • "... left-wing, anti-religious ..."
    It might be part of a quote, but can the basis for these objections be expounded on?
  • "Whatever their objections, by summer 1869 they had been overcome, ..."
    Seems a bit too "flourish-y": "Their objections were overcome by summer 1869, ..."?
  • "... Geneviève's uncertain mental health, ..."
    What is her condition?
  • "... Bizet kept on good terms with his mother-in-law, with whom he and maintained an extensive correspondence with her."

War and upheaval

  • "... within the sounds of the gunfire of the government troops that gradually crushed the uprising: ..."
    "... within hearing distance of the gunfire that resounded as govermment troops gradually crushed the uprising: ..."

Dramatic works

  • Why is Caruso highlighted in the caption, but not Farrar?

Images are totally fine with me; File:Paris Opera fire 29 10 1873.jpg's CR did work in 1866,[8] so I find it conceivable for him to be very likely dead for more than 70 years. Jappalang (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this comprehensive review of text and images. Where I have not commented, I have addressed your points in a manner close to or identical to your suggestions. I am sorry I cannot elaborate on the infamous ménage-à-trois, but there we are. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Head gold pieces

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it at FAC in due course and I'd like some feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really fun article too. And I used my own coins this time to avoid all the image problems!

Brianboulton comments: I am fairly familiar with this series, and can generally anticipate how things will proceed on the cock-up and mortality fronts. So my comments are likely to be mainly nitpicks.

  • General: There's a couple of dablinks that need fixing.
Lead
  • The opening sentence is very, very long. There's a bit of redundancy: "...were two coins struck by the...", and a couple of unnecessary "thens" later on. The sentence isn't that easy to split without adding text; my best effort is "The Indian Head gold pieces or Pratt-Bigelow gold coins were struck by the United States Mint intermittently between 1908 and 1929. A two-and-a-half dollar piece, or quarter eagle, was struck from 1908 to 1915, and again during 1925–1929. A five-dollar coin was produced from 1908 to 1916, and again in 1929".
  • "Identical": we are straying into Tim Riley territory here, but I don't think that you can say the pieces are "identical except for size", since identical means alike in every respect. In geometry we call triangles that are identical in all respects but size "similar". The designs may of course be identical, regardless of size.
  • "President Theodore Roosevelt, beginning in 1904,..." Personally I would either switch this to "Beginning in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt..." of "From 1904,..."
  • "Before his August 1907 death..." – as distinct from all his other deaths? Or "Before his death in August 1907..."
  • "The coins were struck continuously through 1916, when gold ceased to circulate because of the wartime situation and then again in the late 1920s". I'm not sure this is expressed clearly enough. Per the opening sentence, only the half-eagle was struck through 1916. I think, also, you need a full stop after "situation" then "Production of both coins resumd in the late 1920s".
Innovation
  • I wonder whether Lodge's political identity is relevant to this article. The link is there for those who want to know who he was.
Fair enough, it will save bother in future articles, although the coin series is winding down.
  • "Roosevelt friends" → "Roosevelt's friends"
  • Length: "Bigelow was one of a number of Roosevelt friends given early specimens of the double eagle, and wrote to the President on January 8, 1908 praising the Saint-Gaudens coins and stating that he was working with a local sculptor (who proved to be Bela Pratt) on an idea which would allow coins to be struck in high relief, with the designs still protected from wear and the pieces able to stack easily (both problems with high relief coins)". I'd say there are three reasoable-length sentences here.
  • "Working, correctly, on the assumption the bill would succeed, Leach had Barber continue with his work..." First two words unnecessary, and lead to "Working ... work".
  • "(a project that did not go beyond the talking stage) Can you clarify precisely what "a project" refers to here?
Would it help if I changed it to "proposal"? It's giving the eagle (which had already been redesigned) similar treatment by dropping its design under the level of the field.
  • A little wordy here: "The opinion must have been satisfactory, as Roosevelt approved the obverse design, by Pratt, in mid-May, subject to minor changes which were requested by the Mint and made by Pratt". Suggestion: "The opinion must have been satisfactory, as Roosevelt approved Pratt's obverse design in mid-May, subject to minor changes requested by the Mint".
  • Is it possible to rephrase and thus avoid the three word sentence "Pratt's was adopted" - especially as the next sentence starts: "Pratt..."
  • Is Barber's holiday location relevant?
As I had mentioned it in several of the other Great Recoinage articles (usually he is getting called back for some emergency), I'd like to keep the same level of detail here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cracked down" reads to me a little colloquially:
  • "the only pattern not to be melted" - presumably, the only one of this pattern not to be melted.
I can say "pattern coin if you prefer. The two terms are identical in coin collecting, indeed "pattern coin" is considered wordy, but I think justified here.

I'll come back and do the final two sections soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't commented, it means I agree. Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Up to date, I think, though I did some in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest:-

Design
  • You will need to reword this: "Aside from the eagle, only Mint Chief Engraver James Longacre had attempted to depict Indians on US circulating coinage..." That reads as though the eagle preceded Longacre in depicting Indians on US coinage. This is another of your extra loooong sentences and it perhaps needs attention on that score, too.
  • "Art historian Cornelius Vermeule dismissed complaints from the time of issuance..." Do you mean "at" rather than "from"? Otherwise the sentence reads rather oddly. Also, you need a full stop, not a comma, after "too thin"
I've clarified. Vermeule wrote in 1970. This is mildly awkward, he's really talking about Chapman's comments but it would be difficult to move this section to the end.
  • Sentence length is again a problem in the final paragraph.
Production
  • "In commerce, the new coins proved to be thinner..." Surely, the coins were either thinner or they weren't, not just in commerce - though the effect of the thinness was mainly felt in commerce. Needs rephrasing.
  • "Chapman wrote again, and had the correspondence published in the numismatic press, but no one at the lame duck Roosevelt White House bothered to reply, "the new coins were issued and would remain as they were for twenty-five years, or until Congress ordered them changed". Full stop required after reply. To whom is the quotation ascribed?
  • "I was somewhat amused by their savage attack" - I know it's a quote, but who did he mean by "their"? It only seems to be Chapman that's attacking.
Probably people agreeing with Chapman. However, it is Chapman's attack which has come down to history, such as it is.
  • "In addition, the economic unrest caused by World War I included a rise in the price of gold..." The initial "In addition" is not appropriate since this sentence introduces new, unrelated circumstances. Maybe: "An additional factor was the economic unrest caused by World War I, which caused a rise..." etc
  • "All later mintages were under a million..." I'd use "these late" rather than "later" which reads confusingly. Does this mean the total minted was less than a million, or that the individual mintages at Pennsylvania and Denver were less than a million?
I am striking the sentence. I just looked at the entire series and the mintages were not exceptional. The highest mintage in the series was 1913, at 722,000.
  • A final long sentence: "Gold coins not released were melted in the mid-1930s, along with those recalled from banks and private holders, after President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 ended the issuance of gold coins, putting an end to the quarter and half eagle series, which had begun in 1796 and 1795, respectively".

I have some doubt about the "Production" heading, as the section is mainly about the circulation history. Otherwise, that's all. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've modifed it. Thank you for the review. This will go to FAC whenever the quarter clears the page. Only one chapter left in the recoinage saga, Walking Liberty half dollar which will be after these.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thank you. I will leave this open until a slot opens for this article at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born This Way

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through a major restructuring and despited improving significantly, there are still some issues that would limit this article from becoming a GA article and/or a FAC. I'd like to know some improvements that can be made, and some assistance with a thorough copy-edit would be much appreciated.

Thanks, DAP388 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTICLESIZE. This is passing the threshold level of being an encyclopedic article, and over to fandom fanpedia. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely needs trimming; especially the Singles section. The references are a mess and the overall content is too confusing to even comprehend. (cough *artwork reveal date*) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed a lot of the extra stuff out of the article, particularly in the Singles and Promotion sections. Will probably start on the intro and the references tomorrow. — DAP388 (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No DAP, it still goes into unnecessary details, especially in the composition and themes. The article is 145KB in size, that's greater than even freaking FA bios! This needs a drastic reduction to 75–80 KB. I will see what I can do. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, this is starting to get frustrating and tedious. I feel like I'm doing the best I can do. Help would be much appreciated! — DAP388 (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, trimming it down to 75–80 KB seems like a bit of a stretch. Unless it drastically shrinks via references, then you'd be cutting out a lot of info in regards to the album. — DAP388 (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011
Yes, I think the article should be trimmed. The composition section, however, is only very long because there are 17 songs on the album (including the three bonus tracks). I'll do what I can to help trim it down.--&レア (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Galaxy 2

[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 made this article become a Good Article and I think it has potential to become a Featured Article; I need some some suggestions to polish the article before I nominate it for Featured Article

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. The polished prose requirement at FAC is often the toughest to meet, and I don't believe the article is there yet. Here are suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "The story follows the protagonist Mario as he pursues the antagonist Bowser into outer space, who has captured Princess Peach and taken control of the universe using Power Stars." - The modifying clause seems attached to "space". Better might be: "The story follows the protagonist Mario as he pursues the antagonist Bowser into outer space, where he has imprisoned Princess Peach and taken control of the universe using Power Stars." I'm not sure "imprisoned" is correct, but you get the idea.
  • "(this version would be called More Super Mario Galaxy)." - I'd prefer a semicolon to the set of parentheses, and I'd use "would have been" rather than "would be".

Gameplay

  • "who has a variety of physical abilities" - Since almost anyone has "a variety of physical abilities", it might be appropriate to name two or three special ones. Maybe "who has special abilities such as... ".
  • "Like the original, the objective of the game... " - "As in the original" would be better, I think.

Setting and level design

  • "(so named because it is shaped like Mario's head[7]) that serves as a hub world, which can be visited anytime and is expanded upon when new abilities are unlocked." - Two things. Should the ref be after the end parentheses rather than before? Is "upon" necessary, or could it be just "expanded"?
  • "The first six worlds end with a boss level against Bowser or Bowser Jr. that, when conquered... " - Is "conquered" the right word? Is it possible to conquer a level? Maybe "boss level in which the object is to conquer Bowser or Bowser Jr...." - Or something like that.
  • "These levels contain Green Stars that are hidden or are placed in hard-to-reach areas, focusing on heavy exploration and precision that could result in instant death if the player fails." - Maybe "These levels, containing Green Stars that are hidden or are placed in hard-to-reach areas, require intense exploration and precision and cause instant death if the player fails."
  • "For example, some environments change to the beat of the background music, such as sudden shifts in the direction of gravity or the appearance or disappearance of platforms; and others feature a special switch that temporarily slows down time." - It's unclear how a sudden shift in the direction of gravity is a kind of background music. Recast for clarity?
  • "In addition, Prankster Comets have become more general and offer any number of variations: while Super Mario Galaxy offered only five mutually exclusive variations, the Prankster Comets in Super Mario Galaxy 2 range to any number of challenges that often mix or overlap, such as destroying all the enemies, collecting 100 Purple Coins, and completing the level within a time limit or while avoiding Cosmic Clones (doppelgängers of Mario that pursue and imitate all the player's actions)." - Too complex.

Guides and multiplayer

  • "The drawback is that the player is awarded a Bronze Star, requiring them to complete it themselves in order to earn a Golden Power Star." - "Player" is singular, but "them" is plural. Recast.
  • I'll stop commenting line-by-line on the prose, but I have identified enough glitches that I think it would be a good idea for you to seek the help of a copyeditor before pressing on to FAC. You can probably find someone at WP:GOCE.

Overlinking

  • I see two kinds of overlinking. One kind involves links for things like fruit, which readers of English already know. The main kind, though, involves linking terms more than once in the lead and once in the main text. For example, Super Mario Galaxy is linked twice in the lead, once in Gameplay, twice in Plot, and once in Music.

Other

  • I would move the Wikipedia books link down to External links. It's displacing an edit button in the Awards section and really is a link external to the English Wikipedia.
  • I'm not sure, but I think you'll have trouble convincing reviewers at FAC that all three non-free images are necessary for a reader to understand the text. WP:NFCC has the guidelines. I don't think the Cloud Mario image or the original soundtrack image add anything not already explained in the text. They are decorative rather than necessary.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Girls Club

[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 the article to be at WP:GA status

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Although I'm no expert on the content, I can see that the prose problems here are too numerous to count. The article in its present condition would have no chance at GAN. Here are some specific suggestions:

Lead

  • "The show centers seven mischievous and rebellious women from different backgrounds... " - Missing word? Perhaps you mean "centers on".
  • "The cast, who are deemed "bad girls", are asked to maintain and respect rules applied to them before moving in a luxurious mansion and lifestyle for three months." - Are they asked to follow those rules before moving in or after they move in? There's a difference.
  • "are chronicalized and recorded" - "Chronicalized" is not a word. Perhaps you mean "chronicled".
  • "The format of the show changed from antecedent seasons." - The meaning of this is unclear. Do you mean "from one season to the next"?
  • "If any rule breaches... " - A rule can't breach. Do you mean "if a bad girl breaks a rule, she... "?
  • "there have been six complete seasons' " - No apostrophe needed here.
  • "The show is broadcast in five different countries worldwide." - "Worldwide" is redundant. You don't need it. Come to think of it, you don't need "different" either.
  • "The Bad Girls Club received negative criticism from television critics because of its pro-violence and addiction from adolescents who emulate the show." - Do you mean "because they think that it promotes violence and drug addiction among adolescents who watch the show"?
  • "from cast-members who spewed comments and opinions" - "Spewed" seems too strong because of its association with vomiting. Maybe something like "issued"?
  • "There has been three spin-offs... " - Subject-verb disagreement. "Have" is what you want here.
  • The above list of prose problems in the lead is not complete, and similar problems occur throughout the main text. My suggestion is to fix as many of these problems as you can and then seek help from the copyeditors at WP:GOCE.

