Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2014

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.

Ashita, Haru ga Kitara

[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 make this article a GA. It's something I've not done before, a J-pop song article. Any comments on how to make the article better would really help me and of course, the article. Thanks, Ryoga (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryoga Godai, this article is well-written and well-sourced, I'd recommend nominating it for GA straight away. Instructions can be found here: WP:GA/I. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a user copyedited the article for me. Hope it makes through this time. Ryoga (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Your Hero

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
With a lot of work already done to this for a DYK nomination and given a B-class rating from the DYK reviewer, I think there is a chance that this can be a featured article. With the decent amount notability of the subject (promo single release, charts, live performances and critical reception) and all I research I've been able to do, I feel every bit of important info both major and minor, has been used here, the writing is great, and the images all have fair licenses with correct source information. However, if anyone has any idea of improving the prose or adding any additional information to get this up to FA status, that would be great!

Thank you, 和DITOREtails 20:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EditorE! The first step on your path to FA is to nominate at WP:GA. Your article is well-written and well-sourced, so I recommend you take is straight there and iron out any small issues that arise during the review. Instructions are here: WP:GA/I. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to plan to plan to take two steps in one way, because I thought an article was necessary for it to be a good article previously. But if you say so, I'll do it and request a close of the peer review. Thanks! 和DITOREtails 00:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Philharmonic Orchestra

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I have been working my way through the articles on the London orchestras, getting them up to GA level, and the LPO is my fourth such effort, with only the Philharmonia to go. As ever, all comments and suggestions on style, prose, proportion, sourcing, images or indeed anything else will be most welcome. – Tim riley talk 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m

[edit]

A very quick comment before I read it properly. I know that orchestras look rather similar, but there is no photo of the LPO on its page. Lots of conductors, but no orchestra. I am sure you have looked already, but thought I would ask. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it in a nutshell. There are plenty of pictures of the players from many decades, but nothing I can find that is public domain, and I don't think fair use would be an acceptable plea for a body of 88 players. Tim riley talk 12:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3rd para of the introduction - "south bank of the Thames" - I think it is more significant that it is one of the two leading concert halls in London.
A general point, and trying to get away from conductors; you do mention some eminent original members of the orchestra, but hardly any others after that. I know that Malcolm Arnold was a trumpeter for them for a bit, and I'm sure there must have been a leader or two who was well-known.
  • Failure, I'm afraid. The more famous instrumentalists seem to have gravitated to the other orchestras from the 1950s onwards. Looking at my archive of programmes from the 1970s to date I can't find one LPO player who has a WP article. Happy to be proved wrong, naturally. Tim riley talk 09:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
again general - is there somewhere a list of notable premieres, assuming they gave major premieres?
Should it be mentioned that the orchestra appeared on TV, or is that too common?
Under 'Early Years' the last paragraph mentions a 1936 tour of Nazi Germany. Was this their first overseas tour, and does it need pointing out?
In '60s and 70s' Solti is first mentioned as Solti, then three paragraphs on as Sir Georg Solti...
In the 2nd para of 80s and 90s, is there a word missing in the middle: "In 1984 LPO and the Philharmonia began...." ?
Near the end of the 80s and 90s Roslavets is mentioned but I think make it stronger to mention other obscure composers they played.
  • I'll check in the Pirouet book and see if others are named. I know the LPO played music by Jonathan Lloyd, Honegger and Birtwistle in this period, which I don't imagine caused queues at the box-office, but I'll need to check if these works were played at the Southbank Centre's behest. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand in '21st century' "probably having been drilled to a fare-thee-well under Masur".
  • Not a phrase I'd run across either. The writer is an American critic, and I take the phrase to be an American one. I think from the context it is clear that it is meant to convey what an English critic might phrase as "drilled within an inch of their lives". Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two Philip Stuart references but only one appears in the Sources.
  • One of them is an online source, and it is my practice to include such sources in the references, with the "Sources" section listing printed books. (A bit illogical now I think about it, but I've been doing it for years.) The online Stuart work is liked at ref 101. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But apart from my caveat about the photos and maybe these, it is as always from you a very nice article, from which I learnt a lot. Thank you. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some really good points in there! Thank you, mon Général (as your username always makes me think of Général Boum in La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein). I shall enjoy working through them over the weekend. – Tim riley talk 20:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies. Of course the username is a mistake, I got muddled with names and passwords when setting up my account, but it's too late to do anything now. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I shall feel at liberty to continue thinking of you as Général Boum. Excellent! Tim riley talk 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! You have homed in on some excellent points there, and I'll look forward to going to the British Library again to do them justice. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alfietucker

[edit]

This is a very engaging and readable article which I think covers most of the salient points well. Just a few details I've picked up on a read-through:

  • Lead
    • "it secured a valuable engagement to play in the opera house during the summer months, at the Glyndebourne Festival from 1964." – I think this would be much clearer ("opera house" tends to make me think instinctively of the Royal Opera House) if worded "from 1964 it secured a valuable engagement to play in the Glyndebourne Festival opera house during the summer months."
    • "and makes national and international tours." – better, I think, "and tours nationally and internationally."
  • History: Background
    • "Sargent's patrons, the Courtauld family" – by this, do we mean Elizabeth Courtauld? In any case, I wonder whether we should provide a wikilink to Courtauld, though I realise there is no ideal article available at present to link to (plus, I realise you do link Samuel Courtauld in the following paragraph). Still, would it be legitimate to reword this earlier mention of Courtauld as follows: "Sargent's patron, Elizabeth Courtauld (wife of the industrialist and art collector Samuel Courtauld)"? Or, if allowed and possible, to link Courtauld family to "Category:Courtauld family"?
      • At some point during my sandbox revisions I linked "the Courtauld family" to Samuel neveu: can't think quite when or why I deleted the link and I'll be happy to put it back. I don't think I'll be charged with WP:OVERLINK if I also link later to the man himself. Tim riley talk 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1950s
    • "described by Kennedy as "gruelling"" – presumably this is Michael Kennedy: in any case, we should have his name in full here at its first appearance, and if it's Michael perhaps we should wikilink to his article. Also, shouldn't we have a reference for the Kennedy citation in the footnote which ends that sentence?
    • Any reason why Stravinsky's Firebird is not wikilinked?
  • 1960s and 70s
    • Haitink - the LPO's longest serving conductor, yet I don't see any mention of the repertoire he particularly conducted with them. Might something be said about his Shostakovich performances and recordings (also relevant to Vladimir Jurowski later)?
  • 1980s and 90s
    • Tennstedt - though he is noted for his importance and rapport with the orchestra, we are told very little about what repertoire he particularly conducted the LPO in (only that he recorded Mahler 8, as far as I can see). Might we say a little more on that front?
  • 21st century
    • "Jurowski had first conducted the LPO in 2001, making an immediate mark." What works did he conduct on that occasion? (Indeed, I think we could say more about what repertoire Jurowski has been particularly acclaimed for in conducting the LPO.)
  • Recordings
    • Could something be said about some of the LPO's opera recordings? For instance I think the first recording of Vaughan Williams's The Pilgrim's Progress (with Adrian Boult) and - the Shostakovich connection again - the landmark first recording of the original version of Shostakovich's Lady Macbeth under Rostropovich are worth mentioning.
  • References
    • The "discography of the LPO published in 1997" by Philip Stuart, mentioned in "Recordings", appears to be one of the article's sources: e.g. ref 101 which refers to the LPO/Boult recordings for Lyrita and EMI. Yet it's not listed in Sources – could this be added?

That's all from me for now, but if I spot anything else I'll report back. Alfietucker (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I call that a helpful review! Any amount of good stuff there, all addressed, I hope. Thank you very much. Tim riley talk 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - and you've certainly addressed all the points I raised. A very enjoyable article. btw, I wonder if there may be enough material to create a little article on Elizabeth Courtauld some day (something I could think of tackling, unless you're interested?). Alfietucker (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian's thoughts

[edit]

Will jot thoughts as I go through. Will start with body and come back to lead at the end.

Background

  • We have the footnote explaining what the deputy system is, but I think it may be advisable to give a few words in the body itself on what it was. Perhaps a variant on the second sentence presently in the footnote, in between two emdashes, with the thus shortened footnote immediately after?
  • When I was at school our music hall was the Adrian Boult building.
    • Was it, indeed! Boult was at Westminster in the first decade of the 20th century. His article is mostly my work, and I shall get hold of a citation and add that fact to his "Honours and memorials" section, alongside the Adrian Boult Hall in Birmingham. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • "thirteen other venues in England, Ireland and Scotland" didn't they ever go to Wales?
    • It seems not.

War and post-war years

  • "Many of the players' instruments were lost when the Queen's Hall was destroyed by German bombing in May 1941; and an appeal was broadcast by the BBC, the response to which was enormous, with instruments donated by the public enabling the orchestra to continue." I don't think we need "and" after the semi-colon.
    • Indeed not; blitzed.

1950s

1960s and 70s

  • It may be good to make clear for the uninitiated that Glyndebourne is outside London, in Sussex. (I know, I went there once.)
  • We say "in Pirouet's words", then don't actually quote him word-for-word. Perhaps rephrase? ("in Pirouet's view", for example)
Both done. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1980s and 90s

  • I have split a long paragraph here

21st century and Recordings look good to me.

Very well done to all concerned on a fine and informative read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. feel like a total philistine as it has just occurred to me that I have reviewed an article on an orchestra while blasting drum and bass. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that review. The article is distinctly improved after it, I think. Tim riley talk 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I forgot to do the lead, though! Argh! So I'll do it now.

Lead

  • At the end of the second paragraph we use "founded" twice in quick succession
  • "From 1995 the residency has been jointly held" perhaps "Since 1995"?
  • The lead seems a little short to me. Here are some ideas for things that might be good to add:
  • In the last paragraph, where we mention the conductors, maybe add "Guest conductors have included" and put some of the more major ones.
  • We don't mention anything at all in the lead about its recordings. Maybe, after we mention the conductors, name-drop some of the opera recordings and film scores (Lawrence of Arabia and The Lord of the Rings come to mind).

Hope this helps, sorry about not doing this before. (now feel doubly philistine!) —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does help and Philistine be blowed! All these points now addressed, satisfactorily I hope. I can't find anything online about the Adrian Boult building at Westminster, which is rather a pity (not for this article but for Sir Adrian's). Tim riley talk 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The school magazine, The Elizabethan, mentions the Adrian Boult building here on page 10. Also mentions my brother a few times in the cricket section. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you, my lad! Now added to the Boult article. ("Breezy cameos", eh? Always good to watch, and I speak as one who in his youth sat through an opening innings by Chris Tavare and Geoffrey Boycott so plodding that every spectator temporarily lost the will to live. Good for your bro for smashing about a bit!) Tim riley talk 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments

[edit]
  • "All except the last of these ensembles were essentially ad hoc ensembles" -- Ensembles/ensembles
  • "...and none approached the excellence of the best continental and American orchestras." -- POV? I know this is a build up of the next sentence or two, but I'm sure it could be tweaked to read less POVVY : "All except the last of these were essentially ad hoc ensembles, with little continuity of personnnel; an example of the latter orchestras excellence came in 1927 when the Berlin Philharmonic, under Wilhelm Furtwängler, gave two concerts at the Queen's Hall." possibly?
    • The sources are unanimous on this, and I think it will be better to address your very sound point about the POV tone by citing a cartload of contemporary and later sources. Shall rummage and add. Tim riley talk 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War and post-war years

  • Note 3 is missing a closing ref.
    • Thank you for that: now attended to.

Other than the formatting issues with the refs (which I have now fixed), that is it! Top job Tim, let me know when you go to FAC! Cassiantotalk 11:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this: all grist to the Riley mill, not least your quiet amendment of my mistakes with the formatting of references. I'm not aiming at FAC. My tour d'horizon of the London orchestras is firmly aimed at GA level. One could write an FA quality article on any or all of the five orchestras, but I'm not willing to do the very considerable research that it would need. GA will do me nicely, and with your help and that of your fellow peer reviewers I hope to get this one there. – Tim riley talk 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BB comments

[edit]

I'm back in time to have a late run at this. A great subject, full of interest throughout.

Lead
  • Minor nitpick: it jars slightly to read consecutive sentences beginning "After the outbreak of war" and "After the war"
  • "By the 1960s the LPO had gradually regained its earlier standards..." I don't think "gradually" works in a sentence fixed at a point in time, i.e. the 1960s. I imagine the intended sense is that by the 1960s, through a gradual process over the previous two decades, the LPO had regained its former standard; suggest you simply remove "gradually".
  • Incidentally, the previous paragraph does not refer to a fall in the LPO's standards, merely to a change of ownership and to increased competition, so it may be advisable to briefly say when/why standards fell.
Background
War and post-war years
  • "Among the conductors making guest appearances in this period..." – perhaps define "in this period" more specifically as "the immediate postwar years"
  • "After seven years with no principal conductor, the orchestra engaged the Dutch conductor..." – another close repetition, rephrase if possible
  • Does Martinon deserve to be singled out from the list of postwar guest conductors? (I remember him only as the conductor of Deryck Cooke's version of Mahler's 10th, many years later).
1950s
  • I think we should say "mezzo-soprano" rather than the informal "mezzo"
  • "In 1952, the LPO negotiated a five-year contract with Decca Records, which was unusually rewarding for the orchestra..." Lose the comma after "Decca Records" to preserve your meaning (it was the terms of the contract that were unusually rewarding).
1960s and 70s
1980s and 90s
  • Re RFH: "The two orchestras were interested in making a counter-proposal for a joint residency, but the matter was not resolved until 1995". This is a bit tantalising – perhaps indicate the solution here, rather than reserving it for later. Precise chornology is not always necssary.
  • "...in 1995 the two orchestras agreed to share the residency at the Festival Hall". From what you've previously written, I gathered that the two orchestras had years earlier proposed a shared residency, but that the Arts Council had pressed for a single resident orchestra. Did the Arts Council simply withdraw its proposal?
Recordings

Nothing remotely problematic here, I think, and I look forward to the article's onward progress. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points: thank you very much, BB. Tim riley talk 08:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing the review now. Warm thanks to everyone who contributed, above. Tim riley talk 09:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Downey, Jr. filmography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a good representation of Downey's filmography with good referencing.

Thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Looks pretty good so far.....

Lead
  • Seems a bit repetitive with the use of "In *year*, he starred"..... switch it up and use "Downey" for some instances, i.e. try things like "Downey was cast as Tony Stark / Iron Man in the 2008 Marvel Studios film Iron Man".  Done I like that better, thank you :)
Film
  • It really isn't needed to say "credited as Robert Downey" when really that's his name (suffix not withstanding)
  • I would say to include his role for "Deadwait", but can't seem to find anything on it myself
  • Include any major awards/nominations his roles received within "notes", such as Golden Globes
See also
  • This section doesn't really belong, and neither does the link to his awards/nominations
    • Is there any reason why? I figured it would since it's a separate page from his main one, it's the point of a lot of editors on why they wanted the templates for the boxes deleted that had the main page, awards and filmography was because there was a See Also section for it.
References
External links

This is definitely on its way to becoming FL :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cowlibob

[edit]

Mainly ref check from me.

  • IMDb says he was on 25 episodes of Ally McBeal and include time he was on the show as 2000-02  Done
  • Mussolini: The Untold story TV miniseries is included on IMDb and it also lists him as exec producer on The Judge check both of these and add.  Done
  • Screen Crush, Dandy Chick, Screen Rush, Row 3, Cinema Blend, Split Sider reliable? If not, consider alternatives. Cowlibob (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

Hi Lady, All looks good here, with just a couple of comments from me. I've tweaked the prose a tiny bit to make it flow a little better, but please feel free to revert if you don't like it. (A couple of other bits added since the reversion tothe previous (and well-sourced) version)

Film

  • It's more normal to sort on the surnames of characters, I think  Done I did have the surnames sorted until MisterMorton removed it....but it's back now LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate the use of the N/A template. Looking at the table as a whole, my attention is drawn straight to it with the cell a different colour and the text centred. It is also unclear what N/A means here. Not available? Not applicable? A left-aligned endash will suffice, and won't distract readers.  Done
  • It's a thought to centralise the refs - I'll leave that entirely to your personal preference (but ditto for the other tables as well)  Done
    • Comment: I noticed that MisterMorton removed the reference column along with ALL the sorts in the names and titles column and the "row" and "col". I undid that edit but wondering why he considered it "cleanup" by removing all of that? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video games

  • As it's a one-item list, it shouldn't be sortable  Done

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geiger–Marsden experiment

[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 have rewritten in substantially and it deserves a good look.

Thanks, Kurzon (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'm willing to comment on this and can advise regarding taking it to Good article status. Will begin within a week or so. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurzon: looks like the review is closed by the bot but that doesn't matter, just incase you're not watching this anymore. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I've just read the old August FA-review and there were some pretty useful suggestions there, I hope you'll consider them in the future especially the ones about getting more strong research sources and broadening the topics. Don't let that dissuade you, since what you're working on here is a Vital article and it will be tough even to get it to GA status which have quite lenient criteria. I commend you for your enthusiasm in improving this tough and neglected area of the 'pedia. I personally think this can reach GA with some work. I'm not that unfamiliar with this topic but have to do some research myself regarding it and wiki-related stuff like scientific citation guidelines. I suggest you read that along with Writing better articles essay and about lead sections. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Background (taken from below)
  2. Contemporary theories of atomic structure
    1. Implications of the plum pudding model (subsection)
  3. The outcome of the experiments -remove this section as it seems to summarise what the rest of the article says. Use its content both for lead and the article
  4. Timeline of events retitle to "Timeline of experiments"
    1. Background
    2. 1908 experiment->Deflection of α-Particles by matter (1908)
    3. 1909 experiment->Scattering more than 90 degrees (1909)
    4. 1910 experiment->Variation in material, thickness and velocity (1910)
    5. Rutherford mathematically models the scattering pattern->Scattering pattern mathematical model
    6. 1913 experiment->Laws of Deflection of α Particles (1913)
    7. Rutherford determines the nucleus is positively charged->Conclusion that the nucleus is positively charged
  5. Legacy
  • This experiment has a deep impact in Nuclear physics, surely the Legacy section needs to be expanded?
  • There also some instance of not-encyclopaedic language, like for instance in the Background section, "...had already received numerous honors for his studies.." (is this sourced?), "..was so impressed that he..". I think this informal tone can be remedied by a significant copy edit by posting at the Guild of Copy-editors

That's it from me then, I can go on if you want me to. Feel free to ping me and this article is on my watchlist too. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Fownes Luttrell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have put this up for peer review because I am hoping to take it to GA standard and I would like feedback about improving the article.

Many thanks, Noswall59 (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rod This is an interesting article. A few comments:

  • The lead seems to have quite a lot of detail, particularly about his parliamentary career, some of which could be moved to the section "Member of Parliament", with more of a summary left in the lead.
    • I've had a go at shortening the intro and making it more of a summary... let me know if it needs any more tweaks.
  • I would be interested in more on his development of Dunster Castle (including early use of wallpaper!) and construction of Conygar Tower.
    • I've also done some research on the contributions he made to Dunster Castle and the grounds; I can see that you have done a lot of work on Dunster Castle's article, so perhaps you could let me know if I've addressed the matter properly, and if I've omitted anything. I don't have the Garnett book to hand and so I've used your citations to support three of my points (about the park, the Rococo style and the wallpaper).
  • If you want to go to GA it is often suggested that bulletted lists (eg the family) are turned into prose.
    • I have turned most of it into prose - a lot of their children died as infants or when young, so I've put that into prose form; the four who were individually more notable I've left as a list, because I think it makes it easier, but I could tweak it if it's still not up to standard.
  • Is there a picture of him (eg this or this of the man and his wife which presumably would be out of copyright by now), if not you could include a picture of the castle or similar.

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 19:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Thanks for the review Rod - very helpful and much appreciated. I've commented above, regards, -Noswall59 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

John Dillinger

[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… Looks like over the past year or so this article has got unbelievably over-detailed and is now very hard to read without a huge investment of time (Compare with article from last year). Don't know if all this detail should be dropped into many subpages or if it's just to detailed to be on an encyclopaedia. Thanks, Aldaden (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Even after some judicious excisions by Aldaden this article runs to 156,050 bytes, which is grotesquely long, and, as suggested above, means that no reader is likely to wade through the whole thing. See WP:TOOBIG: this article is 50% bigger than the maximum suggested there. It's asking an awful lot of Aldaden (or anyone else) to plough through the acres of verbiage and reduce them to a reasonable size, but unless some heroic soul undertakes that task the article will remain a liability to Wikipedia. – Tim riley talk 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else comes along to fix it, I'm contemplating restoring it almost entirely to the way it in the link above from last year with what is currently on the article page put on subpages with the usual link to it at the top of each section on the main article (eg "for main article see John Dillingers Final Months"). This would mean a quite a bit of duplication, but am not really in a position, nor have inclination to edit or sumarise the text because don't know, or care, enough about subject and wouldn't know what there is copyright violation. Aldaden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject isn't all that close to your heart, I call it even more generous of you to invest your time in rescuing the article. Please ping me if you would like input at any stage, and particularly if you get the page up to a second peer review. I wish you the very best of luck. – Tim riley talk 18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: having looked at the April 2014 version you link to, above, I think you're right to propose reverting to it and adding links to sub-articles on the various sections. For such a drastic step it would be better to have the backing of a consensus before you begin, and may I suggest you post a note on the article talk page, linking to this PR discussion, and proposing to revert to and start again from the April 2014 version? I will certainly support such a suggestion, and I should be mightily surprised if other editors, having once seen the eye-glazing dreadfulness of the present megascreed, don't add their support too. – Tim riley talk 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Takal

[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 that's what you do

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]

This article needs an awful lot of work and isn't anywhere near 'Good Article' standard, I'm afraid.
  • The content is minimal:
    • I'm sure a lot more happened in her 'Early life' than being born in Montclair, New Jersey? This section needs to be expanded.
    • "Takal has worked on and starred in numerous independent films, some associated with the mumblecore movemement": maybe mentioning some of the films in which she was involved in the body of the article as well as the lead would be an idea? A brief description of the 'mumblecore movement' perhaps?
    • You mention her first directing effort, but don't mention if there are any more or if this is the only such one to date.
  • Layout:
    • Perhaps having 'Early life' as a subheading under 'Personal'?
    • A filmography section would be useful, listing the projects she has been involved in as an actress and director. See Cate Blanchett#Filmography.
    • If she has won any awards, an 'Awards' section could be included.
  • You should probably include an infobox, as per most other biography pages, see Sofia Coppola for an example. Sotakeit (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Kawada

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been two years since the last peer review, and since then, the article finally reached B-class. Given that Kawada is my favorite J-Pop singer, I have worked hard on the article through the years, and now I'm planning on revising the article more and eventually nominating it for Good Article status, but first I'm seeking suggestions on precisely how the article can be improved. Here are some of my concerns about coverage:

  • Reliable Japanese reviews for music are pretty rare, and this problem is particularly acute for non-mainstream artists. Kawada is an anison artist, which, with a few exceptions, are generally not considered mainstream, and thus, coverage for them is inherently harder to find. Unfortunately, this pretty much means that no reviews or comments on Kawada's singles and albums appear to exist. While there are a number of interviews with her, I'm not sure how to incorporate their material into the article, particularly if it has to do with Kawada's style and influences, and it would probably be easier to incorporate them into the articles on her singles and albums rather than in her article.
  • Like a number of non-mainstream Japanese entertainers, Kawada is a relatively private person. For one thing, her age is unknown, and other than her birthplace (Sapporo), and members of her family (a younger brother), little of her personal life is known.
  • I feel that the prose needs a lot of work, particularly when it comes to content and structure.

Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Also, everyone is free to make necessary improvements/changes to the article if necessary.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Noswall59

This genre of music is not an area I know very much about; however, I do have one suggestion for improving the article: an area for expansion would probably be her early life - when was she born, who were her parents, where did she grow up and go to school, do we know anything about her early musical influences or any musical education she received? Of course, I appreciate the obvious problems with her being private, but GA criteria states that an article should address the "main aspects" of a topic - information on the formative years (and certainly on year facts like the birth year) of a person seems to me to be an important aspect of any encyclopaedic biography (as long as it can be reliably sourced etc.) Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, little of her personal life is known. Though it is known that she has a younger brother, the names of the members of her family members, and their occupations and current statuses, are unknown. She grew up in Sapporo, which can easily be sourced. It's unknown where she went to school or who her early musical influences are (although it is known that her favorite singer is Alanis Morissette, which can be sourced using the old version of her website). However, it is known (and in fact, it is already mentioned in the article) where her music education took place (the Mitsuno Vocal School in Sapporo). Given these problems, what else can I improve on in preparation for for a possible GAR? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Hi. That's fair enough if information about this period in her life is not available; I do fear that we are missing information about her as a person due to this and it may hold the article back, but, if you can't find the information, then there's nothing you can do about that. As for meeting other GAR criteria: the article seems stable and appears neutral (given the lack of reviews, etc., it remains relatively factual); below are some points you may consider:
      • I've already said that I'm not familiar with this genre and so cannot comment on the reliability of the source's you've used; I will say that most facts and points in the article are references, which is obviously promising (though the first paragraph of the "Linkage" section is not referenced at all).
      • Looking at successful GA articles, such as Ricardo Arjona, it might be worth seeing if you can include a section on her artistic style.
      • The lead is also quite short - perhaps you could summarise her career progression a bit more to give an overview of the topic.
      • There are no images in the article (criteria number 6 for GA is "Illustrated, if possible, by images"). obviously, any images need to comply to the copyright policies.
I am not familiar with this topic and so it might be best to hear from other user(s) who are more knowledgeable about the content, but hopefully these will be helpful in the general arrangement of the article. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Harbin

[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 been working on this article constantly, and I need some suggestion to improve this article to a good article.

Thanks, Lzy881114 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to this article, Lzy881114! I have a few comments:
  • I think this article would be comprehensive enough for a GA
  • Some sections lack citations, which is necessary for a GA
  • The article has a lot of transliteration, like " (Russian: "Китайско-Восточная железная дорога"; Kitaysko-Vostochnaya zheleznaya doroga or Russian: КВЖД; KVZhD), ". In general, this only needs to be provided on the main page of the thing you are describing (eg articles that link to Harbin don't need to provide the chinese characters for it)
  • At the start it states "Mandarin: Hā'ěrbīn 哈尔滨", however usually it's written with pinyin and charcters separate. You can look at other articles like Hu Jintao
  • With regard to sources, if you are aiming for GA they should be formatted so that all the URLs are given a title and an access date (that way if the url becomes a dead link there'll be less of a problem), and foreign-language sources should note what language it's in, so that interested users could use a translator
  • The hatnotes ("See also...") at the bottom of sections are usually put at the top

I think with addition of more sources that the article will improve, particularly as you read through them and add to the article. If I might be so bold, I'd also recommend trying to borrow a book on Harbin from your local/state library if available. Such a book will have a lot of general information and background, which this article needs. A general book on the history and culture of Harbin would make editing and citing a lot less cumbersome!

I hope this advice is useful, feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion and I'll try to improve it!Lzy881114 (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Wales (ship)

[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 interested in what it might need to get to GA. Any and all opinions gratefully received. Euryalus (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation

[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'm listing this for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for FAC at some point. I would love to hear from reviewers with FAC experience as to how far this is from being ready. Please don't be polite! I'd much rather hear about problems at this stage. Particular criticisms would be helpful, as would an overall impression.

