Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2012

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.

Selena albums 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… I would like to nominate it at FLC.

Thanks, Jonatalk to me 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments
  • The lead contains much of the information in the rest of the list. I'm not really sure what purpose is served by duplicating so many of the chart positions and certifications.
  • "The recording spent 13 nonconsecutive weeks on the Top Latin Albums Catalog chart since 1997." - "has spent" or "from 1997 to [date]".
  • "On March 31, 1995, Selena was murdered by Yolanda Saldívar, a friend and ex-employer for her boutiques." - former employee of her boutiques?
  • The paragraph breaks seem completely random
  • Dreaming of You seems to have charted and been certified in numerous countries worldwide yet there are only 3 US charts and a Canadian chart listed for this album. The same is true for La Leyenda and possibly others (I haven't checked them all). Yomanganitalk 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Eat the Yellow Snow Suite

[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 a very notable suite that I think can contain much more information. Though because it's a fairly new article, many may not know of it's creation. I'm not sure if it could be a featured article, but who knows if it's added to enough it just might be worthy.

Thanks, Mrmoustache14 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English language

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think that this deserves to be a good article, although, I want other people's opinions. I would like advice on improving the page.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Maunus

[edit]

Thanks, I'm starting the review below:

General critique: Overall a lot of good information. However too much detail and attention is given to certain parts (specifically vocabulary and etymology) over others (e.g. grammar and internal variation). This makes the article come across as very lopsided. Many parts of the article also become lists of facts rather than readable prose and therefore are of limited value to the reader who just wants a general overview.

No adequate definition of English is given in the article. English can mean a lot of different things - it would be good to define the concept early on in the article situating the meaning of English as a general concept with concepts such as dialect/language, World Englishes, Old vs. Modern English.

1. History this could be expanded with subsections for the major periods. Incorporate some of the material on history of vocabulary that has to be removed from other sections.

2. Classification. Approximately six times too long. Huge amounts of unnecessary detail and comparison. Way too many examples. It also goes far too much into language history, describing contact with Norse and French which has nothing to do with classification. And giving a general description of proceses of language change. This section should only state the its status within Indo-European and Germanic, perhaps with one or two examples no more. This information can be much more effectively conveyed graphically as a tree phylogeny. All information about the history of the language should be in the history section.

3. Distribution. A map would be good. It would be good to get rid of the embedded list which breaks up the reading flow. Split it out to its own article and summarize it in prose. The same goes for the list of countries where English is a major language - this should all be written in prose form. And it is not necessary to mention each country when regions can be given. Aim to give a summary of the general distribution rather than a complete list of locations. English as a global language needs to better give a demonstration of what the global status of English means for seeing English as a single language - information about and examples of world Englishes and English based creoles and pidgins should be given. Lists of relative numbers of L2 speakers in different countries

4. Dialects and varieties. Here we want examples of dialectal differences. Too much attention to simplified and constructed forms of English.

5. Phonology. Good section - would be good to have introduced the differences between major varieties before giving the phonological differences. Presentation of vowels breaks the reading flow.

6. Expand to give a complete summary of the grammar. It has to be at least as long as the phonology - preferably twice as long.

7. Vocabulary. Way too long and detailed - split into a daughter article and summarise this information in one or two paragraphs. Question of number of words is largely irrelevant and even if considered relevant receives way too much attention. All the subsections on origins should be shortened to one section summarizing them.

8. Missing sections: World Englishes, subsections for major dialects and varieties, subsections in the history period, Subsections for morphology and syntax. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who)

[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 to promote it to FA. I have brought it to GA as part of a GT, and I have since expanded it.

Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 02:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glimmer, just some comments after a very brief visit. Hopefully I'll find time for a longer look later.

Update: I've added the alt text and attempted to do the sfn template (there are actually two usages of the book) but I botched something and can't figure out what. Also, I've searched and can't locate a publication called The Wall of Lies that seems to be associated with ABC or Austrailia. I'm not sure what to do with that. Glimmer721 talk 01:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Veronicas 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 have made changes to this article and I would like it to become "Featured". Please give me feedback on how else I can improve this article. Thanks in advance, DonEd (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've never done a Featured Article before and wanted the opinions of more experienced editors to scrutinize the article a bit more before nominating it. It's a pretty straight-forward article, apart of a long series of FA articles related to the X-Files.

Thanks, Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • Unlink television series per WP:OVERLINK.
    • It would probably be better to leave it as "Fox Broadcasting Company", the official title, rather than piping the link.
    • "The episode received received mixed to positive reviews from critics, with the performance given by guest actor Bruce Campbell attracting most of the positive reception." -- Why is 'received' typed twice?
    • ""Terms of Endearment" was the first episode written by The X-Files executive story editor David Amann, a staff member who later became a regular contributor to the series." -- "[...] written by The X-Files executive [...]" should be "[...] written by The X-Files' executive [...]".
    • "Amann was inspired to a write a story that was "Rosemary's Baby in reverse"." -- Why the 'a' after 'to' and before 'write'?
    • The two pieces of quoted material in P3 of the lead need citations directly after them.

I have to go out right now, so I'll finish off the rest of the article later today. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barber coinage

[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 would appreciate feedback. The Barber coinage may not be the most popular of coins but they have a devoted following and are worthy of an better-quality article. Thanks.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...: Peer reviews are like gold dust at the moment, but since Barber was an Englishman I feel bound to come to his aid. It may take a few days though. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry. I have to do a couple but I am presently traveling and it is hard to get in the right frame of mine. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is fairly familiar stuff to me now, with a well-worn cast. My comments are relatively trivial and should not cause too much bother.

Lead
  • "Many dates in the Barber coin series are not difficult to obtain..." - I think "many" would read better as "most"
Charles Barber
  • Suggest give full title of "Gorham's", so the uninformed reader knows what sort of organisation it was (without having to use the link)
  • "Morgan had designed the silver dollar which was being struck pursuant to the Bland-Allison Act of 1878". This might be thought tangential detail
  • I'd say "December 1879" rather than just "December"
  • He outlasted eight presidents but he served nine, which might be thought even more impressive. (I am privately more impressed by poor old Morgan, who patiently waited for 38 years for the job he was denied in 1879).
He did. I've always been curious to what kind of relationship the two men had. If I could find anything more on them than potted bios in coin books, I'd do their articles.
  • I don't think the Moran quotation easily fits the preceding narrative. It seems misplaced: whose "first blunder" was to "stay with Barber"? Why was it a blunder anyway, as it seems that Barber was "expert in the mechanics of his craft" and "unfailingly learned the requirements of cost-efficient coin production". Sounds to me like useful qualities.
Movement towards redesign
  • Why "As early as 1879" rather than "In 1879"?
  • "All three men worked to accomplish this" - I'm not clear what "this" is.
Inception
  • I'm rather confused by the wording in the opening paragraph. If the only point is that the new designs would not have to incorporate an eagle, I think this could be stated more simply.
  • "no money had been appropriated for the purpose" - presumably, no money beyond the $500?
Preparation
  • After "the current reverses be continued," the required punctuation is a full stop, not a comma
  • "Chief Engraver Barber told Leech..." Why suddenly use his title?
  • "The question of how to render the stars on the coin..." The stars representing the original 13 states, I presume, but this should be clarified: not all readers will know this.
Design
  • Check first paragraph for repeated prose. For example "The reverse of the dime depicts a wreath of corn, wheat, maple and oak leaves surrounding the words "One Dime"." ia preceded in the previous section by "For the reverse of the dime, on which, by law, an eagle could not appear, a slight modification of the reverse of the Seated Liberty dime was used, with a wreath of corn, wheat, maple and oak leaves surrounding the words "One Dime"."
Reception
  • Do we know which review made Barber angry?
Julian doesn't say, but I think one of my other sources does. I will research the matter when I return home on Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colon, not comma, after "new pieces" (and also, later, after "injudiciously ranted")
  • Perhaps the Martin quote is rather too long? Maybe paraphrase
I'm going to defend that quote. First, as you yourself point out, there are few favorable quotes. Second, with the exception of the story about the New York belle (which is very nice color in my view), almost everything in that quote ties in with something which has been stated in the article. The Roman influence, the French influence. And though it is praise, it is tempered praise, looking ahead to the Great Redesign of 1907-1921.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most reviews were "favorable"' but the section is composed mainly of highly critical comments, with praise in very short supply.
I can't find anymore; I am going to rework this slightly.
Production and collecting
  • " a published mintage of 24" - clarify this means that only 24 coins of this type were minted (I thoughr fleetingly it might refer to carat or other measure of metal content)
  • "... the San Francisco Mint in June 1894 needed to coin $2.40 in silver left over from the melting of worn-out coins, and by coining into dimes, there was no metal remaining." I rather lost the sense from "...and by coining into dimes". Suggest: "just sufficient to coin 24 dimes."
  • "to be struck later in the year there" → "to be struck there later in the year"
  • "John Daggett had them struck..." Suggest "the 24 coins" to clarify "them"
  • "resulted on" → "resulted in"
  • I wonder if "narrower" is the right word here. "Narrow" normally applies to width rather than thickness; perhaps "thinner"?
Replacement
  • No issues

Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hutchinson

[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 elevate it to FA status, but need someone to look it over. I've done the basic FA requirements (fixed DAB links, added alt text, and worked on citations ad nauseum). I'd greatly appreciate any assistance with prose and format.

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this but bear with me - it will take a bit of time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know this will be no light task, so I greatly appreciate this. I'm in no hurry; just want it to be good, and need more eyes on it.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, really nice job on this page. I've been watching you build it and have been impressed with the work. Not many comments yet - I've read as far as the Boston section and generally it's well written and engaging. It is a long page, so I'd suggest if at all possible to go through and trim anything that seems like it's not necessary. Can't make any suggestions because nothing is jumping out me.

  • Thanks for your kind words. OK. My sense is that the article length is suitable for someone of her stature. This is a very famous colonial American figure about whom scores of books and countless articles have been written. My inclination is to not make the article shorter, but if you come across some unnecessary material, I'd be happy to trim it out. Feel free to question me on anything suspect.

Lead - I'll come back to this, because I tend to read leads after I've read the entire article. A few points though: move the bolding of her birth name to the first sentence of the lead; and I'm wondering about the phrasing that she was a participant in the Antimonian controversy - wasn't she the cause of it? That might need a bit of rephrasing.

Most people, for good reason, think that Hutchinson was the cause of the Antinomian Controversy. The reason is because Governor Winthrop said she was, and this was supported by most of the other early writers on the subject as well. It wasn't until ten years ago, when Michael Winship came out with the latest work on the controversy, that her role was seen as being less central to the issue than previously thought. John Cotton, John Wheelwright, and Henry Vane were all players in the conflict whose importance to the events was equal to that of Hutchinson. However, Winthrop hung all the goods on Hutchinson for some cagey political reasons. First, John Cotton was a rock star. He was one of the three most important puritan ministers in New England (with Hooker and Davenport), and though his theology diverged from that of all the other New England ministers (except Wheelwright), he was WAY too important a person to go after. Losing one of the greatest puritans in the world from the Boston church would bring disgrace to the colony, and turn off the tap of immigration which kept the colony alive. Henry Vane, whose involvement in the controversy was thought minimal until recently, had, for his young age, some serious (and radical) theological ideas, and he may have been an instigator of far more than has been discovered. But like Cotton, Vane was untouchable. Vane was the son of a member of King Charles I's privy council (and thus one of the most powerful men in England). Winthrop and the other magistrates were deathly afraid of putting Vane's name in a bad light, because they could see losing their colonial charter, and Vane coming back as a royal governor (with much more power than as the elected governor for a year). Finally, it was probably Wheelwright, more than Hutchinson, who lit the fuse of the controversy with his incendiary fast-day sermon. Wheelwright was a contentious individual, and many historians can find plenty of good reason for his banishment. So what about Hutchinson? Well, as a woman, her activities were mostly behind closed doors, but her convictions, coupled with her boldness, made her quickly noticed by the ministers who did not like what they saw. They probably would have ignored her had she not been a woman. But she was unique among the women of the colony, and she had talents that she was not afraid to use. Ultimately it became quite convenient to run her through the muck of two trials, and pin the blame for everything on her, and sweep the rest under the carpet. And the outcome? Today, she is the shining star of the colonial era. Her fame eclipses that of every one of the other players, even the great Winthrop, who holds as much respect today as he did during his lifetime. There's a chance that Hutchinson would be much less famous today, had Winthrop not made such a pariah out of her.
Thinking about how to deal with this & I'll mull it over for a few days. I'm aware of most of this though not up-to-date on the newest research. I read the lead on the Antinomian controversy where I think the wording is a bit different. I think what you've written above is of course the full summary; now if that could be synthesized into a few words, it would be perfect! Working on these kinds of things are sometimes quite difficult if not impossible - that's why I want to think it over a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article on the Antinomian Controversy will need some rewording to reflect the latest research of Michael Winship (de-emphasizing Hutchinson somewhat, and adding in a few other events). I ordered all my books from the library early this summer, and wrote the above article in July. Well, the Winship book didn't arrive till August, and I was slow to accept it because it changed the tenor of 350 years of literature (on which the A.C. article is based). Furthermore, Winship is a really tough read, because the theology is unintelligible, but his account of the controversy is the most learned I've yet seen, and it is apparent that he has not only scoured all the literature, but has gone back and read most of the early sermons that are available, including some in England. I've just recently revamped the Wheelwright article using his material, and I will probably insert more into this article as we progress with this peer review.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

  • A bit confusing with the father in Marshalsea, and then in Alford, working, and then not working again.
    • Going back and taking a look, I can see what you are saying. I've taken some things out of chronological order, and that is likely confusing. Let me work on this.
You mentioned the article being too long, with some possibly unnecessary material. I think to satisfy that comment, and also the confusion on Anne's father, I would like to remove about a paragraph's worth of material on him. He is now well covered in his own article (which he wasn't when I began editing Anne's article), so it would probably be worthwhile to trim out some fat here, and simplify her childhood. My reluctance to do so is that I'll have to get rid of one of the images, but that's OK, since the images are more of a filler rather than highly important.
I think that's one of the areas that won't suffer from a bit of trimming. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re length a few things. First, I tend to be a bit minimalist and prefer the less is more philosophy but it's important to know that's only my viewpoint. Also telling an engaging story rather than a dry account is important and I think you've achieved that goal, but it is possible that at FAC you'll run into requests for trimming. The other issue is that these are not easy concepts (you're writing not only a bio but have to explain some very convoluted theological dogma) which I think you've dealt with well. The only caveat is that I'm quite familiar with this material, so I'd suggest you try to get another set of eyes on this page before taking it to FAC; either at a GA review, or invite someone else to comment here. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just perused a bunch of FA articles on people I'm familiar with. Of the history articles I viewed, Malcolm X is the longest at about 97K. Of military people, there are several (very famous) like Douglas MacArthur around 145K? Presidents go even further; both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are right around 200K. I think it would be OK if we ended up at 105 or 110K for this article. I'm not sure I'm going to find another set of eyes like yours, because you are interested in the subject and have some knowledge about it, and are willing to devote a lot of time to feedback. I'm reluctant to go through GA because I put one article there in May and it didn't get picked up until this month. I think I'd rather suffer through an FA rejection, and pick up the pieces from there than wait forever for GA. At least that should offer more feedback. And that's why I chose peer review rather than GA for some feedback. I will continue to work on your comments, though some I have no ideas about, yet. Also, I have to do some editing on the civil trial. I just finished re-reading Winship's 2002 account, and see that this article is missing way too much. Actually, there should be a separate article entitled "The trials of Anne Hutchinson," but there are highlights that need to be included here.
  • Okay, that makes sense. I tend to go by word count, and it's at about 9800 or so now, but to be honest I think I might be in the minority in this regard, so probably not a lot to worry about. I just wanted to mention it here in case it comes up again. I'll post the remaining comments tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MATERIAL HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM CHILDHOOD SECTION, WITH OTHER CORRECTIONS MADESarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A suggestion, but I haven't a clue how where to put this: somehow the split between the Puritan tenets and Laud's tenets needs to be explained (maybe?) so the reader understands why her father was imprisoned, as well as Cotton later.
    • this is probably a good idea; I read these differences in all the books, so it is assumed knowledge for me, yet I likely have not conveyed this in the article. I'll work on this.
This material will be added just before Laud chases Cotton from England. I have to dig up a reference, first, but I know I have one or more available.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. I've added two sentences about what made Puritans not conform with Anglican Church before mentioning that Laud came after Cotton. This was the most appropriate place for this discussion. Marbury, though a Puritan, was imprisoned more for his brash impudence and behavior, and he eventually conformed to the established church (and thus became successful in England).
  • "Outwardly all seemed to be going well, but in February 1611, when Anne was 19 years old, Marbury died suddenly, at the age of 55." > might consider doing without the outwardly; for some reason it threw me, and 55 wasn't an unusual age to die at that period.

THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, AND THE MATERIAL REWORDED A BIT.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will remove "outwardly." I'm inclined to leave the age bit as is. Marbury was a robust man who was at the height of his career. There is nothing known about him to suggest that he should have died at such an age. Working on colonial New England biographies, I find it notable when someone dies in their 40s or 50s. Off the top of my head, I would give 70-75 as being an average age for colonial people of prominence. I have found a good number of them who lived into their 80s. Wheelwright died when about 87.

Adulthood

  • "Shortly after their 9 August 1612 marriage, the couple moved to their hometown of Alford where they visited a variety of nearby parish churches." > I think this is explained in the following sentences, but as it stands is confusing. Presumably they were looking for a preacher whom they liked and according to Puritan tenets could attend church outside of their parish, but I think that needs to be explained somehow other than having them look at churches and then finally finding Cotton on Boston. (Btw - I didn't realize Cotton was also in Boston - interesting that).

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REWORDED, SO CHECK AGAIN FOR ITS FLOW.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

  • Check for overlinking. I removed a few links that weren't necessary and there are so many important links that I'd definitely stay away from unimportant links.
    • I will go through the article with an eye for these; in the meantime, please unlink anything that is unimportant.
  • Check for logical quotations – house style is to have quotation marks outside of the punctuation unless the punctuation is part of the sentence, i.e a full-stop at the end of a sentence - then the quotations marks are after the punctuation.

    • please correct any obvious occurrences of this; I suspect most of these are typos.
    • on second viewing, and looking at your edits, these are not typos. I've been doing this intentionally all along because that's what I learned to do in elementary school ## years ago. You mean we now put the transitioning punctuation outside the quotes? It makes sense, but I will have to do some re-learning.
  • We follow a different style on Wikipedia - well because for one thing it's done differently in different English speaking countries. Lots of us are unlearning, but only for these pages - in real life what you learned in elementary school still stands. Also, to confuse it even more, if the quote ends with a period, then the quote marks come after; otherwise before. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been changing the ones that are obvious; but those am leaving those about which I'm unsure. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probaby need some non-breaking spaces for the dates. Sorry can't remember where that policy is but will try to find it for you.
    • I find these terribly annoying; can we let someone go through the article with AWB to clean these up? Actually, I think this has probably been done in the past, but I've made so many edits that it likely needs another go-round.
  • MIles are converted to km in the England section but not in the Boston section; suggest eliminating the conversions. Otherwise they will have to be added everywhere for consistency and it wouldn't make sense in the Boston section
Shouldn't we covert all units? I thought that was an FA requirement, but I may be wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by not making sense in the Boston section.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we should; but we do have to be consistent. What I meant is that it's not consistently converted throughout the article, so all miles have to be converted to km. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions: the only place I've seen captions centered is on one of my own early articles (in a gallery and I think since changed). I looked in MOS:CAPTION and it didn't say anything
Feel free to uncenter. I just thought they had a certain aesthetic appeal centered, but maybe not.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother about it. I like them too. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston

  • I think it would be useful to explain that William set up as a merchant upon arrival in Boston earlier than the description of the house. I found myself wondering how they afforded a 3 story house with glazed windows and then the 600 acres in Quincy. Probably move the sentence beginning with "Once established ... " up a little?

Home Bible study group

  • "Often her spiritual interpretation was widely divergent from the more refined and legalistic renderings from the colony's ministers. > slightly awkward with the "from" and then another "from" soon after
  • REWORDED
  • "Others, particularly merchants and craftsmen, were attracted by her ideas of the disassociation of the state of a man's soul and his outward behavior" > needs explanation here. But ... it is explained in a lower section and I have a suggestion for a slight re-org.
  • The mention of craftsmen and merchants comes from Battis' 1962 sociological study of the controversy. He was trying to establish why so many families of wealth were the ones who left the colony.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Increasingly, the ministers opposed Hutchinson’s meetings" > the Puritan ministers? clarify, same problem as above
  • All the ministers were Puritan; there were no others. Any time the word ministers is used in the article, it means all the ministers except for Cotton and Wheelwright, who were the only "free grace advocates" among the ministers.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Church

  • Have you considered placing this section before the Home Bible study group? I think it would help the flow, and help explain why her ideas (that I say in the section above need clarification) were out of the mainstream
  • DONE

Antinomian controversy

  • The second paragraph gives a good background that's needed for the general reader. It would do well if it were move (but not sure where?). Either at the end of the "Boston" section, after the "Home bible study", or as a separate "Background" to the "Antinomian controversy" section.
  • "While Hutchinson took a leading role as the chief antagonist of the orthodox party, theologically it was Cotton's differences of opinion with the other ministers in Massachusetts that was at the heart of the controversy.[39] " > probably a good idea to attribute this directly to a scholarly source.
  • Man & woman emphasized after Hutchinson's long quote > not sure we do that because it's considered editorializing. Need to see what MoS says about it but maybe best to eliminate
  • Thus ended the civil trial of Hutchinson, in an infant community whose leaders looked on democracy as the worst form of government.[10]" > this sentence will come as a surprise to some (many?) general readers who might (may?) believe the colonies were settled on the belief of democracy so I'd suggest direct attribution here as well.
  • Should it be explained the reason for the civil trial and then the church trial? Again on the assumption that the general reader may well not know that at that time Boston was a theocracy. (if that's the right word)
  • I think the rewritten version of these sections will address this issue. As of now, I think the long intro to the Antinomian Controversy section explains the reasoning for the civil trial, but if not, the rewritten version does (and in the sandbox I've added material on the October 1636 meeting of the ministers which is critically important to what transpires during the civil trial).
  • "Fearful that Hutchinson's example might be imitated by other women, the divines wished to catch her in a major theological error, then subject her to public punishment" > consider rewording "devines" to something the like the authorities, unless divines has a specific meaning / title here.
  • I am reluctant to define a word that is an everyday word in the literature concerning the controversy. I think the best bet, as with any other fancy word, is to use the word in clear context early in the article so that the reader gains some understanding of its meaning. For example, "The colony's ministers were offended by Hutchinson's insinuations. These divines were therefore more than willing to let her accusations be known during her trial."Sarnold17 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To allow for a varied word choice, the ministers are given a variety of names, all meaning the same group of people: preachers, pastors, divines, priests, and clergy all mean essentially the same thing as minister in this article.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've totally rewritten the section on the Antinomian Controversy, but it is probably more than twice as long as the original version. I would like you to take a look at it in my sandbox before I transfer it to the article, and put in the remainder of the citations. It includes most of the events, some of which don't directly involve Hutchinson, but are crucial to the controversy. Here's the link: User:Sarnold17/sandbox4.
  • I've had a look at the sandbox version and I've skimmed the Antinomian Controversy; my feeling is that it's becoming too detailed again. Since you have subarticles (daughter articles) which is always a luxury in my view, I'd suggest the following: adhere as much as possible to summary style and shove everything not to do directly with Hutchinson's biography into the subarticles. At the same time try to avoid overlap between the biography article and the subarticles. This is not always easy, but in the end is best practice in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church trial

  • "The ministers were all on hand to protect the pristine integrity of their doctrine" > should be attributed or reworded such that they believed their doctrine to be pristine

More later. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you thought about adding a quote from her recantation? It's moving and gives more of her voice in this story in my view.
  • It's in the trial which I see is linked in external links. I noticed a quote in Winthrop's Modell of Christian Charity but having Winthrop quote Hutchinson wouldn't work. The trial is interesting though. It is a primary source, but I think fine to use for one or two direct quotes but not anything else. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final pregnancy

  • Is it worth adding that Winthrop described the miscarriage as "a monstrous birth"? and it was seen as proof of her depravity? > adding: have found something about this at the end of the paragraph; might be worth bringing that up and then the discussion re menopause

Dissension

  • Winthrop noted in his journal > is this from A Model of Christian Charity? Or any of his other quotes? If so, should probably mention the title. Tangential: that page is a mess!
  • No, I think any mention of his journal comes from the journal proper. I don't think I have his journal as a reference in this article, but I do have it as a reference on the daughter's article, Susanna Cole. In this article, any mention or quote from the journal is made by someone else, not me.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During her tenure in Portsmouth, Hutchinson came to a new result of her philosophy" > very nitpicky, but maybe result isn't quite the right word here. Came to a "new belief in her philosophy" or something like that?
This is one of the many sentences I inherited, and I attempted to be defferential to previous authors and maintain their material. A lot I had to remove because it was not adequately sourced, including some stuff I'd have liked to keep. I can reword this when I get there.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to finish this soon but suspect it might not be until the weekend. Sorry, but busy in real life at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit bogged down. I will also wait till the weekend to put some fresh effort into this.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Netherland

  • The background is a little heavy here. I've been thinking about this for several days and I'd consider trimming the following: "As the governor of Rhode Island (Aquidneck Island), Coddington made overtures to both the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Plymouth Colony, wanting his island to become part of the United Colonies. These two larger colonies would only agree to this if they were allowed to absorb Rhode Island, which Coddington would not accept. Nevertheless, both colonies regularly threatened the sovereignty of the Rhode Island colony and her people, causing Hutchinson and other settlers much anxiety. This compelled her to move totally out of the reach of the Bay colony and its sister colonies in Connecticut, and New Haven and move into the jurisdiction of the Dutch.[84]" > and then start with "Sometime after the summer of 1642 ... ".
  • The long quote in the 2nd para should be a blockquote

Hutchinson home site

  • A bit overdeveloped. Everything after the quote in the second sentence seems to be supposition and probably can be condensed in the text and some even shoved into a note. If this section were to be trimmed, I suggest combining with the one above.
  • Removed some sentences, and eliminated subsection, making it part of the overall section on New Netherland. I had gone overboard on the explanations, since it was all new and interesting to me, but I agree that it needed trimming.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre

  • Section needs an active topic sentence that comes right out says what happened and when - should come before the blockquote
  • "The warriors then dragged the bodies into the house along with the cattle, and then set fire to the place, which burned to the ground" > rephrase to avoid repetition of "then"

Cultural impact & HIstorical impact

  • Suggestion for structure: have you considered having only the single level two section, with gender, heretic and politics as separate paras, followed by the two paras in historical impact? The ToC is a bit long and this would be a way of cutting it down. Also, maybe trim these a bit.
This has been the most troublesome part of the entire article for me, and it is where I took stuff from the original article and swept it into this one section. I'd like to get rid of the entire mess, except I did add the historical stuff.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many historians suggest" > best to avoid that kind of construction. Because this is generally true, I'd suggest attributing to the source, e.g. something like "Lauter writes that many historian suggest .... "
  • I'll come back to this, but certainly Winthrop gives much attention to her in a Modell of Christian Charity which was much read. Should probably add something about it here. That might take of this point discussed up-page.
  • "Winship calls Hutchison" > Winship needs to be introduced (presumably a historian) with his first name on first occurrence and use surname on subsequent occurrences.

Memorials and legacy

  • Consider reducing footprint and size of the inscription for two reasons: 1., it's repeated in the Split Rock page that's linked directly above (or remove it from there?); 2., it's a little distracting. This is subjective though, so feel free to ignore. Also, probably not a good idea to use the rootsweb page as a source for this, it must exist somewhere else
Can't change the inscription without messing up the centering. It's the only way I could get it to work. Also, this is different than the inscription on the Split Rock page. That inscription came from a plaque that used to be affixed to the rock, but was vandalized. I'll look for another source for the quote, but in the dozens of books I've so far consulted, I've not seen the inscription written out.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think too much detail to the Quincy memorial: the Wheelwrights, though interesting, could be taken out and then link from that page to this section; much of the rest has been stated up-page so a little repetitive

Literary works

  • "Some literary critics" > same as the comment above. This is certainly true and I'm sure I have a source lying around that says something to the effect the Hester/Hutchinson relationship is fully accepted by lit. critics
OK, I'll reword. This is another sentence that I inherited.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hester was what orthodox Puritans said Hutchinson was, either in reality or at least spiritually.[110] The parallel is that Hutchinson is the heretic who metaphorically seduces the Puritan community, while in Hawthorne's novel Hester Pyrnne literally seduces the minister of her community.[111]" This sentence needs attribution for a number of reasons: 1., although lit critics general agree on the Hester/Hutchinson relationship, that's where the agreement ends & 2., the issue of who was doing the seducing is a debatable question in American lit., so I'd just pin this on Lang
That's exactly where it comes from. Did I not source this correctly?Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namesakes

  • The sentence about Sacagawea is bordering on trivia; suggest trimming it out.
  • As with the section/s above, with some trimming and shoving around, it can be tightened and possibly the subsections removed. An example would be the "Legacy" section in Brothers Grimm and Ernest Hemingway (I've just noticed that Hemingway has bloated, so maybe not a great example, but the point is that these sections tend to become trivia magnets).