Other

  • The heads and subheads should normally avoid repeating the main words from the article title. Something like "Airings and locations of the Bad Girls Club" would be better as "Airings and locations". MOS:HEAD has details.
  • The Manual of Style suggests using blockquotes rather than fancy quotes like the big blue ones around the creed. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.
  • The date formatting should be consistent throughout the main text and tables. In the first table, you use a format like "April 24, 2007", but in the second table you use "6 December 2006". I would stick with the first format throughout.
  • Nothing should be linked in a direct quotation since it was not linked in the original.
  • The "Spin-offs" section has too many stubby subsections. I would try to find a way to combine them.
  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awww I was hoping that I took care of the prose if I had used "bigger" words :) Thanks for the review, I'll fix everything and re-read the article making sure it makes sense. I'll also request it at GOCE. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Entombment (Bouts)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would appreciate feedback and advice. The article is short but I hope covers the range of scholarship. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I look forward to reviewing this Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time.

Lead
  • "The smaller works would have been paired in a format similar to Bouts' 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament". Could there be a directive to this image, to assist understanding of this sentence?
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was unrecorded until a mid-19th century Milan inventory..." might read better as "It was first recorded in a mid-19th century Milan inventory..."
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...without damaging the canvas..." Previously it was state that the painting was on linen. Is this one and the same thing?
Good point. without damaging the surface Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • The location of the prominent Lamentation of Christ image, in a section describing another painting, is distracting. I kept having to stop myself checking the text against this image.

Images regiged. :Done Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Gospel accounts, Golgotha was the place of Christ's crucifixion, not the site of his tomb.
  • It's not clear why a similarity to Simon the Pharisee in another painting identifies Nicodemus in this one. Is it a question of dress, or of some other distinguishing Pharisaic feature?
  • "a while headdress" → "a white headdress"
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joseph of Arimathea ... brought Christ's body from Pontius Pilate to Golgotha" - see earlier point.
Done Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of content: the last sentence of this section repeats the second sentence.
Condition
  • What does "Z-spun" mean?
Have a better source now on this. Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Entombment is one of the best preserved and few surviving examples of the glue-size technique..." reads awkwardly. It's hard to rephrase without undue repetition, but I suggest: "Among the few surviving examples of the glue-size technique, The Entombment is one of the best preserved..." etc
  • As a matter of interest, but how do we know what the original colours were?
Inference from his other works, doing. Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The canvas has deteriorated substantially and the colours have greatly changed and faded over time,[10] but it is still one of best conserved works of its type." Redundant sentence, as these points have already been made.
  • "X-ray shows" probably better as "X-rays show"
  • "Infra-red photography shows that..." Probably, "confirms that..." would be better, in view of the X-ray evidence.
  • Citation 14 is an unreferenced comment, as is 20
  • The final sentence of the section is uncited.
Polyptych
  • The section title does not occur in the section prose. Some readers may be unfamiliar with the term.
  • "...two works half its length and width positioned at either side..." "At either side" should read "on each side", since "either" is ambiguous ("one or the other")
  • The second and third paragraphs of this section appear to be in the wrong order. We shouldn't be reading about the 1998 reconstruction before we know what the elements were. I suggest you reverse them (a little tweaking of prose may be necessary for continuity).
Provenance and attribution
  • "The dating of works established as his can be broadly construed by their skill." Something wrong here; dates are not "construed", and what does "their skill" refer to? I assumed the sentence to mean that the dates of Bouts's known works are generally determined by the level of skill displayed in them (the more skill, the later date).
  • ...but, reading on: "Because the presentation of perspective in The Entombment is clumsy in areas, it can be assumed to have been completed after 1464". So clumsiness (i.e. lack of skill) indicates a late work? I am afraid that this dating business needs some further clarification.
  • The words "along with the fact that" are unnecessary verbosity and should be removed.
  • "in the Bout's..." Stray apostrophe
  • The sentence beginning "The Entombment was first recorded..." spins on endlessly and needs some serious subdivision.
  • The sum "£120 14s" needs explanation, as most readers won't understand the obsolete form. I'm not talking about present values, it's explaining what "14s" means. One simple solution would be to say "just over £120". Also, I'm not sure about "England's collection" at the end. Maybe "British collections"?

No need to place quotes round "originally in the possession of the Foscari family" as this is commonplace phrasing. If you're concerned about a copyvio, make it "originally owned by..."

  • "The Foscari's were..." another stray apostrophe
  • New paragraphs should not begin with pronound ("It was transported...")
  • Last sentence: I'm not sure about "unsophisticated" as a description; perhaps to vague. Also, another inappropriate "while".

That's about it. A charming article, needs a little polishing. I've done a few minor edits myself, for noncontroversial corrections. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please feel free to ping my talkpage if you want to discuss any of my comments, or if you would like me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The toolbox in the top right (dablinks etc) appears to refer to the Daniel Radcliffe article (!) It may be a glitch in my system, but please check it out. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fault now corrected. Check out the dablinks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt: Working through, but I need to track down difficult to get sources to meet Brian's substantial cmts. In other words, not ignoring, just mired for the moment, but appreciative. I dont mind if the review is archived; have the view I was looking for. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the problems you found have been adressed. There has been a broad sweep of the article in the last few days, I hope to your satisifaction. Best. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tranmere Rovers F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd like to get this article up to FA level. It was listed as GA earlier this year. However, it just scraped over the line, and I suspect needs a good deal of work before being of the required standard. I'd appreciate advice as to any changes needed. Thanks! U+003F? 14:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

I am afraid that because of pressures of time, this will be a fairly swift review. If it is your intention to take this to FAC, a fair amount of work is necessary:-

  • The lead will need to be expanded, to become a concise summary of the whole article.
  • There should be a general beefing up of the content, parts of which are rather skimpy. For example, we are told "Rovers continued to play throughout the First World War, although their players were criticised for avoiding military service, despite being employed in the local shipyards." What kind of games did they play, against whom, in what competitions, etc? And why did Barnes's managership last only five months? These are just examples; I found the whole article written in a rather anecdotal, episodic fashion.
  • The general prose is reasonably good, though there is some carelessness. For example, grammatical glitches in "...in 1912 they showed their ambition by moving to the present Prenton Park site, with 800-seater stand"; and "King's first task was to avoid finishing bottom of Division Four and be relegated". A copyedit from a noninvolved editor would be an advantage.
  • It's OK to say "Tranmere Rovers are..." But the plural doesn't really work when you say: "The football club were formed..." Also, "The football club were formed as Belmont Football Club..." is awkwardly repetitous. Something like "The club was formed as Belmont Football Club..." would resolve this.
  • You should avoid using "today" or "to this day" as indicators of time, since these are inspecific. Give a year, e.g. "as of 2011"
  • Statements of editorial opinion should be avoided. For example: "The 1999–2000 season was momentous in the club's history", and "Tranmere Rovers went one better in the 1990–91 season..." Use of terms such as "just" (as in "aged just 16 years" and "winning just six matches") also deviate from neutrality.
  • There are a few (not too many) lapses into footballspeak, e.g. ""Such glories were short-lived", "first piece of silverware", etc. These, too should be avoided.
  • As to sources, there appears to be a club history: Tranmere Rovers: The Complete Record by Gilbert Upton, Steve Wilson and Peter Bishop. Why is this not used as a source for this article?

I hope that these points give you useful indicators of the areas on which work is needed, and that you will be able to develop the article accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for taking the time to review the article. As you say, the main issue seems to be a lack of depth to the article. I have access to some other sources not referenced here, which will help to beef up detail. However, I've found the new source you mention - The Complete Record - very difficult to get hold of. A couple of specific questions
- I can address the specific issues you mention, but do you have any advice for going about getting "a copyedit from a noninvolved editor"?
- Are you sure about your comment on use of the discretionary plural? Whilst I don't think either form (singular or plural) is more correct, I have tended to prefer Tranmere/the club/the team were...
Thanks again. U+003F? 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena singles discography

[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 went through two FLCs however, it failed miserably. I am aiming for the article to be a FL.

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bradley0110
  • Have you ensured that every concern and oppose raised in the previous FLCs have been addressed?
  • "To date, Selena has sold 4,435,500 singles worldwide." This is sourced to an article published six years ago, so how can the figure be "to date"?
  • Much of the writing is unclear. Some examples:
    • "After Selena had won her first Grammy Award for her third studio and first live album, Selena Live! (1993), it had spawned three singles, which were in the top five in the Hot Latin Tracks chart." The wording of this sentence is quite confusing; can it please be clarified.
    • "The four singles [...] boosted Selena's fan base and bookings, as she toured in her Amor Prohibido Tour (1994–95) in Puerto Rico, South America and Northeastern United States, where she wasn't once recognized." This appears either contradictory - her fan base was boosted but she wasn't ("was not" for a formally written article please) recognised - or just not clearly phrased.
    • "The Barrio Boyzz re-recorded "Dondequiera Que Estés" in English, while Selena's Spanish verse stood the same, it was titled "Wherever You Are", the song entered Spain's music chart for two years." This appears to be three separate ideas merged into one sentence.

Bradley0110 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) will do (2) others over exaggerated in her sales, such as one states she sold over 200 million copies which is not true. I had choose that publication because it was a tribute issue for her 10th anniversary and most of the content were true based on information her family had stated. (3) I'm not sure what you mean? Selena Live! was a live album but also considered to be a studio album since it contained three new tracks that peaked in the top 5 of the Hot Latin Tracks chart. (4) before Amor Prohibido was released, Selena was only known in southern states of the United States and Mexico, no where else. (5) will do. Thanks for your review, I'll fix them. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles of the 1960s (UK)

[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 bring it up to featured list status. I have compared it to the List of best-selling singles of the 2000s (UK) article (currently a FL), and I feel that it is of a similar quality, but I wanted to to run it through PR before submitting it at FL. My main concern is the prose: is it repetitive in places, and is it of a high enough quality? I welcome any other ways that this list could be improved. Thanks very much in advance, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, I'd really quite like to get the featured list nomination for this article underway as soon as possible, and, since I can't list the same article at PR and FLC at the same time, I think I'll just close this now so that I can nominate it for a featured list. Apologies to all! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workhouse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recognise that this isn't yet the finished article, but I think it's been developed to a point where the views of uninvolved editors may be helpful. I've agonised over this for God knows how long, and without the help of Parrot of Doom it would still be languishing

Thanks for taking a look. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede needs to describe the decline to set the period? Is there any major historiographical debate that has occurred over workhouses? "In certain parts of the country there was a good deal of resistance to these new buildings, some of it violent, particularly in the industrial north." expand? Chartism? Incidenaryism? Captain Swing? Hasn't a great deal of political analysis occurred over the relief system? I'm not reading this in the narrative of the system? Apart from the one wife selling incident, sexuality isn't developed well yet... sexual segregation of the able bodied in the Kempthorne plan and general imposition of middle class sexual values on the poor? Does child transportation need to be expanded? The meaning and context of the discipline in education and discipline isn't obvious unless you're historically trained—regulation of personal conduct. Religion isn't adequately covered, isn't this post Catholic emancipation, forced Anglicanism? Dissenters? Has any scholar compared the benefits of being indigent in the late poor law medical and educational situation to the benefits claimed of indigency today in the UK? I love the media, the quotes are a perfect example of how to use primary sources as "media" rather than as evidence. Well done. In summary: missing historiography, minor context issues, great article. I hope these comments help you develop the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments. The lead is entirely inadequate I know, but we thought we'd leave that until the rest of the article was in good shape. Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, I told you it needed more about religion :P Parrot of Doom 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I've got a bit of a blind spot where religion is concerned, but if you both think so then I'll have to defer to you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comments from Nikkimaria

Jennifer Connelly

[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 was once again failed in a FAC. For the specific issues see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Connelly/archive4.GDuwenTell me! 23:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJH Comment—I enjoyed the article and thought it was FA worthy. But I'll try to be extra nit-picky here:

  • "modelling" is the English spelling. This is a U.S. actress. I think MOS:TIES probably applies.
Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she left college and returned to the movies the same year": presumably means she returned to the "movie making industry"? It's best not to leave it subject to multiple interpretations.
Completed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conelly
Corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hughes was criticized for exploiting Connelly's image." Who is Hughes?
Completed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that she held an interview during her sophomore year at Yale, 1989, but seems to be relating it as her opinion regarding a film she made in 1991. This appears to be a causality violation.
I erased the line about the sophomore year and left "In an interview with Rolling Stone Connelly stated".--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why then does the quote reference "her professor"?
According to the article, it happened sometime in 1990. Excerpt:

For Connelly, one low point along these lines came last year. Here was, a sophomore studying English at Yale, a bright young woman, sophisticated beyond her years and even a bit serious by nature. As Connelly remembers: "One of my professors came up to me at school and said, 'Jennifer, Jennifer, I went to the movies the other day and I saw this...poster of you. This sort of...mechanical poster of you. This sort of...life-size mechanical poster of you.' Now I'd never seen this poster, but some of my friends told me about this...thing that was prominently on display in Cinema One Too Many where Career Opportunities was playing. As my friends explained it, you see me rocking back and forth on a mechanical horse, and then you see the face of Frank Whaley (her love interest in the movie), and the ad line goes something like 'He's about to have the ride of his life!' Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that wasn't something I felt all that comfortable about. That sure as hell wasn't a subject that I was tying to learn about from my professor."