I'm pinging some editors who said they might be willing (or who I hope are willing) to read some of it: Victoriaearle, Brianboulton, Zad68, Johnuniq, Jmh649

If you're not able to, don't worry, or if you can, but it will take time, that's fine too. There's no rush, and any feedback at all (even if only about one point or one section) would be much appreciated. Many thanks! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting with the trivia, the toolserver links in the toolbox won't work. I ran the "disambig links" tool a month ago and there were no problems. However, if that tool starts working again, it did report one issue due to some technical weirdness that can be seen in this VPT archive (it's a false report which can be ignored). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John, and thanks too for the link to that discussion. The external links and alt text tools seem to be working, but not the rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

First, I think that this is a very important article, and you should be congratulated on the efforts you have made to bring it to its present state. As you know, I first encountered it at a much earlier stage in its development. It did not make easy or pleasant reading then, nor does it now, but that doesn't alter the fact that this is great work. I have very little to say about the content, which is remorselessly clear. My comments on the prose are mainly nitpicks and presentational issues. I have some further points about footnotes and referencing.

Lead
  • "There has been an international effort since the 1970s...": pluralise for consistency later in sentence, thus: "There have been international efforts..." etc
Local terms
  • "Infibulation is known as pharaonic purification in Sudan (tahur faraowniya) – a reference to the Egyptian Pharaohs – but as Sudanese circumcision in Egypt." For the sake of prose consistenct the first part of the sentence needs to be flipped: ""Infibulation is known as tahur faraowniya (pharaonic purification) in Sudan...". I'm not sure you need to emphasis the connection with the pharaohs, which is pretty self-evident, and "Sudanese circumcision" should be in quotes.
English
  • "Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." and "Austrian-American researcher Fran Hosken" – the normal British English form (except in tabloids) is to precede with the, e.g. "The anthropolgist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." etc. There are other examples in the text.
  • I think I'd prefer to leave that. The article is written in Canadian English (we had to choose something for consistency, and there were at least two editors in Canada working on the page at the time). SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comma after "influential"
Circumcisers, methods, ages
  • The wording "Medical personnel are usually not involved..." seems contradicted if, in Egypt and others of the main practising countries, 77% of procedures are carried out by medical personnel.
  • It currently says: "Medical personnel are usually not involved, although in some countries, particularly Egypt, Sudan and Kenya, FGM is more likely to be carried out by health professionals."
  • "Given the unusual involvement of physicians in FGM in that country..." Replace "unusual" with "untypically high"?
Classification
  • It is slightly confusing to have the subheading "WHO Types I and II" followed by a paragraph describing the UNICEF categories. What is the relationship between the UNICEF and WHO categories?
Complications
  • Some of the terms used in the section are incomprehensible to the general reader, and are not determinable from context, e.g. "fistula", "sequelae" ("consequences"?), "neuroma formation", etc
Prevelance
  • The layout of the section divorces the columnar table from the text, with substantial intervening white space. It would be a good idea to give the table a specific bolded heading; alternatively, the map showing FGM concentration by colour could be relocated to a less cluttered part of the article.
  • "Nigeria has the highest number of women and girls who have experienced FGM, around one-quarter of the global number.[74] Around one in five cases is in Egypt.[75]" I'm not convinced that the information, put in this way, is necesary, and in the case of Nigeria, it is somewhat misleading. It gives the idea that Nigeria is a hotbed of FGM, but proportionately the number of Nigerian women who have undergone FGM is in the "moderately low" column. It's just that Nigeria has by far the largers population in Africa, so a low proportion still means a high absolute number.
  • I don't see much purpose in the upper of the two Africa maps. What information is it providing that is not otherwise given? Images and charts are quite numerous in the article.
Reasons - overview
  • Am I understanding correctly – footbinding "controlled sexual access to women" and "enhanced male sexual pleasure"? Seems dubious.
  • That now says: "Mackie compares FGM to footbinding, which was outlawed in China in 1911. Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, and tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics. It was also supported by the women themselves." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to harp on the theme of image relevance, but what does the Dogon cave painting contribute to the article? The image page itself gives no commentary explaining how the paintings relate to circumcision, and I'm wondering what the pictures are supposed to represent.
Support from women
  • Why have a redlink on "belief trap" when you then explain what it means? (And is a WP articlee on this subject at all likely?)
  • "The cost of dissent with FGM is failure to have descendants, because uncut women might not find husbands" – that is a possible cost of dissent, but not absolute; women may not find husbands. I would replace "is failure" with "may be failure"
  • Why the American spelling of "programs" when otherwise British spellings have been used?
  • "which provides a critical mass of support for collective abandonment" – suggest change "which provides" to "aiming to provide" or possibly "thus providing"; the present format is too definitive.
Antiquity
  • I'm not sure how the hieroglyph relates to the text. What is it representing?
  • This now says: "Historian Mary Knight writes that there may be a reference to an uncircumcised girl ('m't), written in hieroglyphs in what is known as Spell 1117 of the Coffin Texts (translation right, image below):" SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Europe and the United States
  • The insertion "controversially so because of his experimental surgery on slaves" reads as editorial opinion, and needs to be more directly related to a source.
Colonial opposition in Kenya
  • I would modify the second sentence to read: "The practice was known by the Kikuyu, Kenya's main ethnic group, as irua for both girls and boys, and involved excision (Type II) for girls and removal of the foreskin for boys." It might be logical to make the first sentence of the first paragraph the opening sentence of the third Paragraph, as the sentence is somewhat isolated where it is now.
Growth of opposition
  • Nitpick, but compare "In 1975 the American social scientist Rose Oldfield Hayes..." with "In 1979 Austrian-American feminist Fran Hosken..." Also, why give Hosken's dates? You have not generally done so with cited experts.
  • Could we have some comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the legal steps taken to ban or restrict FGM in the 22 out of 27 African countries that had passed laws by 2013? The impression I have from the article is that the practice remains widespread. It is, for example, a little alarming to read that Egypt banned the practice in 2008, yet "The first criminal charges under the new law were laid in 2014."
  • That would be a lot of work, and it's hard to find meaningful figures. France is the only country I can find that is rigorously prosecuting. (It was made illegal in the UK in 1985, but the first charges were brought there in 2014.) UNFPA and UNICEF established a programme in 2007 with the aim of seeing a 40 percent reduction in prevalence by 2013 in a certain number of countries. They're training people in 15 countries in how to enforce the laws. Only seven of the 15 countries reported any enforcement in 2012. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Law in non-practising countries
  • Make it clear that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the later Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, are US laws and only apply there. This could be done simply by merging the final two paragraphs.
Comparison with other procedures
  • "Several commentators argue..." – this formulation often gives rise to [who?], so is maybe best avoided by modest rephrasing.

Aside from prose nitpickings, I have concerns about the nature and extent of the footnotes. In their present form it is quite hard to review these in the normal manner.

  • Why is it necessary, on so many occasions, to include lengthy quotations from the cited sources, especially when the citation incorporates a link to the source? The effect is to swell the article's wikitext to a massive 157kb – yet the wordcount is only 6,800. I know it's sometimes necessary to elaborate a citation, but the present arrangement seems to be seriously excessive.
  • I would like to see the "References" subdivided between books and papers, to get a better handle on the scope of sources.
  • MOS may not specifically require it, but I believe that at featured level, source books information should include publisher location and (where appropriate) ISBN
  • The footnotes were needed because a couple of editors (one in particular) were questioning even the most obvious points. I'll look to see which ones can be safely removed. Regarding the References section, the article now has a Notes section only, with full citation on first reference and a short ref thereafter, which is easier to maintain. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall watch the future progress of this article with great interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, thank you, this is extremely helpful. I'm about to go offline, but I'll read through your comments carefully tomorrow and start applying some fixes. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read and review, Brian. It's very much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnuniq

[edit]
Support from women
  • Text "Attitudes may have changed somewhat since then" is too weasely. Perhaps replace with facts. Some facts for Sudan from UNICEF 2013 that might be used are:
    • p. 54: 53% of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C think it should stop (have to read number off graph; 53% is confirmed on pdf p. 3).
    • p. 55: 42% of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C think it should continue.
    • p. 77: 49% of women aged 15–49 and who have been cut think it should stop.
    • p. 90, Fig 8.1A: Percentages of women aged 15–49 and who have heard about FGM/C and think it should continue: 79% (1989–1990), 51% (2006), 48% (2010).
  • I've retained "Attitudes have changed somewhat since then," followed by some figures, so it now says: "According to UNICEF in 2013, 79 percent of women aged 15–49 in Sudan in 1989–1990 said the practice should continue, compared to 48 percent in 2010. Over 50 percent of women in Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gambia and Egypt support FGM's continuance, but elsewhere in Africa, Iraq and Yemen, most say it should end or are unsure." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Antiquity
  • I have not read much of the relevant source yet, but I think Mackie's explanation regarding how FGM may have become an established practice is very interesting and worth more than the brief and unclear "practice associated with shameful female slavery came to stand for honor." Mackie's views on footbinding are also much more plausible than the brief account which was accurately described as dubious by Brianboulton above.
  • See above for what the footbinding reference now says. Mackie speculates in different ways in several articles. It would be quite a bit of extra work to write it up (it would involve checking earlier texts against the latest version to see how it had developed). If you'd like to put something together, I'd have no objection in principle, but it's not something I want to do myself. Bear in mind how speculative it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that conjectures on the origins of FGM are inherently speculative and I doubt it would be worth polishing them for the article. However, I may get around to studying what Mackie says and offer a suggestion for some brief text. The text currenty in the article is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Europe and the United States
  • Text "father of gynaecology" is unfortunate as "father of" has been much abused for boosterism on Wikipedia. It is sourced in J. Marion Sims and the point is not important, but it stood out for me.
Tolerance versus human rights
  • The main heading is "Criticism of opposition" so sentences should start by criticizing opposition to FGM. Perhaps the following could be reversed so anthropologists make their criticism first: "Anthropologists have been criticized...; they, in turn, accuse...".

Re the extent of the footnotes mentioned by Brianboulton: This topic has been the subject of considerable controversy at Wikipedia, with editors challenging text and wanting to promote certain views. In addition, the material is of significant interest to many readers. Extensive footnotes are extremely helpful for both these situations.

Overall, an excellent article built with a staggering amount of effort. I hope to think about what might be done with Mackie's reasoning later. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thank you for this. I'll start sorting these out with the next round of edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoriaearle

[edit]

I have to echo the comments above: this is a very important article and shows an incredible amount of fortitude. I have very few comments, and some are preferences only.

Lead
  • These two sentences seem quite similar, but one is in the first para and the other in the third. Maybe they can be merged or somehow brought together?

"FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, in Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Asia and within immigrant communities around the world.[8]"

"Over 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in Africa, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan; half of them live in Egypt and Ethiopia.[13]"

  • If the two sentences above are reorganized then maybe also move this phrase: "Typically carried out by a traditional circumciser with a blade or razor, with or without anaesthesia," and put it with the para beginning "The procedures differ"?
  • I'm going to look again at the way this is introduced. It used to say (writing from memory) 27 countries in Africa and to a lesser extent in the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, but then someone objected that it emphasized Africa too much. So I rewrote it to be closer to UNICEF, but now it's repetitive (Iraq and Yemen repeated), so I may revert to what we had before. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology
  • I'm tempted to suggest flipping the sections here so that English goes first, only because it's a more general overview, and then move into the more specific local terms. Also, a few terms are sprinkled throughout - should those go here too?
  • Link infibulation on first occurrence here
Type III
  • "A 2–5 mm-hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood" >> I'd suggest adding the word "single" in front of "2-5 mm hole". Only because I was confused reading the section about the difficulty in obtaining a clean urine samples, and I had to scroll back up. The full extent of the procedure hadn't quite sunk in, I suppose.
  • I think it has to be emphasized here that the vulva closes during healing, to put in perspective the later explanations about how and when the vulva is opened.
Complications
  • I think this sentence is a little long and could do with some tightening (can't think though how to fix it!):

  • It has immediate, short-term and late complications, which depend on several factors: the type of FGM; the conditions in which the procedure took place and whether the practitioner had medical training; whether unsterilized or surgical single-use instruments were used; whether surgical thread was used instead of agave or acacia thorns; the availability of antibiotics; how small a hole was left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood; and whether the procedure was performed more than once (for example, to close an opening regarded as too wide or re-open one too small).[10]

Reasons
  • "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, was nearly universal where practised, and was tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics. It controlled sexual access to women, was said to enhance male sexual pleasure, and was supported by the women themselves.[83]" >> some repetition of "was"
  • Only a suggestion, but think about moving footbinding to the end of the section to keep the emphasis on FGM
  • Victoria, I think I prefer your way of doing it, so I might revert to you, if that's okay. Your version of the section segues quite nicely into the next one, ending with "It was also supported by the women themselves," and the next section called "Support from women." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course, you're right. I must have overlooked the section header when I was testing, concentrating too much on the text, but I've looked at my notes and I think that's why I suggested it. It did make sense to me at the time. Victoria (tk) 20:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Religion
  • Gerry Mackie >> introduce full name on first occurrence
  • I"ve read "Opposition" and "Criticism" and don't have any comments at the moment, but would like to re-read those sections. They are quite interesting.

That's all. Thanks so much for asking me to review! Victoria (tk) 14:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. I've read through the other sections and don't see anything else to comment about. Thanks for the replies, and, more than anything, thanks for doing the work on this page. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Johnuniq

[edit]

@SlimVirgin: The article may not need more attention but I thought I would read it again. I'm unsure of the following, but I'm recording items that drew my eye.