Family

  • This is another piece I mulled over for a few days: I think this section would work better if it were moved way up - perhaps to come after the "Massacre" section. Certainly the beginning of it flows from the events in the "Massacre" section so logically it makes sense to put it there.
  • In all the articles I've written, and the many quality biographical articles that I've reviewed or read, the family section invariably comes at the end. It would feel very awkward to me to move it elsewhere. How strongly do you feel about this?Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Current policy is that if something is linked in the body of the page to trim from the "See also", so that needs to be checked
OK; this is an easy fix.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

  • I'd delete this. You can't read all the literature nor can you list all the literature, so it's a no win situation. Be certain though, you've done a thorough and comprehensive literature search (and used as sources) per 1., c. of WP:WIAFA. Also, I wondered why Winship's 2002 title wasn't used - that looks interesting.
Holy smokes, I've never checked as many sources for any other article. This article is two summers worth of borrowing books through inter-library loan followed by a lot of reading. The books and articles are generally the latest and the greatest as well, except for what I couldn't get my hands on. Lang (1987) was too tough for me to read (she writes in PHDese), so I only used a little material from her. Winship 2002 is great, and is the reason that I've rewritten or am re-writing the sections of this article covering the Antinomian Controversy (including the two trials). When I collected all my books early this summer for two months of research, the two Winship books were delayed getting to me (took 5-6 weeks), so I did all my writing, and after all my articles were complete (I thought), I then got the Winship books and began plowing through them. The 2005 book was OK, but I had tremendous difficulty with it, because after Hutchinson had been the center, no, make that the cause, of the controversy, here comes Winship telling us that she was just one of the players, and much less important than the entire world has believed for 375 years. This was a game changer and a tough pill to swallow. Then after finishing Winship's 2005 book, I launched into the 2002 book, with tremendous difficulty. At least I knew what he was going to say from his later book, but the theological groundwork in the early part of the 2002 book is so thick that I could barely negotiate my way through it. The book becomes much more inteiligible as one gets into the familiar sequence of events that formed the controversy. Anyway, by the time the Winship books had arrived, I had already put the Antinomian Controversy and the John Wheelwright article up for GA status. The reviewer of the Wheelwright article said that more current sources needed to be used, so in nine days I basically rewrote the article using Winship 2002 and another 1991 article that the reviewer sent me. The result is that I am WAY MORE pleased with Wheelwright's article than before. I'm hoping that if the Antinomian Controversy article gets picked up soon that the reviewer will be as flexible, and allow me to make changes. My thinking is that a lot of changes are going to be made anyway; why not use the review as the stimulus to make the important updates as well. I've already tried to slip in a bunch of Winship in the Antinomian Controversy article, but the lead needs to be entirely revamped. I just don't want to make major changes right before a review; let me make them as part of the review. Oh, and by the way, I have owned LaPlante's 2004 biography of Hutchinson for a year, and because I now view Winship's 2002 book as THE most important and current work on the controversy (his research is truly impressive, reading all those early sermons...), I went and ordered it from Amazon, and now have my own copy to continue with my research and writing. My plan is to begin working on Cotton's article soon, but the volume of literature will be somewhat daunting, so it will take time, just like Hutchinson has. Anyway, I will be VERY surprised if anyone suggests that this article is not well sourced.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I think that came across wrong on my part. I think you have done a wonderful job with the research - that's why you can most likely do without the "Further reading" section, unless you feel strongly about keeping it. Interesting story though, and it does show that perspectives vary. I've had similar experiences. Anyway, this isn't a big deal and apologize for having given the wrong impression. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The further reading stems from my own affinity toward bibliographies. Someone somewhere published a bibliography on Anne Hutchinson, and I used it to find some pretty good material. I just think it's neat to see what's out there, and the number of biographies shows how important the world thinks Hutchinson is. As to the biographies, I generally only consulted those that were listed by others as being important, since I couldn't read them all. This was another reason I was slow to pick up Winship's books--they were too new to be on any of the "must read" lists that I came across, and I hate to waste time plowing through low-grade material. I had to check them out only because they were new, and they were worth the wait, despite messing up my time table.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Almost all FAC noms are spotchecked (for close paraphrasing, etc.,) so I looked at the few online sources and didn't find any problems.
I got hit hard for close paraphrasing during the GA review of my Mary Pickersgill article. That was the first time the subject had ever come up during any of my reviews, and I am now ultra-sensitive to it. As I make changes in this article for the peer review, I am also rewording other items that look like I may have borrowed a few too many words from the source.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phew. Nice job and good luck! Truthkeeper (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a job! You've really put some time and effort into this, and I hope I can justify your work with some good responses, and an article that's worthy to move up.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I enjoyed it. Also to be clear – don't feel you have to do all of this. As I said, I'm picky, and these are suggestions only. Anyway, it'll stay on my watchlist so I'll follow the progress. And don't forget that we don't have deadlines! Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of María José Reyes and Juan Duarte

[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 sadly the main contributor retired from Wikipedia and it would be great to see this article on the main page. Regards. Kürbis (✔) 12:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments

These comments probably won't be very extensive, but hopefully more useful than a blank space.

  • It needs a good copyedit before a peer review will be much help; there are some poor word choices in the translations and odd sentence structures.
  • The lead could bear the two dates rather than just "in July"
  • I'm not sure all the location details are necessary for Lolol in the lead. Just Lolol, Chile would be fine.
  • The section title "Attacks" carries a implication that they weren't fatal. "Murders" would be better.
  • 'Most accounts say that Duarte went on 10 July 2012 to Óscar López's antique shop "to purchase an iron stick"' - there is only one source cited and the citation for the next sentence provides a different account. Providing additional sources for the "most accounts" would help here.
  • "Iron bar" would be a better translation for "fierro" but I suspect that "a piece of ironwork" might be safer.
  • The article swaps from American to British English. I'd suggest American English throughout as there is more American vocabulary (and "Mommy" is probably more widely understood than "Mummy")
  • The {{infobox criminal}} introduced halfway down the page looks odd; the image layout is poor generally.
  • I'm not sure how much value the bios of the victims or the details of their funerals add.
  • "finding the decapitated body of another victim" - this makes it sound as if they found a third victim ("another victim" apart from the two we already know about). It is cleared up by the next clause but rephrasing this would help.
  • " there was suspicion that López Rodríguez might also have killed Manuel Fuenzalida Piña" - was this dismissed after they failed to find a body or is he still suspected?
  • "However, his actions are to be investigated whether they adhered to the rules of Carabineros or not." - when? Has this happened?
  • There seems to be little procedural aftermath - are there any recommendations for the police or mental health services? Yomanganitalk 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Chapman

[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 aiming at FAC. Chapman was a England cricket captain who rose to the absolute heights before coming to a rather tragic end. Any comments on prose niggles, or any parts impenetrable (or too detailed) for non-cricketers much appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I will try and leave a few comments in the next day or so. Peer reviews are very hard to obtain at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: As promised, some comments (at the moment limited to the first half of the article). I can't do a Constantine job on this, so it's mainly fairly small stuff. I think one of the general Constantine issues - excessive detail - is present to some extent, and you should look to trim where you can, particularly as in some important areas, information is missing.

Lead
Early life
  • The sentence "Chapman was steered towards University cricket and playing for the Gentlemen" is oddly placed here, when the lad hasn't even begun prep school. Such thoughts may have been a gleam in Chapman senior's eye, but "steering towards" at this stage is wildly premature.
  • Probably you should briefly say why finishing second in the school's batting averages attracted the attention of the "wider public". It was, of course, because in 1916 there was no first class cricket, and the sports papers used the public schools' matches as a substitute, with inter-school matches being lengthily reported. This point is made a little later on, in Note 2; perhaps the note should be amended and placed earlier.
    • This is not actually the reason, as the top public school attracted such attention before and after the war. I think Chapman would have been a celebrity even had his school career been in the 1920s as prolific schoolboys (such as Jardine) were pretty well known by the Establishment. The source does not say this explicitly enough for my liking, so I'll see what else I can find which says this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University
  • "in this final game" - add the words "of the university season"
  • People not much aware of how English cricket was (and to an extent still is) organised should be told that Minor Counties matches were not first class, but that Scarborough Festival matches were. Thus I would say: "Chapman played second-class Minor Counties cricket..." and "appeared in three end-of-season first-class games at the Scarborough Festival..."
  • Say "In 1921" rather han "The following season".
  • Cricket followers will know that using 30 players in a single Test series is extraordinary: non-followers will not, and will wonder why the information is there.
  • Do none of Chpman's biographers indicate what he studies at Cambridge, or whether he took his degree?
    • Oddly enough, no. I think players like Chapman joined the university purely on sporting merit and had little interest in study. And this seems to have been accepted, and even encouraged. So no-one cared about his academic career; I can't see that he would have done too well, personally! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MCC tour to Australia and New Zealand
  • Be clearer about the status of this team, inc. perhaps saying who captained it and who some of the other players were.
    • Added the captain, but I'm not too sure what would be gained by adding other players. Which ones should be included? None of them were particularly notable except Tich Freeman and their names would be meaningless even to most cricket followers. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "initially" is redundant
  • Why was his bowling expected to make an impact? He had little record of previous success.
Qualifying for Kent
Second tour to Australia
  • "Through aggressive cricket, he made several substantial scores but only passed fifty in the second innings of the third Test. In this innings, his first Test score over fifty, he scored 58 runs." This clunks a a bit; try and polish.
  • Who is "Noble"?
  • "The highlight came at the end of the tour when Chapman visited New Zealand and married Beet Lowry". Who was "Beet Lowry"? Was she really named "Beet"? Had they met previously, etc? A couple of lines of explanation are essential. You can find the answers to my questions in Chapman's ODNB entry.
  • "noting his debut" - his debut in what? He was a Test player and had played first class cricket for years. His belated first County Championship appearance hardly qualifies as a "debut" (however the source describes it).
Ashes series of 1926
  • You need to say why the final Test was "decisive"
  • On the question of Chapman's youth, ODNB says he was "the youngest to hold the position in test history" but this is untrus (see Monty Bowden) but he was at the time the youngest to captain England against Australia. Since then, Atherton has beaten this record.

More later Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A second batch: Not quite through:

Aftermath
Tour of Australia
  • Add the dates of the tour to the section title
  • If you're looking for ways of cutting the prose, the first two sentences of this section add little and could easily be dropped.
  • " For the first Test, Chapman and the tour selection committee chose only three specialist bowlers to strengthen the team's batting" - this reads as though the bowlers were selected to strengthen the batting. To clarify your intended meaning I suggest: "For the first Test, to strengthen the team's batting, Chapman and the tour selection committee chose only three specialist bowlers"
  • Is it worth mentioning that the victory in the first Test was by the largest runs margin (675) in Test match history?
  • Rather than "sitting in the Ladies' Stand", it might be better (and more accurate) to say something like "socialising with guests in the Ladies' Stand".
  • England's victory in the third Test ensured that the series was won; the result of the fourth could not affect the series victory. You should also mention that the third Test victory ensured that the Ashes were retained.
  • Will non-cricketers, or modern cricket followers for that matter, understand why putting Larwood to bowl against Ironmonger was considered "unsporting"? It would be par for the course today. An explanatory footnote might help.
  • Presumably Jardine left the "field" rather than the "match"?
  • "Socially, Chapman enjoyed the tour; he attended many social gatherings..." Avoid the "socially ... social" repetition
  • "... and according to Bill Ferguson, the team scorer, he only saw Chapman annoyed once on the tour" - not quite right. Suggest replace "and with semicolon, then "Bill Ferguson, the team scorer, only saw Chapman annoyed once on the tour..."
Ashes series of 1930
Loss of captaincy
  • This heading is not accurate. He did not lose the captaincy at this point. He was dropped from the side for the final Australian Test so could obviously not lead in that match, but as you say elsewhere, he had already been appointed to lead the side to tour South Africa. I don't think a separate subsection is required, anyway; the previous heading is "Ashes series of 1930". which covers all events including the final Test of the series.
  • I have never heard of Leo McKinstry, but I believe he is writing what might properly described as crap. If the selectors were seriously concerned about inconsistent, risky batting, increased tactical shortcomings and above all else, drunkenness on the field of play, would they have chosen Chapman to captain the side in South Africa? I think not. I'm not saying the selectors didn't have some justifiable concerns about him, but dropping him for one match did not amount to a "sacking". They clearly wanted to keep him on. In he end his terrible form in the South African series left them no choice but to replace him.
    • I'm not sure about this. They were already getting twitchy, and had selected him for the SA tour some time before they "sacked" him; I can't find a more precise date. As the SA tour was still not too prestigious (many players missed this one), and the Ashes were so much more important, I'm not so sure that McKinstry is wrong. He uses some pretty good sources, and everything backs up the view that the selectors did not trust Chapman anymore. Warner did one of his patented about-turns on him that summer. If they had already chosen him for the tour, it was probably too late to change their minds so they kept him for one last hurrah. But I think had it just been that they dropped him with the intention of bringing him back, there would not have been such an outcry at the time, and in subsequent years. I suspect that was his career effectively over. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, maybe, but there seems a level of conjecture about this. The facts are that he was dropped for one match; had he led Englad to a triumphant series victory in South Africa, along with a couple of centuries, would they still have replaced him? Your guess is as good as mine. However, reading through again I can't really see much wrong with your account; I might use "replacement" instead of "sacking". Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final tour
  • Again, why not a more informative section title? Maybe "South African tour 1930–31"
  • Chapman had nine consecutive wins as captain, not seven, and I don't think nine has ever been surpassed. You mention nine victories in his first nine games in the next sentence.
    • Tried to clarify this. The team won seven successive games, but lost the next when Chapman was not captain. Chapman's nine were not consecutive; after the Oval in 1926, he missed the SA tour of 26-27, then won the seven in a row, then missed the 29-30 tours before winning his last match in 1930. Do you think the note explains it enough, and do you think it needs a stronger ref? (It would be long and convoluted if it needed more, but it's not too hard). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few concluding comments on the later sections

Kent captain
  • Lord Tennyson captained rather than "chose" the team which Chapman joined. And I think it was just to Jamaica, rather than a tour of the WI
  • "However, it is likely that the selectors never considered returning to him" would probably read better "However, it is unlikely that the selectors ever considered returning to him".
both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline
  • Mention that his last first-class game (MCC v Ox. Univ) was in 1939
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Style and technique
  • This is not the best section heading. Much of the prose is concerned with Chapman's effectiveness as a captain, or with his fielding abilities concerning which "style and technique" are not really appropriate terms.
This tends to be the kind of heading used here. I've gone for "Technique and critical judgements" but may tweak further. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adventurous" is too commonplace a word to require quotes
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add a footnote explaining who the "Quidnuncs" were. (If my Latin serves me well it means "What now")
Erm... No-one really says anything about them! The best I can get is that they were an equivalent of the Oxford Harlequins. Which doesn't really clarify anything. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "a club for former Cambridge cricket Blues"?
Good idea, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even so, his record as captain is at least as good as others who captained England during Chapman's career". A good deal better, I'd say, in terms of results certainly during his England career. Jardine's record was slightly better.
Beefed this up a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph the word "captain" or "captaincy/captained" occurs very frequently. A slight prose revision could reduce the repetition.
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage and fame
  • Comma required after "...New Zealand in 1922–23"
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of his tour of 1924–25..." → "At the end of the 1924–25 Australia tour..."
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is/was Ivo Tennant?
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Later struggle
  • "After 1946, Chapman lived with the steward of West Hill Golf Club, Bernard Benson...": "lived with" has a slightly suspect flavour. Perhaps "shared a house with"?
Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That ends my comments. I still think that the article could be shaved a little, by removing less important stuff, without detriment. I can't go further than this very general statement, but I almost invariably find, when I have finished drafting an article, that I can reduce it by between 10 and 15 per cent with no quality loss. It can be a bit painful, removing stuff that represents considerable research, but in general I find it worthwhile. As it is, this is a very creditable article about an interesting figure in the cricket world who has, I think, been somewhat neglected in the copious cricket literature. I, certainly, knew little about him before reading this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at trimming further before heading to FAC. Thanks once more for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mauboy 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 again because I would like to have more feedback before I nominate it for FL. Thanks! — Oz (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Najib Razak

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the point that it is suitable for consideration as a featured article. Please give any kind of suggestions that you feel are helpful.

Thanks, Monkeyassault (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... This peer request is not categorized in the right section. It's not a list. Oh well. I'll take a look at this.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Giant eland

[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 an FA, as I have put many efforts into it and it is a GA too. I welcome any useful comments and suggestions which can help me with this article.

Thanks, Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments

In no particular order or claim at comprehensiveness.

  • The taxonomy/etymology and differentiation between the subspecies is poor:
    • " There are two subspecies: T. d. derbianus and T. d. gigas, which have different conservation statuses." followed two paragraphs later by "Its population is decreasing but it is still classified as "Least Concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." This is inconsistent.
      Yes, this is relevant. I corrected it by deleting the first part, 'which have different conservation statuses', and rewrote it as 'The subspecies have been listed with different conservation statuses by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).' in the last line. Fine now?
    • "The name 'giant eland' indicates the subspecies T. d. gigas." - that might be where the "giant" came from but the term "giant eland" encompasses both subspecies.
      This is a confusing statement. Actually I got it from the MSW3 source, but I have removed this now.
    • "The giant eland was first introduced in 1847 by John Edward Gray, a British zoologist, who called it Boselaphus derbianus." Introduced where? Do you mean the name "giant eland" was introduced? Do you mean "first described"? It was already claimed that was "first acclimated to England between 1835 and 1851" ("acclimated" is an odd word choice too, and the structure of the paragraph on Lord Derby could do with being reversed as we don't get a clue as to its etymological relevance until the end)
      I mean 'first described'. I think I have rewritten it suitably in the article now. I changed 'acclimated' to 'introduced'. Yes, it was introduced into England at that time, but then the people did not know what antelope it was.
      It was in England for 12 years unidentified or misidentified? Did Grey describe it from Derby's original specimen? Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the etymology and taxonomy sections separated by the "Physical description" section? - this isn't a logical structure and breaks the flow
      I have kept the 'Taxonomy' part after 'Etymology' now.
    • The identification of the subspecies as "eastern" and "western" isn't made until near the end of the taxonomy section when we've already had a few mentions of the subspecies. Introduce this in the lead or use the scientific names rather "eastern" and "western" in subsequent sections.
    • "... which correspond to the two recognized subspecies, the western giant eland (T. d. derbianus) and the eastern giant eland (T. d. gigas). " This repeats the information already given in the Taxonomy Subspecies subsection.
      Corrected now.
  • "Its actual sighting was in 1862, when William W. Reade, a British historian, explorer, and philosopher, visited Senegambia." - This makes no sense when viewed in the context of the preceding sentence and the second paragraph of the "Etymology" section
    This thing was not so relevant or properly supported. I have removed it.
  • The "Parasites" section could probably be wrapped into other sections or at least moved lower in the structure
    Wrapped into 'Physical description'.
  • "Savanna(h)" is spelt inconsistently in the lead and body.
    Changed to savanna everywhere.
  • In the "Genetics and evolution" section you switch to calling it the derby eland. I'd remain consistent in calling it the giant eland, but if you do swap it should be "Lord Derby eland" as established in the lead. You also identify the animal in the infobox picture as western derby eland which is of no use to the infobox viewer.
    I have rewrote it as 'Giant eland'. Do you mean the caption should be changed or totally removed?
    I removed the caption. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regular" should probably be "frequent" in regard to their water requirement (but see the next comment).
    Other sources write it as 'regular', I think it should be 'regular' only.
    Regular isn't that helpful in identifying how often they need to drink as its interpretation is too subjective. The appearance of Halley's Comet is regular but buses departing regularly might be leaving every couple of minutes. According to the discussion of the adaptations for desert survival they do not require a water supply, regular or irregular. It appears they prefer habitats where drinking water is available but it is not a requirement. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They need regular intake of water in their diet." The rest of the paragraph is devoted to the ways they avoid requiring water and in the "Uses" section this is cited as an advantage they have over domestic cattle. They may need a regular intake of water, but it seems they need less water than most animals of comparable size and habits, so perhaps you should stress this aspect rather than their requirement for a water supply.
    I have wrapped it into a sentence. I believe this will make the reader clear on this aspect.
  • The paragraph on herding behaviour isn't clear. First they form herds, then the males are alone, then there are subgroups of males and females and juveniles
    I have changed the order of the sentences. Seems proper to me now.
  • I think you occasionally need a definite article in front of "giant eland" when referring to it in the singular, as both the singular and plural are the same "As many other animals do, giant eland is also known to scrape mineral lick sites with the help of horns to loosen soil." (also, this sentence seems out of place in current position too, as the rest of the paragraph is concerned with herding behaviour)
    I think this should be plural. According to you, where should this statement be placed?
    Mineral licking is an aspect of diet. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Expressions of anger are not typically observed" - is there any evidence for anger as an emotion of antelopes?
    No, I mean they have never been seen exhibiting anger.
    I mean that anger is not an emotion of antelopes, so there is no reason to mention its absence. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs a copy edit - there are a lot of areas where the prose could be tightened or the sentence structure is awkward. One example only: "It has many uninhabited habitats that are not expected to be occupied for human settlement"
    How can it get a copyedit?
    There are copyeditors around but I think you need to address some of the points of structure and research before approaching one. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Threats and Conservation" repeats much of the substance of "Populations"
    Do you think the two sections could be merged? (See the last but one comment)
    I think "Habit and Distribution" and "Populations" could be merged, but "Threats and Conservation" should probably remain as a separate section with some information swapped between the two sections (for example, rinderpest is a threat, so the discussion of this may fit better under threats than under distribution and the areas where the giant eland is now extirpated belong under distribution rather than conservation). Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Uses" section needs reworking so it describes what uses they are put to rather than just the qualities that would make them suitable for use. "Eland's milk has about triple the fat content and twice the protein of a dairy cow's milk" is very interesting but it isn't a use unless somebody is distributing it. "Moreover, its docility and profitable characteristics have made it a target of domestication in Africa and Russia and has also resulted in excessive hunting." What is this "Moreover" referring to? Also, if it is of "Least Concern" what makes the hunting excessive? (coupled with "Giant eland are alert and wary, making them difficult to approach and observe or to hunt" this sentence doesn't make much sense anyway).
    Will wait till it is copyedited.
     Done I have corrected much. The fact about the milk should remain, it focuses on what makes the giant eland's milk better than that of domestic cattle. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It should only remain if there some evidence that it is being used (or is proposed) as a substitute for the milk of domestic cattle. If diary farming of giant eland is impractical then the properties of the milk are immaterial in this section. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elands can survive in the scarcity of water, a great advantage over domestic cattle." - we were told earlier that they needed a constant supply of water.
  • "They inhabit places near hilly or rocky landscapes and those with water sources nearby" According to this they live in places "near" hilly or rocky landscapes. Is that right? You've already said "Giant elands live in the broad-leafed savanna, woodlands and glades". Is "places near hilly or rocky landscapes" a subsection of that?
    They also inhabit places near hilly or rocky landscapes.
  • "The elands are adapted to live in deserts", "The giant eland is adapted to these broad-leafed, deciduous Isoberlinia woodlands". Is the first sentence referring to common elands or is the giant eland adapted to live in forests and deserts?
    Giant eland's adaptations help t to exist in deserts. Forests are its natural habitat.
  • "Science author Jonathan Kingdon had thought the giant elands lived only in woodlands of Isoberlinia doka, an African hardwood tree." That must have been a fairly odd idea in the context of the rest of this section which says they live in places near hilly or rocky landscapes and those with water sources nearby, broad-leafed savanna, woodlands and glades, and forests as well as on the fringes of deserts. Something isn't right with the description of their habitat - it's either much too broad or much too narrow.
    As you said, it requires copyediting.
    This isn't a copyediting problem, it is one of marshalling information from the sources. The giant eland's habitat can not be described both as highly restricted and varied. The copyeditor would not be able to judge which information was valid without doing extensive background reading. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giant elands live in the broad-leafed savanna, woodlands and glades of central and western Africa". The second part of that sentence is redundant because of the Populations section later on.
    See next comment.
  • The information on the population in the "Habitat and Distribution" section seems to clash with the information in the "Populations" section which raises the question as to why the two sections exist independently - details on where the populations are found is their distribution.
    Reading this one, I again think of merging this section and 'Populations'.
    I think that would be wise. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One calf is born per birth, and it remains with its mother for six months.[18] Lactation can last for four to five months, after which the young eland might join a group of other juveniles." If it stays with its mother for six months it can't join a group of juveniles after four or five months. Also "One calf is born per birth" is clunky, presumably you mean that the pregnant female carries a single calf. Yomanganitalk 15:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected now.

Thanks for peer-reviewing. Please address some interrogative comments I left, they would be very helpful. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus 7

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…the article has just passed a GA nomination, and I'm looking for flaws within the article prior to a FA candidacy. The more criticisms, the merrier :).

Thanks, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian Penguin comments

Hello, Sp33dyphil. Congratulations of the good article promotion. I've had a look at this article, and it appears to be in alright shape. If you don't mind, I'd like to offer some suggestions to help guide the copyediting.

  • "...it is emphasized as an entertainment device with integration with Google Play..." – this would sound nicer and more pleasant if there was only one "with".
  • "Reviewers have noted the absence of expandable storage and cellular connectivity." – because this is negative, perhaps a smooth transition would be nice for this sentence (eg. however, but, etc.)
  • "To work on the project..." – awkward transition
  • Pardon me nitpicking, but "On June 25, 2012, gadget website Gizmodo Australia claimed it had access to specifications of the tablet, most of which were correct including storage options, screen resolution, and recommended retail prices." – what you mean to say may not be what is being said. The sentence is right now saying that most of the tablet's actual specs were correct (?), not that the information Gizmodo had was mostly correct. A bit strangely worded.
  • "In early September 2012" but "late-August"? Be consistent with hyphens.