--GDuwenTell me! 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote saying "but she's a little straight too" doesn't quite seem to communicate what the reviewer is saying with regard to her lack of humor in the role, and the somewhat pallid nature of the film.
Does it look better now?--GDuwenTell me! 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description for "Dark City" is a little bland. You might mention that she played a femme fatale.
I added some more information about that.--GDuwenTell me! 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear why "Femme Fatale" is capitalized.
OK, now that's fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 01:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she has come to love her debasement ..." should probably be "she has come to love her debasement...." -- ellipsis followed by a period.
Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She then voiced the character named "7" in the animated film 9." seems bland. Perhaps say something like: voiced the character named "7", a spunky and adventurous warrior in the animated film 9."
I rephrased it.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Becoming a mother has made all the difference in terms of learning to take more responsibility for myself and my life ... Parenthood changed the way I do everything." Based on the source, I don't think an ellipsis is appropriate here. I'd just use a period instead.
Done--Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes the claim that "Once a vegan, she gave it up during her first pregnancy." Her pregnancy was in 1997. In 2003, she was referred to as being a vegetarian while nursing her son in 2000.[9] This seems contradictory or inconsistent.
It might seem contradictory, but I'm not really sure what to do about this one. According to her statements, ([10]) her pregnancy was the end of her being a vegan. I don't think there's a more reliable source than her own work. What's your take?--Gunt50 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. No opinion really. RJH (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some inconsistency in whether the reference titles are capitalized. It's better to choose one style and stick with it. For example:
    • "How Holding out for Something that Mattered Paid Off" -- mostly upper case
    • "Jennifer Connelly feeling more at home in her career" -- mostly lower case
I'm done with this point. I did it according to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). I used the lowercase for online citations' titles and the uppercase for the books' titles. Is that ok now?--Gunt50 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) applies to article naming. For citations, WP:CITEVAR just suggests to follow a consistent system and style. I'm not going to sweat it, other than to mention that I have seen this issue come up in FAC before, which is why I even mentioned it. Thanks. RJH (talk)
  • Are "07447001517802", "07148601517801" ISBN numbers? It should be clarified.
I clarified those and the two or three remaining with the same issue.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in spacing of initials. I'd choose one style and stick with it.
    • "Scott, A.O.", "Sparrow, A.E." -- unspaced
    • "Scott, A. O.", "Adams, J. Q." -- spaced
I'm done with this point.--Gunt50 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is useful. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Gutawa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on what is necessary to bring this article to GA status.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Prose needs some attention. I also found the content a little thin, but maybe that's to be expected when the subject is only 18. Here are some specific points:-

Lead
  • Rearrange this sentence: "She was discovered in 2004 when she was practicing her vocals by the manager of ADA Band, who invited her to record a duet with the band"
  • Done.
  • "Gutawa has stated that she feels like she is viewed by others as only becoming famous because of her father's influence, which she resents." I am sure that this could be expressed less awkwardly and ambiguously. Likewise "However, she has also been described as being perceived as being..." etc.
  • Hope the new wording is better
Early life
  • Does 'song rhythm' refer to the whole name, or to the given names Aluna Sagita? Also, use full ("...") quote marks.
  • Made clearer.
  • You should reword this section to avoid having two very brief sentences: "She was their first child." and "She is a soprano."
Worked into other sentences
  • "a music course to learn the classical piano, later switching to vocals." I'd delete "music" and "the". The last phrase doesn't fit grammatically, and I'd use "singing" rather than "vocals". Thus: "a course to learn classical piano, though she later switched to singing".
  • I took a similar phrasing.
Music career
  • Change the beginning. Starting a section "One day,..." is anecdotal not encyclopaedic
  • Cut.
  • "a duet with the band" normally implies with another singer, accompanied by the band. This should be clarified, even if we don't know who the other singer was.
  • Added "lead singer"
  • "she was approached" We need the name here. Also, the first mention of a person in a paragraph should always be by name, not pronoun. Thus: "After a year in production Gutawa's debut album, ..." etc. Some attention to the punctuation is advisable in this sentence.
  • Done
  • Try to avoid overuse of "noted" as a description (three times so far)
  • Only one now.
  • Example of an overlong and overloaded sentence: "Featuring a total of twelve songs, some written by noted musicians Glenn Fredly and Melly Goeslaw, and produced by her father,[5] the album was well-received, selling 150,000 copies in four months[4] and eventually being certified triple platinum." Five pieces of information is too much for one sentence; it should be split.
  • Split, with the number of tracks cut.
  • "...stopping only after she became pregnant with Gutawa's sister" → "in which role she continued until she became pregnant with Gutawa's sister"
  • Used your wording.
  • "...her mother doing scheduling". Too vague; what was she scheduling?
  • Added
  • "on short notice" → "at short notice"
  • Done.
  • Try to avoid close repetition of "eventually" in fourth para. I suggest that the 4th, 5th & 6th paras, all very short, should be combined.
The sixth is not about an album, so merging it would lose focus. I have combined the 4th and 5th.
  • "the destitute" is a rather broad term; can you specify a country, or a humanitarian agency?
  • Changed to "Indonesia's poor"
Acting career
  • Final sentence, beginning "She noted..." I can't identify the source this sentence is cited to? Also, "She noted" is rather odd. I imagine she gave this information in the course of an interview, or similar, rather than "noting" it.
  • Reworded to match the Jakarta Post source better.
Education
  • Advise remove the first statement which reads as editorial opinion
  • Done.
  • "While in elementary school and junior high school, she was chosen as the best student at that school for five subsequent years". You've mentioned two schools, so what does "that school" refer to? Suggest you delete the words "at that school".
  • Done
  • Can you give a bit more information on the Sampoerna Foundation, other than it being "education-oriented", and perhaps amplify on the role of a youth ambassador?
  • Done, although nothing in third party works. I think for simple things like a definition, a SPS is fine.
Public perception
  • I doubt that this scant information deserves a main section all to itself. The fact that Gutawa believes she has earned her success on merit rather than on the back of her father's reputation could easily be slid into, say, the Music career section.
  • I tried to refactor the paragraphs, although more feedback would be appreciated.
References
  • As most of these are in Indonesian I'm not able to comment on their reliability. In at least one case, Indonesian language is not noted; in another, the access date is incomplete.
  • Regarding reliability, Detik is the online version of a magazine, Republika is a newspaper, Bali Post is a newspaper, and KapanLagi is a celebrity news site with paid reporters (hence the three letter codes at the bottom of the articles). I have fixed the partial date and the unmarked Indonesian site.
  • It is not always possible to relate citations to specific sources. How many of the bibliography entries actually used as sources in this article?
  • I've fixed the one broken hyperlink. Everything should check out now.

I hope you find these points helpful. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please ping my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues arising rom this review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosendale Theatre

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article (15kB of prose) just passed a GA review, and I'd like to get further input before taking it to FAC. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: This looks an interesting article. The first thing I noticed about it was its structure. After the lead, it is mainly organised in three subsections of a large "History" section; two of these subsections are rather long, at around 870 and 1030 words respectively. I'm not sure this is the most advisable or imaginative way of presenting the text, and it would be worth considering a restructure. One possible approach would be to combine the present short "Building" section with the "Construction and early use" subsection to form an "Early history" section. The present Building section is very sketchy, and doesn't provide dates, so it's not clear if it's the 1905 building that is being described. This information would be better placed within a section describing the early years of the theatre. The present "Construction and early use" subsection is very thin, and perhaps could be expanded. You should also consider subdividing the two long sections, so as to assist navigation through the article.

  • The Building section was added as a result of this assessment. In a nutshell, it duplicates content that was present throughout the rest of the article. I've seen it as superfluous, but as the primary author, I thought I was too close to be objective. If you don't object, I will gladly remove it. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to prose, I have only had time to look at the lead in detail. Here are a few issues:-

Lead
  • "The building was initially opened..." The words "was initially" are superfluous
  • "The casino was eventually taken over by the local government, and used to house the town's fire department." Can "eventually" be fixed by a date? Also, I imagine that it was the whole building, not just the casino part, that was taken over.
  • I only have one source for this, and it isn't very specific. There may not even be records of this; the 1955 floods destroyed many town and village documents. Regarding the wording, if the building was opened as a casino, my understanding is that the two terms can be used interchangeably to prevent repetition of the phrase, "the building". --Gyrobo (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Theatre opened on February 18, 1949 with a screening of the film Blood on the Moon, and Cacchio owned the building outright by the mid-1950s." Why the capital in "Theatre" (repeated throughout)? And unrelated facts should not be linked by "and" in a single sentence.
  • Fixed sentence. I capitalized "Theatre" throughout the article because the spelling of the building does not use the American spelling of "theater", and I was attempting to create a semantic difference between the proper term ("the Theater" referring to the building itself) and generic theaters. I wasn't sure how to treat this. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibiting" live performances? Is this the appropriate term to use here?
  • I thought it was, because the Theatre (or theater, I'm totally flexible on that point) is a venue, where exhibitions occur. If it makes you think of museum exhibits, it can be changed, I've just been trying to increase word variety. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for overdetailing in lead, e.g. "his wife Fannie sold tickets" and other family stuff
  • The family is discussed significantly in the article's body, and I believe the weight in the lead is appropriate. Many of the sources described the building's history in the context of the family. This article isn't a wp:COATRACK for the family that owned the Theater, but it's impossible to discuss the history of the Theatre without delving into the history of the people who ran it for 60 years. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a 501(c) nonprofit..." This is a colloquialism, incomprehensible to many readers. You need to explain this organisation in simple prose; don't force your readers to use a link.

I am not sure I will be able to give much more time to this review, but I hope these few comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja Yoga

[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 received the following indications via the feedback section at the bottom of the article:

  • Few reputable sources
  • Moderate bias
  • Contains key info but with gaps
  • Difficult to understand

In order to keep it objective I would appreciate any advice from independent editors on this article. Feel free to rewrite in a more fluid encyclopedic style to enhance the comprehension for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelion (talk • contribs) 04:18, September 12, 2011

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. Peer review is more to point out problems with articles that need to be fixed, but not so much about actually fixing them. I agree with the above points - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Religion.2C_mysticism_and_mythology which may be useful as model articles.
  • The toolbox on this PR page shows 2 dabs
  • The same toolbox shows over 20 dead external links
  • The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the unfairly targeted bit is not excatly repeated anywhere in the article (the words "unfair/ly" and "target/ed" are only in the lead.
  • To make sure the lead is complete, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • The first sentence focuses too much on the founder and not enough on the religion itself.
  • The lead should say the year the religion was founded.
  • In general use "double quotes" for quotations and not 'single quotes'
  • Once a person is introduced using their full name, the MOS says to just use the last name from then on. Exceptions are when more than one person shares the same last name and when someone is more commonly known by one name other than their last name.
  • The headers do not really follow WP:HEAD - avoid "The" and avoid repeating the name of the article if at all possible. "The term" could be etymology, for example
  • In addition to the many dead links noted above, the whole article uses mostly sources related to the yoga movement itself. WHerever possible it should use reliable third-party sources independent of the subject.
  • Language is fairly POV in places - this should be a neutral article, not an advertisement
  • Also need to define some of the terms for those not familair with the topic (just in the lead kundalini needs a brief definition, despite the link)
  • Many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt the narrative flow of the article. These should be combined with others where possible.
  • No mention that I saw that the founder died or how the religion is adapting / responding
  • Any chance for some free images - people practicing this yoga?
  • Avoid needless repetition - two examples: In the Cult allegations and refutations section, the first sentence is about the 2008 Belgian court case, as is the very last paragraph.
  • Spot the useless repetition here Nirmala Srivastava herself said that marriage is "spontaneous" and can not be "organized". "Marriage is secondary, and is spontaneous – it cannot be organised."[9]
  • 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 ><>°° 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The article could really use pictures, but it looks like that was already mentioned above. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe

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

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

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottlenose dolphin

[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 that this GA is nearly to FA status, we just need input on the organization.