General
  • It is good to avoid repetition of "FGM", but there may be too many "it". Perhaps each section should be considered in turn and "FGM" or a synonym (practice, tradition, procedure) used where reasonable. For example, I would change "referring to it" to "referring to FGM" in the Terminology/English section. However, perhaps change "The practice is mostly found" to "FGM is mostly found" in the Prevalence section.
Lead
  • I find the "is practised" link in the following a distraction because it suggests the words have some special meaning that I may not be aware of.
Terminology/Local terms
  • Is it clear that the following is referring to the fact that many different procedures are regarded as FGM?
    • "The many variants of FGM..."
Procedures, health effects/Circumcisers, methods, ages
  • Should the following sentence be moved so the first and third sentences (which relate to cutting) are together?
    • "Cauterization is used in parts of Ethiopia."
Prevalence
  • Something is not quite right with the following:
    • "A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and that 125 million women and girls in those countries have been affected."
  • I suspect it would be better with "and" or "as well as" instead of the first comma, or it could be recast, for example:
    • "A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries as well as Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and that 125 million women and girls in those countries have been affected."
    • "A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in the regions where it is concentrated, namely in 27 African countries as well as Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan."
  • There is something a little disjointed about the following, and I'm wondering if some words could be added to tie it to the previous sentence (and also, perhaps use "one-fifth" like the "one-quarter" in the preceding sentence: "Around one-fifth of all cases are in Egypt").
    • "Around one in five cases is in Egypt."
  • Is the following change an improvement?
    • "A country's national prevalence is affected by the practice's concentration among certain ethnicities."
    • "A country's national prevalence is affected by the fact that the practice is concentrated in certain ethnicities."
  • Why are Australia and New Zealand combined with "and" in the first of the following?
    • "...and by immigrant communities in Australia and New Zealand, Europe..."
    • "...and by immigrant communities in Australia, New Zealand, Europe..."
Reasons/Overview
  • Perhaps move "in surveys"?
    • "The most common reasons for FGM that practitioners have cited in surveys include social acceptance,..."
    • "In surveys, the most common reasons for FGM that practitioners have cited include social acceptance,..."
  • Shouldn't this semi-colon be a colon?
    • "There are also aesthetic factors; according to..."
    • "There are also aesthetic factors: according to..."
  • I think more "was" are needed for consistency:
    • "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, and tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics."
    • "Like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, was nearly universal where practised, and was tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics."
Reasons/Support from women
  • A pedant is going to point out that a village cannot pledge anything. Not sure if there is a good fix.
    • "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which villages pledge not to cut..."
    • "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which village populations pledge not to cut..."
    • "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which village inhabitants pledge not to cut..."
    • "Mackie has worked with UNICEF to develop programmes in which the people in a village pledge not to cut..."
  • I'm weak on grammatical rules like splitting infinitives, but "pledge not to x and to y" is slightly confusing.
    • "villages pledge not to cut girls and to allow their sons to marry uncut girls"
    • "villages pledge to not cut girls and to allow their sons to marry uncut girls"
  • Would it be better to spell out "the practice" so speed readers won't think it might refer to "model"?
    • "has used this model ... the first village in Senegal to abandon the practice."
    • "has used this model ... the first village in Senegal to abandon FGM."
History/Antiquity
  • Possibly need something to tie O'Rourke's statement to Knight's view that Spell 1117 may refer to an uncircumcised girl—I gather that O'Rourke is disputing the claim.
    • "Paul F. O'Rourke argues that it probably refers to..."
    • "However, Paul F. O'Rourke argues that it probably refers to..."
Opposition/Growth of opposition
  • Might need "and" after the comma.
    • "attracted international attention: in 1994 CNN broadcast images...in Cairo, a child died..."
    • "attracted international attention: in 1994 CNN broadcast images...in Cairo, and a child died..."
  • Perhaps reduce confusion regarding what "it" refers to.
    • "to rule that FGM had no basis in Islamic law, and the government outlawed it the following year."
    • "to rule that FGM had no basis in Islamic law, and the government outlawed the practice in the following year."
    • "to rule that FGM had no basis in Islamic law, and the practice was outlawed by the government in the following year."
Template:FGM opposition timeline
  • Consider changes:
    • "allowed partial clitoridectomy if parents requested it."
    • "allowed partial clitoridectomy if requested by parents."
  • and
    • "called on women's groups mobilize against FGM."
    • "called on women's groups to mobilize against FGM."
  • and
    • "wrote report on FGM for Minority Rights Group in France."
    • "wrote a report on FGM for the Minority Rights Group in France."
Criticism of opposition/Tolerance versus human rights
  • The following might need tweaking.
    • "One of the areas of dispute is whether the medical evidence supports that FGM is invariably harmful."
    • "One of the areas of dispute is whether medical evidence supports the idea that FGM is invariably harmful."
    • "One of the areas of dispute is whether medical evidence shows that FGM is invariably harmful."

Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thank you, this is very helpful. I have one other thing I need to do first, but then I'm going to take another run through the article, and I'll address your issues when I do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorde

[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 bring this article to GA status. As I am familiar with American English, I would like someone to check if this article was done in New Zealand English or not (as Lorde is a New Zealander).

Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Before taking this to GAN, here's some comments.....

Lead
  • Her musical content doesn't really need to be described here, should just be in body.
  • "Lorde's music are styled in the subgenres of"..... reads awkwardly, try "Lorde's music consists of"
  • "typical teen" seems rather biased
Life and career
Early life and career beginnings
Artistry
Musical style
Personal life and Image
  • The first paragraph contains so little detail that it's probably best incorporated into her "life and career" section, and rename this section "Public Image".
  • "From late 2013"..... In
  • Since this does not mention or even make references to Rihanna explictly, you should include the referral link as well if giving detail on her.
  • "She explains her disdain towards women wearing sexy lingerie and opining that"..... has expressed disdain, replace "and" with a comma, "sexy" is POV
  • "despite the fact she is too young to vote" → "despite not being eligible to vote"
  • "The American singer" is unneeded in "The American singer Britney Spears named Lorde"
Awards and nominations
  • This section right now is entirely blank aside from a referral link. Write a paragraph or two talking about her major achievements like Grammy Awards and MTV Video Music Awards, perhaps some detail on her commercial success as well.

Overall, not a bad article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to help, though you still haven't fixed up the section for public image. Her school life belongs in career section, and her dating life as well since there's not enough information on that to have its own section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murdering Oscar (And Other Love Songs)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get feedback on what (relatively major) improvements should be done so it can have a better chance of passing a GA nomination.

Thanks, Jinkinson talk to me 23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen (Megadeth album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a featured article. Presently, I know the article has potential, but I need some help ironing out the rough edges.

Thanks, L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Lead could use information about the composition process (recording, conception, etc)
Done Added some information about songs, that some of the songs were reworked things from the past and that it was recorded in 2011. Anything else takes away from the rest of the article, in my opinion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section #Odd occurrences during recording could be retitled
Done I just removed the header. Isn't really necessary anyway--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section #Songs looks really choppy when passing through. It could be broken up into subsections
In Progress--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • revealed the band had already started "talking about [a new album]" and explained that, although the band was in "tour mode", there were a "couple of ideas" the band was starting to work on. - a little verbose. I think this could probably be cut back a bit without losing any information
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the successful European "big four" concerts, Drover stated plans for recording a thirteenth Megadeth album. - What does this add that the preceding sentence doesn't?
DoneThis is why PR is such a good thing; other sets of eyes catch things I missed. Removed the offending sentence.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually a lot of that going on. I don't seem to have the time to pick at every sentence, but here are some general hints
  • Rather than phrasing everything as a "revelation" or announcement, instead present it as fact (except where changed subsequently). "In an interview before a show in Auckland, New Zealand, Mustaine noted that the then-upcoming record was the last one on his contract with Roadrunner Records and mentioned that Roadrunner was trying to give the band a "huge new deal". However, Mustaine expressed frustration with the label, saying "The treatment's been terrible over the years, and I just don't want it." He stated that he would prefer to retire than "continue to play like that". Nevertheless, Mustaine exclaimed the band's new record would be "great" and the songs were "really good". for instance, is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too verbose. Something like "Thirteen was the last album completed by Megadeth as part of their (x-album maybe?) contract with Roadrunner Records. Mustained explained that, although the label was trying to give the band a "huge new deal", he (or the band?) had grown tired of the company's poor treatment and would rather retire than "continue to play like that"." The last sentence (about the "great" album) is ultimately just pre-album hype, and not encyclopedic. That he said this in an interview is not necessary to note explicitly if we're not quoting him as much. That would mean turning 91 words into about 52 words... and be a much tighter read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I don't have time right at this moment, but I will start addressing these critiques shortly. Thanks for your input!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Lede
  • It strikes me that the second and third sentences of the lede paragraph can be combined.
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would date the release of the lead single, since you make reference to that time later on.
  • Is the detail on the Grammy nominations for the singles really necessary, given that none won?
Done I trimmed the fat somewhat, but I feel that it is given due weight in the lead by mentioning them as it's written now. It was a little too detailed before though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing, etc.
  • "drummer Shawn Drover revealed the band talking about a followup album " some rephrasing may be needed here.
DoneI think I rephrased that before and must have left a word out when I did. Decided to rewrite it a little more now.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mustaine should be introduced at first mention, say as "frontman" or "lead singer"
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Was it Mustaine's contract about to expire or the band's? " I realize that it can be just about the same thing
Done fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but clarified the band would not be hitting the studio until 2011. " Hardly surprising, given it was a December interview.
  • "Ellefson stated the album was ready to be mixed as of July 2011." You should probably lead off with the date "By July 2011, the album was ready to be mixed". I don't know if you really need to source it to Ellefson. Is no detail available on the recording sessions? Even when they were? Do the liner notes say anything on the subject?
  • Countdown to Extinction should be italicized in the quotation.
Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Ellefson also announced the band has been considering album titles, but no release date was yet planned." Two issues here. First, why the "has been" about past events? And this seems contradictory to Mustaine's statement about the title, although that did say "subsequently". Straighten out, please. Also, you mention the inclusion of "Sudden Death" and "Already Dead" twice each, plus even more info in the "songs" section.
  • The two previous examples of Megadeth songs being contributed to video games can probably be consigned to a footnote.
  • "It was clarified a day later on the band's website to be "Th1rt3en"" Possibly "The band revealed a day later on its website that the title of the album would be rendered, "Th1rt3en"
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""À Tout le Monde": What relevance does this have to Thirteen?
 In progress tried to make it a little more clear that it is the reason why Mustaine was concerned about the release date being a bad omen--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release etc.
  • Put footnote strings in numerical order
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! is not only mentioned twice but it is linked twice. Consolidate please.
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Songs
  • The Grammy noms should be sourced and should probably appear under "Reaction" or a similar section
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ellefson's comment in the present tense when most other band quotations are in the past?
Done If you are referring to where it said "Ellefson also notes", then that's been fixed.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction
  • Do we really need to hear about Mustaine's "snarling" vocals THREE TIMES? Find some other stuff they said.
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disappointed of" disappointed by
DoneYeah, that must have been edited down from something else and that was overlooked. Fixed now, thanks for catching it!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the band tour in support of the album?
My general thought is that greater thought should be given to how information is organized and presented so as to avoid repetitions and what seems sometimes to be somewhat of a random ordering of information.
I'll be happy to follow up and read it again, just drop me a note on my talk. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I will look over these more carefully and act on them soon. Thanks for your input!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead

[edit]
  • Megadeth's release Endgame would be better described as "the previous album"; also, do we need to quote "couple of ideas"?
  • American rock producer "Johnny K" Karkazis→I think the nationality and music genre might be a bit too detailed for an article such as this; also, why don't we write the producer simply as Johnny K, per his Wiki article?
Done I'm gonna have to scan through he rest of the article though to make sure he's not referred to by his last name elsewhere though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead of Andy Sneap
Noted Did something else with the sentence instead that I think works.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If tracks "Sudden Death" and "Never Dead" were previously released, it should be stated when and where. This should read chronologically, and I saw they were discussed few paragraphs bellow.
  • album names should be capitalized even if they appear in quote marks (check Endgame and Countdown to Extinction)
Do you mean italicized? I didn't see any caps issues, but both were in some instances not italicized. I think one of the other editors pointed that out too. In any case, that is fixed.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 'Songs' section could be re-shaped so that song descriptions appear per track listing.

The Who

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed GA about a year ago, receiving a million award in the process. Such an important and high-traffic band article really should be at featured article status, so this is the first step. Since the GA review, I've added a section on "Musical style", kept the narrative up to date to include their 2014 tour, and done some general copyediting, but hopefully with as many eyes on this as possible, we can make this a truly great article.

Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
@SNUGGUMS: - anyone out there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay, Ritchie. Here's some starting comments.....
Infobox
  • Are the listed subgenres of rock really needed? Since they're known as a rock band, we can just simply say that.
Some are, some aren't. Power pop is cited explicitly, and I think hard rock probably could go in somewhere around Live at Leeds to explain the contrast between itself and Tommy. Let me come back to this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "an English rock band formed in 1964"..... that formed
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For much of their career they have been regarded"..... needs a comma after "career"
Are you sure about that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most important British rock acts"..... English, let's be more specific here
I would rather stick with "British", as that is what the sources use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the world's best-selling bands of all time, having sold more than 100 million records"..... why is this not mentioned within the article body? Should probably be under an "achievements" section or something in body.....
  • "hit singles" in "A string of hit singles followed" is WP:PEACOCK
I don't think it is - it's factually correct. Their follow-up singles could have been chart flops, but they weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try splitting "The Who resumed regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey, to a positive response, and were considering the possibility of a new album, but these plans were stalled by Entwistle's death in June 2002" into two sentences
Whereabouts would you consider a good splitting point? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
Background
  • The founding members passing an exam isn't really needed, just say they all attended the same school and grew up in Acton, London
(Without wishing to sound like a grizzly old fart who was programming on the ZX Spectrum before Katy Perry was even born...) The eleven plus exam was the cornerstone of the Tripartite system of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the 40s to the 70s and was an important stage of anyone's life. The result of passing or failing the eleven plus could completely change a child's future as it determined which secondary school they went to. (Just compare Norton Knatchbull School to The North School). Passing the eleven plus was a notable achievement (only about 1 in 4 did) and allowed all three to have a better shot in life. Had any of them failed it, the Who as we know it would probably not have existed. Fletcher's book on Keith Moon devotes a couple of pages to this topic (Moon failed his). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "so" from "He was unable to afford his own instrument and so built one at home", and place a comma after "instrument"
Removed "so" but I don't think the comma is necessary Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a more accomplished musician"..... experienced musician would be more encylcopedic
Gone with "better" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1964–1978
Early career
  • There should be a space after the comma in "in late April at the Oldfield,the band met Keith Moon"
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First singles and My Generation
  • Do we really need "first singles" in the section title?
I think so, because prior to Tommy, the Who were a singles band, as were most acts in 1965, and their hits (like everyone from the Beatles downwards) did not put singles on LPs. It's only really about 1968 that albums became more important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out
  • For those who don't recognize Daltrey and Moon's faces, it would be helpful to indicate in the photo caption which is which
Looks like this has been done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant to include things like "(right)" and "(left)" in the caption Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was in the filename. Oops. Done, and popped another picture in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had held off recording it"..... just say delayed recording
Gone with "avoided" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a fairly disastrous tour"..... I think unsuccessful will do
Reduced to just "a tour" with an explanation of what happened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy, Woodstock, and Live at Leeds
  • "In August, he gave a major interview to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in which he described in intricate detail an album project he was working on, the plot of which eventually became the Tommy album" is quite a mouthful. Try simplifying to something like "In August, he described to Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner in detail what would become the Tommy album".
Redone this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later on.....Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: - sorry about the delay, I got sidetracked with real like and AfC. Any more for any more? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. There is indeed more, but it's not going to all come in one go.
Lifehouse and Who's Next
  • "both tracks' keyboard sounds were generated in real time by a Lowrey organ, and on 'Won't Get Fooled Again', it was further processed through a VCS3 synthesizer"..... while 'Won't Get Fooled Again was processed through a VCS3 synthesizer
Done 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, and linked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia, Tommy film, and The Who by Numbers
  • Elaborate on "Moon's behaviour was becoming increasingly destructive and problematic"
Done, though I would like a second opinion as now it goes into a little bit too much detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "screamed verbal abuse at him"..... reads awkwardly, "screamed at him" or "verbally abused him" would probably be better
"screamed at him" will probably do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filming began in April 1974 (including 1500 extras at Portsmouth Polytechnic for the 'Pinball Wizard' sequence) and lasted through until August"..... concluded in August.
Gone with "carried on until August" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who Are You and Moon's death
  • "he bumped into the Sex Pistols' Steve Jones and Paul Cook"..... met with
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their performance was so weak that the footage was left unused. Moon's playing was particularly lacklustre"..... I'm not convinced this is entirely neutral
That's what's in the source. I've counterbalanced it with an online interview from Daltrey about the gig. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "poor performance at Kilburn. Their performance was strong"..... same as before
They wouldn't have done the May '78 filming unless they had to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best to keep Moon's age in his own article rather than here
Seems a bit silly to just have "He was 32" to a whole source. Removed that, but left the source in as it does back up the previous claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far, coming along pretty well..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead

[edit]

See I'm little late here. Here's the review (from bottom to top):

  • refs 37, 268, 269, 273–no need for capitalizing the article's name
After other changes, I think the citation numbers are all out of sync, but I assume this is because the titles had VERY ANNOYING SHOUTING in them. Should all be fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 'Awards and accolades' could use some expansion; you can write whether they have won a Grammy, or that the band has entered the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, for example.
Before I started work on getting the article to GA, this section was basically what List of awards and nominations received by The Who is now, and I just kept the opening paragraph. I think this needs rewriting from that list article, but it shouldn't be too taxing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit more work on this. I've collapsed "awards and nominations" to a subsection in "legacy" and copied a few more accolades over. Most of the other stuff in the awards spinoff article are either not particularly reliable or about specific albums. I'll have a scout around for anything else that is of unquestionably high importance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • second paragraph of the 'Legacy and influence' could benefit from some copyediting. The quotes read monotonically to a certain degree; all of the musicians are repeating themselves by saying "The Who are the greatest band of all time!". Why not paraphrase some of the quotes, or incorporate in what way the group influenced the bands that followed (musically, lyrically, visually, etc.)
I've made a start on this. Some of it can move into "Musical style" (eg: the note about power pop), some of it can be trimmed down. I need to do some more work on this, principally as you say by using quotations and concentrating on sources that deal with music as a whole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
  • Isn't there some rule that we're supposed to use a recent photo (for BLPs, I think).
Not as far as I know (but that doesn't necessarily mean anything) - the lead says "their best known line-up...." and lists the members in the picture, two of whom are deceased. Given this, I'm surprised nobody challenged it, but coverage in books and sources suggest the (not quite) original four is where the article should spend most time, and I think the picture should follow suit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For much of their career they have been regarded: what about now?
The last source marking this claim is dated May 2013, which I think is recent enough not to invalidate the claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • more than 100 million records: what about cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs?
You can't say "albums" as that doesn't include singles (and before Tommy the Who were singles first, albums second), "albums, singles and EPs" is too long, "albums, cassettes, eight-tracks, CDs, reel to reel, librettos, sheet music" is too long, and "units" is industry jargon that the layman reader won't understand. What word can you use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"having sold more than 100 million copies of their recordings"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • single billed as the High Numbers the single was billed as the High Numbers?
"billed" is redundant. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • specialising in auto-destructive art by destroying guitars and drums onstage: I'll have to read the rest of the article, but did they really specialize in such a thing? It makes me think of Hendrix---he had a reputation for smashing and burning guitars, but only actually did it something like three times.
The Who smashed their gear occasionally through 1965, most of the time in 1966 and 1967 (eg: Montrey, Smothers Brothers, the montage of equipment smashing on The Kids are Alright film), and tailed it off in 1968 because it was getting two expensive. Certainly on their first US tour, Townshend was smashing five guitars a day. In short, yes. (all in Marsh's book, can get specific cites with page numbers if required). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But "specialising in"? Maybe "featuring"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support by pirate radio and television: but not mainstream radio? How did they manage to get on TV?
In 1964, the only "mainstream radio" in the UK was the BBC (independent commercial radio did not exist until 1973), and its coverage of pop music was extremely limited. They got on TV because they had a single in the charts and they got the record deal for the single through somebody seeing them gigging at the Marquee and writing a rave review about it. They then became closely identified with ITV's Ready Steady Go throughout 1965 and 66, hence the "television". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I won't be the only one who has no clue about these circumstances (no commerical radio?) Perhaps in the lead it should just be "radio", and then "pirate radio" in the body, where it can be explained. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in 1964 we didn't have commercial radio, we'd only just gone up to three black and white TV channels, you needed shillings for the electric meter, I had to get up at half ten at night half an hour before I went to bed, work down mill 37 hours a day for tuppence a year and when we got home our dad ... sorry, I'm rambling. I've removed "radio and television" entirely, while the pirate radio connection is important, I don't think it'll hurt to restrict it to the body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not worth mentioning that Tommy and Quadrophenia were rock operas (and double discs)? "Rock opera" is a term associated with the Who, isn't it? I might also mention that Quadrohenia was recorded with quadrophonic sound in mind.
The trouble is, "Tommy" the rock opera could be confused with the orchestral version, the film, the musical, or something else. I'll have a think about "rock opera" (and it goes back to 1966 for the Who). I don't believe Quadrophenia was specifically planned with a quad mix, do you have a source for that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying---"rock opera" is a term strongly tied to the band, but the lead never mentions it. The Quadrophenia arilce quotes Townshend in the lead: "The whole conception of Quadrophenia was geared to quadraphonic". The infobox there also claims the album was prog, which is an awful broad interpretation of prog, if you ask me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia is assessed as C class, has numerous cleanup tags and needs serious work. I wouldn't trust anything in that article. I will improve it some day (unless somebody else does). I've put "rock opera" next to Tommy as the two terms are unquestionably related. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released in 1979 along with the retrospective documentary: this makes it sound like the releases were related to each other. Were they?
Not really. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 that drew mixed reviews: was the fact that it drew mixed reviews significant enough to mention it in the lead? Was it a big deal?
From Rolling Stone : Much to the horror of their fans, the five-man lineup of 1979-1982 had suddenly swelled to 15 people. Making matters worse, Pete Townshend played acoustic guitar all night. Steve "Boltz" Bolton handled electric duties. It didn't sound much like the Who, and fans derisively labeled it "The Who on Ice." A search for "The Who on ice" (inside quotes) brings back similar strongly negative reviews (although not all are as reliable as Rolling Stone). No other Who tour before or since got such negative press coverage, so in that context, "mixed reviews" is, I think, generous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "mixed reviews", then, an accurate (or helpful) way to describe it? It makes one wonder why it's even being mentioned. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because the tour was substantially different and there were no tours for years either side of it, but to be honest, I don't think it really matters for the lead. As an added bonus, we can loose a comma, which generally makes the FAC regulars happy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a tour of Quadrophenia in 2012: sounds like they toured a place called Quadrophenia
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • before announcing their retirement in 2014 after a final album and accompanying live shows.: yet Townshend and Daltrey are still listed as current members in the Infobox
Reworded so this makes more sense - they've announced they will be doing a final tour but they've done a "final tour" 30 years ago, so until multiple sources say the Who has irrevocably and permanently split, or one or both of the founding members dies, then we can change the infobox, but per WP:CRYSTAL, not before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
[edit]
It is, but "founding members" doesn't sound out of place, so let's go with what will fit with most readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daltrey, Townshend and Entwistle,: given that this is their first mentions in the body, I'd used their full names, and link them
The problem here is that I have had previous reviews telling me the opposite, ie: WP:LASTNAME applies for every second and subsequent use, lead or body (see Talk:The Yes Album/GA1.
WP:LASTNAME doesn't actually say anything about the lead, and Funkmonk was actually telling you the same thing I am. WP:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That's not a requirement, but it's definitely a very common approach, especially considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Ther's inconsistency in that you link, for example, albums, songs, terms such as auto-destructive art, and basically everything else linked in the lead except for the band members. If you feel strongly enough about it, I'm not about to oppose it at FAC, but I do think it's good practice. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on The Yes Album, by the way---one of my favourites! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that not too long ago I got reverted with a summary of WP:OVERLINK / WP:LASTNAME after putting a name in both the lead and the body. However, I'm blowed if I can find it, so ... full names in and lead and body it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cliff, had played saxophone: but had ceased by the time Townshend went to Acton? If not, drop the "had".
"Had" removed (sources documenting him playing professionally up to at least the mid 1960s, well into the Who's career). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend's father, Cliff, had played saxophone and his mother, Betty, had sung in the entertainment division of the RAF during World War II, while Entwistle's father, Herbert, played trumpet, and his mother, Queenie, played piano.: fairly long sentence, might be worth copping in two. "saxophone", "trumpet", and "piano" are WP:OVERLINKing.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and so built one at home: holy shit!
It's perfectly true (or at least verifiable to two official endorsed band biographies). What the article doesn't say (but one source does), though, is that the glue gave out on the first gig and it collapsed in pieces. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • both left school aged 16: as in they dropped out, or they graduated?
The source says, verbatim, "At the age of sixteen, John and Pete left Acton County School". It means "graduated" in the sense they reached the minimum school leaving age without getting expelled, but that's more US English. "Left school" (with the implication that the subject got to standard leaving age and started work) is recognisable British English. These days with kids going off to get a BTEC in hairdressing it's starting to become anachronistic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there some way to word this to make it clear they didn't drop out? Because, like I said, that's the impression the wording gives to a North American (WP:COMMONALITIES). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ran this past my other half yesterday (who grew up in the US), and the long and short of it is the UK does not have the equivalent of a High School Diploma, the closest thing being compulsory subjects at GCSE, and (certainly in my case) after my last exam, I never went to school again (and in Moon's case, he simply stopped going and looked for work). Anyway, back on track, I've simply said "After Acton County", as what they did after school is more important (in Entwistle's case, the job allowed him to buy a proper bass, Townshend has repeatedly said that art school changed his life). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • fitting in as an outsider: as a geographical outsider, or personality-wise? A North American would assume the latter.
I would say both - he came from a different area and was of a different social class. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you might want to make that explicit. North Americans tend to move frequently---I went to three elementary schools in different municipalities, and it never made me an "outsider". It would not cross a North American's mind that such a thing would make one an "outsider" unless that was explicitly stated. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "fitting in at school". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through Townshend's mother, the group obtained a management contract with local promoter Robert Druce, who started booking the band as a support act, and they became increasingly influenced by bands they were supporting, including Screaming Lord Sutch, Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers, Shane Fenton and the Fentones, and Johnny Kidd and the Pirates.: another long sentence I'd like to see cut up.
I've reworded this bit, and cut out a few other superfluous terms. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • more of a lead instrument: in what way? He did solos?
That's what the source says, verbatim. I think the problem with the sources is they assume you've heard the Who's music before reading the book and trust you're familiar with stuff like this and this (is the last two of those a reliable source, I wonder)? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the actual video might---not so confident a promo would be acceptable. What I meant, though, was about his playing at the time in the narrative. Was he playing all over the place then, or did it develop over time? Does the video say, I wonder? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled out a few more book sources to talk about Entwistle's style, though most of it's ended up in "Musical Style" as you might expect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
[edit]
  • By the time the Detours had evolved into the Who: is this evolution? They dropped the one name and took on the other
Changed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (also did a "noted" per WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED elsewhere) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the band met Moon for the first time: first mention in the body, so should be full name & linked
See above comment Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but wanted a full-time role: wanted a full-time role with the Beachcombers?
I think he just wanted to play music professionally, regardless of which band. Reworded in any case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's worded, it could be parsed as "he wanted a full-time role [with the Beachcombers]". Maybe "he wanted to be a full-time drummer" or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - that article says they formed in the late 1960s when the Who were well up and running. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another break here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