I did a rough copy edit of the first two sections. More comments to come. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "allowing users from the outset to further develop the OS, and/or root the device, which means to gain legitimate privileged control in Android's subsystem." – per WP:ANDOR, "and/or" is discouraged
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Google claims the Nexus 7 has 9 hours of HD video playback, 10 hours of web browsing or e-reading, and 300 hours on standby." – needs clarifiation. For a read who is unfamiliar with computer specs, this sentence can be unclear. Readers should know that you are referring to the battery life. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Lots of links to dab pages - please correct
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7-inch (180 mm) diagonal screen" - you might want to re-arrange this, as my first reaction was "what's a diagonal screen"?
Removed diagonal -- others didn't know what a 7-in display meant. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is emphasized as an entertainment device" - word choice
Could a suggestion be provided? Question?
"Emphasized" doesn't fit as written. You could rework to "Its utility as an entertainment device is emphasized by X", or you could use "primarily an entertainment device", "marketed as", etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walter Mossberg (left), David Pogue (middle) and MG Siegler (not shown)" - so if the third guy isn't shown, how do you have someone in the middle?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following...Following" - repetitive
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "late-August" - why the hyphen?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite what conventional wisdom says is possible" - leaning a bit POV here
Removed. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The firm's senior analyst Andrew Rassweiler suggested that the success of the HP TouchPad's fire sale helped increase the commercial viability of low-cost tablets from major brands, and the failures of other high-end tablets helped lower the cost of parts, making low-cost tablets like the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 possible" - how many times do you have the words "low" and "cost" in that sentence?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Google I/O attendants" - do you mean attendees or employees?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as an inability" - missing word here, maybe "demonstrating"?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early–September 2012" - why the dash?
Removed. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here for now, more later. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Nexus 7 is first device" - grammar
Please check. Question? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unlike previous iterations of the Android OS" - what did they use?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can translate languages" - spoken, written, or both? Any language, or a limited set?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an interview with Andy Rubin, co-founder and former CEO of Android Inc., the emphasis of Google Play comes after..." - this doesn't make sense as written
Please check. Question? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need some kind of link between the interview and the content statement – either change "In" to "According to", or add "he suggested that" or similar before "the emphasis". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hardware is the primarily determining factor" - do you mean "primary"?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink chassis?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "198.5 mm (7.81 in) long, 120 millimetres (4.7 in) wide..." - okay, two issues here: you previously led with the imperial measurement and are now switching, and why is the first measurement abbreviated while the second is not?
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compared to 264 ppi of the more expensive third-generation iPad" - grammar
  • "Two models of the Nexus 7..." - this paragraph has lots of redundancy, could be more concise
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the downside" - tone
Replaced. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics particularly praised..." - some tense shifting in this paragraph, try to stay consistent
Please check Question? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This sentiment is similarly voiced by Melissa Perenson of PCWorld," - needs a short transition after comma before quote
Done. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asus and Google are expected to sell 3–4 million units in 2012,[70] accounting for six million tablets Asus is expecting to sell for the year" - not sure I understand what you're trying to say
Reworded. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the list of "Similar devices" in See also different from the list of "Related articles" in the infobox?
Removed. checkY --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: did not look at sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Montalban

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been expanded with new information taken from the recently published biography of this figure. It would be really great if someone could give it a look over and offer up some comments.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Stevenson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
John W. Stevenson served as governor of Kentucky and represented the state in both houses of Congress. He was a Confederate sympathizer who nonetheless opposed secession. Later in life, he was elected president of the American Bar Association. Although it was already GA-class, I found some additional resources and did a complete rewrite on this article. I think it now stands a good chance of passing FAC, but would like to solicit additional feedback. If it is indeed a defensible FAC candidate, it will become part of my quest for a Governors of Kentucky featured topic, which by my count is now only 6 FAs from becoming a reality. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Churn and change

[edit]
  • Lead
    • First sentence: I think the first line should state he represented Kentucky in both houses, was its governor, and was president of the American bar association. That automatically makes him a politician and a lawyer, without our explicitly saying so.
    • The wikilinks have to be fixed. Kentucky should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK; it is commonly understood to be a US state. Governor should not be linked since the word is being used in its usual sense. Mississippi should not be linked; nor should county attorney. Internal improvements, probably should not be just linked, but should be described in a word or two (internal infrastructure spending?) and then linked. Constitution should not be linked; constructionist view should be, with perhaps a word or two describing what it is.
      • Kentucky was removed per the above edit, but I have linked it numerous times in the past without incident. For every person who says linking state names is overlinking, there's another that insists that "city, state" designations in the infobox should be replaced with "city, state, USA", so I don't necessarily agree with your assertion about Kentucky or Mississippi and prefer to keep them linked. "Governor" was linked because it links specifically to the "Governor of Kentucky" article, which is now more clear with the previous edit. "Internal improvements" was still the term being used in textbooks when I was in high school a decade and a half ago, so I'm disinclined to replace it with a less common term. Not sure why "constitution" shouldn't be linked, but I do agree with you on "constructionist". Didn't realize we had an article on that, but I've linked it and tried to provide a little more in-line context as well. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox: shouldn't it have the presidency of the American Bar Association. Sounds important. If the box is too long, then probably the resting place and relations may be taken out.
  • Early life and family
  • Political career
    • His dad, I presume, was a democrat? Should be mentioned somewhere; shouldn't have to follow a Wikilink to find out.
    • County attorney wikilinked a second time here. No need to wikilink Kansas. No need to link civil war again.
    • The Dictionary of American Biography attribution and what it supports (most notable speech) seem best left out. If there are other sources reporting this as a notable speech, then the attribution is not needed; if not this seems an opinion best left to the reader's judgment.
      • Well, the information on his House career was pretty sparse, so I thought that this would help explain that. If his most notable action was a speech, the topic of which was pretty common at the time, it would show that he didn't play a pivotal role in much of anything. Also, since the Dictionary of American Biography is independently notable enough to warrant its own wiki-article, I thought it might be more credible than a general opinion. If, after reading my logic, you still think it needs to go, I won't quibble over it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source doesn't exactly say he stayed out of public life to avoid being arrested. It says he kept away from the war and free of Federal prisons.
    • "Like many Kentuckians, Stevenson was sympathetic to the southern states' position in the lead-up to the Civil War." That leaves unclear what that position was. The source says: "Imbued with a strong feeling for the Union, characteristic of Kentuckians, he called upon the Republicans to recede from the extreme policies of their platform and help to preserve the common country." That the Kentucky position was the general southern states' position is a bit of synthesis. What the source states seems somewhat dubious (doesn't seem written from a neutral point of view). Either we should drop this or find more scholarly references for the statement.
    • "He lost the election of 1861." I presume the election was in 1862, or more likely 1860? In the second case, the speech was made after his defeat, and the sentence sequence needs to reflect that.
      • From other articles in that time period, I seem to remember something about there being special congressional elections in 1861, but I'm not sure why. If it was these elections, it would not be surprising that Stevenson was defeated, since pro-Union legislators won every Kentucky congressional seat except the First District in those elections. However, the source is ambiguous as to whether these were the regular elections (which were probably in 1860, or these special elections). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He supported the democratic candidate in 1860. Might be worthwhile adding that was against Lincoln. Nevertheless, he just toed the party line, which doesn't seem notable. Also, the chronology is mixed up. This sentence should be moved up, before the speech in 1861.
      • I fixed the chronology, but his support of the Democratic ticket probably was more of a result of his friendship with Breckinridge than any party loyalty. Remember, there were four major candidates in that election, and the only think Kentuckians agreed on, regardless of party affiliation, was that most of them wanted nothing to do with Lincoln. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to link "States' rights." The link points to the more modern meaning of the word anyway.
    • "bitterly denounced": the source says "condemned" and so we can probably paraphrase as just "denounced."
    • taxation of "the meager assets of most blacks yielded little revenue for their educational needs." Too closely mirrors the wording in the source, with no quotes. Rephrase since there is no particular difficulty in doing so.
    • What is "eleemosynary institutions"? Whatever it is, we need a simpler word.
      • As I have seen it used, it seems to encompass both penal institutions and facilities for the mentally and physically handicapped. Since those are pretty diverse, I thought I'd try to simplify it this way. If you think that isn't appropriate, I'll try to rephrase. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last para of "State matters" needs some context. Who were the "regulators"? Why were they violent? The paragraph actually goes on to mention violence against them by the Rowzees, not by them.
      • I thought we had an article on the Regulators, but it doesn't look like we do. There isn't a lot of context given in the source, but they were apparently mobs of vigilantes. I've added "vigilantes" to clarify. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to link "duel." Common-enough word. Hides the relevant links. No need to link "constitution" again, nor "internal improvements."
    • Need to explain back then the Kentucky senator was elected by the legislature, not directly by the people. This is explicitly mentioned by one of the sources' pointing out he didn't have to face a public electorate again after he became governor.
    • Was he the minority leader in the Senate? Probably should be mentioned. Looks like he spent 4 years as governor and the usual six as senator, but we have just two short paragraphs on what he did in the senate, and many sections on what he did as the governor.
  • Later life and death
    • Obituary characterizations (tertiary source per WP) tend to match WP:PEACOCK and are best not pulled in. So the reference to his speech as president of the ABA should be taken out unless other secondary sources mention it.
    • American Bar Association already wikilinked once. No need to link "executor" and "will."
  • Ancestors
    • What's the source for this tree?
      • This was a project by Spacini (talk · contribs) for the Kentucky Historical Society. Pretty sure the HTML comments in the section say it was assembled from public record, but you could ask Spacini for more details.
  • References
  • General
    • Some of the photos are of peripheral relevance. Could instead include more photos of the subject. The one on page 51 of the Clark and Lane book, for example. I assume it is all public domain.
    • The state governorship dominates the article, though that is just four years of his life. The senate part probably can be expanded.
      • Most of my sources are about Kentucky and the governorship. So far, I haven't found many relevant to the other parts of his life. (I got the University of Kentucky library to photocopy the memorial from the ABA and send it to me. It's very rare.) It is tough because John Stevenson is a common name. Obviously, you seem to have found a few more, which you left on the talk page. I really appreciate that, and hope you will drop any additional ones there as well. I have access to EbscoHost and ProQuest, but not Questia (I'm signed up for this round of free accounts) or JSTOR (looking forward to some free accounts from them as well). I also missed out on the last round of Credo accounts. If you've got emailable sources, use the "email this user" feature, and I'll send you an email address you can send to. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much nothing on personal life. Where were his children educated? Anything notable his wife did. Any hobbies, interests.
    • The take on his personality is a bit confusing. A politician who is bad at communicating is all that the article mentions. But that seems to be in the context of the post-war election. He did win from Kentucky before the war.
      • Unfortunately, I haven't run across much that can help with this, but don't read too much into him being a bad communicator. In many parts of Kentucky, simply being the Democratic candidate was qualification enough for most voters. If he didn't face any opposition in the primary, he might have gained the office nearly by default. Wish I had some info on those early elections. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is well-cited and encyclopedic in tone, style, viewpoint, content and organization. To get to FA, I think the major thing is to pull in more info on his role as senator and lawyer, and, if available, as a person.

 

Churn and change (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to some comments above. Gotta run for now, but will respond to the rest later. Thanks for the review.

Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the Wikilinks; it is a tradeoff. I think you should see how most reviewers lean down the road. The notable speech issue: there is one other speech of his, the one opposing the KKK act of Grant, which seems to be cited more in secondary sources. I have dumped some references on this (and some other stuff) on the article's talk page. Great article. Churn and change (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized I shut everything down this morning without saving the changes I referenced! I've made them and others now, and responded to your comments above. I had difficulty finding sources on Stevenson compared to many of the other articles I've worked on, but you seem to have dug out some I missed, so maybe I just wasn't diligent enough. In particular, I thought there would be more about his Senate career, since he apparently served as Democratic floor leader, but so far, Gamm is the only source to even mention that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a few quick points as my final points for the review. Don't know whether {{sfn}} is required, but it definitely helps one get to a citation in two clicks. Right now a search of the last name is required in the (admittedly sorted) bibliography. The word "eleemosynary institutions" would lead most people to a dictionary where they are just going to see "related to charity." Might be better to just describe the intended idea. There is an obituary by the ABA, and I think it is the same as the Vaux one, though in this publication it is unsigned: [2] p. 128. Would be good to add this URL to the Vaux citation if it is the same. I think the material here is more reliable than the Morton one; that article has other errors in plenty and was written much after the event (this being a perhaps unusual case where being closer to the event makes a source likely more accurate). I have access to JSTOR and you can message me or post at WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if you need a JSTOR article. Meanwhile I dumped some public domain documents (a long address to the governor from another guy in an investigation, and the full text of his speech as the ABA president) on Commons (Category:John W. Stevenson has the stuff); they may be behind paywalls but are definitely PD. Yeah, it is difficult to get data on his non-Governor days; I think the article has most of what is available in secondary sources already. Churn and change (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: reading through now, have a few comments on the first few sections. Nothing major, just some smoothing needed for the wording.
  • "He was elected lieutenant governor in 1867, but Governor John L. Helm's death, just five days into his term, elevated Stevenson to governor. He subsequently won a special election to finish Helm's term in 1868. He opposed federal intervention in what he considered state matters but insisted that blacks' newly granted rights be observed and used the state militia to quell post-war violence in the state." Three consecutive sentences here start with "He...", I'd suggest a little more variation. Same situation in the second paragraph of "U.S. Representative".
  • "He was again one of Kentucky's delegates to the Democratic National Conventions in 1848, 1852, and 1856.[2] He served as a presidential elector at the 1852 and 1856 conventions." How about: "He was again one of Kentucky's delegates to the Democratic National Conventions in 1848, 1852, and 1856, serving as a presidential elector in 1852 and 1856."?
  • "After graduation, he read law with his cousin, Willoughby Newton, who would later serve in the U.S. Congress.[6] He was admitted to the bar in Virginia in 1839." Who is "He" in the second sentence?
  • "accepting future Kentucky Governor William Goebel as a law partner." Is the capitalization of "Governor" correct here? I can never remember the rule for that.
  • "Stevenson was defeated for reelection in 1861.[2] For the duration of the war, he stayed out of public life in order to avoid being arrested as many other Confederate sympathizers were.[2]" You might want to note the dates of the war's start and end, for our non-American readers.
  • "He urged the immediate restoration of all rights to ex-Confederates and denounced Congress for failing to seat a portion of the Kentucky delegation because they had sided with the Confederacy.[18] He championed" Some minor repetition with the beginnings of these sentences.
  • More to follow later. The article is mostly fine. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later in October, he dispatched the state militia to Mercer County" Who is "he" in this sentence? Otherwise this section looks great. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, finished my read through, overall this is very well written, not much else I can say (other than sorry if my copyedits were harmful at all). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu

[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 it gets reviewed as a GA) I'd like to nominate it for Featured article. What does it need? What do you suggest?

Thanks, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Huntsman, Jr.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I believe this is an excellent article worthy of Featured article status, and before I nominate it I would like the opinion of fellow editors on how it could be improved.

Thanks, Grammarxxx (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wagner

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is currently a GA. Richard Wagner was a German composer who was well known for his operas and was influential in his works. He also organized the Bayreuth Festival as well. Before we take this to a possible FAC, I would like to have some feedback on how we can improve the article. I think it is ready to be peer reviewed. Comments on all aspects of the article are welcome; the 130th anniversary of his death is on 13 February 2013 and this would be a good TFA for that day.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I agree 13 Feb 2013 would be a good TFA date for this article. But I notice that you are not a contributing editor. The main editor is User:Smerus, who is a longstanding and highly respected editor of music articles, though he has not been too active recently. Have you contacted him, since his expertise will be essential if the article is to be upgraded in the time available? Also, it would be more appropriate for the review to take place after at least some of the necessary work has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. Since I am not a contributing editor of the article, I will contact Smerus as soon as possible. Thanks, Brianboulton. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the middle of the music festival I run in Slovakia, available as from next week --Smerus (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Doby

[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 a Good Article on a subject who deserves to make it to Featured Article status. I provided the GA review and think it could be ready for FAC with an extra set of eyes by a non-baseball expert to make sure any jargon and the like is dealt with.

Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Some initial thoughts from the first few sections are below. Overall, I think a copy-edit will be needed before an FAC nomination, as I'm finding a lot of small issues even early on. I fear the FAC prose reviewers will not be kind to the article in its current state.

  • In the lead, the en dash in "All–Star" should be a hyphen instead.
  • Last word of "World Series Championship" should be decapitalized.
  • Early life: The word order seems off in "Doby played with shortstop teammate, Monte Irvin." Actually, the sentence as a whole seems off.
  • Negro leagues: "advised Eagles' owners Able and Effa Manley to give Doby a tryout." Is "Able" supposed to be "Abe" like in our article on him?
  • "26 box scores have been found and concluded his batting average was .391." Confusing. It reads like the box scores made the conclusion, not people. I also feel this area could benefit from some context on how Negro League statistics are incomplete.
  • "against squads composed of white players, some which were composed of major leaguers." First, it should be "some of which". Second, the usage of "composed" is redundant here; try to seek greatly variety in the phrasing.
  • "While in Hawaii, Doby would meet fellow Navy man and future teammate Mickey Vernon. Vernon...". Try not to have words repeat from the end of one sentence to the beginning of another like this.
  • Another issue I see in this sentence that is constant throughout what I've read so far is an excessive use of passive voice. The active form, "met" instead of "would meet", is smoother to read. Similar edits could be made in too many places for me to list. It's worth going over the text to find areas where such changes can be made.
  • "and led the NNL in triples 6." Should either have parentheses around the number or "with" before it.
  • Don't need another Monte Irvin link here, since there was already one in the previous section.
  • "Doby hit .372 with one home run, five RBIs and recorded three stolen bases." The "recorded" is just getting in the way here and isn't needed for the structure of the sentence to work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your time and efforts! I have resolved some of the minor CE issues noted. Will work on more time consuming issues soon (verb tense, wording). Zepppep (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to see this article gain GA status. So if there is anything to change to help it more likely to gain GA status. I would appreciate the help.

Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.
  • The lead is short for an article this detailed; there should be at least a mention of the subjects of the major sections. Otherwise, there wasn't much for me to copyedit in the lead.
  • You should alert the major editors of this article while it's still at Peer Review and before bringing it to GAN, to make sure someone is available to respond to questions and comments about the material; I didn't see your username in the list of contributors. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments I left in the GA review of this article last November might be of interest/use, though they may now well be totally outdated if the article has changed significantly. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HJ
  • I would love to see Monty make FA, but the article is a long way even from GA standard. The problem with an article on such a well written-about subject is achieving comprehensiveness and neutrality without going into too much detail. There may be a case for a number of sub-articles on various aspects of this biography. If I were working on this with the serious intent of taking it to GA or FA level, the first thing I would do is see how he's covered in other encyclopaedia and similar sources, like biographical dictionaries—Heathcote (cited in the article) contains a nice summary of his career. Then I'd get my hands on sources that go into a little bit more depth, with sources like his book in Osprey's "command" series. Then I would try to acquire or borrow a copy of all the other books that have been written by or about him. The hardest task is wading through all the books, but it's the only way you can know your subject well enough to write a serious encyclopaedia article on them, and it is impossible to write something of FA quality without having consulted at least the majority of the literature on the subject. I would go further and say that you should have read every serious publication about the subject. If any of the articles on his contemporaries are of high quality, they might be worth looking at to demonstrate what should be included, what should be split off into other articles, etc. It might also help to consult the only two FAs on Chiefs of the General Staff (disclaimer: I wrote them both)—Mike Jackson and Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt—and I've just noticed we have an FA on WWII First Sea Lord, Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brown

[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 some advice on improving the article for a possible FA nomination. There are a few areas where I think there's room for improvement and closer scrutiny:

  • My biggest concern is neutrality. Brown was quite a controversial figure, and I want to ensure that the article casts him in a neutral light. My general feeling is that the article is too positive; I'd appreciate suggestions on where the article feels unbalanced, so perhaps I can make the necessary amendments and adjustments.
  • A commenter on the talk page has argued that it's important to delve deeper into Brown's attitude toward race. Is this necessary? Should there be a separate section or subsection on Brown and race or on Brown and his relationship with Jim Brown?
  • Any other criticisms and suggestions for improvement of language and organization would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Batard0 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well, I'll get the ball rolling here. The first thing I noticed is the quote from Bill Walsh in the intro, that's a neutrality issue for me. Maybe it can be moved somewhere, but no section is really jumping out at me, so maybe not.
  • The last section of the lead needs a source...and should probably be moved to a new "criticism" section.
    • I added a section on criticisms and his legacy -- I hope this helps balance it out a bit. I also put some citations on the last section of the lead. I couldn't find any strong critiques of his approach to race in the sources, so I'm leaving that one until I can find something. --Batard0 (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The factual information in the coaching career section is terrific, though the Cleveland Browns section is kind of long.
    • I split this bit into a couple of sections -- It's still long, I know. I could break it up further into three sections by adding one covering Brown's later career with the Browns, if you think that makes sense. --Batard0 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some additional sources not from the Cantor book would be helpful, but that's relatively minor.
    • Cantor's is the only biography of Brown that I'm aware of, so I'm using it pretty heavily. I generally tried to avoid using it where other reliable sources were available, but I'll try to find new sources for more of it if you think it'd be helpful. We certainly don't want to be relying too much on a single source here. I introduced a few more sources when I added the criticisms and legacy section. Perhaps that will help a bit. --Batard0 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think his opinion on race is that important, maybe a mention of it, but I don't think it's pivotal.
    • There's a good amount of material in there already about his attitudes toward race, i.e. it didn't really matter to him one way or the other. I could add more if you think it'd be helpful. Perhaps I could add a section on criticisms and include people's critiques about his attitudes toward race. Might fit in there well. --Batard0 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are my initial thoughts, feel free to discuss them right here on this page or on the article talk page. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Radio

[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 concerning one of the UK's more popular radio stations, which launched in 2010. I've listed the article for peer review because I'd like to take it forward to GA in the next few months, and want some feedback on how it's looking so far. I have plans for sections on listening figures and some of the special features the station has hosted, including Help for Heroes Day and the annual "switch-on" of the Blackpool Illuminations. I'll also eventually put it through the copyediting process. What I'm interested in knowing is what else the article might need, and if there's anything I've missed. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments
  • The lead fails to mention that the commitment to jazz programming has been dropped
  • "GMG, under licence to The Local Radio Company relaunched Jazz FM despite the decision." - what does "under licence" mean here? Also, the phrasing implies that the relaunch was in contravention of the decision when I suspect (after re-reading it several times) that they went ahead with the relaunch despite having to continue with the jazz commitment that they wanted to drop.
  • Various DAB multiplexes are mentioned - a brief explanatory note wouldn't go amiss alongside some of these. What is a DAB multiplex? Similarly for such terms as "simulcast" a link or explanation would help..
  • "to air 1970s editions of the original American Top 40 show presented by Casey Kasem at weekends" - to air them or weekends or they were presented by Casey Kasem at weekends (I'd guess the first but it could be clearer)
  • The second and third paragraphs of "Going National" seem a bit odd - the article to this point has been discussing the evolution of the radio station but here it morphs into a list of some of the programmes and competitions. If the intention is to show that the station is breaking away from its parochial roots with coverage national and international events and higher profile competitions, I think the evidence could be presented better.
  • Current line-up: this is horribly unmaintainable (although I fear these sort of "current X" lists and sections are becoming ubiquitous nowadays). Also, what is the order here? Will the unlinked DJs never have articles (otherwise why not add a redlink for them?) Why is it that current presenters get bolding and former presenters don't.

I haven't checked the quality of the references, but after a copyedit I shouldn't think GA will be too much of a hurdle. Yomanganitalk 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Think I've fixed everything now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Wesley Evans

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we would like some feedback on prose and comprehensive before bringing the article to FAC. This is admittedly an unpopular topic, so we'd like to emphasize the need for neutrality in the article and ask that reviewers pay particular attention to emotive language and the like; some such language may have slipped through our filters.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time, but I'll give this a quick peer review if it will help. Best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction:

Early life and educaiton:

  • Again, no mention of his class or socio-economic background. Considering that his father was a judge then I'd suggest that he was presumably middle-class?
  • "In addition, he was a freemason, eventually becoming a thirty-second-degree mason, and attended a Disciples of Christ church.[7]" Should we capitalize "freemason" ? I think that this sentence could be better phrased, perhaps to "A practitioner of the Protestant form of Christianity, he attended a church belonging to the Disciples of Christ denomination. In addition, he was a practising Freemason, eventually rising to the thirty-second degree within the brotherhood."
  • Do we know which Masonic lodge he belonged to ?

Initial Klan service:

Early National Leadership:

Internal conflicts:

Growth and political activism:

  • "Klan publications credited their launch of a printing plant and cuts in the cost of robe production with dramatically lowering expenses" I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say, could you rewrite it?
  • "Although previous Imperial Wizards had lived in lavish properties, Evans initially settled in an apartment after his promotion" – why the "Although"; this sentence doesn't seem to fit together well either.
  • "Rory McVeigh of the University of Notre Dame argues that this growth was owing to the Klan's exploitation of a "favorable political context",[72] particularly one in which privileged Americans were fearful after increases in suffrage" – Who is McVeigh; a historian ? This "growth" in what, membership ? Suffrage for whom; women ?
  • The word "Klan" is used repeatedly in the final paragraph here; try introducing some synonyms.

Decline:

Changes in focus:

Downfall:

  • This is in response to both questions: I've looked through Questia, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Highbeam and have been unable to find much. He would have been 60 or so at the time, so its likely he just tried to live peacefully. Old age strikes me as a likely reason for his death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

  • This section could definately do with expansion, if the sources permit this. Perhaps refer to those historical studies of the Klan that refer to Evans.
  • Possibly rename "Reception and legacy" ?
  • Are Horowirz and Jenkind historians ?

Notes:

Bibliography:

Whoever wrote this article deserves a hearty pat on the back for doing such an excellent job in putting it together. I hope that you find my comments to be constructive and useful,and wish this article well in attaining FA status, which I believe that it ultimately deserved to do. If anyone wants to return the favour, they could have a peruse of an short article I currently have awaiting peer review, Islam: The Untold Story. All the best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback, I'll let you know if we have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • "their headquarters". While the meaning is very clear, technically you have not referred to the Klan using a plural noun. Suggest "Klan headquarters".
  • "He resigned his position with the group" I assume the construction company, to which you referred in the immediately previous sentence? (not)
  • "The next year, Evans faced accusations of accepting no-bid government highway contracts ... " If I read what is said ahead in the article, the accusation was that he influenced the Highway Board into accepting his company's bid without competition. I do not read the lede here to completely state what is the article.
  • "illusive". I had to look this up to be sure. Are you sure on this? The membership gains existed, they simply didn't last. Maybe "transitory"?
Early life
  • "The son of a Hiram Martin Evans," I would strike the "a".
Initial Klan service
  • "Imagined as a continuation ... " Needs its own sentence.
  • "in which capacity". Somewhat stilted, can you rephrase?
  • How's this?
  • Where multiple footnotes are used, they should be in numerical order.
Early national leadership
  • "discord would ensue within the organization" To high-faluting. This is the Klan, it should be said in an earthier way, within encyclopedic limits, of course.
  • "However, by the end of their feud" You do not say how long the legal battle continued.
  • Consider dividing a few of the long, semicolon-joined sentences, which are often made longer by internal footnotes.
  • I think that people will get what he meant by "Nordic" without the need to mention the Southern and Eastern Europeans.
  • "Although Evans lived in parts of the Southern U.S. with few Catholics" I would omit this phrase, it's a little bit lecture-like. You're getting on your high horse and telling us he had no rational reason to be anti-Catholic, but there's no need to. The reader will get it without this phrase.
  • "were becoming increasingly active in politics" Shouldn't it be "was"?
  • " a key tenet of the country's constitution." I would omit. You seem to be setting up Evans to be laughed at, ha ha, KKK guy cares about the Constitution. Let his wrongheaded views and actions speak for themselves.
  • "worked on a series of changes, advertised as reforms, to the Klan structure and worked" ... too much "worked".
Internal conflicts
  • "After Grady dismissed a Klan-backed bill" Are you saying he struck down a law (not a bill, probably?) in his judicial capacity? This needs to be made clearer.
  • "Stephenson's proclivity for ostentation irritated Evans." Someone else seems to have such a proclivity. Can the propensity for polysyllables be less pronounced?
  • "gubernatorial candidacy" I would preface with "successful"
  • " where the lawyer's murder had received less publicity." Then Atlanta? How is that relevant to where you establish a national headquarters and wouldn't the publicity follow in short order anyway?
Growth
  • A mention of the actual membership in the first paragraph would be good.
  • " national offices" Being picky, Senator from Texas is not a national office.
  • "the earlier, more violent days of the Ku Klux Klan" I imagine the reference is to the Forrest days. However, you've stated in the article that the Second Klan was a new organization, not deriving from the Forrest organization "the group had been established five years previously". I see an inconsistency.
  • "As the Klan attempted to portray itself ... they ... " Perhaps substitute "its leaders" or similar for "they".
  • "education advocacy" ??
  • "He supported the creation of the federal Department of Education," That happened under Carter, I remember it. Hmm.
  • "Apart from fundamental Klan issues, local groups often embraced varying political ideologies; Evans risked alienating members by insisting on specific political stances." Google translate from wonkspeech says that this means that since the main point of agreement among Klan members was doctrine, taking a stance on political matters meant angering some part of his membership. If that's true, I would say so more clearly.
  • "presidential candidate Oscar Underwood". He was Alabama's favorite son, who over 103 ballots became famous because of Alabama's position on the roll call vote. Does that make you a presidential candidate?
  • Any connection between Evans and Bryan's desire not to have the Democrats condemn the Klan?
Decline
  • Other scandals emerged, further damaging ... had seen strong growth ... the state saw corruption scandals ... Evans' request was poorly received ... encountered difficulties." More activity (and variety) on on the part of your verbs would be good.
  • "alleging misdeeds including participation in kidnappings and lynchings" A comma perhaps?
  • "Klan's power. About 30,000 of their members" Again, you seem undecided as to whether to treat Klan as a plural noun.
Changes in focus
  • "The New Deal" question capitalization of "The".
  • " This rhetoric did not significantly increase the Klan's power or popularity." This reads like sarcasm. I would rephrase. It's a bit unclear what you mean like this, as you have just described a Klan in free fall.
  • "Americanist" Needs definition or link.
Downfall
  • Suggest division of first paragraph into at least two paragraphs.
  • Why did Colescott shoulder Evans' responsibilities? What was Evans doing?
Reception (perhaps better section heading would be "Appraisal")
  • Can you give a couple of quotes from contemporaries who were not opponents?

That's all I got. Watch the tendency to complicated words and sentence structures. Also watch the tendency to the passive voice and similar constructions. Aside from that, it's quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the Royal Society

[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 appears complete enough for an featured list review, as per the request here. Thanks, WylieCoyote (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing this... Comments will be up within 24 hours. Looking forward to working with you!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Alternative text needed for the photo.
  • MOS frowns upon one-sentence paragraphs. I suggest saying how many there has been throughout the Royal Society's history (61 if I counted right)
  • Second paragraph: should the apostrophes be changed to quotation marks?
  • "The royal charter also stipulated" -> "The royal charter stipulated"
  • "St. Andrew's Day (30 November)." Remove the parenthesis somehow.
  • "patrons of the society and, in 1847," -> "patrons of the society, and, in 1847,"
  • "chief (albeit informal) advisor" MOS doesn't like parenthesis
  • "Since the 1870s it has been usual (with a few exceptions)" Same as above. Also, there should be a space between the reference and the start of the sentence.
  • Paragraph 4: same as a number one. Try to merge into another paragraph.
Presidents of the Royal Society
  • Suggest changing the section to either "List" or "Presidents". No need to have "of the Royal Society".
  • Change hyphens to en-dashes
  • Images need alternative text
  • Sorting doesn't work for President and Profession columns
References
  • Can't verify the majority of the sources, but I trust you, and there are editors who can.
  • Publisher needed for specific reference 1
  • For specific reference 2, I need a log-in? Not sure what's up with that. Might have to add {{subscription needed}}
  • date parameter can be added (23 April 2010) to specific reference number 3
  • Change 1885 in reference 4 to November 1885
  • Reference number 5 takes me to the Royal Society's main page. Fix that. Also, is number 2 and number 5 the same reference? If so, refname them.