Thanks, Belugaboycup of tea? 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a read-through, and jotted down some thoughts as I went. I'm afraid it's more a disconnected series of suggestions than a coherent review, but it might give you something to be getting on with. Feel free to ask for clarification if any of these points are unclear. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead reads a little simplisitically, although I'm not sure how to improve it.
  • Perhaps change 2nd+3rd sentences to "Traditionally considered a single species, molecular studies suggest at least two species – the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) – with a third, the Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis), described in 2011.
  • A number of interwiki links appear to be missing, presumably because they ostensibly cover only the species T. tursiops. I would argue that where they are using a circumscription where it is the only species, it corresponds with the whole genus, and not with T. tursiops s.str.
  • "The consensus is there are two species" – this sentence needs a "that" in my opinion, and is referenced to a 1998 work. Is that really an up-to-date assessment of consensus among mammalogists?
  • What dialect of English is this written in? It appears to be in Commonwealth English (grey; metre) in places, but uses -ize verb endings, which is unusual in British English, and later parts are in American English (behavior). This must be standardised.
  • Hybrids should uses en dashes in place of hyphens, or even better, "×".
  • There is no mention of Gervais, 1855, when the genus was erected. The two species at that time had previously been in Delphinus – what separated Tursiops from that genus, and from any others that may be closely related? Similarly, the Description section should mention how to tell Tursiops apart from other cetaceans. It should also include the differences between the 2/3 species – are they morphologically identical, or are there subtle variations?
  • Any reason why the 2–3 species can't be listed in the taxobox, instead of the fairly unhelpful "See text", perhaps together with the type species?
  • The (largely unreferenced) eyesight section claims that Tursiops has a "specialized pupil" because it contracts in bright light. How is this any more specialised than any other eye?
  • The Interaction section is very bitty, with no coherent narrative.
  • Cultural Influence (which should be in sentence case) is almost entirely unsupported by citations.
  • There are some words missing in this paragraph: "In the HBO movie Zeus and Roxanne, a female bottlenose dolphin befriends a male dog, and in a 1996 made for TV Dolphin Tale, directed by Charles Martin Smith, starring Nathan Gamble, Ashley Judd, Harry Connick, Jr., Morgan Freeman, Kris Kristofferson and Winter, herself. The movie will be in theatres on September 23, 2011.[citation needed] movie, Bermuda Triangle, a girl named Annie (played by Lisa Jakub) swims with dolphins."
  • How much of the material is really about the genus, and how much is species-specific? I assume almost all the research into intelligence and so on refer to T. tursiops (s.str.). It isn't clear to me where to draw the line, but it's something to think about.

RJH Comments: It's a decent article, but I'm not fully convinced it's ready for FA yet. Here's a few observations:

  • "Was described in...": grammar.
  • "Scientists were long aware that...": How long?
  • "Old scientific data do not distinguish...": how old?
  • Some paragraphs are quite short. Wikipedia:Paragraphs#Paragraphs
  • The physiology information seems decidedly lacking, and the Anatomy seems a little on the brief side. Maybe at least state that their physiology matches the general dolphin layout then state the specific variations.
  • "Some researchers..." may be WP:WEASEL.
  • The "Cognition" section could definitely use information about the conclusions reached from the research.
  • The text in "Tool use and culture" about cooperative fishing with humans is somewhat redundant with similar text in the "Interaction". I'm not suggesting removal, but you might want to consider organizational issues.
  • The paragraph that begins "Its diet consists mainly of small fish..." keeps flopping back and forth between singular and plural. It would read better if one tense were chosen.
  • "...include Dolphin Cove, seaQuest DSV, and The Penguins of Madagascar, in which a dolphin, Doctor Blowhole, is a villain." This is true for all three films?
  • "Less local climate change, such as increasing water temperature..." makes no sense.
  • There's a lot of inconsistency in the citations. These tend to get picked apart during the FAC. My suggestion is to carefully go through them with a fine-toothed comb and make everything has a highly consistent layout. I started to list them all below, but there's just too much variation. (This is why I like to use the {{citation}} template; it ensures consistency.) Instead, here are some examples:
    • "Rice, Dale W": missing a period after the 'W'.
    • "Charlton-Robb, K; Gershwin L, Thompson R, Austin J, Owen K, et al.": no periods after the initials; switched format.
    • "LeDuc R.G., Perrin W.F. and Dizon A.E.": no spaces between initials; different format for the name list.
    • "Herzing, D., Moewe, K., & Brunnick, B.": using commas rather than semi-colons.
    • "Deborah A. Duffield": different name order.
    • "Pack AA, Herman LM": no periods after semi-colons; uses comma instead of semi-colon; no space between initials.
    • "erman, L. M.; Peacock, M. F., Yunker, M. P. & Madsen, C.": switches from semi-colons to commas.
    • "Janik VM, Slater PJB" ...
    • The following citations appear inadequately developed. Try adding information such as the authors, publishers, publication date, &c.
      • "Catalog of Living Whales"
      • "Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Western North Atlantic Offshore Stock"
      • "Tursiops truncatus: Species Information"
      • "Risso's Dolphin – American Cetacean Society"
      • ""The Mammals of Texas – Rough-toothed Dolphin"
      • "Robin's Island Database about captive Dolphins and Whales"
      • American Cetacean Society Fact Sheet – Bottlenose Dolphin
      • "Office of Protected Resources – Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)"
      • "Bottlenose Dolphins – Longevity and Causes of Death"
      • "Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus at MarineBio.org"
      • "Dolphin reveals an extra set of 'legs'"
      • "Bottlenose Dolphins: Adaptations for an Aquatic Environment"
      • "Dolphin Characteristics"
      • "The Dolphin Institute – Behavioral Mimicry"
and so forth...

Regards RJH (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Sratsimir of Bulgaria

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have expanded the article but my style is rough and I am sure I have made some grammar and stylistic (and probably spelling :S) mistakes which need to be addressed. I would like to know whether the article can be submitted for a GA review. I would welcome and address (if possible) all suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks, Gligan (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bradley0110

An interesting and informative article to read. I see no reason why the article could not be nominated as a good article. Some comments:

  • You alternate between Standard English and American English spellings, e.g. favour in the lead and organized. You should still to just one system of spelling throughout the article.
  • I hope it is corrected now.
  • "Ivan Sratsimir was proclaimed co-emperor by his father in 1337 at the age of 12–14," Due to his date of birth not being clear, it is difficult to state "the age of 12-14". As you have stated the exact year of 1337, I think you can afford to be vague about his age and say something like "his early teenage years"?
  • Done.
  • Can you be more specific about the rivarly? Was it between Ivan Sratsimir and his brothers or among the population or both?
  • It was strictly between the brothers, the population was not involved at all.
  • " a move that was probably arranged with the help of Ivan Sratsimir's mother Theodora as a reaction to the actions of Ivan Alexander." This statement needs a source, especially because of the use of "probably".
  • Done.

Bradley0110 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for the corrections you have made and to appologize for my delay to address your remarks. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roskilde Cathedral

[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 recently completed a massive overhaul of the article. Previous versions consisted of large blocks of text with no coherent thread an no sourcing, and I felt that the subject deserved better. However being keen on details, I'm concerned that I may have made the article too specific, so I'm seeking external input on how to improve the standard of the article. Thanks, KDLarsen (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is, I'm sorry to say, a rather attenuated review, but I think it will provide more than enough for you to continue improving the article.

  • The lead requires further work. It does not at present fulfil the MOS guideline which recommends a summary of the whole article. It needs to be expanded, and you should avoid very short single-sentence paragraphs.
  • Article structure: I appreciate that you have improved this, but more needs to be done. Specifically:-
    • Navigation through the History section would improve with a more detailed substructure than the two overlarge subsections "Previous church" and "Current church"
    • At the other end of the article, the Royal burials section consists almost entirely of links, and needs to be restructured in proper prose form. The brief information given respectively under "Boys choir" and "Organ" does not warrant separate sections.
  • Prose: Not bad, but could do with a copyedit throughout. I have picked up a few issues from the early parts of the article; this should not be considered a complete list, but it gives an idea of the sorts of things that could be improved:-
    • "The king built a royal farm and next to it, a small stave church was built, dedicated to the Holy Trinity." You need to specify that these were built at Roskilde.
    • In the same sentence, why do you switch mid-sentence from active voice "The king built..." to passive voice "a small stave church was built"? If the king built both, make this clear.
    • Generally too many references to "the king" when it's not always clear which king. Best identify by name
    • Don't start sentences with "And..."
    • "depending on the source": Doesn't quite work; I'd reword here along the following lines: "...though sources differ as to whether this happened inside..." etc
    • "he started sending" → "he began sending"
  • Citations: This needs improving:-
    • There are numerous paragraphs without any citations., and uncited statements throughout the article. As a general rule of thumb you should ensure (a) that every paragraph has at least one citation and (b) that every paragraph ends with a citation.
    • When formatting references, use "p." for single pages and "pp." for page ranges
    • Use a consistent format for your bibliography (see Lotte Fang entry))
  • A couple of small points:-
    • MOS: for date ranges use the 985–986 (with ndash, not hyphen), rather than 985/986
    • There are two disambiguation links that need fixing. You can identify them via the toolbox at the top right of this review.

I hope these suggestions will help you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggestions

[edit]

I have undertaken a quick copy edit of this interesting article. In addition to Brianboulton's comments, I would like to emphasise the following:

  • Make sure that there is at least one in-line reference for each paragraph. If several sources have been used, do not be afraid to cite them when and where they are pertinent.
  • While the burial sites and chapels are of course a major attraction at Roskilde, I think it is equally important to provide more information on the architecture of the building, as well as its frescos and more important items of its inventory. You might find some useful information here. I suggest it would be useful to try to develop separate sections on Architecture and Inventory (in addition to the burial chapels). At the moment, some references to architecture are included in the history where they are rather difficult to find. The article in Den Store Danske covers these aspects quite well but you might want to go into a little more detail. See also the article from Kulturarv.
  • Items in the lead should be more fully covered in the article. This applies in particular to its interest for tourists, the UNESCO listing and its place on Roskilde's skyline.

You've made some very good additions to the article. I look forward to monitoring further progress. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. - Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Radcliffe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get it to FA status and I need someone to review it before I send it to the FAC.