First singles and My Generation
[edit]
  • He signed the group to his production company: do we have a name for this?
I'll have a hunt round for sources. You would have thought an original label for "I Can't Explain" would have it, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a (one-sentence) explanation of pirate radio would be helpful. If you don't know the history, it sounds fringe & underground, & unlikely to contribute to Top Ten Success.
I've dropped in a brief explanation of why pirate radio was important, and changed the link to the more descriptive pirate radio in the United Kingdom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single also reached the top 10 in the UK: if it was rejected for the US market, then what does "also" refer to?
Removed (it refers to being their second top ten hit)
  • who enjoyed clubbing: meaning they enjoyed clubbing together?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean "clubbing" was unclear, I meant following "The Who were not particularly good friends either, apart from Moon and Entwistle" it wasn't clear if Moon and Entwistle were good friends because (or so) they clubbed together, or they just happened to be friends, and tangentially both enjoyed clubbing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambert and Stamp claimed...while Talmy claimed: "claim"
Fixed, although to be honest, exactly what is the issue with "a claimed x but b claimed y" other than "The MOS says so"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale at WP:CLAIM is "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it saw a proper remix: as opposed to what kind of remix? Also, there are reviewers who maintain that "saw" here would be inappropriate anthropomorphism (I don't buy it, but don't be surprised if it comes up).
Reworded. I think a proper remaster would be the right term here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction Label: is "Label" part of the label name?
Mistake, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and replaced with "Waltz for a Pig": was the "Substitute" single replaced with "Waltz for a Pig", or just the B-side?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • collection of songs called "Quads": does "collection of songs" man something like an EP? In that case, should "Quads" be italicized?
I would guess so. 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A Quick One and The Who Sell Out
[edit]
  • Moon detonated his drum kit: this was live, wasn't it? I might mention it.
The music was mimed, but the explosion was obviously real. 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it broadcast live? This seems to strongly imply it: "...nationally televised performance of "My Generation" with a literal bang that singed Pete Townshend's hair, left shrapnel in Keith Moon's arm and momentarily knocked The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour off the air." A filmed performance wouldn't knock anything off the air, I imagine. And those other details might be worth mentioning (shrapnel in Moon's arm?) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below. The Smothers Brothers show was released on The Kids are Alright film and several other Who documentaries. Needless to say it's been bootlegged all over YouTube (just do a search for "The Who Smothers Brothers" and you'll find one), and you can easily see the explosion and resulting carnage, but it did not knock the show off the air. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but had been banned that August: the album, or pirate radio?
Added link to Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 and reworded (the ban happened first, then the album was recorded) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a mini rock opera called "Rael" whose closing theme ended up on Tommy': meaning the closing theme appeared on both albums?
Yes - it's musically identical. It also turned up in the Live at Leeds performance of "My Generation". Do you need a {{cite audio}} for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant it's not clear if this meant the ending was dropped from the album and then included on Tommy. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this so it makes more sense and explains exactly what songs use the same music. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about Hendrix upstaging the Who with their own schtick at Monterey?
I thought I added a quote from Tony Fletcher's book about Hendrix being "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing". Maybe it was another article. Let me come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added quite a bit more information about the 1967 tours, which account for the comments re Monterey and the Smothers Brothers show above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there something about Townshend refusing to have the Who follow Hendrix? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that - it was more that the Who wanted to go on first and argued. I don't think Hendrix cared. I've popped a bit in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy, Woodstock and Live at Leeds
[edit]
  • came directly from Townshend's studies of Baba: meaning he wrote them while studying with Baba, or they were inspired by Baba's teachings?
The latter (Townshend and Baba never actually met; there is some irony in a member of "the world's loudest band" being influenced by someone notable for taking a lengthy vow of silence)
You might want to state that---I mean, this comes not long after the Beatles went to India, so it's easy to assume Townshend was studying with Baba. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'd still like to see "interested in the teachings of Meher Baba" made more explicit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and "Pinball Wizard" was written to attract the interest of New York Times journalist Nik Cohn: why?
Reworded so it's more obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today, Gibson manufactures: this'll date.
They've been making Townshend SGs for about 15 years now, but I see your point. Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"subsequently" coud be interpreted as "not long after". Maybe "From 19XX, Gibson began manufacturing..."? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'd need a source for that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm taking so many breaks. If I forget to come back, give me a ping. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tend to be busy in real life, so I wouldn't worry about it too much - there's no deadline in finishing this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: I think everything's been addressed one way or another, or at least almost everything has. Shall we tackle the 70s? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifehouse and Who's Next
[edit]
  • tired of not getting enough of his own songs on Who albums: maybe "more" instead of "enough"---after all, what's "enough"?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • thought of a suitable follow-up to Tommy': could be interpreted as a sudden thought that came to him, or as Townshend spent time thinking of something
Reworded. I've gone with "how the Who could make a studio album" as Live At Leeds had been released at this point in the narrative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • creating various layers of synthesizers: meaning he multitracked synthesizers?
Yes, you couldn't get polyphonic synths until the mid 1970s. What wording should be changed / improved here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a nervous breakdown, and Lifehouse was abandoned: I think it reads better as "had a nervous breakdown and abandoned Lifehouse"
Not sure. That implies Townshend specifically abandoned Lifehouse, whereas I think it was a group decision that the project was not going to work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the available Lifehouse material: I feel like "available" isn't the right adjective
Reworded (and taken out the adjective, thus side stepping the issue)
I thought it was, but a quick look at the source reveals it was the Record Plant on Seventh Avenue. Added "Record Plant" and changed link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in New York, which had to be abandoned: they had to abandon New York?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • were released as a traditional studio album, Who's Next': a release date would be nice
It was August 1971 (added and sourced)
  • reaching No. 4 in the US pop charts and No. 1 in the UK: "in" the charts and not "on" the charts? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
Changed to "No. 1 in the UK and No. 1 in the US". I don't think we need to say "in / on the charts" as it's not done anywhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend was credited with "VCS3 Organ" and "ARP Synthesizer" on the cover.: this sounds more like info for the album article than for the band article
Removed (the previous sentence describes it in more detail) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • , produced by Moon: the solo was produced separately from the tracks? That raises a number of questions for the reader; personally I'd drop it and leave the details to the album article.
That's what's cited on the back cover - "violin on Baba O'Riley produced by Keith Moon". [2] Moon's own article (a GA) talks about the circumstances more. I've taken out "produced by Moon" from this sentence, but left the remainder. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • they opened the Rainbow Theatre: not opened at?
Reworded (now slightly shorter). Also rewritten so that the text doesn't say on 4 November they played at the venue for 3 nights. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia, Tommy film and The Who by Numbers
[edit]
  • for the first part of 1972: how long is a "part"?
Clarified (also added name of abandoned album started in May 72) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • had left significant amounts of money unaccounted for: what, they left mystery money lying around?
The source says, specifically, "In 1972, Daltrey had New Action's books audited and discovered huge sums of money unaccouted for." I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and examines the relationship with his family and the mod culture: Jimmy or the album examine this?
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and rehearsals were interrupted due to an argument which culminated in Daltrey punching Townshend and knocking him out cold: "and" seems to imply that this was related to the tech issues or the synthesizers---was it?
According to the source, the group were rehearsing "5:15", the tapes malfunctioned, Townshend got cross and started having a go at whoever was in earshot, which happened to be Daltrey, who, being the better fighter, punched Townshend in self defence. How might we get that in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • described this gig as one of the worst of all time: worst gig, or worst Who gig?
Worst gig, full stop, according to the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Canadian Mounted Police were called: I'm Canadian. I'd say it's unusual to shorten "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" to "Canadian Mounted Police". I'd either unshorten it, or use RCMP (or "the Mounties"---but I'm not sure if that's unencyclopaedic or not).
Okay, you might be able to help with my understanding here. I though the RCMP were the national police, at a higher level than the provincial or municipal police, so you had the standard Montreal PD, then the RCMP above that - the implication here being that they caused so much destruction that they required top level enforcement. It's not in the article, but according to one source, Moon trashed an antique painting and he, Townshend and some roadies rammed a table through an adjoining wall, before sending it out of the window. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds about right to me; I didn't think about that, but yeah I guess calling in the Mounties for trashing a hotel room sounds pretty over-the-top. Perhaps because it involved high-profile foreigners? The details of law enforcement are definitely well outside my expertise. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth just briefly qualifying the status of the RCMP (eg: "the highest level of Canadian law enforcement") - since I had to ask, anyone else outside Canada probably would too. They did destroy irreplaceable antique furniture! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to suggest something like [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]], but the article on it says "It is unique in the world as a national, federal, provincial, and municipal policing body". I have no idea what the difference between "federal" and "national" is, and I had no idea they also functioned on a provincial and municipal level. I guess that muddies the water a bit---even if your sources calls them national police, they may have (naturally) simply assumed they were acting at a national capacity (until a few minutes ago, I would've, too). Maybe just leave it at Royal Canadian Mounted Police (expanded)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this: "the RCMP does not provide provincial or municipal policing in either Ontario or Quebec". So I guess [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|federal law enforcement]] would be accurate. And if they destroyed antique furniture & paintings, wouldn't that be worth saying so? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so, now done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to a standing ovation from the audience: seriously?! It's been twenty years since I last saw it, but I remember it as horrifying
It's in the source here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not accusing you of making it up. It just blows me away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the 70s for you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • $2M in box-office receipts in its first month: MOS:NUMBERS says "M" may be used "after spelling out the first occurrence", but (a) the "first occurence" is in the lead; and (b) I don't think it's a good idea in an article in which big numbers like this don't appear frequently
  • reaching number 2 on the Billboard albums chart: sometimes there's "No.", sometimes "number"; should choose one or the other
Should all be "No." + non breaking space + number - that's my preferred format. I blame IPs.
  • were restricted to a one-off show: "restricted" sounds like someone actively disallowed the shows; I imagine from the context that they just didn't have time
  • a one-off show at Charlton Athletic Football Ground in May: worth redlinking Charlton Athletic Football Ground?
That's The Valley (London), but it's not linked on first use. Now fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • lightened by "Squeeze Box", another hit single: how did "Squeeze Box" lighten things? By being a hit single, by being light in tone?
I've reworded this entire sentence, and added some other examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • reintroducing Tommy to the set: songs from Tommy, or performances of Tommy?
Clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entwistle considered the Who's live performances to be at their peak at this time.: any word on what the other members thought?
Townshend was fed up with all of it. Added that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another break---sorry. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: - okay, I think I've covered all the points now. I'm busy over the weekend, so there's enough time to tackle as much of the remainder as we can manage. Thanks for all the help you've done so far, hopefully if a few others chip in it'll make the FA review a much easier ride. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Are You and Moon's death
[edit]
  • While recuperating: a surprising choice of words, given that we're told his reason to take time off was to spend time with his family.
Removed
  • he discovered that Allen Klein: who? And why would this disillusion him?
If you knew the first, you'd know the second! [3] Reworded
  • who both liked the Who: just "liked"? Weren't the Who a primary influence? I seem to remember Lydon making snide comments about the band doing "their Who things" or something.
I don't think I've got a source that goes that far, and the case of the Pistols (who were year zero, all the past is irrelevant etc etc) they were unlikely to come out and say it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he passed out in a doorway: just like that? Was he drunk?
Might have been more than just drink, but without a reliable source and since he's still living, I'm not sure what else we can do here?
  • Moon was so out of shape: what, he'd gained a lot of weight? It says so later, but you might want to make it explicit here; for those who know how he ends up, "out of shape" could mena something to do with his consumption habits
I've gone with "unfit", but I'm not sure that's the right word to use - but the Kilburn footage has been released and this demonstrates why they were not exactly on top form
  • Having not played: "Not having played" seems to roll off the tonguue more smoothly, I think
  • The film was shelved: because of the shitty performance? Best to make it explicit
Reworded to solve both of these issues Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • biggest and fastest seller to that date: was it surpassed by a later recording?
I'd be surprised if it was - this was pretty much the end of their mainstream recording career. What would you suggest? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1978–1983
[edit]
  • can ever take his place".: Is there a period in the original? Given this is quoted as a full statement, if there's a period in the original, the period should go inside the quote.
Fixed (also the quotation spans over two pages) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the Cannes Film Festival in France, in Scotland, at Wembley Stadium in London, in West Germany, at the Capitol Theater in Passaic, New Jersey, and in five dates at Madison Square Garden in New York City.: this reads unnaturally, as it alternates between <specific place> in <country>, and just <country>.
  • unassigned, or festival seating: "unnassigned, or festival, seating"? Otherwise it reads as "festival seating" vs "unassigned"—unassigned what?
"unassigned" in this case means nobody gets a ticket for a specific location; however the rest of the sentence describes what festival seating is anyway, so it's irrelevant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • on MTV on its first day of airing: on the video's first day of airing?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • realising his role as a visionary: I think "realizing" is one of those words to avoid
Had a go at rewording this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing.: is this supposed to imply Townshend was pining for Moon's playing?
  • There was resentment, too: resentment from the rest of the band? This is an unannounced shift from the Townshend perspective
It was specifically Daltrey and Entwistle. Jones had generally nothing to do with arguments and stayed out of them. I've added a quotation from Entwistle to enforce this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "farewell" tour of the US and Canada: why the scare quotes? And why not Britain?
Because history has shown us it wasn't a farewell. Indeed, later in the article, there is a reference to a newspaper article mentioning this in the light of their current farewell tour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ending in Toronto on 17 December: whoo, T'ranna!
  • paid for himself and Jones to be released: do we know how much he paid?
Not yet, but I'll look for a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as White City: A Novel : this is an album, and not an actual novel? Might want to make it clear
Reworded to solo albums (as they all were) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What did you want me to do?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else, suggest anything and everything that would make the article fail an FA review. Bad prose, missing facts, dodgy formatting, content that could be misunderstood - anything, really. I've been out all weekend so I'll deal with comments in the week to come. I would like to get a brown star but the man hours it seems to require always seem to be prohibitive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same. I don't have a reliable source saying that they had actually split up in 1998 - there's just no reference to them doing anything. It's exactly the same situation as the first half of 1977 - they hadn't split up, but they did no work and they were on a rest. Because the surviving members of the band were in their 50s by this point, a year off before deciding to come back with a great tour is nothing unusual. So yes, it's unsourced original research, unsuitable for an FA => revert.
I'll be forever kicking myself about the 1999 tour. I'd seen reviews and coverage of the "Who On Ice" '89 tour, and reviews of the 96-97 "Quadrophenia" tour, but remember thinking they would never do anything like the classic 4-piece hard rock version of Tommy from 69/70 ever again. So when a friend said "do you want to see the Who at Shepherd's Bush" I declined saying, "They're no good without Moon and they're past it." Then I saw footage of the band, and was amazed that a band in their mid-50s could be that good and emulate previous success. Then Entwistle died. So I've never seen the Who live. Ho hum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reunions
[edit]
Okay, this is where things get a little more difficult as my book sources of choice (Dave Marsh and Neill / Kent) run out, so I will have to be a little more creative in sourcing additional material... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't there something about Townsend stabbing his arm with a whammy bar in the early eighties, that led to him toning down his performances?
That was the '89 tour. Sources here and here, but I don't think either give us sufficient information that an FA requires. Was the concert in Washington, Washington or perhaps Washington? The Who Tour 1989 says it was DC, but it (like most of the Who tour articles) were written by somebody who thinks factual accuracy and reliable sources are things that other people fuss over. >:-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • at Bob Geldof's Live Aid concert: having two links back-to-back like this makes it look like this is "Bob Geldof's Live Aid". But at this scope, is it even worthwhile to mention Geldof?
No, just Live Aid will do. I think the event is well known enough on its own merits to not warrant that level of detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1989 tour
[edit]
  • to preserve his hearing: it looks like you mention Townsend's tinnitus late in the article, but it should've been mentioned by this point—the reader at this point has no idea that Townsend's hearing was already severly damanged, so the wording seems to indicate he was just turning into an old fart. Do we know the year he was diagnosed with tinnitus? It's probably worth mentioning earlier in the article the Who's reputation for being loud to give this proper context.
  • some critics slated the over-produced: is this an ENGVAR thing? Doesn't "slated" mean "schedule for"?
"Slated" means "Strongly criticised" or "Panned". I've toned this down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine: does Erlewine belong to the AllMusic staff, or was he just writing for AllMusic?
According to his own article, that's what he's primarily notable for. AllMusic have published print works such as The All Music Guide to Rock, which is one reason we generally accept them as a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-formation
[edit]
  • see the band back on form: I wasn't sure if this was a typo—is it BrEng to say "back on form" rather than "back in form"?
It is eg: "I've had the flu the past week but I'm back on form to start work this morning". However, since it empirically causes confusion, I've reworded it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oasis' Noel Gallagher: when you say this out loud, do you say Oasis' or Oasis's? If the latter, then that's how it should be spelled
According to MOS:POSS, there are a number of options, but consistency is the most important. Elsewhere in the article I can see "Middlesex Schools' Symphony Orchestra", "Kenny Jones'", "The Stooges' Ron Asheton Remembered" (in a source). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Tomas Erlewine described the Albert Hall gig as "an exceptional reunion concert".: a pretty blah comment. Is it really worth quoting?
I think so, because the gig was commercially released on CD and DVD, and it's the only fair way to give a positive appraisal of it without being POV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the [[World Trade Center]] on [[September 11 Attacks|11 September 2001]]: I know it sounds silly, but you should probably be explicit about what happened on 11 September
September 11 Attacks is a vital article and fodder for POV pushers and conspiracy theorists. I don't mind linking to September 11 Attacks in full, and explaining what the rescue services were doing (that led to the charity gig) but anything more than that could be borrowing trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the paragraph about Entwistle's death could be moved to the next section? It flows more logically with the first paragraph of that section.
I'm not so sure. The "peak" years ended with Moon's death, and for consistency it would make sense for Entwistle to follow suit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • tapes via themusic.com: worth a redlink? And are all the recordings tapes? I'd imagine more recent ones might be digital?
I've gone with "recordings", it's generally a better term. As for themusic.com, show me any coverage in reliable sources, otherwise what's the point of the redlink? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Palladino and Greg Lake, respectively, on bass: respectively of what? We're only given one instrument
Palladino played bass on "Old Red Wine" while Lake played bass on "Real Good Looking Boy" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released on 30 October 2006 (31 October in the US): I'd drop the US date at this scope
I don't remember that being there - removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some songs of which may appear on a future Who album: is this still likely, now that they've announced their breakup?
Since the paragraph isn't actually anything per se to do with the Who, I've removed it. The paragraph that started "since Endless wire" was obviously once the original end of the article, and it shows. I've attempted to trim it down a bit to deal with specific gigs immediately following Endless Wire. Need to come back to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrophenia and More
[edit]
  • He is experimenting with a new: recentism
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in-ear monitoring system was scheduled to be tested out at the Quadrophenia concert at the Royal Albert Hall on 30 March.: this is obviously dated
Removed, this doesn't need to be here anymore Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Who hoped to tour again in 2011, with "a new show," according to Daltrey, or possibly a retooled stage presentation of Quadrophenia ... The tour was officially announced in July 2012,: this has the feeling of being accrued sentence-by-sentence as events unfolded. It should be tightened up—for instance, there's no need to mention that they announced that they hoped to tour, and then actually toured. Just that they toured.
I've chopped this down. Anything saying the Who "may do this" or "may do that" should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will come back to this but I think we can probably trim the 2001 onwards down even more. It's obvious that people have just added bits and bobs in Wikipedia's lifetime and although I've arrested the decline somewhat, stuff that is reliably sourced has stayed in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Future plans
[edit]
  • I'm not a big fan of a whole section called "Future plans", as it will obviously date quickly.
I've gone with "The Who Hits 50" as that is now what sources are calling it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, some journalists were suspicious of this being a genuine "final" tour, with the Daily Mirror's Johnny Sharp pointing out that the Who previously quit touring, supposedly for good, in 1982.: is this speculation really encyclopaedia-worthy?
I think I added this at the time it was announced, but better sources have appeared for this since. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In April 2014, Townshend confirmed that the band was considering working on a new album, stating that, "I'm trying to [look] through my 20,000 hours of complete and utter disorganized music [to find possible songs]," adding, "I'll be pulling some songs out of [his long-gestating project] 'Floss' to give to Roger to see if we've got enough to make an album. It might be a big waste of time, but I'm hoping there will be an album.": is this really worthy of extensive quoting?
No. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones reunited with ...: is this event really of such import that it deserves three sentences? If it had happened in 1984 instead of 2014, would it even have been mentioned?
I've trimmed it down to one sentence.
  • Overall, I think this whole section should be rethought—it needs tightening at the very least, and a lot of the information I think might be UNDUE or recentisms.
It's better than it was - see here - but yes, I'll need to take the scissors to this lot. One of the key problems is this is a very popular article and IPs and new editors turn up and add new stuff all the time. I think some of it has been edit warred over too. Rather than taking a draconian hand and reverting stuff on sight with a manner of ("Get orf moi article"), I've tried to find sources where possible and integrate it in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since any comments - any more for any more? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • I don't know if I can give this the attention it deserves, but I will at least try and do an image pre-review and leave a few quick comments. Image review tomorrow, quick comments today:
  • The section #Awards and accolades is so short relative to the rest of the sections as to be invisible. The main awards article has a bit more detail; maybe at least have two paragraphs in the band article?
To recap events, originally the awards article was in here, and I split it before the GA review. I cut it down to one paragraph recently pending expansion, then S10787091 (talk · contribs) took an interest in it, though he seems to be new to Wikipedia and was having trouble sourcing. In any case, I've invited him in here to comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (is there an easy way of checking for this?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: - that script is essential, I'm surprised it's not part of the core feature set. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where you'd get that proposed ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Appleton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article, and I wish to bring it to good article status. My fiancee is from Bolivia, and me being from America, I became interested in US-Bolivian relations. I figured I would start with the first US Ambassador to Bolivia. Turns out this guy was pretty active and influential in his lifetime.