Not much is wrong, just a little bit. Good work! I believe that once these comments are completed, the article will be FL ready.

SM City Davao

[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 them to evaluate the edits I've recently made on SM City Davao and I'm also asking on what areas should it needs improvements. My main goal is that SM City Davao would be someday, be in Featured Articles on Wikipedia.

Questions: Does it meet the standard of a featured article? If no, what sections does it needs to improve?


Thanks, Funbeta 11:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

  • As I've said at this article's GAN, it doesn't even meet the GA criteria, never the FA criteria, as basically it's pretty much an article about one construction incident. I've made a few further suggestions for things to look at in the GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Dickinson

[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 take it to FA status. This article sailed through its GA nomination last year, from which I have followed advice left in the GA review about taking it on to FA. Although I have checked this article against FA criteria, I have never submitted an FA nomination so any opinions would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Nerdtrap (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Curly Turkey:

  • As the lead should be a summary of the article, it should have few, if any, inline citations.
    • "to join Iron Maiden as their new vocalist"—"as their new vocalist" is redundant. I'd cut it.
    • "high-impact releases" is kind of vague—does this mean they sold well? They were particularly influential? They got in the news? Does it refer to the style of music?
    • I'd put the bit about the honorary doctorate in the body of the article rather than the lead.
  • As per MOS:LQ, Wikipedia policy is to use logical quotations—any punctuation that is not actually a part of the quotation should be outside the quotation marks: e.g.
under the stage name "Bruce Bruce." ==> under the stage name "Bruce Bruce".
  • "back when he still lived"—drop "back".
  • "a band would play at the school; the first of"—why the semicolon?
  • "he wanted to get a degree first; "that was what"—ditto.
  • Ranges of numbers should use and endash rather than an emdash:
Return: 1999—present ==> Return: 1999–present
  • Should the Ozzfest incident really be in a section on its own? And should it really be so prominent? I would think it should be shorter, and under the "1999–present" section.
    • It also would be nice to know the nature of the offensive comments Dickinson made about Osbourne.
  • The last lines of the "Singing style" section have no citation.
  • Not a requirement, but you may want to look at WP:BUNDLING your references, especially in cases like: "...greatest rock vocalists/front-men of all time.[133][134][135][136]" There are a number of different styles. My personal favourite is using {{sfnm}}. Seeing as you're already using {{sfn}}, it wouldn't take much work to do it.

Didn't look at the article too closely, but this is what I've got for now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your time and feedback. I believe I have improved the sections you have outlined and fixed the issues you have raised. Any further advice would also be very appreciated.--Nerdtrap (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something else—the article is really, really quote heavy. An awful lot (I'd say almost all) of the quotes are not really necessary, and the writing would flow more smoothly if you paraphrased instead.
Also, if he has a son, is he, or has he been, married? Who's the mother? How about a "Personal life" section for things like that? Then you could get rid of the remaining inline citations from the lead (again, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so there really shoudn't be things in the lead that aren't in the article). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional comments. I've taken out the vast majority of quotes- I've decided to move the more important ones into quote boxes at the side so they can still be read without impeding the article's flow. I created a personal life section with as much information I can find.--Nerdtrap (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. If it were put up now, I'm pretty sure it'd pass GA. A couple of nitpicks:
  • I can't help thinking that the "Ozzfest incident" is still too long. Was it really so prominent that it needs to be as long as the whole "Return: 1999–present" section?
  • "In addition, Dickinson's cousin, Rob, was the lead singer": "In addition" is superfluous.
Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Folk

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently expanded this article and would like to know what improvements are needed to bring this article to GA status (or even FA). Regards.

Thanks, Kürbis (✔) 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and have a look at it later today or tomorrow if I get time. I would knock the DYK people's heads together if they refuse it though. The expansion rule was never meant to be interpreted in such a constricting fashion. Yomanganitalk 17:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani's comments
  • I've copy edited some of it, but you'd benefit from having another Russian speaker check it over to make sure the translations match what the sources say.
  • Thanks. I know who could do that :)
  • The plot section is too detailed - it could be half that length without losing much
  • Agree. Will try to remove some details.
  • "Suddenly, all of the rumors about Varvara marrying a drunk become meaningless in the face of money." - first we've heard of these rumours
  • "the scrupulous Bykov" - should this be "the unscrupulous Bykov"?
  • Yes, changed
  • " Dostoyevsky may have chosen the epistolary genre to include critical observations but no commentaries" - what does that mean? A couple of sentences later we have "The numerous different voices, that is Devushkin's quotations from stories, his commentaries"
  • Clarified
  • "whole Russia is talking about my Poor Folk" - that is quoted but if it is translated from the Russian a better translation would be "the whole of Russia is talking about my Poor Folk"
  • Yes, changed
  • "He later visited Dostoyevsky in the Pesky district through the Fatherland Notes journalist Andrei Kraevsky" - do you mean Kraevsky arranged the meeting?
  • Clarified

Completed?

[edit]

Is this peer review on going, or has it been completed? I was looking fulfill the GA nomination request, but I will postpone that until this has been completed. Just let me know (on my talk page, if you like) --Tea with toast (話) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is now closed, you may review the article at GAN. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Warlock

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Peter Warlock, real name Philip Arthur Heseltine, was an eccentric English composer, one might say a flawed genius. He had no musical education to speak of, but by his early 20s he was writing captivating songs and choruses, and writing about music with real insight and scholarship. He became a leading authority on early music. All this against the background of a hedonistic lifestyle given over very largely to booze, girls and nude motor-cycling. He died at 36, "of drink and copulation/A sad discredit to the nation" according to his own epitaph. It's a pity he didn't live a little longer, to entertain us the more. I hope the article provides some insight into what made him tick. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments (scattergun style)
  • "These elements are reflected in his earliest compositions, from 1915." - it's not really clear which elements you mean here.
  • "probably about 22 (he was 19) but he appears to be years older ..." - did the female acquaintance add the aside about his age? If not, it is butchery. 'A female acquaintance at Christ Church described the 19-year-old Heseltine as "probably about 22 but he appears to be years older"' ?
  • Hardly "butchery"; the unnamed female's words are not a sacred text or inspired literature. But I have removed the offending parenthetical comment. Brianboulton (talk)
  • Do you hate redlinks or is there nothing worth linking that doesn't already have an article?
  • I don't "hate" redlinks, but I question their widespread use, particularly for people or subjects where the chance of a WP article being created is approximately nil. In earlier days, redlinks were a key tool for expanding the nascent encyclopedia, but now, the necessity for them is rather less; furthermore, they tend to confuse general readers who see red blotches and wonder why. You will see that these days, redlinks rarely appear in featured articles. However, if you have something particularly in mind that you think ought to be redlinked, please indicate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with most of that of your arguments against redlinks, and that most FAs now exclude them is, for me, just one more failure of the FAC process. Anyway that argument is "off topic"; I didn't go trawling the article for potential redlinks but I did see that some of Delius's works were linked and others were not which was what prompted the query. Yomanganitalk 22:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a poor photo of Christ Church, we have better. I'm not in love with the neon Abbey Theatre either.
  • " about 30 notices appeared above his initials " - that's obscure unless the reader knows how the newspapers of the time were composed
  • " a young Scottish composer with whom he set up home in a Battersea studio" - "set up home" carries undertones of a homosexual relationship. Is it supposed to?
  • "writing that Beecham's productions and choices of works were increasingly poor and lacking in artistic value; his own venture would not compromise by pandering to the tastes of the mob." - this has the look of a paraphrased quote that hasn't quite been shifted far enough from the source; the last clause makes a judgement on his actions when I think it should indicate his intentions.
  • " Rogers withdrew his financial backing after five issues before selling the magazine to the publisher John Curwen, who promptly replaced Heseltine as editor." - since Hesletine edited nine issues this could do with a bit of explanation. Either Heseltine managed to produce five issues with no backer or he wasn't "promptly replaced"
  • "The book, published by The Mandrake Press, was copiously illustrated by Hal Collins, who died of tuberculosis shortly afterwards" - somehow it sounds as if the death from TB is connected to the illustration work.
  • "Sewell's mother, unnamed, was a Roman Catholic lover" - an anonymous fan of Roman Catholics? This could be phrased better.
  • " Heseltine had provided his own intended epitaph..." - "intended" isn't needed here. Even if it hasn't been used anywhere else, it is used in this article.

It is rather strange that the lead introduces him primarily as Peter Warlock, a pseudonym that isn't given a great deal of weight in the rest of the article. Also we don't see much of the notoriety that he gained from his "unconventional and often scandalous lifestyle" - there are a few brief flashes of this but not a lot is made of them. It's an interesting read though - I'd heard of him but knew nothing about him. Yomanganitalk 00:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments. Except as indicated above I have taken the specific queries on and adjusted the article accordingly. As to the two general points that you raise: I have added a footnote giving a little more information on the choice of pseudonym. It is under as "Warlock" that Heseltine has achieved lasting notability as a composer, and it seems right that the article should bear this name, in line with most music reference books which generally indicate "Hesesltine, Philip: See Warlock, Peter. As to the other matter, I have added a couple more salacious details, but I don't want to unbalance the article by overdoing the naughty stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt

  • [Cologne ...] "By the summer of 1911, a year before he was due to leave the school, Heseltine had tired of life at Eton." - it's probably my English, but I would expect first "Heseltine", then "he", being told that the subject's name should be repeated in a new section ;)
  • [Productive ...] "of normal married life" - why add "normal"?
  • [Eynsford] "... Barbara Peache, Heseltine's long-term girlfriend whom he had known since the early 1920s.[74] Although not formally trained, Collins was a ..." - Only when Collins is mentioned, I realise that I will not learn more about Peache. (Probably nothing more is known?)
  • [Death] I agree with Yomangani that "Roman Catholic lover" sounds overly formal, how about Catholic lover or Catholic lover?

Just a few comments to a very interesting piece on an interesting man. In editing a bit, I noticed that I prefer to have the references separated from the body, to ease editing of both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. There is little known about Barbara Peache, though I have added a short physical description. I don't know what you mean by "I prefer to have the references separated from the body, to ease editing of both." Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to clarify:
I don't expect you to say more about Peache, but "Although not formally trained" seems to refer to her - until Collins is mentioned.
I try to keep references in a separate reflist (example BWV 76), because having them in the body of the article makes editing the text difficult, and editing a reference itself is even more difficult because it's hard to find a ref in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm none the wiser after that. Suggest we let it go. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(It's not about wisdom, not about this article, just ease of editing in general.) I let go ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PumpkinSky

  • It's covered by ref [9] at the end of the next sentence, which is a continuance of the same topic. I see no point in having successive sentences with identical citations, nor is this normally done in similar circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • It is unclear whether the greater maturity of style spoken of derives from van Dieren or from the year in Ireland. The disconnect between a Dutch musician and the Irish idyll begs a bit more explanation.
  • " although for a time" This makes for a rather muddled and tentative timeline especially when "a time" seems to be at least five years. The juxtaposition of various dashes near the end of the sentence is also unpleasing. The two periods of activity in the 1920s should probably have a mention of what separates them, otherwise the two periods mean nothing to the reader coming at this with no knowledge (ahem).
  • " he wrote a full-length biography of Delius and also wrote" Perhaps "penned" for the first one?
Early life
  • "over the following years" This is far enough from the originating event that I suspect the best course is to cut entirely, it really doesn't clarify anything.
  • ", which was held on 19 June" Unless there is special significance to the exact date, perhaps better to omit as slowing down the action.
  • "and operas, and he maintained his correspondence with Delius" Consider a semicolon and striking the "and"
  • After the buildup of the Beecham quote, can what happens next be presented a bit more dramatically, perhaps as a break from his former life? The quote tells us that an immature and unstable kid had been told to follow his heart, come what may; well, what you have coming next seems rather mundane. Perhaps include his mother's reaction.
  • I have reorganised this paragraph to give a more straightforward chronological narrative. Despite Delius's "follow your heart" advice he at least initially followed his mum's heart, and only broke away later.
Unsettled years
  • " editing Elizabethan music" In what sense?
  • Preparing old music in modern notation to enable contemporary performances.
  • It may be worth a mention of how Nigel accounts for his existence, then, or at least for the coincidence of name.
  • I had this a little bit muddled (too namy sources juggled) but I think it is clear now.
  • "Letters indicated ..." this should be divided into at least two sentences.
  • "participating to Dublin's cultural life" participating in?
  • " By this time, Heseltine's private opinion of Delius's music was increasingly critical," So only in his own mind was this opinion, or was it to trusted friends?
Productive years
  • "returned to Cefn-bryntalch" We have not been here in some time, have we? And when we last left his mother, I had the impression that he was pushing aside that life. Perhaps a bit of exposition here?
  • Can't say much more. He was broke, went back to mum's for a while. It had been his regular home until 1913 at least, so we're only eight years on.
  • How was he making a living in these years? You had him with no regular income. I imagine he inherited property from his father at 21 or some such?
  • It's not explicit in the biographies, but I imagine he was paid for his articles and received royalties on the sales of his published songs. Mum may have given him an allowance, too. There is no mention anywhere of his receiving money from his father's estate.
Critical appraisal
  • "his profile became less sharp" I'm not clear on what you meant by this.
  • Consider adding the Peter Warlock Society as an EL.
  • Stuff from the PWS website is cited as a source, so it can't be an EL.
Nicely done as usual. Our coverage of early 20th century English music is becoming as complete as our coverage of coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, with some very useful suggestions. Other than when I have commented, you may assume I have adopted your suggestion or something close to it. Of early 20th century English composers, it may seem like a lot more, but there are currently just four which have made it to FA – and that's counting Percy Grainger who was an Australian. The others are Delius, Elgar and Walton. So coins are ahead by several lengths at present. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto's last minute quibble's

A very interesting read and one I thoroughly enjoyed looking over. A few small points:

Cologne, Oxford and London
  • We call it The Daily Mail in the last line of the "Cologne, Oxford and London" section, but the Daily Mail in the opening of the "Music critic" section.
New friends and acquaintances
Eynsford
  • "By the summer of 1928, despite his industry his general lifestyle had created severe financial problems." -- is there a missing comma there? It seems a bit muddled to read.
Death
  • "In September 1930 Heseltine moved with Barbara Peache into a basement flat at 12a Tite Street." -- Not saying London or Chelsea caused me to use the wiki-link to check for its whereabouts, thus clicking off the article to find out.
References
  • 13 - seems to have a stray bracket after "Arnold"
  • 81 - missing year

That's all I can spot. Congratulations on a fine article. -- CassiantoTalk 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have made these small fixes - it is surprising what can be overlooked after much inspection! Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman

[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 we are trying to get this former FA back to FA level and would appreciate a review at that level.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments
  • Checklinks found three dead links.
  • I don't understand what is being put forward by this bit: "Truman ran slightly behind Roosevelt's successful campaign". Why is this important?
Since Truman was a vice presidential candidate in 1944, this helps show why he was not considered in 1940. He hadn't built his national base yet, and his position in Missouri was rather questionable. He only won 51 to 49.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. The text could be clearer on that point. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the comparison.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Truman Committee should be fleshed out with an example. It was an important platform.
"Activities of the Truman Committee ranged from criticizing the "dollar-a-year men" hired by the government, many of whom proved ineffective, to investigating a shoddily-built New Jersey housing project for war workers.[41] The committee is reported to have saved at least $15 billion and thousands of lives;[42][43] its activities put Truman on the cover of Time magazine.[44]" is already in the article, two examples so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was added by Wehwalt after I posted this review. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. PS and I agreed to put "done" here when we had completed something so as not to confuse each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed what I found. Though that doesn't make much sense if it's the only occurence.PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scathing letter to Paul Hume ends with a quote mark but it does not begin with one. I think the end quote should be removed.
Done.PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The em dash is misused as a separation between a list entry title and a short summary. Same with book and article titles that have two or more parts. The en dash should be used in these places.
  • The em dash should always be unspaced on Wikipedia when used for sentence interruption, but a handful of them are incorrectly spaced in the article text.
I've unspaced the m dashes. I will have to look more closely at the other recommendations in the last two entries.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't like to see a reference in the middle of a sentence if there is no good reason that it cannot be moved to the end. For instance, the reference following "presidential odyssey" ought to be at the end of the sentence.
I made it its own sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article text should be streamlined to use either U.S. or US but not both.
U.S. seems to be favored these days, so I switched all to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of "United States" can be shortened to US or U.S., whichever is selected.
Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did that one, seems to be only one that's duped in a section.PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bolding gets out of hand in the Tributes section. Only Truman's name in the first sentence should be bolded.
Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulleted list of sites should be prosified.
Disagree, it's be long and wordy PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need for three dots following this quote: "realized that the man nominated to run with Roosevelt would in all probability be the next President."
Removed.PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some observers have noted that it was fairly open-minded of Truman to partner in business with a Jewish man in 1921, but this article does not say that Jacobson was Jewish.
It is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stamp caption should not say "from 1973–1999". It should either be "1973–1999" or "from 1973 to 1999".
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term should not use a hyphen: "income-tax evasion"
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hyphen in "labor-management conflicts" probably should be replaced with an en dash or a forward slash.
I think a hyphen is what I've most commonly seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the hyphen.PumpkinSky talk 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance. I've made it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wedding article reference was not written by Colonel William Southern. It was written by Mrs. William Southern.
Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cut PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 80th United States Congress was called the "Do Nothing Congress" by Truman but the article does not tell the reader about this stratagem of his to embarrass the opposition. The phrase "Do Nothing Congress" has been used by others after Truman to describe other obstructionist Congresses, including the current 112th Congress. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a blurb, with a Univ of VA ref. PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truman relied on George Marshall more than is told in the article.
He is enlarged.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough is written about Truman working with Forrestal. Forrestal argued with Truman to get more money for the military in 1947–48, but Truman was thinking about reelection: he wanted to economize to answer Republican criticisms regarding liberal spending. Truman thereby weakened the military; when Korea blew up, the US was not prepared. Nothing about this is in the article. Truman fired Forrestal because he was showing severe signs of fatigue—he was burnt out—replacing him with probably the worst Secretary of War/Defense that the US has ever had: Louis A. Johnson.
I've put some of that in, I think the money for the military bit is more room than we can spare.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the article describes how well-read Truman was, how encyclopedic was his knowledge of world history and American history.
Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be numbered low to high. Swap the positions of the first and second references following "by nearly 20%". Swap the positions of the two references after "Confederate soldiers."
Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence should begin with a capital: "by early 1951 the war became a fierce stalemate..."
Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaces between sentence punctuation and references should be removed.
Totally agree, but i didn't find any, pls point out if they still exist.PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website link to doctorzebra.com should be removed as unreliable—no author listed, only a pseudonym.
Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website link to "The American Presidency Project" should be removed because it gives the reader nothing specific about Truman except after surfing around or searching. There is no central "Truman" page.
Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be culled if they are not being used, or if they are redundant to a better one for the same fact. External links should be assessed for their value; the low value ones should be dropped. Focus should be tight.
  • Okay, that's my review. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! "The Buck Stops Here" photo shows ex-president Truman, not President Truman. He's sitting in the Truman Library at a reconstruction of his Oval Office.
I put "Former" in front of the caption.PumpkinSky talk 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. The image ought to be moved down to some section discussing Truman's life after the presidency. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has pics, I think being in the legacy section is just fine. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "as the nation endorsed an internationalist foreign policy along with allies in Europe and control over defeated Japan.": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • "... U.N. approval for the Korean War. After initial success, the UN ...": U.N. or UN?
U.N. as we use U.S. in the article.PumpkinSky talk 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... was a central issue in the 1952 presidential campaign and helped cause Adlai Stevenson, Truman's successor as Democratic nominee, to lose ...": See WP:Checklist#because and WP:Checklist#repetition. ("central issue" and "helped cause" say more or less the same thing.) "was a central issue in the 1952 presidential campaign in which Adlai Stevenson, Truman's successor as Democratic nominee, lost ..."
Done PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reportedly, he passed by secretly memorizing the eye chart.": I avoid knee-jerk invocations of WP:WEASEL, but "reportedly" in a history article is just the kind of thing WEASEL is meant to address. Either a writer finds the report credible, based on available sources, or not; If so, then the sentence is stronger without "reportedly", and if not, then the incident doesn't merit mentioning, unless the story is the story ... that is, if this story itself became part of Truman's legacy, then attribute the story to the most persuasive source. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinistar: Unleashed

[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 a final polish before renominating at FAC.

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ajmint
Lead
  • I would drop the second "was" in the second sentence
  • "originally titled Out of the Void": "envisioned as" is unclear
  • I would drop "aforementioned"
  • Link Midway Games?
  • Would drop the comma before "and calling the game"
  • Would drop "the" before "similarities", since they aren't mentioned previously.
Gameplay
  • "Like its predecessor"
  • I would say "giving the player the ability to maneuver"
  • "making a total of 29 levels"
  • I would put a paragraph break before "The player is given a starship"
  • "and they are tasked with powering"
  • The serial comma makes "white, pink, and red" sound a bit clunky
  • I would split up "onto" as the "on" is part of the verb phrase "to move on"
  • "from which to choose", with two 'o's, although I would use "to choose from"
Development
  • I would reword the final sentence to "In their book Computer Gamer's Bible, Mark L. Chambers and Rob Smith noted..."
Release
  • I would link THQ in its first prose appearance
  • Comma after "general manager of GameFX"
  • Perhaps clarify what "gone gold" means?
Reception
  • "complimented its graphics and the addition of": I don't think "as well as" warrants a comma
References
  • All of the references use a British date format; consider reformatting them to put the month first, as in the Release section, because this is an American game
  • The -- in ref 4 and the - in ref 9 need to be replaced with an en dash (–)

I also gave the article a run through AWB; for future reference, you don't need to italicise the work in {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} as the templates do it for you.

ajmint (talk•edits) 00:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati

[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 one day like to get it promoted to Featured status. Any suggestions would be grand; it's recently been copy-edited, so please mention anything you can think of that will make it better. Thank you!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Brazil

[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 has some doubtful things. Brazil Colonial is a name created for a period of Brazil history. But I don't know exactly how official or informal were other names used in the article: Colony of Brazil, Viceroyalty of Brazil, Principality of Brazil and State of Brazil. In short, this matter lacks references.

Thanks, Tiberti (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana Boomer

Hi Tiberti! Peer review is a place where editors can bring articles that they want comments and suggestions from improvement on. Here, it looks like you already know what should be done with the article. What you say is true - it needs significant referencing. Do you plan to work on the article yourself? If so, I would suggest starting with the references listed at the bottom of the article. I also saw a couple of prospective references listed on the talk page. With a significant amount of referencing work also usually comes a good bit of expansion, prose changes, reorganization, etc., which makes it difficult to do a peer review this early in the article's development. At this point, I would suggest withdrawing the peer review and either working on the article yourself or trying to find some editors who would be interested in working on the article. WP:WikiProject Brazil might be a good place to start, although I don't know how active it is. But don't be afraid to jump in yourself and begin work! Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A very important article in the history of the study of life on earth. It needs some work, including better organization. I would like to bring this article to GA status and would like to know the other areas of weakness that the article has, and how best to approach them.

Thanks, Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's cursory comments
  • First thing that jumps out is the number of images. These are not effectively illustrating the article - for the most part they are a distraction and several of them are lost behind the references on my screen which looks sloppy at best. Many of the photos are just pictures of fossils that are unconnected to the text, or when they are connected the placement on anything but the smallest screen size makes them seem unconnected. I'd say about 75% of the images need culling from the article or moving to a gallery format between sections.
  • The article itself doesn't make bad reading - it's not any easy skill to use summary style and you pull it off quite well most of the time.
  • "The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if ..." - the second sentence has no connection to the first.
  • The use of the main article and see also templates is a little inconsistent. Permineralization gets an inline link, index fossil gets a main article heading, coprolite gets both
  • "The fossil record is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts" - doesn't sound very technical. My abs are like steel.
  • AmEng or BrEng? You have both Fossilization and mineralisation
  • There's overlinking and over-use of bolding
  • Some citations are needed but there is already a tag on the article indicating that, so I won't go over it again
  • It could do with a light copy edit. There are a few clunky sentences like: "Ever since recorded history began, and probably before, ...." and "The earth’s climate, tectonics, atmosphere, oceans, and periodic disasters invoked the primary selective pressures on all organisms, which they either adapted to, or they perished with or without leaving descendants"
  • I'm not sure about the "Example of modern development" which seems rather shoehorned in. I'd drop it or roll it into a single sentence in "Modern view" or add it to another section on research (see below)
  • Most of the "see also" section links aren't needed or could be incorporated into the text or image captions
  • There is little on the research. What do fossils tell us about evolution, biodiversity etc. etc? We have what they are and how they were explained but there is a only a few sentences in the "Further discoveries" and "Modern view" sections. The lead tells us "The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology" but we don't get much more than this in the article itself Yomanganitalk 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards of images, I noticed the same thing. I'm going to go ahead and remove the extra ones that aren't needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved most of the images to an image gallery at the end. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but it still feels crowded. You have two examples of petrified wood and I'm not sure how useful the "Examples of Trace Fossils" and "Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus" images are at that size. If you want to retain most of the images you still have in the body, why not try something like what is done at Coral reef fish. It would help keep the images close to the sections in which they are discussed and break the text up a little. Yomanganitalk 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea. The current solution is better than before, but I do not know which is the best solution. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few other questions and notes:

  • I'm not quite sure where to put Pseudo-fossils. Right now it's under "types of fossils", but they are not actually fossils
  • I had removed the section on Living fossils because they're not fossils at all. Should there be any mention of them in the article?
  • Should Subfossil be included somewhere?
  • Where should "Fossil trading and collecting" section be placed? Should it be incorporated into another section?
  • There is no section describing or explaining what a "body fossil" is. Is that term interchangeable with Macrofossil? That article is very small, and could be entirely merged with the main fossil article.
  • In regards to the "Limitations of the fossil record" section, keep in mind that I have recently replaced that section with a similar subheading from the transitional fossil article. The reason is that the old section ("Rarity of fossils") had zero references, and the section from the Transitional Fossil article covers the same information, while being well cited. Please review the [version] and compare it to the new one. There may be information and phrasing that would be worth preserving.
  • Should there be a section covering how fossils are dated?

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2012 (utcg)

sgdi ghqi o wuo qu

List of awards and nominations received by Madhuri Dixit

[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 developed it for a Featured List award, and expanded it keeping the FLC criteria in mind. Minor prose glitches I would like to eliminate in the Peer review. Open to any kind of suggestion.