Thanks, MG70 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(If you like my review, could you return the favor at Wikipedia:Peer review/Philip A. Payton, Jr./archive1?) --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • General:
    • Very nice! Should be ready for FA soon.
  • Lead:
    • In 2007 Radcliffe began to branch out from the series, - not really, since he had done other films besides Potter before 2007
      • Done.
    • What we could write instead was that he branched out from film acting into stage roles, which is what you mention.
      • Done.
    • Demelza House Children's Hospice - if it's really his "favorite", how about at least stubbing out an article on it? Or at least make it a red link. If it's important enough to appear in the lead to an FA, it's probably deserving of an article.
      • Done.
  • Early life:
    • Link "literary agent" and "casting agent", these aren't professions everyone outside show business automatically understands. I had to look them up, for example.
      • Done.
    • Marcia Jeannine Gresham (née Marcia Gresham Jacobson) ... (her family's surname was anglicised from "Gershon"): "Jacobson" was anglicised from "Gershon"? If not, are you sure she was born Gresham Jacobson, not Jacobson Gresham? Seems weird.
      • I just removed the mention of the anglicised name. It's mentioned later in the article anyway.
    • ref: "Top of the form". The Jewish Chronicle: p. 26 - can you get an Internet Archive link for this ref as well?
      • I tried, but no.
    • Wikilink Jewish and Protestant.
      • Done.
    • Wikilink independent schools for boys: readers outside UK (me, for ex) don't know what that means.
      • Linked "independent school".
    • Advanced levels - our article capitalizes the L as well.
      • Done.
    • Wikilink paparazzi, readers who don't follow pop media may not know the term.
      • Done.
    • remove or explain (possibly by linking) "all of that stuff" - what does that mean, anyway?
      • Removed.
    • ref: "Faces of the week: DANIEL RADCLIFFE". BBC News (BBC) - we should link to our BBC News article, and why is (BBC) necessary, surely it's clear that BBC News is from the BBC?
      • Done.
    • Similarly, many other refs need links to our articles about the source: Parade (is it Parade (magazine) or Parade (British magazine)?), Entertainment Weekly, ...
      • Done (for the most part so far...).
  • Harry Potter:
    • Why does the career section start with 2000, if his first acting role was in 1999? Even if it was only a bit part, at least mention it, otherwise it comes as a surprise when we get to the table.
      • David Copperfield is mentioned in the "Early life" section. Unless you want me to put it in the "Other acting work" section, I don't know what else to say about it.
    • Also wikilink David Copperfield to the appropriate movie.
      • Done.
    • "assured his parents he would be protected" - protected from what? Predatory agents? Helicopters falling on him? Or merely losing childhood innocence? If we can't explain, does it mean anything, and should it be left out?
      • Removed.
    • Link Los Angeles, CA.
      • Done.
    • "Once the movie's director Chris Columbus saw a video of the young actor in David Copperfield, he recalled thinking" - rephrase, time-tense issues. Consider commas around "Chris Columbus".
      • Done, but I don't get what you mean by the last sentence.
    • Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post labelled it "big, dull and empty", - any direct quote, and any critical comment, needs a ref. This is both. The ref we have is http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/daniel_radcliffe/ which doesn't say that; at least I couldn't find it. Can't we reference the actual Washington Post article?
      • Done.
    • Link "highest-grossing 2002 films" to 2002 in film, and similarly to other places we use comparisons. It's a reasonable article for someone reading this point in the text to want to go to, especially since we compare his films to others so often.
      • Done.
    • "The 2004 release Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban marked the third in the series." - No it didn't. It was the third in the series, it didn't mark it.
      • Done.
    • "The film explored romantic elements, included more humour and saw Harry selected as a competitor in a dangerous multi-wizard school competition." Eww. We're shifting from real-world (included humour) to story-world (dangerous competition) within the same sentence. Don't. I think we can remove the story-world comments entirely, just as we didn't give them for Prisoner of Azkaban; they don't add anything. We've got a fine link on the movie itself that users can follow, this is the article about the actor.
      • Done.
    • "Goblet of Fire set records for ..." Needs citation. The next ref we have doesn't say this.
      • Done.
    • "which details Harry's return to Hogwarts after his recent encounter with Lord Voldemort." This is the first time Voldemort is mentioned in the article. Either explain who he is, or strike it, I think strike it, as in the "story-world" objection above. Same for the Half-Blood Prince sentence next para.
      • I think the story world summary is neccessary for Order of the Phoenix, but I removed the Half-Blood Prince summary.
    • "His performance earned several nominations," - what nominations? If they're all for one prize, say it. If they're in many minor prizes, be more specific - "several nominations for acting prizes" or something.
      • I think I fixed it.
    • "On 15 July 2009, the series's sixth instalment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, was released." Putting the verb between the subject and the object is there anything wrong with? :-)
      • Fixed.
    • "The film did considerably better than the previous movie, breaking the then-record for biggest midnight US showings, with US$22.2 million at 3,000 theatres[32] and with US$7 million, giving the UK its biggest Wednesday ever." - US...$, $...UK. I'd reorder the second half, to be consistent with the first, otherwise it's confusing.
      • Fixed.
    • focussing: "This word can take either double or single s, with the single option being highly preferred." - UK site - your judgment call, of course.
      • I don't see what you were talking about.
    • "Radcliffe and fellow Harry Potter cast members Rupert Grint and Emma Watson" - fine if this is the first time we mention RG and EW, but it isn't, we said who they were just 3 paragraphs ago. Given that, it should just be "Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson", we don't have to repeat their first names and roles.
      • Done.
    • We have a picture of this very imprint, which would go well here. And I'd also recommend a picture of the threesome by the conclusion, which also mentions them as a threesome.
      • Done.
    • Rex Reed needs a link.
      • Done.
  • Other acting work
    • The role generated significant pre-opening media interest and advance sales topped £1.7 million, as Radcliffe appeared in a nude scene. - Er... £1.7 million all because Radcliffe appeared in a nude scene? Media interest I'll accept, but you don't think maybe just one of the ticket buyers wanted to see the play, rather than Radcliffe's "magic wand"? :-) Please rephrase.
      • Fixed.
    • Wikilink West End and Broadway, again not universally known terms; outside show business, they're just a neighborhood and a street, found in 100 or 1000 cities respectively.
      • Done.
    • Woman in Black has 2 sentences about its plot, even though he hasn't actually acted in it yet, while How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying has 0. Reduce to 1 at most, or maybe 0 as well.
      • Reduced to one.
    • Wikilink Variety, The Daily Telegraph.
      • Done.
    • Consider at least stubbing, or red-linking The Amateur Photographer, as above.
      • Done.
  • Personal life
    • Why leading with a 2007 event, then going to 2011, then 2008, then 2010, then 2006? Pick an order that makes sense; with dates given so much prominence, chronological has a lot to be said for it.
      • Well since I removed some of it I hope it seems better now.
    • Similarly, why the same paragraph for his love life and his medical disorders and his religious views? How are these related?
      • Same as above.
    • In fact, I'd argue that we can live without his love life altogether, since his dates didn't lead to anything, and it would be more surprising if he didn't date than if he did. My view here is not universally held (see Talk:Jessica_Biel#RfC:_Relationships) though I would still argue for it. :-)
      • Removed.
    • Wikilink atheist and Jewish.
      • Judaism linked earlier, and I linked atheism.
    • "During the Broadway run of Equus, the actor also auctioned off a pair of jeans he wore in the show for several thousand dollars" - since this is the charity section, mention where the money went.
      • The article didn't say, so...
    • "making him the 12th richest young person in the UK... the richest teenager in England" - so, which is it? If you want to write "sources disagree" or something, at least write that and put these two directly contradictory statements next to each other, so it can be more clear they are directly contradictory. (I guess there could be 11 richer young people that aren't teenagers, or are all in Scotland or Wales, or got all their cash between May and June 2009, but's it's a stretch.)
      • I put that sources disagreed on his wealth.
    • "expected to have amassed £70m by the time the series of movies concludes... was reported in 2010 to have personal assets of £28.5 million" - so he blew 41 million pounds in 1 year?!? ON WHAT?!? Holy Spendthrifts, Batman!
      • I think I fixed it.
    • "Despite his wealth, Radcliffe has said he does not have expensive tastes. His main expense is buying books" - yeah, right. 41 million pounds worth of books... that immediately lost all their value?
      • I don't know how else to word that.
    • "He also stated that money would never be the focus of his life." - well, yeah, since at that rate, he'll be skint broke within a year! Sorry, I was just struck by this. We need to resolve these discrepancies, or at least acknowledge them.
      • Haha, I fixed it.
  • Screen and stage credits
    • Wikilink Teen Choice Awards; Scream Awards; Broadway.com Audience Award; Liplock ... basically all the awards, and movies, worthy of listing are worthy of an article.
      • Linked everything I could.
    • Should Liplock be mentioned above in the prose section? Otherwise it's not clear what it is.
      • I don't know. It's just the title of the award.
    • On-Screan: misspelt
      • Fixed.

Whew. Enough? :-) --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was good. This only makes it closer to FA status. I'll now need someone else to copyedit it, I'll make a few more tweaks, then I'll send it to the FAC. MG70 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think mine was a copyedit review? :-)

Well it's just for a copyedit to make sure everything is right before I send it to FAC.

Anyway, a bit more:

  • I read one of your sources [11] quote him saying: his only extravagance works of art "because that's the only thing I'm interested in that costs a lot of money". - that seems to contradict the books bit you have.
    • Well, it depends on which books are expensive. :) Besdes, I read the quote and it quoted him exactly as saying his main expense is buying books.
  • The production later recieved 9 Tony Award nominations - i before e except after c...
    • Done.
  • the series's sixth instalment ; drawing criticism from the series' fanbase - pick one spelling, I recommend the former
    • Fixed.
  • the actor was reported in 2010 to only have a personal assets of £28.5 million, although making him richer than Princes William and Harry. - rephrase. "a personal assets" doesn't fly, and I'd replace "although ... ", with something like ". This still makes ..."
    • Changed to wealth; done.
  • Any chance of glancing over the Payton article?

--GRuban (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagat Singh

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I believe this article has the potential to be a FA, and I would like to bring it upto that level. I've listed this article for peer review to request for help in bringing the article to the FA level. Thanks, Tinpisa (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a big ol' tidy, although it certainly has the potential:
  • You can't reference section headers. At the least, every paragraph should have a citation at the end if that citation supports the whole paragraph. If not, sentences should be individually referenced.
  • References need tidying. For example, bare links like [www.example.com] are not useful. Consdier using citation templates like {{cite web}} instead.
  • Try to describe everything about a source. Consider using the documentation for the templates above to work out what is required; for example, the title, work, publisher and accessdate of a website would all be useful.
  • Bold should not be used for emphasis in articles.
  • Either copyedit the article yourself, of ask teh guild to help (preferably both). Ideally you should be able to correct mistakes like "bombimg" yourself.
  • It would be usual to refer to the subject as "Singh" almost throughout, rather than "Bhagat Singh" often.
  • Make sure everything is referenced, for example "The censure motion was carried by 55 votes against 47.", "he case against B.K.Dutt was withdrawn as he had already been sentenced to transportation for life in the Assembly Bomb Case." and "Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead."
I think there will be a need to come back to PR after all of this has been achieved to re-evaluate the articles with regard to GA status. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Grandiose! I shall do as you say! Tinpisa (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • A lot of work has clearly gone into this.
  • Worth checking through each of the references carefully. Ideally each of the web references (e.g. fn 64) should have the name of the page, the author, the organisation or name of the website and the date it was accessed. e.g. fn 64 should read something like "Letter, Writtings and Statements of Shaheed Bhagat Singh and his Copatriots, Why I am an Atheist. Shaheed Bhagat Singh, www.Shahidbhagatsingh.org, accessed...".
  • ISBNs - either include the hyphens or leave them out, but you'll need to be consistent.
  • IMDb isn't usually considered a reliable source, because anyone can edit it.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 All the above points have been incorporated into the article Thanks for your suggestions, Grandiose and Hchc2009 ! Tinpisa (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherman Cooper