Thanks, —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Euryalus

[edit]

I've given the article a quick copyedit, but have a few additional suggestions to fill some gaps. It's evident these gaps are principally the result of limited source availability, so feel free to simply note the impossibility of any of my views. I raise them only having regard for the GA criterion 3a - that we are utilising every obtainable and credible means to fill out and explain Appleton's biography.

Lead

  • I've rearranged this into a four-para summary. The article covers his diplomatic roles in greater detail than his legal and political ones, and this is reflected in the lead. But I wonder if this is an accurate reflection of Appleton's life, or just a reflection of this article? Views welcome.

Early life

  • Father was a "well known citizen" of Portland - do we know what he was well known for and/or what his occupation was?
    • Was unable to find it. I see that you have access to JSTOR, which is awesome.
  • Appointed as editor of the Argus - If relevant, it would be good to state who appointed him. The current wording also provides an odd career jump from law to media (this might be my fault in copyediting this section).
  • Law office 2 - the way it currently reads, it's not clear why closing a law office is relevant to political aspirations. Again, this could be my fault in copyediting, in which case rectification welcome.

Political career: Chargé d'affaires to Bolivia

  • Term - Appleton presented his credentials in Jan 1849 and departed in May - he spent more time travelling there than he did serving in the role. Do the sources suggest a reason for this very short term?
    • He actually lost interest, according to American Council of Learned Societies 1943, p. 330. It states "Living conditions were unattractive, diplomatic amenities were few, and there was little work to attend to." Added a sentence about it.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his term ..." - implies Appleton didn't carry out Buchanan's instructions, and instead conducted his own studies. Is that accurate? If not, it would be good to detail what he did to uphold his official role. If his most notable activity was study, did he produce any work or publish any conclusions?
    • No, he did follow the instructions followed by Buchanan, however, there was a lot of spare time. During it that's when he conducted his own study. He was in the works with a book on the history of Bolivia, but he left for the US before completion.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political career: HoR and London

  • Congress - long shot, but it's possible his speeches exist somewhere in a published form, as part of the Congressional record. If so, they might offer some insights into Appleton as a person, or into his political views.
  • Envoy to London - pardon my ignorance but what was the American role in resolving the Crimean War? This needs a little more context so we can understand what Appleton was seeking to achieve as envoy.'

Political career: Assistant Secretary

  • Health - he resigned from the paper due to ill health, but immediately took a presumably more demanding role as Assistant Secretary of State? I'm also guessing the health issue is TB, but it would be good to spell that out here if sources permit.

Death

  • This could be expanded with details of who in his family survived him, and what his legacy was.

References

Images

  • Are fine, though one or two more would be nice.

External links look OK.

Overall an entertaining read, though the understandable gaps in sources leave you wondering at the human story that must lie behind the career summary. Euryalus (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've found a source linking Appleton's Bolivian appointment with US interest in South American independence movements - will add it later today as context. Also, do you know the name of the ship he took to Bolivia? I can maybe find more detail that way. Euryalus (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czech language

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been rather busy for the past few days and as such haven't been able to address some Grammar organizational issues or one citation issue raised by the GAN reviewer, who nonetheless passed it, but I'd like some more comments from anyone willing to give them before I take this to FAC. Weird wording? Weird structure? Excessive detail? Insufficient detail? Say it all, friends. It's the first non-video-game-related article I will have taken to FAC (Sonic X is still up) in about five years and the first one I've done alone, so comments are especially appreciated as I'm less familiar with exactly what is expected in terms of polish (no pun intended) for language articles.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina

[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 recently passed MILHIST A-class review, and I'd like suggestions from the wider community on how it can be improved before I nominate it as a FAC.

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Like you and I have talked about during your GA-reviews it's a matter of opinion, but I would suggest starting off the article with "The June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina refers to the Serbs who rebelled against the authorities of the Independent State of Croatia" instead of "In June 1941, Serbs in eastern Herzegovina rebelled against the authorities of the Independent State of Croatia". Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I haven't used "refers" due to the guidance at WP:REFERS. WP:LEAD accommodates situations where it is inappropriate not to use the article title in the lead (or bold it). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hello, I am requesting a peer review as I believe that with some work, this article could be a featured article. I would appreciate comments on anything, but especially prose, because I know that when you are absorbed in an article for so long, inevitable redundancies appear! Cheers, —JennKR | ☎ 16:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit15d

[edit]

First off, this is a strong article, so congratulations there. It's clear that a lot of care and conscientiousness has gone into its development. The references section in particular is exceptional. Here a few areas of improvement that I noticed:

  • " It is Gabriel's first non-eponymous album; So representing an "anti-title" that resulted from label pressure to properly market his music." -- A semicolon should come between two complete sentences. The second part is a fragment.
  • From the lead: "orchestral project New Blood and issued as a box set the same year." -- I see the Oxford comma used elsewhere in the article, so I would add it after "Blood."
  • "Prior to recording So, Gabriel had released four studio albums all titled Peter Gabriel." -- The word "had" is unnecessary.
  • "His second album, Scratch, (1978) fared less well" -- remove the comma
  • "with a WOMAD album featuring himself, Robert Fripp, Pete Townshend and other world music artists following." -- the phrase "other world music artists following" is possibly missing an apostrophe after "world," but still is very confusing. Would it be better to say "other artists that follow world music"?
  • "Gabriel had begun work on some songs, and provided Lanois and Rhodes" -- remove the comma
  • " Consequently, there was a relaxed atmosphere surrounding these sessions and the trio would jokingly refer to themselves as The Three Stooges, an American vaudeville act of the mid-twentieth century, and wore construction site hard hats as they had a "turning up for work humour"." -- I would start a new sentence after "twentieth century."
  • "So was completed in February 1986 and cost £ 200,000 to make" -- remove the space after the pound.
  • " It was over-dubbed at Power Station Studios in New York, despite Gabriel considering sending it via a computer-telephone set up, reasoning, "but that's a lot of information to send via phone. Isn't it amazing though? You can send a song idea around the world to musicians then beam parts back by satellite"" -- Take out the "but" from the quote (because but is a conjunction, but we don't have have the first part of the statement, so it is disagreeing with nothing.). Also, maybe rephrase the sentence to make it clearer that Gabriel was originally considering sending it by--what I guess was--the early internet, but then didn't.