Thanks, —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appreciate your interest in developing this article. But I don't think these kind of lists on Indian celebrities are FL worthy, since there is no complete set of data available on the internet/books; they fail to meet the 3(a) criterion. You need to mention each and every major award that the celebrity has won. I'm not sure whether Madhuri herself would be having a complete set of awards that she has won till date. I'm not discouraging you; I've had a similar experience with the actor with most wins in India and almost gave up in the end. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duhh, that is why the {{dynamic list}} tag on top of the article. Any award and nomination page is a dynamic list and is subject to change. It is complete and notable to the point now with reliable sources. Non-notable awards are not added and neither they can be encyclopedic. Kamal Hassan's list failed because of bad reference sourcing and formatting, and general prose glitch as pointed out by Legolas2186, Bill William Compton and The Rambling Man. Oh and you got 3a completely wrong and to explain it, read the bolded parts carefully: "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very well aware of the 3(a) criteria, without which I would've never gotten five FLs. From your explanations, I can very well say that you miss a major point here; I'm not willing to explain though. You talk about notable awards and the page is flooded with many unnotable awards; to name a few, "Giants International Award", "Platinum Diva Award", "Smita Patil Memorial Award", "Master Deenanath Mangeshkar Vishesh Award", "Kalabhinetri Awards" are notable according to you. Also you've added retrospectives and polls which doesn't fit in this category. I'd suggest you to change the title of the page if you want all these here. Finally, it's not that I couldn't rectify those formatting and prose issues in the Kamal Haasan page and renominate it after a year. There was a problem with the 3(a) criteria. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The awards that you pointed out, yes they are notable since they covered and noted in reliable third party sources. If you have any criticism for bettering the article, please say it, instead of trying to belittle the attempt at improving it. And yes, again, the Kamal Hassan page does not violate 3a, and you missed another point again. All these award lists are dynamic, they will never be complete and is always a work in progress. Since there aren't any lists pertaining to awards won by movie artist, I will turn to the music artist pages, like Chris Brown, Madonna (recent most example), Kanye West etc. most of them are in a similar format. The Madonna one being the recent most is a good example that these lists are always an evolving list. If you are suggesting to change the name of the page, I very well welcome the suggestion and request you to place your thoughts on this matter. After all, the page, the awards, the nominations, they all pass notability—and I myself have personally removed all those awards which are non-notable and could not be verified by third party reliable sources. So, yeah, thanks for your comments, but this page is for peer reviewing the article for further improvement, let's just stick to that. May be you are thinking something along the lines of List of accolades received by David Lynch → List of accolades received by Madhuri Dixit? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that I can't give constructive comments. I've reviewed numerous successful FLCs and a fair amount of GAs. But for someone doesn't assume good faith, I may not be the right person. If this list goes to FLC, I'll be the first one to review and provide those constructive comments. So till then have no worries. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So essentially those constructive comments would be the ones for opposing the article I see? When those comments could have easily been resolved here in an open PR. You are saying that there are problems in the article and I have responded with the counter-points. Yet, you seem to again go around with the same argument of WP:FLC#a. I would expect bettter from someone who claims to have reviewed numerous GAs and FLs. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to answer frivolous questions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'm not willing to comment here. If you want constructive comments from me right now, go ahead with the FLC as soon as possible. My last comment on this peer review. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are not willing to comment here, just stay off. Let others conduct the review. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a reviewer to cap my comments. As I already said, you don't have any right to ask me to stay off. If some wise people think my comments to be disruptive, I myself cap those. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gawd, the only reason it was done was to make the page clear so that the below reviewers comments could be seen. Don't get worked up on everything. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Vensatry. FLs should be complete. I assume you have added the {{dynamic list}} tag on top to mean that Dixit is still active and is still winning awards. And hence the list is incomplete. But actually the list is incomplete for past works also. As Vensatry points out, we can not be sure that all her awards of past works are covered here.
    There is also an issue on notability of all awards listed. I wouldn't call "Platinum Diva Award" as notable enough to mention here. Now if you say whether notable or not, all awards should be mentioned;.... completeness of the list is in question. For starters, i know its a huge task, what you can do is start creating individual articles of these awards. A stand-alone article of any award means the award is given regularly, is covered by reliable sources every time, other recepients are also notable, and such other things. If we can't have standalone articles of these awards, that tells us of how notable they are. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping those above mentioned issues aside, i have following comments:
  • "acting was not Dixit's primary goal because she wanted to be a Microbiologist" .... We know she was studying Microbiology, but to say that acting was not her primary goal is just on border line of original research. Rephrasing would do.
  • "Dixit starred opposite Aamir Khan in the 1990 romantic drama"..... It should be "1990's romantic drama".
  • "During the 90s, Dixit reached her pinnacle of commercial success" .... Does that mean she can't do better now?
  • "fan of a singer in Saajan" ..... "fan of a poet".
  • "was listed by Forbes magazine as the top-five highest paid actors." .... When? I am sure thats quite dynamic.
  • The awards aren't arranged alphabetically. If they are per importance, some rearrangement is required. Star Foundation Network Award is surely not as important as Zee Cine Awards and nor is Kalabhinetri Award more important than Padma Shri. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments Dharm. I wold just like to point out few things. Per the FLC 3a criteria the list should comprehensively cover the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items. In this case I would like to say that yes, there were other awards from her old work also, but they were deemed non-notable as per my understanding, since I could not find any third party reliable sources. The reason I included Platinum Diva Award was because that was being covered by third party sources, which I could not ignore. So there in lies a dichotomy that simply creating stand-alone articles gives rise to credibility? Like List of awards and nominations received by Madonna, a recent most FL on this subject, there are many awards without pages in WP also. As for older works, I don't believe that all of them are needed to be added, since the criteria itself says that at least the major items should be covered. I even cross-checked with the Madonna ELs and found some awards in IMDB etc, which were not added, perhaps being non-notable. Thanks again for your time and I will take a look at your other comments. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how this "comprehensiveness" of a list is measured. But thats for FLC. This is PR and hence i will leave this point now. I did not mean that everything notable in the universe has an article here and that should be the gauging basis. But having a stand-alone article is just a test of notability. There is no need of stand-alone article also. For example, Deenanath Mangeshkar and Smita Patil can have their awards on their biographic articles. But here many awards are on borderline of notability. I wouldn't call Platinum Diva Award as notable, although covered by reliable sources, if it was given only this one time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well fine, I can see your point regarding Platinum Diva Award, I see where you are coming from. What other awards do you think might not pass notability in this case? Regarding {{dynamic list}} as concerned by Vensatry below, yes the list is still evolving seeing as Mads is alive, but regarding the old awards, how can any1 be ever sure? For eg, suppose Mads being a dancer she got awards in school, but will those be notable? Like most of the other award lists which are FL, there are other obscure awards as I pointed out, which again face the notability clause, like present awards Platinum Diva as you had concern. What do you do regsrding these? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have doubts regarding Giants International Award, National Citizen Award, Raj Kapoor Special Contribution Award, Star Foundation Network Award, Stardust Awards, Vogue Beauty Awards, Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles and India's Top Movie Stars.
    You also need to separate out which are actual awards and which are felicitations. Like, is screening her two films at Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles an award or felicitation? After Rajesh Khanna's death many festivals have screened his films. When Jagjit Singh died, many shows where organized where his ghazals were sung. I won't call these as awards.
    You will have to sastify all reviewers that this is the most comprehensive list that covers all major awards and excludes awards like school awards. You also have to prove that these enlisted ones are actually notable. Hence the initial suggestion of starting separate pages to test their notability. If the articles don't get deleted, you have a blue link and then no one would question their notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, cool. I definitely see your point regarding the felicitation thing. I did have a question regarding those during writing the article, but sought to seek it in PR. Glad you answered my unasked question. Haha. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a funnier note; this awards should also go in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bayern Munich

[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 looking to get it to Featured Article status.

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments would be appreciated. Kingjeff (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...
Runfellow (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Part 1

Lede
  • There may be a different precedent that I don't know about, but rather than "German sports club based in Munich, Bavaria" I would say "a sports club based in Munich, Bavaria, Germany" or something to that effect. As it is, "German sports club" implies that German describes the type of club rather than the location (sort of like "American Football team based in Canada"). I'm willing to bet most folks don't know that Bavaria is a German state rather than it's own country.
  • I'd split the first sentence after "league system". The conjunction "and" makes it go on for quite a bit there, and that's a separate thought.
  • "at its inception in 1963" could be clarified to remove the vague pronoun "its", such as "selected for the Bundesliga when the league was formed in 1963."
  • The phrase "under the leadership of Franz Beckenbauer" doesn't really tell me if he was the coach or the best player. I think you can clarify that, even if it is the lead.
  • "has a rivalry with" would probably work better as "has rivalries with"
  • The second "Bavaria" doesn't need to be wikilinked since you linked in the first.
  • Not sure if you need the full list of other sports, but that's no biggie if you want to include it.
History
  • The MTV 879 at first looked like an out-of-place reference, a little confusing to me. Maybe something like "a Munich gymnastics club known as MTV 1879."
  • I don't think I follow the "until the beginning of World War I" sentence. If WWI halted football activities, how did they win it? Or did they? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like the syntax is just a bit off.
  • "were also purged." Did they leave, were they forced out, or were they persecuted directly in some way?
  • "Bayern was taunted as the "Jew's club"" By whom? Their own fans, Nazi party officials, or everyone?
  • Also, after the phrase in the point above, split the sentence. The conjunction "and" here doesn't quite work because it's two different subjects: antisemitism and amateurism.
  • "mid-table results" As a person who doesn't know a whole lot about the sport, I admit I don't know what this phrase means.
  • "In 1955 they were relegated," what were they relegated to? Another league?
  • I don't think Oberliga should be italicized, and I'd remove "in" immediately after that.
  • "at the helm of the club." I'd clarify this: Was he made the coach, general manager, or just primary owner?
  • Probably "the axis" should be put in quotes rather than italicized. Probably capitalized, too.
  • No comma after "Scottish club Rangers"
  • Awkward syntax with "slow overall progress saw Branko Zebec take over as coach". Who made the decision to replace him? That would make it clearer. For example, "but slow overall progress caused Manager X to release Coach X and replace him with Coach Y" or something to that effect.
  • Did Lattek "take charge" by becoming the coach, general manager, owner?
  • "including points gained and goals scored." Forgive me, what's the difference?
  • I'd remove "their triumph", because the later phrase "which they won..." becomes a bit awkward. This way they won the final, not the triumph.
  • "Brazilian club Cruzeiro over two legs." Sorry, I don't know this either.
  • I think "Bayerndusel" should be in quotes, not italics. Same for "FC Breitnigge"
  • Delete "just"
  • I think "lost out in the" should be "lost in the".
  • I don't know if "trophyless" is a word.
  • I doubt if they only appeared in the gossip pages "rather than the sports pages". I see the general point, but they must have still been covered in the sports pages, right?
  • "caretaker coach" This might better be phrased as "interim coach"
  • "had to take his leave for the second time." So he had other reasons to leave, or he was fired? I suspect the latter, and if so, just say it directly.
  • "Hitzfeld's reign ended in 2004, with Bayern underperforming, including a cup defeat by second division Alemannia Aachen." This is a bit confusing for me.
  • The history here starts to become more and more detailed, as often happens in modern history sections. I don't know if we really need a year-by-year account when there is a separate article already devoted to the history of the club.
Colours and Crest
  • The "Colours" and "Crest" sections can probably be combined, considering they are in the template for clubs. My thinking is that one larger paragraph can cover the Colours and another on Crest.
Stadium
  • "one of the foremost stadia in the world" I believe this, but I don't know how you measure it. Well-liked, respected, etc. but "foremost" is vague.
  • "as that of" should be just "as the"
  • "from approximately 50% to ca. 66%" Huh? 50% and 66% of what?
  • "the stadium betraying its track and field heritage" A) This is a bit of awkward syntax. If the track put viewers too far away, you can say it directly. That said, as a track runner, I can tell you that tracks aren't really that wide, relatively speaking to human eyesight. This is a common complaint, but one that doesn't really hold water with me.
  • "Located on the northern outskirts of Munich the Allianz Arena has been in use since the beginning of the 2005–06 season." If the stadium was built specifically for the purpose, I think you can definitely include a lot more information on the construction here. How much did the team pay for it? The city? Etc.
Supporters
  • "in recent years" For how long? And if they've always had such a large base, how come they weren't doing this since before then? Did something change?
  • "Their following is mainly recruited from the aspiring middle class and regional Bavaria." You really do need a citation for this.
  • "200 km (ca. 120 miles)" you can use Template:Convert here.
  • "Bayern Munich is also renowned for its well-organized ultra scene." Need a citation for this too, I'm afraid. Every team thinks it's fans are the best.
  • I don't think you need "the current Pope,"
  • Delete "to name just a few."

More to come later, hopefully. Runfellow (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Part 2

Rivalries
  • A "1-0 aggragate"?
  • "who were the more successful" should be "which was the more successful"
  • This whole thing: "1860 is considered more working-class, and therefore suffers from a diminishing fan base in a city where the manufacturing sector is declining. Bayern is considered the establishment club,[63] which is reflected by many board members being business leaders and including the former Bavarian minister president, Edmund Stoiber" seems like an NPOV issue. I'm not sure how you could prove that.
  • I don't know if Munich's third team (SpVgg Unterhaching) deserves a paragraph if no rivalry exists.
  • Beginning of paragraph: "Bayern" shouldn't be in italics.
  • "Bayern's main rivals have been the clubs who put up the strongest fight against its national dominance." Huh?
  • Overall, this section seems to have too much detail, especially given the very large history section above. A few of the rivals, a win-loss total for the major ones, and that ought to do it.
Organization and finance
  • "FC Bayern München AG" shouldn't be in italics, nor should a lot of stuff in this section. If it's the name of a longer work (art, newspaper, book, etc.), use italics. Otherwise it probably shouldn't be.
  • If "Joint Stock Company" is wikilinked, there's no real reason to include ", a company whose stock are not listed on the public stock exchange"
  • A list of major sponsors seems unnecessary.
  • "As a result of Bayern's finals appearance in the 2012 UEFA Champions League" Do we really know if the value is "as a result" of this or any other event?
Charity
  • Honestly, I'm to the point now where I'm tired of seeing charity-type sections for every famous individual or group. Other than the part about helping struggling clubs stay afloat, because it's different from typical "charity" work (if it can be called that), just about every professional organization puts together some kind of charitable activity every few years as a P.R. move, which means it's not really notable, to be honest.
Other Departments
  • Here's where things start to fall apart. This section should not be divided as it is, giving every group it's own heading. If there aren't more than a few words below it, it's time to merge these together somehow.
Training Facilities
  • This section could probably be merged with "Stadium" in some way, or at the very least moved up to go directly beneath it.
  • "Youth academy" shouldn't be capitalized unless the entire thing is a proper noun.
  • Same thing with "Youth House"
General
  • This is a summary article about the history of an entire club. Unless a score is really large or different or exceptional, I don't really think it needs to be included in the article.
  • There are a ton of introductory clauses that need to be followed by a comma. Pretty much anything that begins with "In YearX," needs one. I started keeping track of these at the beginning, but lost track.
  • There are quite a few repeated wikilinks to various major championships, players, coaches, etc. Pretty much the maximum should be twice in a long article.
  • 32 of the references are from the same book. I would highly recommend the use of short footnotes to eliminate all of the repeated citations.
  • Many other sources are self-published, which is going to raise a few eyebrows in the FAC process.

In no way is this a comprehensive list, but I think it should get anyone started who wants to improve the article. Now someone better go get me a football barnstar. Runfellow (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosecroft Raceway

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for featured status. Upon looking at the criteria, my main concern is 1a. I am also wondering if the second picture has a good enough fair-use rationale. Any other comments, however, are greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found out that I'm horrible at writing alternative text, so it would be great if someone could look at that, too.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Grimaldi

[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 lot of extensive research and a complete re-write, I now feel that this article is at the stage where a peer review would be beneficial. The subject, Joseph Grimaldi, was a leading 18th and 19th century performer in pantomime and harlequinade and was responsible for creating the design of the modern day white-face clown that we see today in circuses throughout the world. My intention is take this to WP:FAC as a result of this peer review, so I would welcome any comments and suggestions to help me in my quest.

Thanks, -- CassiantoTalk 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments

This might be a little haphazard.

  • The audience participation in 'Hot Codlins' needs some explanation, even if it is a footnote.
  • 1821 onwards is a bit thin. No mention of his brief engagement at the Coburg or his trip to Cheltenham to take the waters.
  • I think you have the sale of the shares of Sadler's Wells a bit early - he certainly still had some after 1823. The lease went to Egerton but I'm not sure how many shares (if any) he got.
  • He had a second farewell appearance at Drury Lane on 27 June 1828 - this is what Cruikshank 's illustration shows. Check the memoirs and McS.
  • The last one is notable because it is the last one and is indicative of of the change in his health and fortune (there's some background on the refusal of the use of Covent Garden for the benefit) and because that is the performance shown in Cruickshank's illustration. I think the article is weak on his decline while probably too concerned with the minutiae of his stage career. Adding some detail of his difficulties in staging these farewell performances would help balance it. Yomanganitalk 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole family moved to Woolwich in either spring(McS) or September(memoirs) 1832 and JS moved out in November to take up an engagement at the Coburg for the Christmas season.
  • Again, I do not think this is very important. Unless it is of special significance in another way, or unless s/he spent a great portion of his/her life there, the recitation of "He then moved here. Two years later, he moved there" is too much detail for an encyclopedia article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • JS didn't die in the street, he died in bed at his lodgings.
  • Unless I'm missing something, this has already been added. -- CassiantoTalk.
  • "The strain on Grimaldi was immense; something which, by now, he had grown accustomed to" - not really; the problems he had in later life were because he couldn't become accustomed to it.
Images
  • The PD claim on the Clare Market picture is poor. Two separate bodies claim the copyright on it and neither of those is London County Council as listed in the author field. I'm sure it is PD but it will take more digging find out the details. You may be better off just using an alternative image here; it's not like you are scratching around for them. All the other images are fine - though I haven't checked the accuracy of their tags they are all certainly PD (except for the ones which are your own work which are appropriately licensed).

I'll try and look over it a little more later. Yomanganitalk 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is the first half of my review; the rest will follow in a day or so. Nothing major so far – generally informative and enjoyable stuff.

Family background and early years
  • The chronolgy is a bit confusing in the first paragraph, since the narrative seems to be going in reverse: first Grimaldi's birth, then details of his father and mother, then his grandfather (and, in note 3, information on his great-grandfather). Also, some of these characters seem to live for ever. Giovanni appeared on the stage as "Iron Legs" in the late 1600s, was imprisoned in the Bastille in 1740, and "later" defrauded John Rich and fled to the Continent. Game old bird! All good stuff, but you may consider reorganising it into a more straightforward chronology.
  • I agree with Brian and have been working with Cassianto to try to clarify this. I think it is clearer now, eh, Brian? It would still be good if we could get a birth date for Giovanni, but his performances in the 1690s must have been as a youth. He would have been at least in his 50s when he fled to the Continent. Cassianto, can you give an approximate date when he fled to the Continent? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late 1742 or early 1743 for his flight to Europe.(McS pp.7-9) The ONDB gives his years as (fl. 1709–1741) - the end date is short by at least a couple of years (and possibly twenty or more - the only evidence we have for him after that is his absence from his father's will in 1760) and since Guiseppe's birth date is between 1709 and 1716 the start date needs pushing out a few years too. I'm not sure where the late 1600s date for his first performances comes from - not the ONDB, Findlater, McConell Stott, or Dickens - but it wouldn't be strange for him to be appearing on stage as an infant, though of course that date should be "late in the 17th century" not late 1600s unless he was pushing 140 at the time of his imprisonment in the Bastille. Yomanganitalk 16:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention Giuseppe's year of death; ODNB gives it as 1788. If the decapitating daughter was Henrietta, born the same year as Joseph, she would have been 9 or 10 years old when she performed this gruesome feat. Maybe it was another daughter; if so, this should be clarified.
  • Giuseppe's death is mentioned later on so I have given his death year in brackets. Mary was the decapitating daughter. She was one of numerous children he fathered but was the only one trusted enough to carry out the grizzly task. I won't go any further explaining who she was as this section is already a bit bloated with genealogy stuff. Unless you think otherwise? -- CassiantoTalk 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is still problematic to me, because it is still going in reverse, back to the great-grandfather. I'm not really sure how much detail of these early Grimaldis is really necessary, but in any event I think it would be better to present it logically. This is my effort at that (I have ignored citations and footnotes):

Grimaldi was born in Clare Market, London, into a family of theatrical performers. His great-grandfather was John Baptist Grimaldi, a dentist by trade and an amateur performer, who in the 1730s moved from Italy to England where he performed the role of Pantaloon opposite John Rich's Harlequin. John Baptist's son and Grimaldi's paternal grandfather was Giovanni Battista Grimaldi, a dancer who began his career in the late 17th century. Much of his career was spent in Italy and France. According to Grimaldi's biographer Andrew McConnell Stott, Giovanni was held in the Paris Bastille as the result of a scandalous performance. After his release, Giovanni moved to London in 1742 and made his first English stage appearance. In London John Baptist introduced him to John Rich; Giovanni then defrauded Rich and fled to the European continent, where he later died, leaving his family behind in London. Among this family was Grimaldi's father, Joseph Giuseppe Grimaldi (c. 1713–1788), an actor and dancer (known professionally as Giuseppe or "the Signor"), who first appeared in London at the King's Theatre. Giuseppe was later engaged by David Garrick to play Pantaloon in pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where he was also the ballet master.

Good work, Brian! I made some very minor changes, added back the refs and footnotes, and substituted the paragraph into the article. It is true that the stuff about the grandfather and great-grandfather is not essential (except to describe when the family came to England), but it is interesting to note what a scoundrel his grandfather was, and it gives some background that may illuminate how his father became a crazy philanderer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work to both. I knew what I wanted to say but didn't know how to say it. This reads brilliantly now, thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early years at Sadler's Wells and Drury Lane
  • Some of the prose is a bit heavy-footed, e.g. "...became an established juvenile performer at Drury Lane.[16] Together with his commitments at Drury Lane, he was a prolific performer at Sadler's Wells..." This could be: "...became an established juvenile performer at Drury Lane.[16] At the same time he was a prolific performer at Sadler's Wells..."
  • "Grimaldi and his father divided their time between the two theatres" This sentence is probably redundant, given what has already been said.
  • Not all your readers will be able to place Easter in the calendar.
  • As described, the theatre seasons appear to overlap, so when was the period "between the theatre seasons"?
  • Grimaldi was 9 in 1788, so John Baptiste can't have been more than 7 or 8, yet he "signed on as a cabin boy aboard a frigate". This seems extraordinary; perhaps his age should be mentioned?
  • "Sheridan often employed Grimaldi in minor roles in Kemble's productions and also allowed him to work concurrently at Sadler's Wells." I understand he was already working in the two theatres concurrently, so perhaps "continued to allow him..."?
  • What exactly is a "low comedian"? Is this an official theatrical designation?
Last years at Drury Lane
  • "peddler" is US spelling; British English is "pedlar"
  • "notching up" is maybe a tad informal
  • Unfortunately, this doesn't make sense: "The pantomime was a great success, staging thirty-three performances..." Pantomimes are staged, they do not "stage". I suggest: "The pantomime was a great success, running for thirty-three performances..." Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria died in childbirth; what about the child?
  • "John Philip" Kemble should be just "Kemble" after first mention
  • I think probably "dismissed" rather than "fired", which is informal
  • "shut for refurbishment" → "closed for refurbishment"
  • "one of the most important theatrical designs of the 1800s." This opinion should be attributed as well as cited.
Done. -- CassiantoTalk 21:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Times critic really wrote "truely affecting", that needs a [sic]. It may be just a typo, though.
  • Chronology is lost in the fifth para (beginning "On 21 November 1802...". We jump several years ahead to put the boy in school, then jump back to late 1802. You might get away with this if you made the "Grimaldi reurned..." sentence the first of the following paragraph.
  • I still think you need to alter "and so he enrolled him at Mr. Ford's Academy" to "and eventually enrolled him at Mr. Ford's Academy".
  • His salary was doubled...but unless we know what it was before, this doesn't tell us much.
  • I think the season "commenced" rather than "recommenced" at Easter (it was a new season)

Three more sections to do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and here they are):

Covent Garden years
  • Give date or year of the Dublin venture. Mention earlier than you do that the Dibdins owned the theatre.
  • I don't think "Benefit concert" requires a capital
  • Clarify that it was Astley's, not the Crow Street Theatre, that was sold
  • "Despite this" is inappropriate. How about: "Grimaldi, who considered the role of Orson to be the most physically and mentally demanding of his career, performed the part with enthusiasm, touring the provinces..." etc
  • A second "despite this", more acceptable than the first, but watch a propensity towards this phrasing
  • "continued to suffer bouts of severe depression" - this is the first mention of depression, so "continued to suffer" is a bit confusing.
  • We appear to jump from 1806 (Mother Goose) to 1812 (Cheltenham). What happened in those 6 years?
  • " Coincidently, it was in Gloucester that he met the poet Lord Byron, the writer of the poem upon which the play was based..." This is verbose. Stick to something simple, e.g. "In nearby Gloucester he met the poet Lord Byron, on whose poem the play was based..."
  • A "commission" of £195? Wouldn't "fee" or "salary" be better terms? Also, I suggest you replace the "and" with a semicolon, since the two parts of the sentence are not directly related.
  • I don't think "bittersweet" is really the term to use here; "mixed fortunes", perhaps. However, from what follows it seems that so far as his stage career concerned all went well; the misfortunes were a period of illness and the death of his father-in-law. I would cut out the emotive language ("bittersweet", "suffered a third great loss") and report these misfortunes factually.
  • "...his role as the Chief Judge and Treasurer..." I'd find an alternative to "role", otherwise this sounds like a part he was playing.
  • The word "lucrative" occurs twice in the last paragraph
Later career
  • Is it necessary to give the full and alternative titles for each production? This makes reading rather laborious.
  • For pantos, what comes after the "or" is as important as what comes before. It often gives an idea of what happens in the "transformation". If I understand the comment, I disagree with it, although I think that these comments are generally super. Of course, if the title is repeated, a short form could be used the second time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last years, death and legacy
  • Probably better to say he received half his salary from Drury Lane; I had forgotten who Charles Kemble was.
  • I am quite surprised to find that he quickly fell into poverty, given the size of his earnings (£1743 for a single tour probably equates to £1+ million today). Perhaps briefly say why he had so little to fall back on (theatrical losses, extravagance, mistresses etc)
  • "Debtors' Prison" does not require capitals. But too much of this section is focussed on JS; the whole second paragraph and two-thirds of the third. I suggest this could be condensed.
  • I agree. Cassianto, does any of this need to be transferred or repeated in (or expanded upon in) JS's article? Also the JS abbreviation and citation should also go there if it hasn't gone already. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only JS bits now remaining are his birth, the first understudy engagement for his father when he fell ill, a brief bit about his decline and the effects it had on Grimaldi and JS's death. Everything else has gone to JS's article. Ssilvers has very kindly copy edited it for me. -- CassiantoTalk 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he live alone at 33 Southampton Street?
  • I don't think the somewhat trivial Dickens-centred anecdotes at the end of the section are really worth recording, in a "legacy" section. They give a distinctly anti-climactic flavour to the article's end.
  • My view remains that there is still too much Dickens stuff. To what extent does this information represent Grimaldi's "legacy"?
Dickens

Clowns aren't my thing, but I've long been aware of Dickens's admiration for Grimaldi. Way back in early September, I inserted (with CassiantoTalk's agreement) a section entitled "Grimaldi and Dickens". At some later point this got subsumed into the "legacy" section, where I agree that it doesn't look very appropriate. Suggestions:

  • Resurrect a "Grimaldi and Dickens" section in a more appropriate place
  • Put all the Dickens stuff (except the Memoirs?) into another footnote
  • Remove the Dickens stuff (except the Memoirs) into the Charles Dickens article.

--GuillaumeTell 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks GT, I am going to experiment with some of your kind suggestions. I have first of all gone with the second option. Does this look OK? If not I will revert and go for the "Grimaldi and Dickens" idea. What do others think? -- CassiantoTalk 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brian that "Grimaldi and Dickens" would be far too much information about Dickens. I have slimmed down one of the long footnotes. Shouldn't Grimaldi's famous catchphrases go into the career section? Then this note could be slimmed down further. Also, there should be a ref specifically about the sales of the memoirs, and then the two notes about Dickens could be combined. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all fine as far as I'm concerned. I'll look in on the Dickens talk page in due course to see what the editors there think (and whether they agree not to put all my work in footnotes ). --GuillaumeTell 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues

I have not done s full image check, but I can foresee a few problems

  • Copyright issues with the lead image. It may be safer to go for the Grimaldi portrait in his memoirs, from here, where we have full publication details
    The dispute is between WP (or a Wikipedian) and the NPG. I would say use it until the matter is resolved. I've sent Cassianto a watercolour portrait by J.E.T Robinson from 1815 anyway that would make a good alternative. Yomanganitalk 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a valid copyright issue in the U.S., which is the law governing Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with removing any images based on the frivolous and inactive NPG dispute. The only question is whether this image is the best portrait. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sheridan image is not an image of Reynolds's painting (Reynolds didn't paint in b & w). It is someone's photograph of the Reynolds portrait, so its PD status is not established.
  • The Kemble portrait is described as an "engraving from painting". Lawrence did the painting, but who did the engraving, and when? The PD depends on these details
  • The Sheridan and Kemble portraits are quite marginal to the article; the d'Egville image is even more so. Rather than argue the toss over the status of these tangential pics, I'd remove them.
    The Reynolds' Sheridan is engraved by Robert Hicks (we don't know his dates but that image was published 1830 so it's fine).
    It is hard to make out because the quality is poor but the the Kemble image looks to be scan of a book plate of a crop of [4] - WP doesn't recognise any "sweat of the brow" rights involved in making reproductions of 2D artworks so that should be fine too.
    The d'Egville image is engraved by Samuel Freeman d.1857 so no worries there. That said, Brian is right: their value as illustration for this article is fairly marginal. Yomanganitalk 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked the rest.
  • I have replaced all of the images. I have used the images as suggested by Yomangani's email. I think they all uploaded OK. The JS as Scaramouche may need to be modified to extend to the borders (no idea how to do that) and the sources may need to be checked for accuracy as most of them come from websites (not sure of the books they come from). I think all are licensed appropriately. Are there any more concerns around the images now? -- CassiantoTalk 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean replace the Scaramouche image with the Cawse one or restore Cawse to the lede? I have done the latter, so any thoughts on now replacing Scaramouche with the J.E.T Robinson one? -- CassiantoTalk 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By and large this looks a very solid theatrical biography, and I look forward to seeing it progress, after a little more work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian for an excellent review. I have such a lot to do so I'm afraid my responses will be drip fed over the next few weeks or so. I do want it known that the current images are not permanent. Yomangani has very kindly sourced some excellent images, which I will pick through and add the best. However, it's the text I want to get right first before anything else. Once again, thanks for the review! -- CassiantoTalk 22:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK - ping me a reminder when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indicated in the above notes where I think there are still issues to be resolved. I also wonder whether, though you have adopted my suggested wording in the Family background section, if all these details of several earlier generations of Grimaldis is really necessary for the reader. This, however, is a matter of editorial judgement, and you don't necessarily have to agree with me (this of course applies to all my points). Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by the doctor
Family background and early years - I would significantly condense the first paragraph/section. I think you only need to briefly mention who is grandfather and father was. When I begin reading it I have to double check that it is about his grandfather and not about Grimaldi etc. You could create an article on the Early life and background of Joseph Grimaldi and retain it of course but I would rather that was cut in the main article and you cut to the chase to the speak.
  • Some of this has been restructured per above from Brianboulton. Non-essential information has been footnoted. I think the remainder is helpful to the reader to understand what shaped Grimaldi as an entertainer and as a individual. -- CassiantoTalk 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links, Seems odd for "obsessive" to be linked and monkeys, imps, fairies and demons not. I'd probably delink obsessive or wikilink them all.