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just completed a major rewrite of this entire article and would like to get some eyes on the new version. I'm interested in eventually taking the article to FAC or perhaps a WP:MILHIST A-class review. Although Cooper's military career was brief compared to his political career, his time as ambassador to India influenced the Cold War and his later Senate career was dominated by his opposition to increased U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 19:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like my review (or even if you don't!), could you return the favor at Wikipedia:Peer review/Philip A. Payton, Jr./archive1?--GRuban (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall:
    • Excellent job! Very thorough, well written, interesting, engaging. Please don't let my nitpicking below discourage you, this is an FA worthy article.
    • Every single sentence has an inline reference! That's too much, especially when three consecutive sentences are all references to the same page or two in the same book, as happens often in this article. (53: Schulman, p. 69; 54: Schulman, p. 68; 55: Schulman, pp. 68–69) Just one ref at the end of the third sentence in that case will do, or even just at the end of that paragraph. Individual sentences need to be referenced when they are quotations, or controversial, likely to be challenged. This isn't a particularly controversial article, it doesn't need that much redundant referencing.
      • I get this comment from time to time, but I really prefer every-sentence referencing. It helps keep track of where stuff came from when it gets moved around in the article, and it lets me know where to go in order to find more details about something when a question arises (such as the questions you have below). Since I've had multiple FAs pass with every-sentence referencing, I'm inclined to keep this. The "material that is likely to be challenged" standard is WAY too subjective for my taste.
    • Spelling and leaving out minor words seem to be your Achilles heels, though. I list the ones I can, but it wouldn't hurt to copy the whole article into a modern word processor and see if it finds more.
      • Firefox used to have an on-the-fly spell checker for text boxes. Not sure what happened to it, but I surely miss it!
    • You should also link more terms. This doesn't mean that every noun must turn blue, but links are very useful for explaining complex concepts. Imagine that your reader is a teenager from South Africa or New Zealand or India, who is fluent in English, but not aware of the peculiarities of US slang or politics or history. (Why would she be reading this, then? Say it was assigned to her in school.) Would she know what any given word meant? "whitewash"? "roll-call vote"? If not, would not knowing impede her understanding of the article? If so, it needs a link to our article on that term that would explain it to her. I tried to point out some, but, again, I don't think I got them all. Worth trying.
      • I got a little gunshy about this a while back when I consistently got complaints about overlinking! Matter of preference, I guess, but I'm happy to oblige one way or another.
  • Lead
    • It's really long. Compare some Wikipedia:Featured articles about US Presidents (Republicans, of course!): Ronald Reagan barely more than half as long, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, less than half as long, though the articles themselves are longer. Surely Cooper didn't accomplish more than they did; there must be room to trim the lead. I recommend by about half. Some specific lead removal suggestions: educated at Centre, Yale, Harvard; supported/opposed governor; Patton; circuit judge KY; Commissioner of Baseball; election opponents. These are fine for the body, but the lead should be the most important parts of the body. But your call as to just what details are the most important, the important thing is that there be ... fewer of them.
      • Yeah, I knew the thing was long, but I was having trouble deciding what to trim. Your suggestions are good ones, and I've done some trimming accordingly.
    • "politician and diplomat": you miss judge and/or lawyer. Unlike some politicians who hold a law degree but never use it, it seemed that Cooper did, serving in several law firms, and was even mentioned as a Supreme Court candidate. Or was the service in the law firms just cover for political lobbying work? If so, then you can leave out lawyer, but say as much when you mention the law firms.
      • I've added "jurist". That kind of catches "judge" and "lawyer".
    • We have a photo of his signature at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John-Sherman-Cooper-sig.jpg - we should use it somewhere. Isn't there an infobox field for it?
      • It's in the infobox already.
  • Early life:
    • Link (or rephrase, since the link goes to a DAB) "circuit judge"
      • Done.
    • Do we have an article for Farmer's National Bank? Should we? If not, can we explain its importance in a sentence? Was it the first, the largest, one of many?
      • No. I don't know if it's a big bank or a small one. It was just mentioned in the sources as though the reader would know. I've reworded to omit it.
    • If his father was also John Sherman Cooper, shouldn't he have been II, or Junior, or something like that?
      • I didn't find any place where such an appellation was used, including several years of newspaper articles about him. Since his dad went by "Sherman" and the subject of the article went by "John Sherman" (according to folks who remember him), perhaps they thought no further distinction was necessary.
    • "his father's coal mines" - so the Farmer's National wasn't the whole thing? If he owned a variety of businesses, that seems worth a sentence.
      • I think I've addressed this with my fix for Farmer's National Bank above.
    • If you link Civil War, you should link World War I as well. Also commencement speech.
      • Not sure how I missed WWI. "Commencement speech" might be WP:OVERLINKing, but I'm fine with adding it.
    • Cooper who - needs a comma
      • Yep. Done.
    • "matriculated to"? Not "at"? How about just "enrolled"?
      • It might be "matriculated at". Changed. I like the word "matriculated" though! :)
    • Beta Theta Pi could use a link
      • It's linked in the paragraph about his time at Centre. No need to re-link.
    • examiniation - sp
      • Corrected.
    • commenced practice - specify legal practice
      • Done.
  • Early political career
    • urged into politics by his uncle - This is the first mention that he had an uncle. Give his name, and a sentence about him - was he a politician himself? A good friend? Rich? Why was he influential?
      • He was a judge, but I forget now what kind of judge. Maybe county judge (since Sherman Cooper was dead by then) or maybe a circuit judge. Anyway, a local politician. I've named him and specified the title "Judge". I think that should suffice.
    • ran unopposed - that seems rare for a first time run. Was it? Did he have the backing of a powerful machine? Did no one else really want the job? Why not? Why unopposed?
      • As mentioned in the first paragraph of "Early life", the Cooper clan had a long political history in the county. Holding political office was basically his birthright. Schulman mentions that Cooper announced his candidacy on "court day", when most of the town gathered at the courthouse to observe the proceedings and talk about the local goings-on. Schulman records that, at the annoucement, cheers went up, but that Cooper opined that the cheers were more for his father than him. His candidacy was a foregone conclusion, and I think the family was probably so popular that opposing him would have been an exercise in futility.
    • You probably want to specify he ran as a Republican. If he did.
      • Done. I guarantee he ran as a Republican, because that section of the state has been a Republican bastion basically since there has been a Republican Party, even though the rest of the state is pretty solidly Democratic.
    • Strangely enough, our article Flem D. Sampson, which is quite long, and a Wikipedia:Good article, and even mostly written by ... some editor named User:Acdixon :-) ... doesn't mention the gov's "unsuccessful attempt to politicize the state department of health". Why is it important for this article but not that one?
      • It's been a long time since I worked on the Sampson article (circa 2 years). I don't remember if any of the sources mention his attempt to politicize the department or not. I can try to look again. However, in The Kentucky Encylcopedia, edited by the current state historian, the entry on Cooper mentions the politicization, while the article on Sampson does not. The idea in mentioning it is to show that he was politically independent (not beholden to his party) from the very beginning of his political career. It later became his hallmark.
    • sitting incumbent - isn't one of these 2 words redundant?
      • Never thought about it before, but yes. Fixed.
    • Somerset Bank - the same as the earlier mentioned Farmer's Bank? If not, a rival of JSC sr?
      • I assume this is just a local bank, probably not particularly noteworthy in its own right. I don't know if it was the same as the earlier mentioned Farmer's Bank – I'd guess not. It might have been a competitor, but since the incumbent (who wasn't named in the sources) was a law partner of Sherman Cooper, it's likely the two were not really personal rivals, at least, not in any noteworthy way.
    • link eviction or eviction notice, important concept to explain
      • I considered that earlier. Done.
    • seek psychiatric treatment - and this didn't crush his political career? Was it kept hidden? When was it, and for how long?
      • The sources don't say when or for how long, but again, he was still mostly a politician at the local level at this time, and locally, he was a member of the prestigious Cooper family. I doubt it hurt him much at all. In fact, they probably saw it as a sign of his deep empathy with the citizenry – a net positive – although that's just speculation on my part.
    • 8 years as a county judge starting 1929, ran for gov in 1939, enlisted in army in 1942 - what in between?
      • Apparently, nothing of note. Not even the Schulman biography says anything about that period. Probably just continued his law practice. Remember, he was still paying off his father's debts at the time.
    • link "nominating convention" (to political convention, nominating convention seems to go to presidential nominating convention for some reason)
    • Done.
  • Service in World War II
    • military government could use a link, courier, citation
      • Linked the first two. No really relevant link for citation.
    • "Among the non-Nazi judges installed by Cooper" - in other words, Cooper also installed Nazi judges? Did anyone install Nazi judges? If not, I'd remove the qualifier (and move the link to the next mention of Nazi).
      • Ack! That wasn't supposed to come across like that. The point is, he reorganized the courts by replacing the Nazi officials with non-Nazis. Clarified.
    • recinded - misspelled
      • Fixed.
    • In 1944, while he was still in the Army, - and in Germany?
      • Not sure if the Third Army was in Germany in 1944 yet. That was prior to VE day. He was probably somewhere in Europe.
  • First term in the Senate and early diplomatic career
    • Link Pulaski County, the last link was at the top of the page; judicial opinion (from opinion); abandonment; Louisville Times
      • Pulaski County linked on first mention in the body (Early life), "opinion" and "Louisville Times" linked; abandonment linked, but I think that's probably overlinking
    • termby - needsaspace
      • Fixed.
    • [[honorary degree|honorary] - fix
      • Fixed.
    • Centre College awarded Cooper an [[honorary degree|honorary] Doctor of Laws degree in 1948. - This sentence doesn't fit where it is, both by time and paragraph subject, since the paragraph is about his 46/47 election and moving to DC. I'd move it somewhere ... perhaps near "headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention"? That's not perfect either, but at least gets him to 1948 and ties back to Kentucky.
      • Yeah, its always hard to tie those honorary awards in, but I felt like it was something worth mentioning.
    • Link War Investigating Committee, roll-call vote, war surplus
      • All done.
    • For a change, you can unlink something: Ohio! In this context, Taft's actual state doesn't matter, he was just an influential Republican.
      • Yes, but non-U.S. readers may want to know where Ohio is or something about it. I typically link states on first mention.
    • sponsored a bill provide 90 percent parity support - what? Rephrase for grammar and link "parity support" somewhere, I don't know what this means.
      • Well, besides the fact that that was a truly wretched sentence (probably as a result of careless editing and re-editing by yours truly) I don't know much about what it means either. It does have to do with price supports, so I've reworded and linked that. Hope it helps.
    • injured as prisoners the Germans - needs some word - maybe "by"?
      • How about "of", as I've corrected it now?
    • link union membership or compulsory union membership; budget deficits; Secretary of State.
      • Linked "compulsory union membership" to "closed shop"; budget deficits is almost certainly overlinking; linked Secretary of States
    • "Speculation was raised" - does this mean Finch speculates, or reports that others speculated at the time? If the former, rephrase.
      • He reported that there was speculation at the time, although not by whom.
  • Second term in the Senate
    • was chosen to participate in the annual reading of George Washington's Farewell Address - is this really worth mentioning? I don't know, if it's an important honor, certainly do, but our article on it doesn't imply as much
      • Probably not. This was a relic of a time when I didn't have much info on this particular term in the Senate. Removed.
    • Link Mexican Farm Labor bill; Eisenhower (and/or Eisenhower administration)
      • Not sure what "Mexican Farm Labor bill" should link to. This is what the source called it, but I don't know the legislation's official name or if we have an article on it. Linked Eisenhower
    • What did he have against Albert M. Cole? Our article on Cole doesn't say he was controversial. Explain (or, optionally, improve the Cole article so that explains the controversy).
      • I'll have to look that one up again.
      • Found it. He was an open opponent of public housing. I remembered there being a reason; I just couldn't remember what it was.
    • featured on the cover of Time magazine - why? What was the focus of the Time article on him?
      • The article is linked in the Bibliography; it provides a brief overview of Cooper's career to that point, and the hook is his upcoming race against Barkley.
    • increasingly tense situation in Southeast Asia - needs a link to some article about the buildup to Vietnam war, we must have plenty.
      • I'm writing around my lack of knowledge here a little bit. I've linked to First Indochina War, but I'm not sure that's the most appropriate link.
  • Ambassador to India
    • including Nehru's sister - I'd give her name as well. If she was an important diplomat, it seems disrespectful otherwise.
      • I'll look again, but I don't think it was mentioned in the source.
    • Domenico Orsini - if he's important enough to name-drop, link. If not, maybe leave out?
      • We don't have an article, but we might need one. I don't know how important he was, but the name was in the source.
    • She was also fluent in three languages and also understood Russian. - one also too many
      • Agreed. Fixed.
    • This phrase referred Goa - to
      • Fixed.
    • Indian Foriegn Secretary - sp
      • Fixed.
  • Later service in the Senate
  • Opposition to the Vietnam War
    • concens - sp
      • Fixed.
    • Unlink Oregon
      • See previous comment.
    • Defense Deparment - sp
      • Fixed.
    • link deaf - common concept, but important
      • I really think this is overlinking.
  • Later career, death, and legacy
    • We seem to have several German photos of him circa 1975 at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:John_Sherman_Cooper - pick at least one and use it here. Also, maybe it's worth a few words to explain why he would be meeting with important Germans in 1975.
      • I'll take a look. I was really hoping someone near Somerset would get a picture of the statue for me for this section.
    • recipeient - sp
      • Fixed.
    • link Beta Theta Pi, last one was long ago
      • Is it really necessary again?
    • by his second wife, - give her name as well
      • Done.
    • RECC? link or explain the abbreviation, John Sherman Cooper Power Station doesn't mention it
      • Unfortunately, I don't know what it means, and the source doesn't spell it out. I think REC is rural electric cooperative, but I don't know what the other "C" is for, and it's apparently important, because it's the difference between an organization and a power plant!

Again, very nice. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very thorough review. A few open issues remain; I'll get to those soon. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! In responding to my comments, you removed a revision. There weren't many that I added in that revision, but there were a few. I'll try to put them back. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I got an edit conflict and tried to do a copy-paste, apparently with questionable success! Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. A few more:

  • Lead:
    • Cooper gained the confidence of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and dramatically improved relations between the U.S. and the recently-independent state of India, helping rebuff Soviet hopes of expanding Communism in Southeast Asia. - I think you mean South Asia. If you mean that Cooper's concern in India was primarily Vietnam, you need to say more on that in that section in the main article.
      • Actually, I think the idea was that, if India remained a democracy, it could put a barrier between the Soviets and parts of Southeast Asia, but again, my knowledge of the Cold War is very weak.
        • Unfortunately (since (a) it makes me feel old, and (b) it was not a happy time), I have a bit of first hand knowledge of the Cold War, and can tell you that if the Soviets could have gotten Communism in India, the second most populous country, and largest democracy, in the world, they would not have minded losing in Vietnam or nearly anywhere else. They certainly tried. But that's all WP:OR. If you are quite sure that your sources say "Southeast Asia" and not "South Asia", and you want to say that in the lead, then you need to say more on that in the Ambassador to India section. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and currently the Ambassador to India section focuses on US relations with India directly: Goa, direct aid, arming Pakistan, are all issues that don't have much to do with Southeast Asia, the one half sentence about SEATO and Indochina seems to be a casual mention. If you want, you can remove the qualifier and just say "helping to rebuff Soviet hopes of expanding Communism in Asia", which should cover both South and Southeast. --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good suggestion. Done.
    • In 1960, Cooper was re-elected. securing - period should be a comma
    • Fixed.
  • Ambassador to India:
    • The move to India removed this barrier, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles encouraged - we gave the full name and title 1 para up, just Dulles should do here.
      • Good point. Done.
    • Nehru's sister looks to have been Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit; she headed the Indian UN delegation. His other sister was Krishna Hutheesing who was not a diplomat.
      • Nice. Thanks for tracking that down.
    • Nehru's respect and admiration for Cooper soon became widely known among his political allies - whom does "his" refer to here, Cooper or Nehru? Perhaps both? Why allies? Maybe just end at "widely known", since presumably their political adversaries were also apprised?
      • Good suggestion. The excellent rapport between Cooper and Nehru was not lost on the Soviets either.
    • Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Cunha - check your spelling or something, since that link seems to go to a basketball player. Or maybe he was a true renaissance man? :-) "Peace in our time; and a killer jump shot!"
      • Well, since I hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and the Big Blue Nation, I'd like to think all the world's problems could be solved through basketball, but I seriously doubt this was the same guy. Not sure if I just saw that there was an article by that name and automatically linked it or what.
  • Later career, death, and legacy
    • A life-sized bronze bust of Cooper sculpted by John Tuska was installed at the Kentucky State Capitol in 1987.[8][8][103] - I know reference 8 is important, but...
      • It's not like I haven't already cited that source about 5,832,906 times already in the article; I think we can do without doubling it here.
    • In June 1990, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham were among the attendees at a gala showing of Gentleman From Kentucky - I'd remove the namedropping. The important thing was that the documentary was made, not who attended the first showing, especially since this man hobnobbed with (or was a thorn in the side of) presidents, so that a mere senator, presidential brother, and unsuccessful presidential candidate, attended, does not seem a big deal. You may want to instead put a sentence about the documentary; did it cover his life from alpha to omega, like this article, or did it focus on some part?
      • Haven't seen it, but KET does occasionally replay it. Maybe I can get my almost-one-year-old daughter to stop watching Phineas and Ferb long enough to catch it on one day. (Oh, who am I kidding? She's got me hooked on P&F too!)
  • Finally:
    • Any chance you could glance over the Payton article? As an author of multiple FAs, you must have lots of good suggestions. --GRuban (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I typically don't do peer reviews, GA reviews, or FA reviews because you have to baby-sit them until all your concerns get addressed, which takes away from my article writing. However, you've given me a really good review here and been very responsive, so I'll try to give this a look. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs of East Anglia