So sorry, been busy, meant to get back to this. I'll read it again tonight and see if I can spot anything else. Hope you are well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References. Is it possible you could use sfn notes which lead directly to the book beneath, also saves ref bunching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a mammoth task! I know SchroCat uses this method, but I personally know nothing about that particular way of formatting. I will learn about it and adopt it on my next project, but to do it now on 160 odd references would take up a lot of time at such a late stage, unless you know of an easier and quicker way of doing it? -- CassiantoTalk 00:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that using sfn cites is a very bad idea, and I recommend reversing this change. Most people do not know how to use sfn cites, and it just makes Wikipedia less user friendly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think only some inflexible old timers (like me) would find them any more difficult than the <ref> system. Additional references for this article are likely to be few and far between so I can't see any need to reverse the swap to the sfn system. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do!
Image review
  • File:Giuseppe Grimaldi.jpg - No author (just publisher), so no PD-70. Perhaps Anonymous-EU will work better. Also, the British Museum note suggests the subject is not certain ("Possibly William Grimaldi")
per below. -- CassiantoTalk 15:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that adding the tag regarding the building is confusing and makes it unclear that the photo has been donated to the public domain. If you are certain that this is required, I have suggested language on the photo's page to make it clear that you are only talking about this grungy old building, rather than the photograph itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the only reason to remove images here would be overcrowding. Copyright-wise they're all peachy, although just needs some massaging to express that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing PR. I feel all issues have now been addressed and would like to thank all editors for participating. The article, I feel, has improved tenfold as a result of your input. See you at FAC in a few weeks! -- CassiantoTalk 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of PR on article undertaken by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) in userspace prior to main PR

Grim notes:

Hi Cass, Overall an excellent article with very little needing to be done. Most of my comments are suggestions, rather than definite grammatical problems, so feel free to ignore if you see fit.

Lead

  • "modern day whiteface clown." I think "whiteface" should be hyphenated as it is a compound modifier (the OED has it so)
  • "low budget productions". Again, low-budget should be hyphenated as another compound modifier

Early Life

  • "His Italian father, Joseph Giuseppe Grimaldi [n 1] was an actor and dancer (known professionally as Giuseppe or "the Signor") who first appeared in London at the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, and was later engaged by David Garrick to play Pantaloon in pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where he was also the ballet master.[1]" There's a gap before the note link at "Grimaldi [n 1]" which shouldn't be there. The sentence also carries a lot of info; this about:
"His Italian father, Joseph Giuseppe Grimaldi[n 1] was an actor and dancer known professionally as Giuseppe or "the Signor". Joseph first appeared in London at the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, and was later engaged by David Garrick to play Pantaloon in pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where he was also the ballet master.[1]"

Early years at Sadlers Wells and Drury Lane

  • Title: "Sadlers Wells" should be "Sadler's Wells"
  • "or, Harlequin's Release,[14] As well as Grimaldi": Full stop after release or lower case A
  • "they appealed to completely different audiences": doesn't need the "completely"
  • "a prominant stage performer": prominent
  • "nine at the time of his fathers death": father's should carry an apostrophe
  • "In 1791 the Drury Lane theatre was demolished[41] and Grimaldi was loaned to the Haymarket Theatre": I've noticed a mix of capitals and lower case for "Theatre"; I appreciate the reasons why, but make sure you're happy you've got them all OK - it looks a little odd in this sentence having a cap and a lower case (with the next sentence a lower case again)
  • As you know, Drury Lane is known as such but others may not know that hence the "theatre" as it's not part of its name. I have swapped it to it's full title "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. I'm now worried I may have to do this throughout. I kinda don't thinks so as its been explained here. --CassiantoTalk 12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, it was as Pierrot": wikilink Pierrot

Last years at Drury Lane

  • "To help himself cope with his grief": Feels a bit clumsy. "To cope with his grief"?
  • "leaving Grimaldi to reign as resident clown": as the resident clown?
  • "Sadler's Wells recommenced at Easter 1805": again, this feels a bit clumsy. What recommenced? the theatre, or Grim's work there?
  • "co-writer Charles Farley": wikilink Farley
  • "several dancing scene's": no apostrophe needed on scenes
  • Footnote formatting: "67. "truely affecting", The Times, 21 August 1802, p. 6: Is that the right spelling and should it be a capital T?
  • Image caption: You've got a red link for "harlequinade characters": you may have meant this, which is OK, but you could pipe the link to "Harlequinade" instead?

Life at Covent Garden

  • where he retired to between seasons": not sure it needs the "to"
  • "Grimaldi appeared at the Covent Garden on 9 October": at Covent Garden, or at the Covent Garden theatre?
  • "The production was dramatised by Dibdin": the OED shows "dramatized".
  • No. There is no such word as "dramatise" according to the OED, only dramatize. The ~ize suffix is entirely proper when used with words that have come down from Greek: the dominant use of ~ise is a modern practise. According to the OED, anyway! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned a healthy profit of £20,000 at the box-office": a modern conversion could be applicable here This would work: (£{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|20000|1806}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} pounds{{inflation-fn|UK|df=yes}}) and shows £1.2 million in 2012 £££s
  • "In 1812 Grimaldi travelled to Cheltenham[99] and appeared in Don Juan as Scaramouche in which he sung "Tippitywitchet".": Are the articles Don Juan or Scaramouche appropriate for linking?
  • "he felt; "...great and unbounded satisfaction": No need for the ellipsis at the start of the quote.
  • "the theatre's tickets reduced £50 in price as a result": I think you need to re-work this slightly, as I'm not too sure what you mean.
  • "Grimaldi heard good things about his": good reports?

Later career

  • "Between 1814–16": 1814 and 16, or In the years 1814-16?
  • Done.
  • "a months leave": should be "a month's leave"
  • "Joseph Samuel threatened and vocally abused the audience member for criticising his performance.[125][n 16]": This just seems to be tacked on the end and repeats the same information as the end of the previous sentence: perhaps merge the two sentences?

Retirement and last years

  • "there were suspicions voiced": by whom?
  • "last few years of his life a depressed alcoholic which attributed heavily to his failing health": as a depressed...; which he (or someone else?) attributed...

Notes

  • 2: "one of his fathers tours": father's should carry an apostrophe
  • 13: "Grimaldi's benefit show was stagtheir July": "stagtheir"? staged there?
  • 16: "fathers reputation" father's should carry an apostrophe
  • Not at all, a very, very good review. I did leave a couple out but I'm going to come back to these. I can move this review to one of my sandboxes if you like so it frees up your sandbox. -- CassiantoTalk 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triangulum Australe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've got it passed to GA level and am musing on FAC at some point, but I am still finding my feet with Astronomy articles. All input appreciated.

Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments (in no particular order)
  • The image in the infobox is too small to be of any use
yerp, will have to look into an alternative Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "created in the sixteenth century" - "first named"? I don't think the advancements of the Renaissance quite stretched to star manufacture
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of overlinking/underlinking? Mundus Novus would be a good red link but unfortunately it's been redirected to New World
  • "and round out the triangle" - I love those round triangles (though square hexagons are my favourite paradoxical shape)
oops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce "spectral class" without a link and then switch to "stellar classification" which is linked.
oops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • light-year and parsec are linked several times which doesn't help the sea of blue effect (do we care about parsecs anyway? You use only light-years later in the article)
  • "Nicolas Louis de Lacaille gave twelve stars Bayer designations of Alpha through to Lambda" - he did a lot more than that; put "in this constellation" somewhere in there maybe.
rejigged order, but yeah, done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "absolute magnitude" is linkable
oops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yet in reality is a much more powerful star that lies further away" - imprecise...
made more exact Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and followed in the next paragraph by "yet is actually" - vary the sentence structure
  • "Its notable features include..." - the whole section is titled "Notable features" so either everything up to this point has been introduction or this is restating the obvious
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of the "Notable features" section, I'm still fairly unclear on the number of stars in the constellation - the link to List of stars in Triangulum Australe, the template "Stars of Triangulum Australe" and the infobox only help to muddy the waters further as none of them agree.
yeah this is a bit of a problem. There are stars with Bayer designations (Greek letters), but then there are others. It does assume a certain similiarity with the topic. I will think on how to fix. Maybe a line on what a Bayer designation is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think having the "History" section before the "Notable Features" would make better sense, especially as you have some history at the beginning of the "Notable Features" section
yeah, reads better I think now Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italian navigator Amerigo Vespucci explored the Americas..." - somewhat anachronistic. Perhaps "explored the New World"
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He grew to know the stars in the southern celestial hemisphere and made a catalogue for his patron king Manuel I of Portugal, which is now lost. I" - presumably that is cited from the same book as at the end of the next sentence, but I could see a "citation needed" tag appearing on that at FAC
Aha! I tucked a commented out "cites previous three sentences" there for the eyes of anyone opening it up to slap a [citation needed] tag there.... 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Cunning. Yomanganitalk 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "32½-cm" - the metric system wouldn't be around for another 200 years
  • "German poet and author Philippus Caesius saw the three main stars as representing the Three Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (with Atria as Abraham).[33]" - that's a bit out of place with the rest of the section and the article, Why don't you create a section called "In Popular Culture" (with that capitalization) and add it there?
Hmmm, musing on this one, but it's gonna be an awfully small section. Pity the constellation ain't been featured on something else to buff it.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was meant to be sarcastic. I guess it was too deadpan...unless you are playing along...in which case I've fallen for it. Anyway, don't do that, just try and connect it back into the various depictions/namings a little more. Yomanganitalk 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "History" section doesn't tell us when it was named "Triangulum Australe". The implication is that it was named by Lacaille in 1756 but this isn't explicit.
Verily 'twas Bayer. Now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad overall though, it's not too stodgy considering its subject matter. Yomanganitalk 12:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coandă-1910

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This very unusual aircraft was the topic of an extremely difficult editing process involving a few Romanian editors who were insistent that the aircraft was the first jet, and a loose collection of English-speaking editors who were just as insistent that the aircraft never flew. A working solution was hammered out and 20 months ago the article finally passed GA.

Since then the article has been fairly stable. I think it is time to move forward to FAC. I hope that the peer reviewers will keep that goal in mind. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Eagle cent

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it for FA. It's short.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for a featured article.

Thanks, InlandmambaPLU (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... – Long article, so comments may be posted in chunks, depending how many I have. Runfellow (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Runfellow (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Part 1 (Lead and Early years)
Lead
  • Seems like Pakistan could be wikilinked in the first sentence, but something tells me you may have some reason as to why you didn't do that.
  • Done
  • "served as leader of the" - Is there a more specific title instead of "leader"?
  • Leader is used because he was the head of the Muslim League. We all call the leader of political parties. I think it would be the best word.
  • "initially advocating Hindu-Muslim unity and helping to shape the 1916 Lucknow Pact between Congress and the Muslim League" - A little bit of awkward syntax here, but not a big deal.
Improved.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his party gained strength" - Since I don't think you've referred to his political party yet, it might make sense to name it here.
  • Done
  • "The League" - Which one, Muslim or All-India? Might want to clarify here.
  • Done
  • The two wikilinks in this paragraph go to Two-Nation Theory and Lahore Resolution, which is fine, but the text that leads them isn't quite specific enough. Both phrases, "should have their own state" and "supported a separate nation for Muslims" are very similar, and don't imply those specific pages here. We can't really assume the average reader will hover over the page to see the URL before clicking. I wouldn't be afraid of using the actual terms here (the theory and the resolution) and using a little description if necessary.
I've kept one in the lede and left the other for the body, and played with the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "won most reserved Muslim seats" should be "won most of the seats reserved for Muslims", but I could be wrong.
  • Done
  • Since "predominantly" is an adverb, I don't think there needs to be a hyphen between that and "Hindu".
  • Done
  • Maybe begin the final paragraph with "As" here? No big deal though.
  • Done
  • "Minority rights" here could mean a few different things: ethnic, religious, racial, etc. Did he work for all of these, or were there specific groups he helped? Again, not a big deal.
Non-Muslim. I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "legacy" section here feels a little awkward, but I'll wait until I get to that section before I comment on it here.
Early Years
Background
  • The note for "a" is a bit of a run-on sentence, but could probably be split easily. You'll also need a citation for a few of those claims, since the information calls into question other information.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to give us some context here, you may at least want to include the birth year.
I tossed a probable year in there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since naming the parents isn't an interjection, there should be no comma after "Mithibai"
  • Done
  • "His father, Jinnahbhai Poonja" - Since you already named him in the previous sentence, repeating it here isn't necessary.
  • Done
  • Maybe wikilink princely state; I'll admit I didn't know what they were.
  • Done
  • Although colloquially we sometimes say we "belong" to a particular church, I'm not sure that's the right phrase for Wikipedia.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I follow the phrase "Obtained a matriculation". The link you included seems to be mostly about high school, and I don't see how one can "obtain" matriculation in this case. I could be wrong, though.
Bolitho says at page 7, "armed only with his matriculation form the Bombay University, gained at the Mission School". I do not understand the mechanics of this, but I gather that the university oversaw the examination in some manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the portion beginning with "In his later years" and ending with the end of the "Background" section is really appropriate here. If there is a "folklore" section here or something, it might go there, but the information here is unverifiable and thus shouldn't be included.
How someone is perceived is a part of their story. In this case, the boy from the common streets of Karachi went on to become a great man, and had stories told about him. Relating that fact is important, more than the particular story. As we would say in the law, it's not offered for the truth of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the phrase "his biographer" implies that someone functioned as an official biographer of sorts. Stanley Wolpert was listed in the lead, and Hector Bolitho here.
  • Done. Changed it to "A" instead of "His".
In England
  • "aspiring barrister joined Lincoln's Inn;" - Should be a comma after rather than a semicolon.
  • Done
  • You'll want to wikilink barrister either here or in the lead at some point.
  • Done
  • "His legal education there" - To avoid pronoun confusion (the previous sentence is really about Wolpert) you might want to switch "his" to "Jinnah's". Could go either way.
  • Done
  • "legal education there" would probably be better as "legal education at the Inns of Court School of Law, since "there" doesn't really give us any indication as to what the wikilink would be about, and may even imply that it would be a separate article about Jinnah's legal education.
The source does not mention the name, and so I am reluctant. While that seems to be what went on, it never calls it that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Comma after "apprenticeship system"
  • Done
  • "centuries, following an established barrister and learning from what he did, as well as learning the law from books." - Awkward syntax, maybe split this into two sentences.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "of learning"
  • Done
Seems fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Indian extraction" - seems like an awkward way to phrase it. Maybe this is a compromise of some sort from somewhere else?
Compromise basically from "Indian".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "voting majority of three" is also an awkward way to phrase this. Was Parliament still "first past the post" then, and if so, did he have 50% plus three votes, or a plurality plus three votes?
It's an idiom in British politics; this article is more or less written in British English, though I tried ot be guided by any phrasings I saw in books written in the subcontinent in my part of the writing. This phrasing properly states that he won by the margin of three votes. I could put a link in there to clarify?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Visitor's Gallery" is capitalized.
  • Done
  • "he was always impeccably dressed in public" - It's a very minor NPOV issue, but it's an NPOV issue all the same. This isn't very quantifiable/verifiable.
  • There seems to be a lot here about fashion, which jumps around quite a bit (from his days as a barrister to his death). Not sure if all of this information is completely necessary.
Dress was an important characteristic of how Jinnah wanted to be perceived, and it is a way in which he contrasted with Gandhi. Not every adverb is POV.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Many of the above comments are just nitpicks, so none of them are really huge issues or anything of the sort. For the most part, the article is very clear and well written. The structure works well so far, and it helps that the subject at hand is very interesting. I'll be back later with further comments. – Runfellow (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected some of the work. Will be correcting the rest soon. Thank you.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 19:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Runfellow (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Part 2 (Career)
Career
As barrister
  • "brought him few briefs" - might be a British/American difference here, but it's not a phrase I'm familiar with.
This is again a proper Britishism, I believe. Would a link here help?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is "His first step ahead". Maybe just awkward syntax.
  • Done. Changed it to "His first step towards a brighter career occurred"
  • Done
  • When possible and practical, you'll want to use active rather than passive phrases. For example, "This offer was politely declined by Jinnah" could be "Jinnah politely declined the offer".
  • Done
  • "– a huge sum at that time," if you use a dash to set off the interjection, you'll want a concluding dash here too after "time".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about "newborn state". Never heard the phrase "newborn" used in reference to a country before.
Changed to "new".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "particular" in "particular fame"
  • Done
  • "supposedly rigged by a "caucus" of Europeans" - see WP:W2W for "supposedly". If someone alleged that this happened, say who claimed it.
Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to" can be just "to"
  • Done
  • "Before he unsuccessfully" - pronoun confusion, since the previous sentence "he" is about Jinnah, and the "he" here refers to Tilak.
  • Done
As rising leader
  • "Discontent in India against British rule erupted in 1857 in revolt." - Awkward syntax, since the discontent didn't really erupt in revolt; rather, the people did.
Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bear in mind that if you're going to go with a chronological order of events, you're sort of stuck with that to some extent. It seems as though most of the article regards Jinnah's life events, but other parts are about particular subjects, not events. In other words, the "Career" section title seems a little misleading here. It seems like it will be a breakdown of his various professions, and begins as such, but then changes back to a chronological narrative.
Done that by altering the section titles.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opposed by leader" should be "opposed by leaders"
  • Done
  • Deleting the commas around "headed by Aga Khan" will make the sentence flow a little better.
  • Done
  • "to advocate for communal interests" - Not sure what this phrase means, like if they were advocating for their interests, or the interests of Muslims, or of Muslims and Hindus, etc.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning with "Throughout his legal career" seems like it regards a completely different subject than the previous few sentences. Maybe a new paragraph, or move it somewhere?
  • "This followed the following year," & "stressed in joining that joining" - ???
  • Comma after "In April 1913"
  • Done
  • Has Ghokle been introduced by the time Jinnah went to England with him? Maybe I missed that.
Nice catch. He's not worth the mention, deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Break from Congress
  • "Although the Pact" - here "pact" would not be capitalized.
  • Done
  • "although, with the war, Britain's politicians were not interested in considering Indian constitutional reform." There's a very similar sentence in the section above, so you might want to find a way to delete one of them or rephrase it in some way.
  • "fashionable young daughter" - how do you define and/or verify "fashionable" here?
  • A modern type of girl. As in those days, normally girls used to be more simple as compared to now.
  • "personal friend" - delete "personal"
  • Done
  • Comma after "from Rattanbai's family"
  • Done
  • "in 1929, thereafter" - Normally I'd say use a semicolon here instead of a comma, but since there are already quite a few of those in the article, I'd say just split the sentence with a period.
  • Done
  • "in the wake of World War I, a cause which Gandhi supported" - ???, I don't think this is what you mean (rather, I think you meant that he supported the leadership of the caliphate), but this doesn't quite work. Don't be afraid to break sentences up to create a clearer meaning.
  • Done
  • "did not even bother to attend" to "did not attend"
  • Done

More later – Runfellow (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Runfellow (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Part 3 (Fourteen Points and Return to Politics)
Fourteen Points
  • "and the campaign of resistance proved less effective than hoped, as India's institutions continued to function" - Not quite sure on this one. The conjunctions here imply that the campaign of resistance did not work because India's institutions continued to function. Was the intent to cause instability?
  • The phrase "He showed considerable skill as a parliamentarian" seems like an NPOV issue. If there were people (such as fellow members or the press or other leaders) who said this, you can say something to the effect of "Other members considered Jinnah a skilled parliamentarian".
  • Done
  • Comma after "began two years early"
  • Done
  • "The resulting commission, led by Liberal MP John Simon, though with a majority of Conservatives, arrived in India in March 1928, to be met with a boycott by India's leaders, Muslim and Hindu alike, angered at the British refusal to include their representatives on the commission." - very awkward syntax here. Maybe something like this: The resulting commission, led by Liberal MP John Simon though comprised of a majority of Conservatives, arrived in India in March 1928. India's leaders, both Hindu and Muslim, were angered by the British Government's refusal to include their representatives on the commission."
  • Done
  • "repudiating" should be "repudiate" here, hard to explain that though.
  • Done
  • "meeting in December 1927 and January 1928" - I assume this is one meeting that was conducted over the course of both months, correct? If so, you'll want a comma after "1928".
  • Yes it is the one. Corrected it. Done
  • "Birkenhead in 1928" to "In 1928, Birkenhead"
  • Done
  • "based on geography on the ground that being dependent on each other for election would bind the communities closer together" - Having a very hard time following this one.
  • "defeated at the 1929 British parliamentary election" - You've got two wikilinks to the 1929 UK election in the same section here. I'd recommend getting rid of the first one in parentheses and keeping this one.
  • Done
  • "most of the period 1930 through 1934" I think should be "most of the period between 1930 and 1934". Not sure though.
  • Changed it.
  • A bit of a subtle tweak, here: Since Wolpert wrote his biography in 1984 and Bolitho in 1954, it seems almost anachronistic to list Wolpert's assertion first and then say that Bolitho "denied" that assertion. Switching these two ideas around might make this flow a little better. Singh's i fine where it is.
The difficulty there is the parliamentary seat matter. Putting Bolitho first would make things awkward as well, because you have to deny the parliamentary seat you haven't asserted yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "estranged from his daughter, Dina Jinnah," - Since you have already named the daughter in the previous sentence, I don't think you need it here. Also, you've already wikilinked it in an earlier section.
  • Changed it. Removed the name from this sentence.
  • "to marry Christian businessman, Neville Wadia, and when he urged her to marry a Muslim, she" to "to marry Christian businessman Neville Wadia. When he urged her to marry a Muslim, she"
  • Done
  • "to Pakistan in his lifetime, but only for his funeral." to "to Pakistan until she attended his funeral in 1948"
  • Done


Return to politics
  • You can probably delete "as those it claimed to represent fragmented politically" since it feels tacked on to the end of the sentence.
  • Changed
  • The first sentence in the note for "b" can probably be reordered a bit to read more like "Jinnah was permanent president of the League from 1919 to 1930, when the position was abolished."
  • Done
  • Comma after "At Jinnah's request". No comma after "Muslim politicians".
  • Done
  • "wrapping up" might be clearer if it was just "closing"
  • Done
  • "the centre" - Is this referring to the new weaker central government?
The central government in India, generally. Both under the Viceroy and in the post-independence government. The sources use the term in this way repeatedly, I don't see avoiding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "members of that faith held a majority" - meaning Muslims?
  • Yes.
  • "formed part of the government only in Bengal" - remember that the placement of "only" here is important. The way it is phrased now implies that Bengal was the only province in which they were even able to become part of the new government. I think what is meant is "formed only part of the government in Bengal", which implies that they expected to earn a majority in that province, but were unable.
  • Done
  • "tremendous, almost a traumatic" - are you sure Singh had an "a" there?
It seems so, I've returned that book to the library but Google books has identical phrasings for other sources, when discussing this event.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Singh quote beginning with "when the Congress" can probably be a block quote of some kind. You can use plain <blockquote></blockquote> or a template.
  • Done
  • "the following two years" - I'd replace "following" with "next", but that's just me.
  • Done
  • "a Working Committee which he appointed" - If it's "the" Working Committee, it's capitalized, but "a" working committee wouldn't be. Also, comma after "committee".
  • The committee was made by Jinnah, I think that using "a" is correct


More later. Sorry for being so nitpicky and taking so much space; I'm not trying to be a jerk, I swear. Just trying to help. Runfellow (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) –[reply]

As long as it is fruitful, I don't mind. It's better that we can see what kind of mistakes we have done and in future we should refrain from repeating them. Thank you for taking so much time and checking everything in great detail.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've changed or commented on everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments, Part 4 (World War II; Lahore Resolution and Postwar)

  • I don't think MOS:HEAD says anything specific about semicolons in section titles, but it does look a bit unorthodox.
I've done it a few times, never had a problem. See William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896#Economic depression; rise of free silver.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the "main article" in a section about the Lahore Resolution should be Lahore Resolution.
  • "1937 vote" should be "1937 election"
Later in the paragraph the term "1937 elections" is used, so I don't want to use it twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that his League, and through it himself," - awkward syntax. Maybe instead of "and through it himself" put something at the end of the sentence, something to the effect of "effectively making him the voice of the Muslim community in India."
  • Done
  • Comma after "in subsequent years"
  • Done
  • "consulting with Indian politicians" - "consulting Indian political leaders" would probably work better.
  • Changed
  • Similar, but somewhat different with "After consulting with Jinnah and with Gandhi". If he consulted the two men, it implies that they somehow consented to the suspension of self-government talks. Was this the case? If not, "negotiated with" might be more appropriate. Or perhaps adding a "despite" in there somewhere.
Changed to "meeting".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "co-operating" I think should be "cooperating", but there could be a specific definition for the hyphenated term I'm unaware of.
  • The quote beginning with "Independent dominions" here would not be capitalized, as per MOS:QUOTE under "Allowable typographical changes"
  • Changed
  • I'm curious about the sentence beginning with "No future settlements". Does this mean that the British would basically "back down" out of the region if there was a popular decree that they would do so? Did they describe how this mandate would voice itself (election, etc.)? Just curious.
Things weren't laid out in that detail. It was never the British intent to leave, when they did, to the extent that they did, and leave a power vacuum in their wake a la Mandatory Palestine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Cripps use the phrase "local option" specifically?
It's not in his proposals, which are on the web. It's possible it's just how it came to be characterized. Some sources include the phrase in quotes, some do not.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British quickly arrested most major Congress leaders, to be imprisoned for the remainder of the war." might work better as "The British quickly arrested most major Congress leaders and imprisoned them for the remainder of the war." It might also be a good idea to specify which British group actually did the arresting. Was it the military, bureaucrats, or did the British simply order local authorities to do it? Not a big deal though.
I'll make that change. Probably the military, although those were generally mostly Indian but with British officers. I think it's overdetail in an article of this length.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected
  • "one of the Aga Khan's palaces" - Don't think "the" should be there.
  • Corrected
  • No comma after "Pakistan demand,"
  • Corrected
  • "provincial level—the Punjabi" - elsewhere in the article, you've used a semicolon for phrasing like this, so an en dash seems out of place here. Personally, I'd use something to connect the two parts so that their relation is clear: "to increase the League's political control at the provincial level, since the Punjabi and Bengali Muslim parties foresaw" or something to that effect.
  • Changed it.
  • "conciliate" - Interesting word, had never read it before. "plebiscites" - another new one. <--That's just for my own notes, not really part of the review.-->

Did most the of minor changes. Will discuss the major ones before changing them.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar
  • "Linlithgow had been succeeded..." might sound better as active rather than passive: "Field Marshal the Viscount Wavell succeeded Linlithgow..."
  • Changed to active.
  • Since the image here is wide (almost a double image, you could say), I think you could probably make it wider than you have right now. It's a cool image anyway, so I say "why not?"
  • Changed the size for 350px to 450px.
  • I'm guessing "returned" is another British political idiom? Not suggesting any changes, since it's meaning is obvious, just want to make sure.
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fight the elections" implies that they were opposed to the elections themselves. Perhaps "campaign on a single issue: Pakistan" might work better.
  • Done.
  • "The group, which included Cabinet ministers Cripps and Pethick-Lawrence, was the highest-level delegation to try to break the deadlock, and arrived in New Delhi in late March." - Awkward syntax here, since "the group"'s first verb is "included" and second is "arrived", which just sounds a bit odd. Dividing this into two sentences would probably solve this.
I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if "groups" needs to be in quotes here. Even if that was the word they used, it's pretty generic.
  • no comma after "members of the interim government"
  • Changed.
  • Might be a British-American difference here, but "major groupings" I think should be "major groups". "Grouping" is generally reserved for things like darts, so far as I know.
  • Changed it to Groups.
  • The paragraph beginning with "Congress soon joined" is perhaps the hardest part of the article to follow. That's mostly because negotiations like these are obviously hard to describe without getting overly detailed, but there are a number of places here where the sentences simply feel awkward. It's a noble deed to try to be concise, but sometimes that forces us to try to keep sentences going for longer than they should. Don't be afraid to make it a little longer if you need to split a few sentences to make it all clearer.

Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "severe communal rioting" - Probably just "rioting" will work, since most rioting is severe and communal.
  • Changed.
  • Sentence beginning with "Following the failure" will have to be split up somehow. Five commas seems a tad excessive.