[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 feel it is a complete list of the kings of East Anglia and is both informative and of a high quality. I believe it is a useful article for anyone who wants to find more about this fascinating period of Anglo-Saxon history.

I would particularly like comments on the 'Notes' column, which I have used sparingly, perhaps too much so.

Thanks, Hel-hama (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Interesting, if a little confusing in some respects:-

  • Per the lead: "After 749, East Anglia was ruled by the kings of Mercia, or by kings whose genealogy is not known. In 869, a Danish army defeated the East Angles and killed their king, Edmund the Martyr. The kingdom then fell into the hands of the Danes and eventually formed part of the Danelaw." This statement is at odds with various details in the table:-
    • The first Mercian king in the table is Offa whose reign began in 757, not 749.
sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about Æthelberht II, who according to the table reigned from 779 to 794, and Eadwald? How do they fit in?
Eadwald section expanded, Æthelberht to follow... Hel-hama (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Æthelberht sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table shows an appaent restitution of the East Anglian dynasty between 830 and 869, not covered in the lead. Is this the case?
Restitution of the East Anglian kings mentioned in lead section. Hel-hama (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who ruled East Anglia between 869 and 875?
nobody, but it needs to be confirmed.Hel-hama (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the timeline on the left particularly confusing.
    • It is unheaded
done Hel-hama (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No obvious reason is given for the colours used. What do they signify?
key added, table re-done in a uniform way. Hel-hama (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most significantly, the timeline is not aligned with the table, which is irritating as one has to keep scrolling to make sense of it.
sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the notes in the table are uninformative. One example (re Æthelred II): "Replaced by Alfred the Great of Wessex in 879". What does "replaced" mean, here? Alfred doesn't appear in the table as a king of East Anglia.
sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert in this area, but I think that some distinction should be made in the table between those kings whose historicity is undoubted, and those who may or may not have existed. This applies not just to the first, quasi-mythical names, but to such as Hun, whose authenticity is, I understand, doubted.
Timeline amended to reflect your point. Hel-hama (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the listed sources are not cited in the article and should be listed separately as "Further reading". (Astley, Higham, Keary, Newton)
done. Hel-hama (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these points are helpful. As I am not able to watch individual reviews, please ping my talkpage if there are issues in this review that you wish to discuss, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have dealt with all the points I raised, and the list looks much better now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Making this because I want to be sure that we have weeded out any other possible roadblocks to getting the article into FA status. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn request due to belief that most issues have been fixed. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Thicke discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this to become a FL. I felt like a peer review would be good to have before submitting it. Any comments are appreciated!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have checked the article against the boilerplate for featured discographies, and this generally fits the bill. So my comments are mainly prose quibbles from the lead:-

Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, I really appreciate the review. Thank you!
—Michael Jester (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argo Tea

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a lot of new content and I am not sure how to organize it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Long time, no see. I'm glad you're still producing Chicago articles. I enjoyed reading this, but I agree that it needs some rearranging. Here are my thoughts:

Organization

  • The article seems a bit disjointed. I'd consider moving the first paragraph of the "Corporate information" section to the top of the "History" section and maybe adding a date of hiring for the architect. The meeting of the minds preceded the building of the first cafe. I would also try to blend the material in the "Locations" section with the material in the "History" section. Using a chronological order would make this relatively easy to do and easy to read.
  • I'd leave the details about the growth of the company in the "History" section, but I'd move the general discussion of tea and tea culture out of the "History" section and into the "Products" section. For example, I'd move this block: "Tea is the second most consumed beverage in the world, after water.[12]... Argo was founded in response to a realization that Americans had so few tea offerings that they generally were unfamiliar with anything but tea bag teas.[2] Meanwhile, a minority of Asian immigrants from countries such as India, Vietnam and China where tea is the national beverage were spreading some of their traditions.[6] Argo endeavored to emphasize the healthy aspects of tea as an alternative to coffee." After this, I might re-add "Argo set out to be the Starbucks of tea.[6][8]" The Starbucks idea seems like it would have occurred chronologically after the thinking about tea culture. Not sure.
  • I think the tea vs. coffee idea would be interesting to pursue a bit more than you do. How much coffee does the United States consume each year? How much tea? Changes in percentages can be deceiving if the base numbers widely differ; e.g., if a total of 10 cats and 1,000 dogs lived in Cincinnati in 2010 and in 2011 the city imported 10 of each kind, that's a 100 percent increase in cats but only a 1 percent increase in dogs. I suspect that's how it is with coffee and tea in the United States, lots of coffee consumption, much less of tea. Getting some stats from the coffee people might help. Stats or statements from Starbucks about Tazo might help too. The article seems pro-tea and pro-Argo to me, not quite neutral. (That doesn't mean I think you must be a tea-drinker or an Argo fan, just that the article leans that way.)

Lead

  • The existing lead is more of an introduction than it is a summary of the main text. When you consider the main text to be done, I'd suggest rewriting the lead. Nothing important should appear in the lead that is not developed in the main text.

History

  • "Starbucks is more like Windows PC—it's old, less healthy and designed for everyone—and we want to be more like Mac: young, healthy, cool and a more unique, innovative brand." - Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked since the original does not include the links. It might be necessary, if you want to link the two terms, to explain the Microsoft–Apple comparison. They are competing computer companies, and Starbucks, like Microsoft, is based in Seattle.
  • "Argo also started out selling loose tea in 1- and 4-ounce bags or in bulk." - A couple of things. Why "also"? That word doesn't seem to match the sentence that precedes this one. Should the "first years" stuff come before the sentence about brewing in Chicago?

Products

  • The long quotation from the Argo press release is too long and too heavily promotes the company's view of itself, therefore violating WP:NPOV. It shouldn't be hard to paraphrase this material without promotional adjectives like "healthy", "unique", "earthy", "wholesome," "fresh-baked", and "finest".

Locations

  • "In Chicago, several of the early locations, including the 11th inside Merchandise Mart and the 13th at O'Hare International Airport, have been located in close proximity to a Starbucks location... " - Recast to avoid repeating "locate" three times.

References

Other

  • I was thrown for a loop by the "Throughout" subhead at first. After thinking about it, I see what you are trying to do, but I don't think it works. It's too vague. You can't really say that something is a source for the whole article. I'd recommend working these sources, if they are important, into regular inline citations supporting specific claims in the text.
  • 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 view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

Tropical Storm Grace (2009)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to meeting the criteria for Featured Article candidate.

Thanks, TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you address all of the comments from the previous FAC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm not quite sure it's ready yet. A glance at the lede revealed a number of problems:

  • I don't think 9 named storms for a season is "inactive;" it's only slightly below average, so I'd leave it out.
  • I would replace "the system" with "Grace" in the second sentence to compromise the lack of a name mention in the following sentences.
  • Attaining a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h), the formation of an eye-like feature was noted on satellite imagery, – Did the formation of an eye-like feature attain a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h)? I'd tighten to "It strengthened to attain peak sustained winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) and developed an eye-like feature, although [...]"
  • When did it actually merge? I think it's worth a mention in the lede. Something like "The storm lost its tropical characteristics on x date, though its remnants persisted for most of October 6 before dissipating over England" would also work.
  • I also notice there isn't a single mention of its motion throughout the entire lede.
  • Although not solely related to the cyclone, heavy rainfall in Portugal led to some street flooding – The "Although" here is ungrammatical; either change into "Albeit" or (preferably) rewrite the sentence.
  • Get rid of the "approaching", write out inches, and remove the wikilinks from both units.
  • I'd remove the "However, no damage occurred," since it's not really necessary to mention what a storm didn't do in the lede.

In all, quite a few problems in the lede alone. Auree ★ 22:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's see if I did this right -

  • The first sentence of the MH is bothering me a bit, but that's just my opinion.
  • As is the first sentence of the third paragraph... Probably restructure that sentence.
  • Also, when you're mentioning the merging of Grace with a frontal system it might be better to mention what happened before merging, before you mention the merging itself.

That was pretty much what I found, it seems pretty good overall, and I think I failed at this review. atomic7732 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Christian Lobby

[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…

There are only two major contributors for the article, myself - I am deeply opposed to the ACL and tend to collect reliable criticism of the organisation and add it to the article (I try very hard not break any guidelines in the process), and another editor strongly if favour of the ACL who collects favourable reviews of the ACL to add to the article. In the interest of being impartial I think we should get some more opinions. It also deeply bothers me that whilst the majority of references criticising the ACL come from independent parties (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Herald Sun, etc...) the majority of references in favour of the ACL come directly from the ACL. It does not surprise me that the ACL can't seem to find much support outside their own websites, considering they actively and aggressively campaign against what the majority of people want, but I fear an edit war if I choose to remove their references myself.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: Peer review is not the forum for the resolution of editorial disputes, and the presence of a major cleanup banner means the article is not eligible for the PR process. However, I do see that you are looking to resolve a problem here, so I will take an informal look and leave some comments on the article's talkpage. It may be a few days before I can do this, however. Meanwhile, may I request that you close this review? Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for taking a look. No problem - how do I close the review? Freikorp (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I've closed the review, I wonder what the appropriate venue is. There's probably no point asking for RFC because sam56mas hasn't put his side of the case, and looks like he won't. I'll put a note on an editor or two's page to see if they have any suggestions. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Selena

[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 aiming for the article to be a featured article. I have had the article peer reviewed two times and it was copyedited from WP:GOCE.