I have also gone back and put previous comments in collapsed boxes using Template:Resolved comments so that the page doesn't get out of hand. – Runfellow (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Part 5 (Mountbatten and partition and Governor-General)

Mountbatten and partition
  • The quote about getting in "Jinnah's mind" is a good one, but I'd like to know who specifically said it. Was this from Congress, British diplomats, or did Jalal use the phrase in his book?
It was in Mountbatten's briefing papers, so no doubt very high level British Indian Civil Service types. I'll clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "favourably impressed" seems redundant, since one is rarely "unfavourably impressed"
I think "not impressed" would be ambiguous as to whether Mountbatten disliked Jinnah or thought him a lightweight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving some things around in the fourth paragraph might help things come off a bit more chronological:
    • Placing a period immediately after "Viceroy to Indian leaders"
    • Then the explanation of the plan, which begins with "On 15 August" and ends with "eastern Bengal".
    • Then the day after the plan was introduced, "Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and Sikh leader Baldev Singh made the formal announcement" etc.
    • Then the sentence beginning with "In the weeks which followed"
Done that. Nice effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what N.W.F.P. stands for, but unless it has a special reason why it would include full stops, it should probably be NWFP if you want to use the acronym, as per MOS:ABBR
  • N.W.F.P used to be the name of a province. It has been changed to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. I have wikilinked it.
North-West Frontier Province. I have never seen it rendered without full stops, and the province is mentioned earlier. I'll toss a (N.W.F.P.) next to the first invocation and remove Inlandmamba's pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as the plane taxied, was heard to murmur, 'That's the end of that.'" - I have to admit that I read this at first as though the plane murmured, not Jinneh.
  • Okay. I'll discuss this with other editors and then change it. It's Jinnah, not Jinneh :)
changed to clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakistan's independence is obviously the biggest event in the article. As such, it seems like a more appropriate title for this section might include "Independence" in some way, rather than just Mountbatten and Partition"
  • Will discuss this also.


--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 19:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Governor-General
  • This is something you'll have to figure out for the rest of the article too, but according to WP:JOBTITLES, titles of people (like governor-general) are not capitalized. Or in the case of this section title, I believe it would be "Governor-general". In the previous section, "governor-general" isn't capitalized. But in the lead and next sections, it is. I think you can probably get away with capitalizing it everywhere if you're consistent, but you'll want to take a look at that kind of stuff and decide which way you want to go.
I think the section header should not be taken to be a rule. Governor-general, would, to be blunt, look funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disliking to spoil" might be better as "not wanting to spoil"
  • Changed.
  • Since the Radcliffe Line had such a strong impact, I think it would be a good idea to give some kind of context as to what it was besides wikilinking it. Something to the effect of "Publication of the Radcliffe Line between India and the new nation of Pakistan sparked..."
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the members of the" could be "Few members of the" to avoid redundancy.
  • Changed.
  • "Much of the market for Pakistan's commodities would now be off limits to it" - awkward syntax
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the serial beginning with "to save abandoned crops," you can delete the "to" before "establish security" and "provide basic services"
  • Changed.
  • "powerful political" might work better as "politically powerful"
  • Done.
  • Since "The Army" wikilinks to the Pakistani Army anyway, it seems like it would be a good idea to say "The Pakistani Army" in the text.
  • Changed.
  • The last three paragraphs of this section, which obviously regard a controversial subject are shorter than the others in this article, which lead me to believe (if what I've seen on other articles is any indication) that some of this information may be either a) disputed or b) compromise text. I won't really get into that here, but know that that's the feeling it gives me.
No, one of the paragraphs got chopped in two somehow. I've fixed it. They are short, but I was getting worried about length and I felt there wasn't much more that needed to be said. I felt these needed to be touched on, but there was no point in dwelling on them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the previous paragraph mentions Rajmohan Gandhi and this one obviously refers to Mohandas Gandhi, you'll probably want to add the first name in there somewhere to avoid any potential confusion.
I tweaked it, but I think we'll have to rely on context. I don't want to use Gandhi's first name because the same space could fit "Mahatma" and I don't wan to use Mahatma for the sensibility of the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "300,000"
  • Changed.
  • "This policy would be strongly opposed by the Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan, and in 1971 be a factor in their breaking away from Pakistan to form Bangladesh." - Akward syntax, consider changing to something like "The Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan strongly opposed this policy, and in 1971 the official language issue was a factor in the region's secession to form Bangladesh."
  • Done.

Runfellow (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Part 6 (Illness and death, Aftermath, Legacy, and general comments)
Illness and death
  • Since Quaid-e-Azam is italicized elsewhere, you'll want to be consistent and do it here too.
Done. I'll make a point of looking for other places where it is not. There are spelling variations in quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the past 30 years" should be "the last 30 years of his life", unless it was a different period.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "advice of doctors"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(he then weighed just over 36 kilograms (79 lb))" - Since you're using Template:Convert, you can add "disp=sqbr" to create square brackets to go inside your parentheses, or rephrase the sentence to avoid the original parentheses.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the one mentioned above, the fourth paragraph here is one of the more awkwardly-phrased of the article. As a whole, it feels more like a personal anecdote, which isn't really the tone of the rest of the article. Issues include:
    • Lots of awkward syntax, such as "It being deemed better", "to be met by Jinnah's limousine and an ambulance, into which Jinnah's stretcher was placed", "unsuitable for transporting the dying man and with their occupants not knowing of Jinnah's presence"
It is an uncomfortable story, but one that must be told as it happened on the day of his death. It also speaks to the imperfect nature of Jinnah's creation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some added phrases that seem out of place, like "oppressive heat", "promptly broke down", or "At last,"
I'll drop the promptly and at last. I'll defend the "oppressive heat". Wolpert quotes at considerable length accounts of those with Jinnah. It is a pretty horrifying story, if you ask me. It doesn't suit the narrative of Jinnah dying, but it happened and we can't leave it out. There was a refugee camp nearby the breakdown too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cancelled an official reception that day in honour of Jinnah" - I think this means he cancelled a reception out of respect for Jinnah, but it actually makes it sound as if he cancelled a reception which would have honored Jinnah.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for editing purposes

[edit]
Aftermath
  • No comma after "after independence"
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Nusli Wadia might be more appropriate for the Legacy section
Deleted instead. He is not really a part of Jinnah's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference for the accusation of rigging the election against Fatima Jinnah comes straight from her official website, so I don't think that's going to work. Not saying it didn't happen, but you'll want another source for that.
Deleted, not relevant to MAJ's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "Government of India". No comma after "a consulate in the city".
  • Done
  • There are two more wikilinks to Dina Wadia here, and two more for Fatima Jinnah.
  • Fixed it.
  • "part of argument" missing a "the"
  • Added "the"
Legacy
  • The first sentence is a powerful statement and I've got no problem with it, but you know someone will at some point, so have something ready for when they say something.
Yeah. I know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tehran, city's Mohammad Ali Jenah Expressway" - Missing a "the"?
  • Done
  • "most imposing buildings" - Doesn't seem verifiable, especially with an encyclopedia as a source. The building definitely merits a mention, but just not sure this is the way to do it.
  • Done. Changed it to "ponderous".
  • "There is a "Jinnah Tower" in Guntur..." - Probably better as The Jinnah Tower in Guntur..." and then delete the "which"
  • Changed
  • The third paragraph here is just a collection of quotes. They could probably benefit from some kind of introductory sentence. For example, "Jinnah's biographers emphasize his..." etc.
Yes, but the quotes form a narrative. An introductory sentence would dilute the impact of the first quote. I tried several, none were effective.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "according to Akbar S. Ahmed"
  • Done
  • "he drank alcohol" - I was a little surprised to read this at the very end of the article. If it merits mention here, and other details are mentioned in the previous sections, it seems like it would merit a mention there as well.
I've moved that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is asserted" - by whom?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lal Krishna Advani—" comma instead of dash.
  • Done
  • "profound affect that Jinnah had" - effect
  • Done
  • Assuming the last line is a direct quote, it needs to be either a) in quotes or b) in a blockquote template.
A quote template is equivalent to a blockquote and is actually preferable. I am not a technical guru (if that's an appropriate word for this article) but am assured by those who are that this is so.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other notes
  • The last image, on my very wide monitor, actually goes down into the Notes section, displacing them somewhat awkwardly. Using a {{clear}} at the end of the main body should solve that problem.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image alt tags are awkward to write, but they're good for accessibility. FA reviewers will probably look for them.
I don't do alt text, but have no objection to having them added. It is not a FA requirement. No matter what I do, someone always picks at the descriptions, so I'd rather not do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the will is mentioned in the Aftermath section and the tomb mentioned in the Legacy section, it seems like those would be more appropriate locations for those images.
Fair enough. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Further reading section seems mislabled. As per Wikipedia:Further reading, "Further reading should not normally duplicate the entries in the See also or External links sections, or any existing alphabetized list of references in the article, such as is commonly used in conjunction with shortened footnotes." That's not a big deal, since you can just rename it to something else, such as retitling Notes to something else, change References to Notes, and rename the Further reading section as References.
I don't pay as much attention to that part of the article, but should. I've changed a name.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think external links are typically written out with citation templates, but I doubt that'll be an issue.
  • Doesn't seem like the Symbols of Pakistan template should be here, since he's not listed in the box, but I see that a limited few other pages also use it. You may want to check this out.
I didn't put it there, but given the reverence with which he is regarded in Pakistan, I think it would be best to leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a ton of semicolons in this article. There's no rule against that, but 43 seems a tad excessive.
Curses. You have found one of my writing quirks. I'll try to bring it down by a few.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Positive notes

I know it can seem like I'm nitpicking quite a bit here and that I'm just tearing things apart, so here are a few positive notes:

  • The structure, especially after the name change of the "As barrister" section, is clearly defined and makes sense. It's easy to read all the way through, and I would imagine it's easy to simply find a particular event or section.
  • As the article mentions, I'm sure Jinnah is a controversial figure in some circles, but with a few very minor exceptions, I don't see any NPOV issues, which is remarkable for an article like this one.
  • There's no doubt that a lot of work has been put into this article, and with a few more minor changes, it will get to FA status relatively quickly. We all know those folks are pretty picky, but this is extremely comprehensive without getting into nitty-gritty detail or being sidetracked by the issues surrounding Jinnah's life. A good read on a worthy topic.

And now for a break. – Runfellow (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely done. Thank you. I will work through the ones Inlandmamba has left for me over the next day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 19:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think the two of us have caught everything. I will read it over either tonight or tomorrow to make sure the text is smooth. You've done quite a job there, Runfellow! Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ununseptium

[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 R8R Gtrs and I are trying to get it to FA and I wanted some feedback and suggestions for it.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the element is unlikely to be a halogen" I would change this to "the element is likely going to have significantly different properties from halogens, which form the rest of the group". it is not clear to me if for these heavy elements the halogen/noble gas label will depend on their actual chemistry or their group location. saying one or the other is original research.
  • " there are signs that the heavier isotopes may be much more stable." is incredibly vague and confusing.
  • island of stability should have a bit more discussion in the pre-discovery section
  • 22.2-milligram targe; of what? also, mention the half time of the Bk isotope to point out the time-sensitivity of the experiment; there needs to be a mention that within  ? amount of time ?% of the sample would decompose
    Good one--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Americans" change to the American team at ???
  • also, this para should be moved into the next section
  • "even if ununseptium turns out to be a halogen" change to even if its chemical properties will be similar to other halogents
    Don't take that. It's an imaginary situation, after all, we can be as brave in imagining as we want--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""could take a year."" what exactly could take a year?
  • is anybody thinkign about testing the chemistry of the element?
    Sorry--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the predicted 7p1/2 7p3/2 subshell gap?
  • redicts the boiling point to be 345 => clarify that it is about E117
  • I would point out that isotopes above 112 are going to have an alpha decay half-life of above 1 day
  • clarify that the graph is for the alpha-decay
  • are there any computations for beta-decays?
  • "unwillingness of ununseptium to form purely sigma or pi bonds" an atom does not have will
  • "the charge is on the ununseptium atom" you mean the negative charge?
  • "most tightly bound " is confusing. by what metrics?
    I don't get this one. Do you want the source? It is in the ref, and there's no mention of any of such in the article. If you mean something else... I don't get it, tell me--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Compund X is tightly bound" sounds like a very weird statement to me. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the chemistry section could use a bit of trimming, since it is quite technical
    a) Why is it the point? b) What else to write about? c) The size is optimal IMO. If you think so not, go ahead and tell what is excessive here. Every para has its point not just describing, but adding a new detail into the picture.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • point out that Uus is the most recently discovered element
  • mention somewhere that Uus is the second-to-last element in the 7th period

Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Pass (Colorado)

[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, as usual, one of my just-thought-I'd-do-this-quickly expansions of an article on something I had a personal connection to (went through the pass on my way to Aspen two years ago) turned into something a lot larger when I realized all the information that was available. I see a potential for GA or FA here ... what further improvements could be made?

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Added caveat for comments below: I have a bad habid of saying "you've done this or that", when in reality I obviously have no idea who really did it. So by "you" I just mean "whomever did this". It's just something that comes out when I type, assuming the person submitting the article really did write whatever it is I'm talking about. Sorry.

Not a problem, although in this case I am responsible for most of the article. Especially for not having done a hard-copy edit before submitting this. AAAARRRGGHH! Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments, Part 1 of 2

Lead
  • Including the elevation in the first sentence doesn't quite feel right, and here's why:
    • It interrupts the flow of the sentence.
    • Since the elevation seems to vary depending on where in the pass you are (rather than a simple summit), it feels too specific for this kind of geological structure.
    • Other featured articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains don't use that structure for the opening sentence.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning with "It is traversed by" has some awkward syntax issues. I get what it's saying, and the note is fine, but it's a passive statement rather than an active one.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the highway isn't mentioned in the rest of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the section needs to summarize the rest of the article. Generally speaking, something so specific as the highway information is fine in the lead, but it should definitely be part of the rest of the article.
  • You could probably delete "in itself".
 Done
  • You have "tree-line" hyphenated here, but elsewhere in the article (and in Wikipedia's own article) it's two separate words.
  • Rather than at the end of the sentence (where it feels awkward), "to the east" could probably go directly after "Mount Elbert".
 Done Actually, makes more sense before "Mount Elbert", as that way it doesn't disrupt the appositive phrase.
  • Comma after "Since 2011".
  • "land beyond" could probably be "land to the east" to make it more specific.
 Done That's west, actually, Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "giving its current name" is supposed to be "giving it its current name", but that sounds awkward. Maybe "giving the pass its current name".
 Done I just stuck with "it" since the antecedent is clear. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "abandoned and neglected" - To sound more chronological, "neglected and abandoned" might work a bit better here.
  • "in the 20th century" - Maybe a bit more specific here?
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • Comma after "North of the pass".
  • Semicolons are fine, but you have about five of them just in the last few sentences of the Lead and first few sentences of this section. You might want to consider mixing the punctuation up a bit.
 Done Redid a couple of sentences. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is a bit hard to follow, just too many pronouns, subject changes, and complex syntax.
 Done And got rid of another semicolon. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "Beyond Aspen". Also after "On both approaches".
 Done In the latter case I see your point, as the following sentence has a colon. Daniel Case (talk)
  • You can probably delete "eventually".
 Done. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "Twin Lakes Reservoir".
  • "West of the parking area" - Speaking generally, you may want to consider restructuring this section to function as more of a "tour" than it is. As it is, it feels as though all of the features are listed in random order. By going from one locale to the next, it may be easier to follow in the long run. For example, placing this information after the paragraph about the parking lot might make it easier for readers to find their bearings.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "13,020-foot (3,970 m) summit"
  • "even more expansive views" - This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm not sure if you can really quantify expansiveness.
 Done Took care of both by deleting the phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "Across the road".
History
  • "Before settlers arrived" At some point, the Ute must be considered settlers as well. To clarify, this might be better as "European" or "Western" settlers.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was not until Ferdinand Hayden and his team, who surveyed it in 1873." - Fragment
 Done I think I rewrote something and had forgotten to fix this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "At the time".
  • "Three years later, in 1876" - You only really need one or the other. I would go with "In 1876,".
  • Comma after the other "At the time".
  • There's more awkward syntax in "from Denver, the capital, as Leadville." The clause stuck in there makes the sentence sound strange.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a verb missing somewhere in "abundant silver deposits further west, over the Divide." I'm also not sure if "Divide" should be capitalized there.
 Done The first half, anyway.
  • Comma after the third "At the time".
  • May want to take the "still" out of "still not made peace", since it inserts a minor bit of POV there.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this paragraph, there are quite a few pronouns filling in for "settlers", which are only mentioned at the beginning of the first sentence. By the time the reader gets to "some", then "they", "they" again.
 Done I also split up the last sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in modern dollars" - I think the proper term is "in 2012 dollars", but since we're talking about inflation from a period from a long time ago, I think it might be better to add an "approximately" in there.
  • Also, I think the citation there goes outside of the parentheses.
  • "an early investor in mines at Aspen, further down the valley, where silver had been found in even greater abundance than Independence's gold," - Going to have to take out at least two of these interjected clauses to keep the sentence afloat. Otherwise you're interjecting an interjection to an interjection.
 Done Redid the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stagecoaches were charged" - I think you mean that settlers were charged that for stagecoaches, rather than the stagecoaches actually charging people.
 Done I thought the meaning was pretty clear but I put it in the active all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than "deep enough", I think you meant "too deep".
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "During the summer".

More comments on the rest of the article to come, including some positive stuff. I'm not trying to rag on your hard work here; just bear with me. Runfellow (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Part 2 of 2

History (Con't)
  • I don't think "added to Independence's economy" really works. Something can't add to the economy, but it can lead to its improvement in some way.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the decline in population and Independence's remote location and severe high-altitude winters" - Just too many conjunctions there.
 Done Broke up the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diminishing Independence's economy" - Same kind of thing as above. Something can hurt or help the economy, but "diminishing" just sounds a odd.
  • When they moved "en masse", did they literally all leave at the same time? If not, that phrase isn't correct. If it's just meant to mean "all of them", it seems redundant anyway since the phrase begins with "all but one".
 Done Changed to "as a group", which is more clearly what I wanted to say. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a thousand" - Not sure, but I think 1,000 is more appropriate here when we're talking about population figures. Check the MOS.
  • Is it "it would be closed" or "it was closed" or "it is closed" during the winter months?
 Done Went back to the simple past. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "In 1967".
Environment
  • I'd delete the superfluous "that has forced the closure of roads over the pass during that season since 1886".
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like there should be a simpler word than "attenuated" that could be used, especially since it is the thin soil that is attenuating (or "making thinner") the season, which sounds weird.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pruningly speaking, "Geologically" can be deleted.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Visitor attractions
  • "Many of those from outside the region who drive through Independence Pass stop at the parking lot and" - seems like a complicated way of saying "Many visitors".
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "In clear enough weather".
  • Since Elbert's elevation is already mentioned earlier, I don't think it's necessary to repeat it now.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "To the west".
  • You've already wikilinked "Fourteeners" earlier, no need to do it here too.
  • "The Roaring Fork Valley between it and Difficult Campground, 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Aspen, has many popular rock climbing areas" - I'm lost.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most popular" with whom? And how do you know?
 Done It was in the source, but I decided to change it to "frequently visited", which communicates the same information without being so peacock-y. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "itself".
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A pair of rocks along either side of Highway 82 on the east approach to the pass have also become a popular bouldering spot" - delete "a", because "spot" needs to be plural here.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Described as "nipple-deep" - by whom?
  • "eight miles (14.4 km) to the west" to the west of what?
  • "the village whose establishment on July 4 led to the pass's current name" - This seems redundant since this information is covered in the history section.
  • Comma after "In 1973".
  • "the impact on the pass's environment" I think there needs to be a "of the campers" after "impact", otherwise this feels awkward.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Travel advisories and restrictions
  • So far, you've used the Oxford comma, so there should be one after "buses".
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have been suggested" Getting quite a few passive sentences here, which often let us skip important details, like who suggested the fine increases. This is an issue with this section in general.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences " At 12,000 feet (3,700 m), there is significantly less oxygen" start to feel like a how-to manual rather than an encyclopedia article. Advice (even good advice) doesn't really fit in this kind of article.
 Done I condensed that to just a sentence and added it to the previous graf. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independence Pass Foundation
  • "From the days of the stage road" should be "Since the days of the stage road," (note the comma)
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "less than" should be "fewer than", I think. But I could be wrong.
  • Comma after "Later in the decade".
  • Comma after "in the later decades of the 20th century".
  • Comma after " In 2009"
  • To make this better, you could go from "Twice it has been canceled" to "It has been cancelled twice". But to make it best go with "(whomever) cancelled it twice..." and then continue the sentence.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


General notes
Structure stuff
  • I'm not sure if there's a template out there that says otherwise, but I would highly recommend moving the history section above the geography and making the environment section a subsection of geography. In fact, you may even be able to completely eliminate the "Environment" heading altogether.
  • That said, I'd also move the section on the IPF to a subsection in the history section above.
  • The block quote from the book seems like a good inclusion, but it might be better suited to the geography section, since it describes the landscape more than the actual history of the area.
  • After you have a set idea as far as structure goes, then go back and mess with the lead, ensuring that any information in the lead is a summary of what's in the article, no more, no less. Having a clearer flow to the article will make writing the lead that much easier later on.
Wording Stuff:
  • It might be a bit of a bear, but some time, you'll want to go through and rephrase a lot of your "had", "have", and other similar phrases. Do a ctrl+f search on all of the "had" on the page. Some of them are fine, others could be changed into clearer phrases. For example:
    • "Aspen, too, had begun to fall on hard times due" to "Aspen, too, fell on hard times"
    • "Governor Frederick Walker Pitkin had ordered all settlers to stay to the east" to "Governor Frederick Walker Pitkin ordered all settlers to stay to the east"
    • "some miners had become rich" to "some miners became rich"
    • Sometimes it's just a matter of removing the word: "permanent buildings had replaced the original tents" to "permanent buildings replaced the original tents"
  • Same thing goes for "Have", but sometimes it's a bit more complicated:
    • "On the days after the pass reopens in the spring, backcountry skiers often take advantage of the remaining snow on the slopes. They have been attracted by powder that has been described as "nipple-deep"." to "Backcountry skiers, attracted by snow they describe as "nipple-deep", often take advantage of the remaining snow on the slopes after the pass reopens in the spring."
  • Remember that introductory clauses need a comma after them. The ones I've mentioned in the notes are just of the few I noted offhand.


Positive notes

I try not to act like a total jerk when I do this, so I make an effort to put in some positive notes here.

  • There are some really great images here, obviously, and I think some of them might deserve some more space. You may want to consider using some kind of wide image template to head one of your sections.
  • There's plenty of content here, and the primary the primary task for any editor here seems to be just shaping it into what it needs to be. That means much of the hard work is done, thankfully.
  • I sense a lot of soul went into the project in order to leave no stone unturned, and though I didn't check research for this review, it seems fairly thorough and well-sourced in general.
  • With such a large geographical formation that contains such a deep human history as well, I can see how it would be hard to manage and organize this information in a way that the reader can understand. I think with just a little work, it can be clearer, but even as it is now, it's not too bad.

Best of luck in improving the article. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Runfellow (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Uttar Pradesh

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've improved this article a lot and looking for it to become GA FA. Thanks, 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 17:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge we don't have good article lists it would be a featured article list. Initial glance looks good, will look into it in the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd recommend is a large map and to try to feature as many cities on it as you can see this example of England and rugby clubs. Also you do is switch map to Uttar Pradesh and enter the relevant coordinates and then city label. 67 labels on one map might look bloated but you could certainly feature the top 10-20 cities on it. I'll request an svg map.

class=notpageimage|
2011–12 Aviva Premiership Teams
  • Comments:

In the lead, it says UP is divided into three geographic regions, but mentions oh two (southern,hills andmgangetic plain).  Done It says Kanpur is the largest city, but it does not mention the size, rather the population,is mentioned.  Done The third paragraph of the section " Census of UP" starts with " The social and political tensions...". What tensions? No tension or tension-like scenario has been mentioned or later.  Done In the same section, first paragraph says the rate of population growth in 1991-2001 was 25.8%. But in the next paragraph the decennial growth rate for 1991-2001 is mentioned as 17.8%. Are the population growth rate and decennial growth rate different measurements? If yes, it needs explanation and/or wiki link.  Done The article is on the cities of UP, but the map depicts the districts.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  Not done Perhaps there is no map named cities of uttar pradesh.I dont know how to create it also.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TD

Greetings,

  • Introduction of Cities of Uttar Pradesh by population section needs minor copyedit. This senetence As per census data 2011, the total population of Uttar Pradesh is: 199,581,477 is almost same in lead and here (in a short article)
  • For some reason (background color) I can not see sortable arrows!
  • Table header– Population below 5 years"– what is population below 5 years?
  • Literacy rate column–83.98 etc, per cent? Can be mentioned in column header.
  • Urban Agglomeration–Change case to "Urban agglomeration" and link the article.
  • For BPL, this article can be linked directly Below Poverty Line (India)

That's all for now. These are just opinions. You may ignore some or all of these.
Best,
Tito Dutta ✉ 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Thanks Tito. But i didnt get For some reason (background color) I can not see sortable arrows! this question.Please be quite descriptive."Population below 5 years" means children's population who are blow 5 years in age. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 25 Cents FC has done a commendable job in developing the article/ list. However, I feel that the deletion of the section on Urban Agglomeration has created an information gap. I feel that the information on constituents of Urban Agglomerations is essential. It is desirable that the same should be restored. This may please be considered. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Indopug

I look forward to seeing this at WP:FLC (lists are not eligible for GA and FA), but I feel there's some work to be done.

  • You can find model list articles at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Settlements.
  • Looking at one of those, List of cities and towns in Arizona, it's clear that the article for the UP needs to be rewritten. The lead here discusses of UP as a whole, as opposed to its cities specifically.
  • I also wonder how that Census section is relevant here. It talks of population growth-rates and caste distributions across UP but nothing of its cities and municipal corporations. Again, you can refer to the model articles.
  • Why list the cities by population? If you make the table sortable, the reader can sort it per his requirement.
  • The table too I feel overemphasises the population aspect. There are five population-related columns, but none for the size or area of the city itself. Remember this article is not "Demographic details of cities in Uttar Pradesh".
  • What are the definitions of city, urban agglomeration and census town?
  • Why use the international numbering system instead of lakhs and crores in an India-related article? (no hurry to change this; better cross-check what WP:MOS has to say about this)
  • Is there scope for extending this article to include smaller towns and maybe villages as well?
  • Why is there a separate list of urban agglomerations constituents in Uttar Pradesh article? Isn't it redundant to this?

You've done an excellent job on this article (I look to seeing many more!) and I hope you aren't disheartened by my comments. But the fact is, if you want featured status, basic questions will definitely be asked. Better now than at FLC is what I feel. (Aside: I think you accidentally overwrote a couple of comments of Titodutta in an edit conflict; there's a suggestion about how to make a cities-map there.)—indopug (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Indopug

Thanks for attention indopug.I'll try to answer your all query one by one.

  • Actually i referred List of states in India by past population (its also having FA status).State is very populated and mostly known for its population.Added Census section because western reader will get to know how census done in state.section also explains castes that exits in state, also poverty etc.
  • Basically it's city not census town.I've fixed this.
  • People who live in Israel,United Kingdom or in Canada wont understand what lakhs and crores means.So international numbering system has been used.As far as in indian diaspora concern they understand million or billion.
  • I actually dont feel article to include smaller towns and villages,through this article will become long.
  • Lead discusses UP so that reader dont have to visit UP article separately.
  • list of urban agglomerations constituents in Uttar Pradesh is totally different as it depicts developments that has to be done in city but this article only says about cities of UP.

I've tried but there maybe possibility that i'm missing something.Please let me know.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lillard

[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 on a 1930s American football player to become a GA and would like to know what work it needs to meet the standards before nominating it. Prose comments and concerns about the reader's ability to understand the article are what I'm looking for in particular. I'll act on any comments that are given, and I would greatly appreciate them.

Thanks, Giants2008 (Talk) 16:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro
I'll review this over the next couple of days, and may do a little copy-editing if I get a chance. Just a few comments on the lead to begin with. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Along with Ray Kemp, Lillard was the last African American to play in the NFL until Kenny Washington and Woody Strode joined the Los Angeles Rams in 1946": Not sure the emphasis is right here. Maybe "Lillard was the last African American, along with Ray Kemp, to play in the NFL until 1946, when Kenny Washington and Woody Strode joined the Los Angeles Rams."
  • "Nicknamed "The Midnight Express" by the media, he was responsible for almost half of the Cardinals' points in 1933.": I don't think these two parts of the sentence really fit together.
  • "An orphan early in his life…": Unless he stopped being an orphan in later life (!), maybe "An orphan from an early age…"
  • "attended Mason City High School before moving on to the University of Oregon"
  • "before being ruled ineligible by the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)": Maybe "before he was ruled…". And why was he ruled ineligible?
  • "where his playing time declined late in the season": Declined not quite the right word. Maybe "but played less frequently towards the end of the season."
  • "that featured a punt return": Link? A bit jargony compared to the rest of the lead.
  • "However, he was ejected from two games that season for becoming involved in fights, and he was often baited into fighting by white opponents.": Maybe "However, he was ejected from two games that season for fighting, into which he was often baited by white opponents". Presumably there was a racial element here, which may be worth making explicit.
  • "an unofficial color line": Never heard the expression color line before.
  • "who he spent three years with": I always prefer "with whom he spent three seasons".
  • "he became an appliance store employee before dying in 1978": Sounds like he got the job on his deathbed! Maybe "and died in 1978" or just have a short concluding sentence "He died in 1978". Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first batch of comments you provided should be all done, except that I need to go and check the source for the baiting sentence to see if I can add something on the racial component. Thanks much. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "his father had previously relocated": Are we being delicate here? Maybe better to say that his father left, and give a date if possible.
  • The very next sentence says "after being orphaned", so had his father died as well? Or is this just because his father was not around, in which case I'm not sure orphaned is accurate.