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to have taken so long, have been swamped in real life. This looks better in terms of language, but still has several issues that would be problems at FAC; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There is a toolbox on this PR page that has a dab link checker - it finds two dab links that need to be fixed here.
  • There is also an external link checker that finds at least two dead links and several others that may be dead or broken. At FAC all the little details like this will need to be taken care of.
  • The lead image is of a work of art - as such the art is copyrighted and so needs a WP:FAIR USE rationale (even if the photographer released his or her copyright, the artist's copyright is still valid).
  • The other images of this memorial probably also need fair use rationales - per WP:NFCC it is difficult to see why the article needs two images of the memorial - how does the second image meet minimal use? The plaque is probably OK.
  • To qualify for fair use, the article needs to really discuss the art pictured. As it is the caption says "On March 31, 2011 (the sixteenth anniversary of her death) Selena was given a statue in Apodaca, Nuevo Leon." and the article just says later "During the sixteenth anniversary of her death, Selena was given a statue in Apodaca, Nuevo Leon.[94]" The question is, what does the photo add to the reader's understanding that the words do not? Fair use needs much more discussion of the art in question...
  • The first sentence does not follow WP:LEAD, which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. Although the first sentence tells about Selena, it does not mention her death at all.
  • I also note that the article title is now "Murder of Selena", but the entire lead does not include the word "murder" at all.
  • I do not think the lead really follows 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 many of the headers are not in the current lead. For example the words "Black Friday" are not in the lead, and there is nothing in the lead about the funeral or trial or memorials...
  • The words "Black Friday" are also not mentioned in the Black Friday section.
  • I think the article should start (after the lead) with a few sentences on who Selena was for the uninformed reader. How old was she, how many records had she produced and sold, that sort of thing.
  • Language is better but still not great - for example The reporter and a defensive of Saldivar went to Mexico and reportedly went to every storage department that Saldivar and her parents told them to look. I think that defensive is meant to be "defense attorney", storage department is an odd construction (why not something like "storage facility"?), and "that Saldivar and her parents told them to look" is just not grammatical
  • The references are a mess - the MOS here says not to use all capital letters even if the original had them, so "THOUSANDS MOURN SELENA'S DEATH" should be "Thousands Mourn Selena's Death"
  • Be consistent on ref styles. Why do some refs spell the book etc out like Patoski, Joe Nick (1997). Selena: Como La Flor. Berkley Pub Group. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-57297-246-9. Retrieved 23 May 2011. but others just give the short form like Patoski page 183 and still others add quote marks "Patoski page 184"
  • MOS says to use p. for page anyway (and pp. for pages)
  • Just a general comment, but the article is very long and full of details that really don't seem to add much. Why are we told that While on tour in Japan, David Byrne read of the murder in the International Herald Tribune.[21] - this is the only place Byrne is mentioned in the article.
  • Or why include this The next day, Our Lady of Pillar Church held a mass which drew 450 people to their 225-seat church.[77]? It is "Our Lady of the Pillar" by the way - if this is to show the worldwide effect of her death, then say that this is a church in Spain in the article and WP:PCR
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had  Done everything you had pointed out except the image captions. I'm not sure how to add a suitable caption as the image is only illustrating visual evidence and how the statue(s) look. Can you tell me if the article is better now or should I request another WP:GOCE? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another look by Ruhrfisch
  • I am looking at the article again and seeing what I would say if it were at FAC. I think it would not pass in its current state. Here are some of the reasons why.
  • First thing I notice is the images, all but one of which are WP:FAIR USE. All fair use images have to meet WP:NFCC, which I have a hard time seeing for three of these.
    • First off, the lead image is of the memorial in Texas File:Selena memorial.jpg. I think it is OK, though more could be said about it - who is the sculptor of the statue? WHo designed the memorial? What have critics said about it (if anything)?
    • Second, there is no need for a second image of the same memorial (NFCC - minimal use). e:Selena Memorial at 1AM.jpg is a better picture, but does not show the statue of her as well. I fail to see the need for two fair use images of something that is only mentioned four times in the article.
So you want me to remove both of those?
    • Similarly, the image of the plaque at the memorial File:Statue plaque.jpg is almost certainly of a copyrighted work, so it should not be on Commons and needs to be fair use. Here I fail to see the usefulness of a plaque - why not just quote the words on the plaque?
    • Finally the image of the statue in Mexico File:Selena statue in Mexico.jpg is problematic. The good news is that Mexico has freedom of panorama, so if you could get a freely licensed photo of this staue, it would be free in all senses, which would be great. The bad news is that this not a free photo - in general fair use is only for things that are not reproducible in theory. A photo of Selena herself is unobtainable (alas), but anyone with a camera near Monterrey could in theory get a free picture of this statue. At FAC I would be willing to bet this photo would be disallowed and probably deleted as a copyvio not justified under NFCC.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I  Fixed the image issues you addressed.
  • Second thing I notice is that the prose is still not great. Just looking at the headers, "On law" makes no sense, and "Films and plays" makes it sound as if more than one film has been made (when there is only one mentioned in this article).
I fixed it to "Biographical film and play" and removed "on" from "Law". I'll ask for another c/e at WP:GOCE.
You really don't get it, do you? Someone needs to make sure the article is much better organized and pruned way back so that it is not a mountain of non-encyclopedic trivia. Almost no GOCE editor I know of is willing or perhaps able to do that - it needs someone who is familiar with the sources, and willing to do a lot of work. Until this is better organized and loses the non-encylcopedic cruft, it has almost no chance at FAC. I am done, good luck, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel that way about this article (and possibly most of every article I nominated for PR). I'll give it another read and remove fancrut but to my understanding I can't find anything else that is of non-encyclopedic trivia. Maybe to you its easy, but its not to me.
  • There are also many places where the words just do not make sense: Before Selena was murdered, she had sold approximately 1.8 million copies. copies of what? Singles? Albums? Photocopies?
  • The problem is that while someone can polish the prose, much of the article is poorly organized and even contradicts itself in places. Almost no copyeditor can fix that, generally you have to have access to all the sources). As one example I will look at the "Funeral and tributes" section, but these kinds of problems are found throughout the article. All the following are from it.
    • First sentence is Her funeral drew approximately 60,000 mourners, many from outside the United States.[2] The first problem is that this same section later seems to say that these were people who came to her viewing (not the actual funeral), and even there the article contradicts itself, with adjacent sentences reading Sixty thousand fans viewed the casket.[32] About 30,000 to 40,000 passed by Selena's coffin.[71][72][73] Later we read that Six hundred guests, mostly family members, attended the morning services, which were broadcast live by a Corpus Christi and San Antonio radio station. So did 60,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 or 600 attend her funeral?
Selena only had one funeral with was her family and friends (600), however, there was an open casket viewing where 30,000 to 40,000 fans passed by.
    • Another problem is that the date of the funeral is not given in this first sentence, and it is not super clear to me even now (I think it was April 3 from On Monday, April 3, 1995, Selena was laid to rest. but laid to rest can refer just to burial, and often burial is on a later date than the actual funeral.
Selena's funeral was on 2 April the third marriage anniversary to her husband. Will fix
    • Yet another problem is that there is no real chronological order to this section - the first sentence is on her funeral, then we are told of vigils and memorials, which seem to have mostly taken place before the funeral. So for example we read A special mass in the Los Angeles Sports Arena on April 3, drew a crowd of four thousand. but this is before we have been told the date of the funeral itself, so it does not make as much sense (they had a mass the same day as her funeral, and it was in a place where she was scheduled to perform had she not been murdered).
 Fixed
    • Always be aware that an article is telling a (true) story, and you need to make sure that the story is easy to follow and well told, not confused and confusing.
    • Yet another problem is that there were already sections on Fan respone and Other reactions (including Selena Day). What are the criteria for including something in those sections versus here in Funeral and tributes? How was Selena Day an "Other reaction" but what some people did on it is a tribute?
Before the c/e was performed it was "Impact on Hispanics" and "Impacts on White Americans" and now I'm not sure what are the criteria since I was not the one who performed the c/e.
    • As an aside, to pass at FAC, all of the details have to be taken care of and things need to be consistent - is it "Selena Day" or just Selena Day, for one example? The article uses both (pick one and follow it)
    • FInally, related to the tributes and fan response and other reactions sections, the whole thing feels bloated - it seems like a Google search on this topic was dumped into an article. One example paragraph in italics follows, with my comments in [bold and brackets]
Radio station Tejano 107 in San Antonio announced that a candlelight vigil was to be held at 7 pm the day of the murder at Sunken Gardens[30] In competition, [Does the source really say this was in competition??? Seems very odd to me]
Yes, (the book) had stated that.

KRIO-FM staged its own candlelight vigil at the South Park Mall. [The next two sentences are fluff - why are they included? A child cried at a stampede - so what? And who is Jon Ramirez - what makes him notable enough to be described here?]

Removed about the child and Ramirez is a club promoter (added)

At the KRIO-FM vigil, a small stampede broke out in the rush to the stage, and one young girl was pulled crying from the crowd.[66] Jon Ramirez formally opened the proceedings and briefly talked about his first encounter with Selena, which was followed by the crowd lifting their candles.[66] Five thousand fans attended the vigil at the South Park Mall.[67] [Combine this last sentenc with the first on the vigial at the mall - only new info is the number in attendance]

I'm sorry but I'm not following what you mean. You want me to combine the number of attendance with the first sentence

OK, here's what I mean - I would rewrite the paragraph as something like this

The day of the murder, competing San Antonio radio stations announced two candlelight vigils. Tejano 107 sponsored one at Sunken Gardens, while KRIO-FM sponsored its own at South Park Mall, which was attended by 5,000.[refs]

I fail to see what is encylcopedic about a club promoter speaking at the KRIO vigil, when he is not mentioned anywhere else in this article, and he does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Part of the problem with the article is that there is so much non-enyclopedic cruft in there that the interesting and important things get lost in the excessive detail. Keep the focus on Selena and her death - what does a small stampede or club promotoer's speech at a vigil tell the reader about Selena's death that makes it so important to include? If there is a source that says something, then you can follow the source (so if a major newspaper said Ramirez's speech was especially meaningful or whatever, maybe include it. Seriously though, at a vigil for someone murdered that day, what do you expect people to talk about? Recipes? The average reader can imagine that fans had candles at a candlelight vigil, and assume that people who knew her likely spoke.

Will remove.

I am OK with one image of the Corpus Christi memorial, but not two. The current lead image is probably best as it shows the statue most clearly. If you know anyone in Monterrey who could get a picture of the Selena statue there and would agree to release it under a free license, that would be great - a free image of Selena could be used in several articles besides this and could be used on the Main Page. Unless there is something unique about the other image of the Mexican statue (which the caption and article did not mention) then, I do not see any reason why it meets WP:NFCC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can place a free image request on the talk page that's all that I can do. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well everyone thinks like that, you're not the only one. However, I always provide sources with claims, weather online or offline. BTW thanks for that copy-paste I didn't know he had replied to my last response. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena singles discography

[edit]

Hi AJona1992. I came to the article to improve some citations of the certifications due to a recent change, and I was surprised to see that none of the certifications were actually valid. Not a single one! I believe you weren't the one who added the certifications, just the one adding the citations, but still, I think when one adds a citation, one should check that the citation is valid. I hope you will be more careful in the future. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up. I actually was the one who added those certifications in WP:AGF because there were only two Mexican magazines (TVyNovelas and TVNotas) that claimed those certifications. Since none exist online I believed it was accurate, although they do exaggerate the sales. See here Allmusic archived the peak positions for the album, however, look at "Missing My Baby" it peaked at 22 on the Rhythmic Top 40. However, that's a primary source, so I would need to get the source from Billboard here however Billboard has removed some, if not, most of Selena's peak positions. That is when I had to use gossip news magazines to replace what Billboard and Allmusic couldn't do. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is, be careful with adding citations. A citation should not be added if it does not verify the fact. Adding such a citation is betraying the basic assumption of good faith every reader makes, that the sources actually verify the facts. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General advice

[edit]

I am sorry I was a bit cranky up there. Here is some general advice for improving this (or almost any article). After this though I really have to move on and do some other work.

  • Try to get some critical distance from the article. one good way to do this: Do not work on, read, or even look at the article for several days (a week if you can). Then print it out and read it out loud slowly, ready to take notes as you read. If you come to the article somewhat fresh, it might be that you can see what needs to be fixed more easily. As it is, you are so familiar with the article and what you know, that you don't see the things that can be fixed as easily as someone else can.
  • Think about how to organize the article so that it tells the story well. There is some background, then the actual murder, then immediate responses to Selena's death, her funeral, the trial and subsequent history of the murderer, and the various art works inspired by the murder. One thing that might work is to have each section focus on one aspect only - I think it might help to have the section on just the funeral, for example (viewing and funeral and burial).
  • Note this is already chronological. Within each section I would try to keep the narrative chronological if at all possible.
  • It also helps to think about what you want to say in the article - list the 5 or 10 most important things to list in each section, and make sure they are there. For example, the funeral section did not have the actual date of the funeral until late in this PR
  • Make sure that important things in the article follow multiple major reliable sources. For example, "Black Friday" is sourced to only one book - is it a common name for the day of her murder? If so, I would source it to several sources; if not, I would change the section header.
  • Avoid needless repetition - one example here is the current autopsy photos section
Globe, a tabloid magazine, published a cover article about Selena's death, displaying her autopsy pictures for public viewing.[93] When the magazine hit news stands, Abraham Quintanilla Jr immediately filed a lawsuit against the magazine.[93] South Texas retailers quickly removed copies of Globe from store shelves after discovering the tabloid had printed the photos.[93] Six color pictures snapped by a police photographer from the autopsy were in the 14 November 1995 issue delivered to local stores.[93] The article was headlined "Shot in the Back!" and "Exclusive! Dramatic autopsy photos reveal innocent beauty was gunned down by lying coward."[93] The lawsuit was later dropped. The issue was then pulled off shelves all over the United States.[93]
  • This could be pared down to something like
On November 14, 1995, the tabloid Globe's cover story on Selena's death showed six of her autopsy pictures, taken by a police photographer. The headlines were "Shot in the Back!" and "Exclusive! Dramatic autopsy photos reveal innocent beauty was gunned down by lying coward."[93]. Retailers across South Texas and the United States removed copies from their shelves. Abraham Quintanilla Jr. filed a lawsuit against Globe, which was later dropped.[93]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 3 November 2011 (U

It's ok, I understand you are busy in RL and the PR process is getting a bit busier then usual. You're a great reviewier so its all good :) I'll fix these issues tomorrow and then take a break as you requested. I also asked User:SandyGeorgia to help me understand the fancrut in this article. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/October_2011&oldid=463427586"