College career

  • "played for the school's freshman team in 1930. The following year, he appeared in two games for the varsity team": I'm assuming this was football, but given his ability in different sports, maybe worth making that clear.
  • "but for driving the team": Just checking; driving as in transporting?
  • "Before Oregon's next game, against Washington, Lillard was briefly suspended by the PCC, as he had reportedly played semi-professional baseball for the Gilkerson Colored Giants": Presumably this broke some kind of all-amateur rule from the time, but this should be explained as modern readers may not understand this idea. Also, maybe reword as "Suspected of breaking [whatever rule] by playing semi-professional baseball for the Gilkerson Colored Giants, Lillard was briefly suspended by the PCC before Oregon's next game." (The Washington thing is a distraction from the main point of this sentence; the later detail on the game could establish that it was their next game)
  • "The decision was overturned, as the original protest had taken place too close to an intraconference game.": What is the significance of this?
  • "Before Oregon's next game against USC, Lillard was ruled ineligible by the Pacific Coast Conference as a result of playing with the Gilkerson baseball team": Why?
  • "offensive production": Jargony?
  • "Lillard dropped out of the university afterward": Just checking: in BrEng, this should be afterwards.
  • Why did he drop out?

Professional American football career

  • "Lillard participated in a professional all-star game on November 26, 1931": This suggests he was a star, which seems surprising as he had only played 2 college games.
  • "Lillard's performance was praised by the Chicago Defender": Maybe "in" rather than "by", but an author would be better if known.
  • "Lillard's playing time declined": Does this mean that he played less minutes in a game (which I would guess from the phrasing), and if so, why? Or does it just mean, as stated in the following sentence, that he was not picked as often?
  • "Rushing yards": Link? (or you could explain it in full! Maybe not...)
  • "pass completions in 28 tries": More links needed I think.
  • "Lillard was a backup in 1933, although he was one of the Cardinals' leading players.": Do we need "a"? And this is ambiguous. Was he a leading player because of his performance on his rare appearances? Or is this saying that even though he was a leading player, he was not picked?
  • "The Cardinals' third game of the season, against the Cincinnati Reds, saw..." I'm not a fan of that "saw" construction.
  • "After the kick, Lillard was punched by Cincinnati guard Lester Caywood; he responded with a punch to Caywood's head, and was thrown out of the game": Was Caywood? Worth making explicit either way.
  • Punt/punt return is linked in the lead, but not main body. Not sure if that is deliberate or not.
  • "During his time in the NFL, Lillard was frequently baited into fighting by opposing white players": Specifying the players' race suggests that there was a racial element, and this is worth making explicit if possible.
  • "During the latter part of the 1932 season, "Lillard's teammates had stopped blocking for him," according to Coyle.": I'm not sure I follow this.
  • Sort of related, how did his team's fans and players react to him as a black player?
  • "he ran for 494 yards in 171 rushing attempts": Getting a bit jargony here; I have an image of the poor guy just running up and down non-stop!
  • "The Cardinals' decision was criticized as racially motivated by African American publications.": I think the focus is lost a bit here. Maybe move his career stats to the end of the paragraph after the implications of his release.

Other sports

  • "did not record a decision": Although decision is linked, this is still a bit jargony.

Later life

  • "Lillard had a stroke and was afflicted with agnosia as a result": When?
  • Legacy seems a little light. Has no-one commented on his significance? Had other black players appeared before 1933, or was he the first? Anything worth adding on the color line?

General

  • Possibly unavoidable, but this seems a little stats heavy, with little on critical reception or on personal incidents or flavour. What made him tick? How did he feel about the color line? How did other players rate him? How good was he? Would he have made a big name for himself had he been allowed to play on? How much was the end of his career about him and how much about his colour? Anything that could make it less number-driven would be good, but I appreciate this may not be possible. And maybe a bit more on the race issues would add some context and background. Otherwise, looking good and solid. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took me longer than I would have liked, but I finally got around to addressing as many of the points raised above as I could. There are a few things I couldn't do well, which are the following:
      • I never found anything to support that the baiting was racially motivated, even though it seems obvious to me. It's probably one of those things that is an unstated assumption which becomes OR if it becomes inserted. I'll keep an eye out for any new sources that make things clearer.
      • For the driving comment, it does mean transportation.
      • The amateurism rules are now somewhat explained, to the extent that the sources make possible. They unfortunately give minimal descriptions of the rules themselves.
      • For "Lillard was a backup", the "a" is needed for the grammar to be correct.
      • Not too much exists on what fellow players and fans thought of him, although I was at least able to source the fact that we don't know how his teammates handled his presence.
      • While I was able to add some background on how many black players were in the NFL before Lillard joined the league, there wasn't much that could be added in the way of flavor, other than a couple of skill-related sentences. It seems that Lillard is a mostly forgotten figure, and there aren't too many sources with details on his life. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to review this article. It is much stronger because of your efforts. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment It's great to see articles like this improved to a high standard. You might consider adding a little more context on the history of race in NFL. Specifically, I think it's worth discussing the gentleman's agreement spearheaded by Redskins owner George Preston Marshall that kept black players out of the league until the late 1940s. I can provide some sources on this if you need them. I'm not talking about creating a new section or anything; just a sentence or two would do it. --Batard0 (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of sentences on this, thanks to a source that Batard provided to me. Thanks again for that. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in Romania

[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 some feedback before sending the article to FAC. For this topic is not very easy to find sources, because many Romanian historians avoided the topic for nationalist reasons. Nevertheless, I think it's pretty comprehensive as it is now.

Thanks, bogdan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of You (Kelly Clarkson 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 have invested my time to upgrade the article and I feel it is now well written, its topic is fairly notable, and it fulfills FA criteria.

Thanks, — My December (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zac

[edit]
Resolved comments from Zac (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 
  • First of all, I wanted to congratulate you on your good work on the article! I remember seeing it in really bad shapes month ago (before you got it to GA, of course).
    Thank you very much. It's an honour. :) — My December (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copyedited the lead slightly myself. My only remaining issue with the lead is that it makes no mention of the version with Reba. That is fairly important, as it was released as a stand-alone single.
    I did mention Reba's version originally but the GA reviewer said it's not necessary. Anyway, I already mentioned her version in the last paragraph in the lead.  Done — My December (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you want to include both a quote and an image in the background and writing section, but it's really one or the other; it's way too swished at it's current state. I'd include the quote over the image, myself.
     Done — My December (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarkson originally wrote the first version of "Because of You" when she was 16 years old as a means of coping with the emotional distress caused by the divorce of her parents. --> No need to state "first version".
     Done — My December (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zac  16:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue's Clues

[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 some additional feedback before I submit it to FAC. It's a GA and has been copyedited. I appreciate your assistance.

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments

Just a quick look through, as I haven't got a lot of time, so ignore anything that comes across as curt (and try to read round any typos)

No problem. Sorry it took me so long to get to this; I've also been busy.
  • "Research was used as feedback during the creative process" - this doesn't make sense
Clarified.
  • You might add a few "in the US" to the lead and the history section and link US specific terms like US Congress.
Done, hopefully I've done it enough.
  • "...and mandated no accountability" - really? They specified that there should be no accountability?
Also clarified, to "had no provisions for enforcement".
  • "...children's programming on TV, but most of them..." - shifts from singular to plural
Fixed with above corrections.
  • Decide whether to us "U.S." or "US"
Fixed, interestingly enough, only in the history section.
  • 'These producers, who consisted of the "green creative team"' - the team consisted of the producers not the other way round
Ok, changed to "were made up of".
  • 'and it became "crucial"[13] to Nickelodeon's growth.' - became crucial in 2002 or "had become"?
Ah, I see your point. Clarified by moving the phrase up further in the paragraph.
  • I'm not sure the details of the stage show and its reception belong just after the details of the launch of the TV show. It would feel more natural to discuss this at some point after the main sections on the TV show.
I put it there because chronologically, it was the next information available. Do you think that it fits better in the "Reception" section?
Yes, either there or in a section or sub-section of its own. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • " As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances" - is there no more up-to-date information, or did the live show stop in 2002?
I included the information available. I don't know when the live show ended.
  • "as he was played by Tom Mizer, a different actor than the host of the TV show" - was Tom Mizer the host or was he playing a character?
Yes and yes. The information available never states the name of his character, who like Steve and Joe of the series, played the show's host. It's very clear, though, that he wasn't playing either Steve or Joe. I reworded it, so perhaps it's more clear now. Please look and see if that's the case, and if not, what suggestions do you have to improve it further?
  • "Blue's Clues was spun-off in January 2006 as Blue's Room" - this sounds odd. The spin-off is the thing that is spun off not the original programme.
Really? I've always understood that this is correct, as in, quoting directly from the article in question: "[Laverne and Shirley] was a spin-off from Happy Days..."
Yes, in that case Laverne and Shirley was spun off. It sounds awkward used as a verb anyway; I've rephrased it but I'm not really happy with that either. Also the sentence which starts "The show celebrated its 10-year anniversary" isn't clear as to whether it was "Blue's Clues" or "Blue's Room" - you can work it out quite easily if you can remember more than one sentence but rephrasing wouldn't hurt. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I'm not sure it can be improved, but we'll wait for the FAC reviewers to chime in with a better idea.
  • "Casting was another key to the success of Blue's Clues." - what are the keys listed already? Presumably the "intensive and extensive research" mentioned several paragraphs ago. If the details of the live show were moved this probably would not appear so disjointed, but rephrasing it won't hurt.
Fair enough. Changed to "an important part of..."
  • "Mr. Salt was not originally French, but spoke with a Brooklyn accent" - assumes knowledge of the character. I suppose we will later discover that he is French.
Um, not sure what you mean. Mr. Salt spoke with a French accent, but was at first envisioned with a Brooklyn one. Perhaps this works better: "Balaban initially used a Brooklyn accent for Mr. Salt before settling upon a French accent". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused a resurface of the rumors" - ugly phrasing
Changed it to "renewed the rumors". Prettier now? ;)
  • "... and was replaced, like Paul McCartney of The Beatles, by a look-alike..." - Paul McCartney wasn't replaced. This needs rephrasing to make it clear that there was a similar rumour about Paul McCartney (or you could just drop it).
Oh, I don't want to drop it! ;) How's this: "...and like the rumors surrounding Paul McCartney of The Beatles, was replaced by a look-alike". BTW, I notice that you're using British spellings with this review; BC is an American show, so I need to use US spellings.
Hopefully I should only use British spelling here and get in line in the article (though I can't promise to be 100% accurate in my translationization). I rephrased that so the replacement refers to McCartney and not the rumours. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He he. No problem; just wanted to be clear. I have the same issues--using U.S. spelling in the talk pages and Aussie in the articles--when I edit articles about The Wiggles. I miss stuff all the time, and it takes sharp fellow editors to catch it.
  • "Burns made an appearance on The Rosie O'Donnell Show to dispute these rumors" - he'd only be disputing them if he was a lookalike, otherwise "refute" or "disprove" is fine.
Ok, got it.
  • "The show's producers took the rumors as an indication of their success" - they already knew it was a success; they took the rumours as a indication of its cultural impact
Ok, got that too.
  • "that included articles in Nickelodeon's magazine and on their webpage" - Nickelodeon is a company so "its webpage" would be better
Yup.
  • "Viewers had to pay attention in order to succeed, which the producers wanted to capitalize on..." - ugly phrasing
How about: "The show's producers believed that comprehension and attention were strongly connected, so they wrote the episodes to encourage and increase their viewer's attention."
  • "prosocial" - if you must use it, link it.
Done.
  • It's quite wordy. There are many places were five words are used when one would do.
I assume that you're talking about the "Educational goals" section. I copyedited it; let me know if you wanted me to look at other sections again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by placing problem-solving tasks in the context of storytelling techniques" - "by placing problem-solving tasks in stories"? They aren't placing them in techniques, they are using techniques to deliver them.
Clarified to: "by placing problem-solving tasks within the stories they told"
  • "and inviting direct involvement" - "and inviting involvement"? What does the "direct" add?
Replaced "direct" with "their".
  • There are lots of "upons". A simple "on" will do most of the time.
Actually there were nine. ;) Now there are none.
I call it "lots" if it is more than I can count on my fingers. Wait...what?! I'm sure I had more fingers when I started counting this collection of razor blades, chainsaws and meat-slicers. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He he again; love the British humor. "What are you ginna do, bleed on me?" Thanks again, and for the copyedit. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a one-way conversation" - a conversation is an exchange, it is impossible for it to be one-way
There is such a phrase, but after looking it up [5], I've decided that it's too informal. So I changed it to: "with little input from their viewers".
Yes, urban dictionary is a bit too urban for WP. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dropped the traditional magazine format for a narrative format" - from this section it appears that this tradition is the tradition of Sesame Street - what other shows used this format? (The implication is that Mr Roger's Neighborhood had already used this narrative format)
Good point. Changed to: "They also dropped the magazine format for a more traditional narrative format".
  • "and was concrete, explicit, and literal" - what?
Taken from Tracy, who also doesn't explain it, so I just cut the phrase.
  • "The collected data was brought back to the writers and creators, who used it as feedback and revised the script." - wordy. "The writers revised the scripts based on this feedback" (you can add "and creators" in there if they are different people).
Such good feedback! ;) Done.

I'll try to add some comments on the second half later if you find these useful. Yomanganitalk 00:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're very helpful! Thanks. To be honest, I haven't found PRs all that helpful in the past, so thanks for breaking the stereotype. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television could be a "powerful educational agent" because it was accessible and a "powerful cultural artifact" for most American children" - although they are quotes the repetition of "powerful" is a little awkward.
You're right, it is. Changed to: "The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television, a "cultural artifact" and accessible for most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent"."
  • "Television programs had tended to tell stories through pictures, so the potential for episodic learning was high." This sounds like a quote. If it isn't then it looks like a personal judgement.
Tracy doesn't explain what "episodic learning" meant, so removed the offensive phrase. I also think it was a little repetitive, so I combined what was left with the following sentence. Perhaps it clearer now.
  • "The producers wanted to foster their audience's sense of empowerment, by eliciting their assistance for the show's host, and their identification with the character Blue, who served as a stand-in for the typical preschooler" - it isn't clear what they wanted to do here. Did they want to foster the audience's sense of empowerment by getting them to assist the host and identify with Blue or did they want to foster their sense of empowerment and also foster their identification with Blue?
The former. Here's how I clarified it: "The producers wanted to foster their audience's sense of empowerment by eliciting their assistance for the show's host and by encouraging their identification with the character Blue, who served as a stand-in for the typical preschooler."
Ugh. Here's how I changed it: "Like what had already been done in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers..."
  • "The success of Blue's Clues caused Sesame Street to change its format in 2002, and to add more interactive segments" - did it change its format AND add interactive segments or change its format TO add interactive segments? Yomanganitalk 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They did both. Clarified by putting the timeframe at the end of the sentence.
Again, thanks. Going forward? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and looked like no other children's television show" - probably close to a source, but it sounds like hyperbole.
  • "who would narrate the story in the form of a storybook" - this is unclear. Were they narrating it as if they were reading it from a book?
  • "that resembled a storybook" - unclear again and I don't think you need it as you have "similar to picture book illustrations" quite quickly afterwards
  • "This made the objects look more real" - more real than what?
  • "and in school preparation" - not really sure what this is.
  • daycare centers, preschools, and Headstart programs get mentioned three times in the production and research sections. If you can find an alternative phrase that covers these it would help break it up a little. Yomanganitalk 13:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor has a point. Presumably Sesame Street isn't/wasn't profitable, but some context for the statement would be helpful.
  • "started the trend of targeting preschool programs and merchandise to younger viewers" - we have heard very little about merchandise up to this point which makes the introduction and explanation in the "Reception" section a bit odd. Most of this section is not about the reception of the show except in terms of sales of related products. I think it would be better separate this into a sub-section on merchandising.
  • "the businesses that created products for the show" - this is vague.
  • "More than ten million Blue's Clues books were in print by 2001, and over three million copies of six CD-ROM titles based on the show had been sold. Seven Blue's Clues titles sold at least 1 million copies each." What are "titles" in the second sentence? The information doesn't seem to tie in to the preceding sentence.
  • "and has sold over 3 million copies since 2006" - I imagine that is a direct reference from Skein, but it seems an odd figure to give for a product launched in 2000.
  • "Other countries have produced regional versions of the show that feature native hosts. It has been successful in the UK..." - the original or a regional version? If it is the original you could overcome any confusion by repositioning the leading sentence after anything that refers to the original version. Also the second sentence gives a slight implication that it has not been successful anywhere apart form the UK.
  • " with five-to-ten signs used consistently in each episode" - presumably should be "between five and ten" rather than the sign for five minutes to ten o'clock being used in every episode? You never know with these kids programs though.
  • This section ("Reception") could be beefed up with a bit of the reception information info from "History" but you'll need to be careful not to hack a hole in the history section. Yomanganitalk 14:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that provided evidence for its efficacy as a learning tool" - the pronoun is lost here: does it refer to research or to Blue's Clues?
  • "which they called "an inexpensive tool to maximize comprehension", improved comprehension...." - clunky. Perhaps lose the quote?
  • "Another team of researchers, which also included Anderson and his Nickelodeon colleagues, studied in 2000 whether experienced Blue's Clues viewers interacted more with the show than less-frequent viewers, and whether regular viewers of the show interacted more with other shows than did children who were not" - this is a bit tortuous. I think you can drop most of this detail without any loss to the text: "Another study in 2000 found..."
  • "Erin Ryan and her colleagues" - who is she (maybe I've just forgot if she was introduced earlier)
  • 'He developed a "successful"' - strange word to quote: it doesn't tell us much and isn't a word that is out of place in this context.
  • The paragraphing in the "Influence" section seems rather random. The last paragraph in particular seems to lack context - either it harks back to an earlier study or lacks information on when the research was carried out.
  • The "Influence" section is more analysis than influence - how did the findings from these studies influence children's TV or the development of Blue's Clues for example?

That's it. Sorry, it took so long. Yomanganitalk 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dromedary

[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 think this is well-developed to become a FA. I hope this peer review would take my attention to overlooked problems or obstacles for the article's FAC.

Thanks, Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I really did not know about this. What do I ought to do now? --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either close this one (follow the instructions on how to archive at the top of the PR page) and concentrate on the giant eland or vice versa. Yomanganitalk 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The giant eland review is now archived, so this peer review can be started. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mention that they have oval shaped blood cells but don't mention their function. The TV show Inside Nature's Giants discusses this. Also I think you should mention the turbinates which keeps the brain cool. LittleJerry (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. Will have to look about anatomy to find more. Well, I can not use the information from this TV show unless it can be cited, and I haven't ever heard of it.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine. Got access to the TV show website, using the info. Thanks! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter at Farpoint

[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 see if its got potential for a FA run. I've only had two failed FA nominations previously but those were over a year ago and both dog breed articles. Fortunately I had quite a thorough GA reviewer who helped fix quite a few prose errors and trim some unneeded trivia from the article.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Lead
  • "First episode and season premiere" seems a bit redundant. I see what you're doing, trying to get the wikilinks for the list of episodes and for series premiere both in there, but I just don't think you have to.
  • A few notes on the clarity of the plot summary sentence in the lead:
    • You can probably divide the plot summary sentence a little bit to make it clearer. For example, the structure of the sentence doesn't make it clear what is "under the gaze" of Q: The Bandi people, or the crew of the Enterprise.
    • You'll want to find a way to italicize Enterprise here, as per WP:NC-SHIP. Looks like you've done okay in the rest of the article.
    • If left as is, you'll want to change "examine" to "examines", since crew is singular. You'll also want to add a comma after "Farpoint Station".
    • It seems as though it would be totally fair to mention the captain of the ship in the lead, especially since this is the first episode of the series.
  • "episode was made as a pilot" seems like it could just be "episode was the pilot"
  • "was a double length episode" - Because "episode" is already at the beginning of the sentence, it sounds a little repetitive here. Maybe replace with something like "was double the average episode length". But then again, is the episode considered two parts? If so, that would be a clearer way of stating it. If they're never shown separately and always referred to as the same episode, you could say it's double length, but if they're two parts, it might be a good idea to say it here.
  • "The show utilized some existing sets and props" - Sweet jeepers, thank you for using the word "utilize" correctly. That has to be one of the few times were "utilize" is more appropriate than "use".
  • "an assessment which was upheld by critics reassessing the episode following the end of the entire series" - I think I get what you're saying here, but it's a little awkward to read.
  • Remember to include something about home media in the lead. Every section should at least something mentioned here.
Plot
  • Some things about the first sentence:
    • Maybe wikilink drydock. Someone who has no knowledge of naval terms may actually think it's a term related to the show.
    • Delete ", both"
    • Even if we're talking about a fictional people, it's probably not a good idea to refer to any group as "simple", sounds a bit condescending.
    • Comma after "simple Bandi people"
    • This sentence is quite long, and might benefit from being split into a couple of different thoughts. As it is, five commas sort of drag it out a bit.
    • You'll want to move your wikilink for United Federation of Planets from the second mention in this sentence (at the end) to the first (at the beginning).
  • "being put on trial" - by whom? If it's the Q continuum doing it you might want to clarify. If nobody knows, this is fine as is. (I just purchased my copy of the first season on Blu-ray the other day, but haven't watched it yet, sorry.)
  • You can probably split the next sentence too, around where the dash is currently.
  • Either way, you'll want a comma after "The Brothers Karamazov".
  • "The crew is suspicious of how certain items they desire appear moments after they look away and are unable to identify the power source that feeds the station" These are two different thoughts and can probably also be split.
  • "others of the crew" - "other members of the crew"
  • "its explorations" - "to explore"
  • "begins to fire upon" - "fires upon"
  • "able to deduce the mystery" - "deduces"
Production
Conception and development history
  • Since this article is about the first episode specifically, I'm not sure how much of this particular subsection should really be here. The page for Star Trek: The Next Generation has a bit of production history for the show in general, and some of this information might be better suited for that article rather than this one. The third paragraph here seems fine to include here, though.
  • The first sentence could probably be "swapped" to make it active rather than passive. In other words, "On [date], [person] announced [event]." rather than "[event] was announced on [date] by [person]." You'll want to look around for a few more of these peppered throughout the article.
  • "Star Trek for Paramount, the" - either a semicolon where the comma is now or start a new sentence.
  • "failed series" implies that the series was filmed, aired, and yet had bad ratings and thus failed. But Phase II was never filmed, so I think you'll want to find a new phrase for that.
  • "twenty six hour" - "26 hour" or possibly "26-hour"
  • Comma after "production crew"
  • Delete "taking place"
  • Delete "subsequently"
  • "hour long" - "hour-long"
Casting
  • "unlikely to be practical" - "not practical"
  • "retread" - Is this Roddenberry's term that he used specifically? If not, it probably shouldn't be in quotes.
  • Comma after "with a hairpiece"
  • Italicize "'Star Trek'" in Stewarts quote.
  • "favourite" - Since this is an American show with American roots, I would think the U.S. spelling would be more appropriate here.
  • "was suggested to" - Not sure if that works. "was asked to" perhaps?
  • Comma after "cast as Wesley Crusher"
  • "play at the time," need to replace the comma here with a semicolon or start a new sentence
  • ""A big guy" - lower case "a" here.
Filming
  • "Due to what was seen as a low budget for the pilot and series in general" - This sort of throws in some subjectivity where there shouldn't be any. If the budget was relatively low compared to similar productions, you can include that. If it was "seen as a low budget" by the filming crew, you can include that.
  • Delete "due to the volume of cats living on the lot" since we kind of know where cat feces come from.
  • Delete "in the new series"
  • "The main engineering set from Star Trek III became the new main engineering set," sounds redundant.
  • Not sure what "for the sake of reliability," means.
  • The use of the name of the episode twice in the same sentence sounds awkward. The second use can probably be replaced by "this episode".
  • The previous sentence about the cast worrying about job stability should probably be at the end of this section.
Reception
  • Delete "both"
  • "several locations" - Typically, in the TV world, these are called "Markets", not locations.
  • No comma after "The Herald Journal,"
  • Delete "itself"
  • Lanford's comments probably need to be restructured so that the first comments don't seem so terse and the other parts don't run on as they do right now.
  • Comma after TV Guide
  • Generally speaking, a few comments from critics are okay, but you'll really want a more general feel for the overall critics' feelings (like Sirtis' comments at the end of the paragraph) rather than a laundry list of critics comments.
  • Something not right with "watched reassessed"
  • The way the sentence is structured right now it reads as though Green was disappointed with the "lack of sense of fun". Awkward syntax.
  • Comma after "elements of the episode".
  • Delete "overall"
Home Media
  • Delete "subsequently"
  • Perhaps better than saying "region one" would be to give the actual locations (most likely the U.S. and Canada) where it was released.
  • "involved the original production team in updating some of the special effects in the episode" - Awkward syntax here.
  • Comma after "sampler of the series"
  • The phrase "along with two other episodes" probably fits better in the sentence after "featured".
  • "Blu-Ray" - "Blu-ray"

Of course, none of the above should be considered as demands or anything of the sort. Mostly, these are just an issue of clarity, making sure the sentences sound the same to others as they do to you. All that said, the article covers all of the major bases and it's worth being proud of, so don't let my nitpicking get you down. Best of luck on getting this up to FAC, and please let me know if you have any questions or need further help. Runfellow (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hinde Zimmerman

[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 been copyedited and I would like to begin preparing for GA review. Thank you in advance for your time and any helpful comments.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States

[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 personally believe the article has a proper bibliography, the lead describes the Network well, and structure is excellent. I believe this list could make it onto the featured articles. I do not know why this list is nominated for featured list status.

Thanks, Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Čech

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve any potential issues with this page before sending it to the GA process. Particularly looking for unsourced statements about records and awards. I've looked at it so many times I may be immune to seeing some of the issues.

Thanks, Cloudz679 09:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments
  • Since the wikilinked article is titled Chelsea F.C., wouldn't it make sense to include the "F.C." in the first sentence instead of just saying "Chelsea"?
  • The sentence beginnings in the second paragraph are a little repetitive:
    • He currently holds...
    • He also holds...
    • He also has...
    • Čech also won...
  • The first paragraph in the section for Rennes is mostly about his international play, so it seems as though that would be a more appropriate section for that information.
  • "stuck at the bottom of the table" - Not sure I know what this phrase means.
  • "agreed a summer move" I think should be "agreed to a summer move"
  • "Čech’s transfer from Rennes was one of those about which the Stevens inquiry report in June 2007 expressed concerns" - Awkward syntax, consider rephrasing.
  • The rest of the club section is divided into seasons, which I've seen on a few football articles recently. I'm not sure it's the most appropriate way to go about things, however. Here's why:
    • The rest of the article isn't structured into seasons, including the international play section.
    • Because there are so many more sources available for information on recent seasons, it often leads to Recentism, which I think is the case here.
    • Some sections only have two or three sentences.
    • Articles should use summary style, not sports writing-like "recap style". Information about individual games is not nearly as important as the information about the season as a whole, but obviously there are going to be more articles out there about the former than the latter. These sections tend to get bogged down in scores (when Čech really only has control of one half of that score anyway) and anecdotes, which sports reporters thrive on, rather than a general summary of the season.
  • On a wide monitor, the two pictures of Čech on the left side (in 2010/11) cause some awkward text wrap issues. Additionally, they don't really offer anything unique or new about the player; he's just standing in both of them.
  • You'll want to define "U16" at some point. Same goes for "clean sheet". For anyone who might not know the term, it's used quite frequently.
  • "stunning saves" Sounds like a minor NPOV issue.
  • There are quite a few instances in the references where the name is spelled "Cech" instead of "Čech". I suppose if the original source gets it wrong, you might be required to put the "English" version of the name, but I'm not sure.

Overall, the sentences are well written, the style is mostly clear, and the article seems to cover the major subjects listed in the wikiproject's MOS for players. Just a bit of pruning for superfluous details and careful structuring should help quite a bit to make it a bit more readable. Runfellow (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those observations, I have addressed them all except the season breakdown for Chelsea, which I may try to tackle at a later date. If anyone else has any constructive feedback, I would like to read it. Thanks, Cloudz679 06:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/October_2012&oldid=525794696"