I ran out of time to read the rest of the article in detail, but again, congrats and best wishes on taking this to featured status.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Taliesyn

[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 need advice on grammar and syntax. Comments on completeness and structure would be appreciated, too.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the name "Palestine"

[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 take it to WP:FLC after input from the wider community. The list covers a topic which has been studied for a least the last 300 years (e.g. Reland in 1714). It was created three years ago, and has proven remarkably stable. I'm hoping to get feedback on what improvements could be done so it can have a better chance of passing at FLC.

Thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

  • An interesting article about a topic I am not familiar with.
  • My suggestions:
    • the lead should be shortened  Done
    • there is no need to use so many bold texts (Filastin, Palaestina, etc) in the lead  Done
    • in many cases primary sources are cited without a reference to a scholarly work, which may contradict to WP:NOR Done
    • it is not clear why the "British Mandate period" is the last section in the article: has not been the name "Palestine" used after this period?  Done
    • there are "harv errors" in the Bibliography section, suggesting that some scholarly works are not or are not properly cited in the main text (Adrien Reland, Martin Noth, David Jacobson)  Done
    • references 22 and 25 do not point to any scholarly work Done
  • Great work. Congratulations. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Borsoka. I have been through the article and addressed these points. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greythorn Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of what specifically could be improved in this article, especially given its recent creation. Thanks, Takerlamar (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Onel5969

[edit]

Okay, a short article, which for the most part is well written.

  • The lead. Short, and does not reflect a summary of the article's contents.
  • The history never says when the park was created, unless it's 1951, but it's not specified. The rest of the history is very well written. And it is also a bit sparse, jumping from 1951 or 1954, to 1976, and then nothing beyond.
  • The description of the park... oh, wait, there isn't one. This is the biggest problem with the article. How big is it? Expand on what's included in the lead... what are it's borders? Expand on the brief description in the infobox. Give a prose description of the facilities. Who maintains it?
  • The access to the park needs a citation.
  • Clubs and groups is fine.

Well, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very helpful! Takerlamar (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatoful Boyfriend

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I stumbled across this article a couple weeks ago. And I must say that I am impressed about its current condition. Looks to reach GA status with a few tweaks here and there. Hopefully this Peer Review can help step it in the right direction.

Cheers, GamerPro64 21:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Smash Bros. intro-style* Tezero Zeroes In!

[edit]

Alright, here I am. Normally I wouldn't consider PR necessary for GAN except for subjects one is new to editing or when one is a new editor, but since you're already here:

  • I can't actually tell what Bad Boys' Love is. Is it just a different story route you can select at the beginning of the game? An expansion? Peripheral materials?
  • "Although Hatoful received much attention for its premise and surreal humor" - why is this apart from the other reception in the lead?
  • The Plot section seems to be on the long side. This is okay if it's just a long game, but be warned that you may be called out for this. The standard length for video game plot sections is about half to two-thirds of this, and you may be held to that standard.
  • "The series is released in visual novel format on the Adobe AIR platform, and takes place in a different universe than the game series." - source?
  • Why is there a table for one volume of the manga?
  • "ahead of Borderlands 2, succeeding 2011's The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and followed by 2013's BioShock Infinite" - ambiguous as to the ordering
  • There's a cite error on the citation "Dora".

Tezero (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity (Christus)

[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 in hopes I might get it done in time for Christmas for a TFA run and a PR seems like a good place to begin to work out potential problems before taking it to FAC. It's been a difficult article to write. Thanks in advance. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin

[edit]

The writing is excellent, it flows nicely, the images look great (nice size), and it's a joy to read.

Lead
Yes, thanks for the fix. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Joel Upton isn't linked, so should we say who/what he is?
  • "which is described as having "no counterpoint in previous art": which X describes as ...?
I've identified Upton. The second person seems to be a professor, but haven't dug enough yet. It's a big claim and so, yes, I agree it should be properly attributed. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done now with these. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography
  • "Christus's membership in the Confraternity of the Dry Tree, which he joined in 1462": the source (Sterling 1971, p. 19) says it's not known when Christus joined, just that he and his wife are listed as members in 1462.
  • "Adam's third son Seth whose quest" --> Adam's third son, Seth, whose quest"
  • Burning bush --> burning bush
All fixed. I added a note about his membership in the Confraternity. Hopefully it's helpful. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
  • Say who Lawrence Steefel is?
  • Holy Family: upper case or lower case ("space inhabited by the Holy Family" and "They also function to surround the holy family").
Fixed these. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dating and condition
  • "Furthermore, the softer facial types utilized in the Nativity are typical of Christus's later work, suggest a date in the least later than 1450 and 1455." Needs to be tweaked to "and suggest a date," or "the softer facial types utilized in the Nativity and typical of Christus's later work, suggest a date ..."
  • "Bouts and van der Weyden 'merely expand the narrative' in their use of ...": I would say who is being quoted.
Thanks for these catches. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provenance
  • Minor thing, but I wouldn't link Berlin and Madrid, or if they're linked, link Washington too.
  • I was a little confused when I read the last paragraph about how it came to Spain, in particular why that should be such an issue.
Still working out the last paragraph. I might be on thin ice and am trying to decide whether to remove it. We don't know who commissioned the painting, I got a little interested when I realized it came out of Spain at about the time of the Spanish Civil War, tried to dig to see what I could find, but found very little. I've strung together what I have found - he might have worked in Spain or Italy, about a third of his paintings have come from Spain or Italy, but then again we do know he had foreign patrons in Bruges so maybe they were commissioned there. If this seems too much of a digression to you (or anyone else) then I can trim it out. I'm on the fence about it. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a little more information and have fleshed this out. I've decided it's worth keeping - 1930 was an interesting period in terms of buying art, moving it out of Europe, lining up buyers, etc. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

  • "To avoid export taxes, and, because it was becoming more difficult to send European paintings to America, the Duveens chose ..." I would remove some commas: "To avoid export taxes and because it was becoming ..."
  • But perhaps simplify it further. The source says that it was becoming harder to remove paintings from Europe, but this one was sent by that route only to avoid the tax. So perhaps try something like: "To avoid the export fee payable had the painting been sent directly to New York, the Duveens chose a circuitous route – from Madrid to Germany, then to Paris and on to America." Otherwise the circuitous route is a bit puzzling.
  • Next paragraph: "At least eight of Christus's paintings" → "At least eight of his paintings" to avoid the repetition from the previous sentence.
  • "have come from either Italy or Spain.[44] giving credence": comma after Spain
  • "giving credence to speculation he spent a period of time Italy or Spain" → "giving credence to speculation that he spent time in Italy or Spain."
  • I would remove the comma after yet in the final sentence.

The section reads much better after your additions. It's a nice way to finish the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SlimVirgin for the suggested wording, which I've used. That section went in a bit quickly. I'll probably tweak a bit more this weekend after re-reading the sources. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images

I've played around with different window sizes and browsers, and the image placement and size looks good every time. The only odd thing is that, in one of the browsers, File:Petrus christus, natività di washington 03.jpg in the gallery is a different size from the other three images. But I can't see any reason for that in edit mode.

I've unpacked the gallery. For some reason I'm seeing it display at different sizes every time I load the page. Can't figure out why it's doing that or how to fix. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a wonderful article, and an excellent idea for TFA at Christmas. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks so much for reading and for these comments - they're very helpful. I'd like to spend some time re-reading sources for a couple of points, in particular the bit about Spain. I seem to have lost my train of thought there! At any rate, I'll get to it in a few days and thanks again. Victoria (tk) 00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Best of luck with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belle

[edit]
  • The scene of the nativity traditionally takes place in a stable not a shed and since there are horses stabled behind Mary (who, btw, seems to have just chucked Jesus on the floor) is there any reason for saying shed?
I think I've clarified this. St Bridget's vision was that the birth took place in a cave; in northern art of this period instead of a cave it's shown in a shed or hut. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no contradiction between a building being a stable (function) and a shed (type of construction), and no reason not to use the word. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the exclusion of stable seemed a bit weird. The story of the nativity is a little less romantic when the innkeeper tells them they can sleep in the shed ("but move the garden furniture and my bike out of the way and be careful not to knock over the creosote") Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could have "stable, depicted as a wooden shed within a ruined stone building" or something - the ruin symbolizes the Jewish religion, as no doubt some sources say, as well as the ciborium mentioned below. The present text doesn't quite say that the doorway and the wall at rear are intended as parts of the same building - surely the case, and some sources must cover this. Btw, Ainsworth, Maryan W. (1994). Petrus Christus: Renaissance master of Bruges. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870996948. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) - is fully online from the MMA. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "annunciation" for announcement is archaic unless referring to "The Annunciation" (which you aren't here); and if it is before the announcement of the birth to the shepherds, how come they are leaning in at the back? ("What's going on in there? Did you just throw that baby on the floor? Need any wool? Got anything to tell us, you angels? Lovely cut of lamb there for you; 3 shekels."). Two of the shepherds look like they are lighting a bong, but I don't suppose that's very likely.
Tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Annunciation to the Shepherds" is the technical term in art history for their scene, & there are a number of other Biblical "annunciations" in art history - see Annunciation (disambiguation) for some - though this is rather technical vocabulary. As for "these shepherds are emotionless and unaware of the miracle unfolding before them, which implies the scene occurs before the Annunciation to the shepherds", personally I think this is most unlikely to be the artist's intention, and Upton is over-elaborating. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've rolled it back, [4]. The link to the Annunciation to the shepherds probably does the job. I think what Belle is asking, and what I've wondered myself, is how do we know it's before the annunciation (which all the sources say) and I found Upton's explanation vaguely interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1930 Max Friedländer attributed Christus, remarking that "in scope and importance, [it] is superior to all other known creations of this master." What does that mean? I can't understand it without more context and it doesn't seem to be mentioned again in the rest of the article.
Removed. Seemed interesting when I read it, but it doesn't fit where it is. Thanks for noting. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Adam delved and Eve spun" Why quote John Ball here? The image does look quite fitting as Adam is delving and Eve spinning, but did Christus base it on Ball's speech?
Dunno. Maybe Johnbod does; added here. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No of course he is not using Ball, but Ball is the familiar expression in English of the traditional medieval roles assigned to A&E post-Expulsion, also used in the painting, and most other medieval depictions. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought straight description would be better here to prevent those like me imagining some non-existent connection to Ball and those that don't know Ball wondering what it means. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One might expand it, but I think Ball is very apposite and well known. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "(top)" doing in the list of scenes on the arch? And the last scene isn't from Genesis. (God looks very boring as he banishes Cain; it's like he's been woken up while having a nap after dinner; is there anything on this mundane representation of God without halos or crowns or angels or general god-paraphernalia?)
Same as above. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Top explains that this is the top of the arch. The last scene is from Genesis 4 on the primary & more likely explanation of what it shows. In this sort of context, and limited space, a simple depiction of God is not that unusual, as in this for example. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "(top)" is unnecessary as we are already going from left to right. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, but personally I think the difficulty many people have in relating prose to images should never be underestimated. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two uppermost reliefs on the arch, which have a central focus and function as keystones, bring attention to the juxtaposition of Old and New Testament themes. The reliefs also function as a temporal device, leading the viewer directly to the moment of Christ's birth and mankind's redemption, which occurs below in the shed." Isn't the juxtaposition of OT and NT made by the fact that they point down to Jesus (so they aren't "also" functioning as a temporal device, because that's what they are doing in the first sentence). If you can work out what I'm trying to say there you get 10 bonus points.
I think it's slightly different in that the left scene shows sacrfice (NT), the right sin = punishment (OT), *and* they point from the OT world to the new below. Hard to explain; I've tried to clarify. Let me know if it's any better. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sacrifice is pretty popular in the OT too. Belle (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put more in above when I get round to it (how casual of me; like I'm the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and can't find time for Wikipedia. Cancel my one o'clock and get me Morrison on the line; I don't care if he's showing investors round the new site in Dubai, I need answers before the markets open, etc.). Belle (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought it was an ox, but it's hardly mentioned in the sources (if at all) for some odd reason. I think the shed is from St. Bridget's version, but I'm answering before I've had another look through the sources; I've wondered about that too. I've also thought it odd that the shepherds just happen to be loitering but are unaware - I have difficulty explaining that they see an infant, but aren't aware they're in the presence of Christ. Will give it another go. Good catch, btw. And thanks for looking. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Johnbod and Belle and sorry for not responding earlier. I've been slammed at work, haven't been feeling well, and had zero time to back get here. I've decided to let the PR close because I'm not sure I'll have the time/energy to get this through FAC for Christmas. In the meantime, while I'm here, a few responses:

  • Re: shed - I think that's sorted, but when I can get back to editing will have another look. I think of a stable or barn as larger and less broken down.
  • Re: John Ball - maybe it was just fatigue but I'd forgotten he was the person who made that speech during the Peasant's Revolt. Anyway, I'm thinking about the point, and want to check the sources. That language is in Hand but is not used so specifically in the other sources.
  • Re: "top" - I'm on the fence. BUT - my big concern is that since I started the page a year ago or so I've moved the descriptions of the Old Testament reliefs a number of times. In the end I took them out of the iconography section and decided to fully describe the reliefs in the "Description" section. I've honestly not read through fully in weeks so couldn't say right now if there's repetition or not, but my preference is to avoid it. When I get time, a chance, back to editing, I'll have a look.
  • Re: Ainsworth - yes, thanks JB for pointing me to her book. It's being used (I've had it for a fairly long time) and I think I've scraped most of what exists of other sources off Jstor and the various other places. I would like to get Charles de Tolnay's book (a lot of the others mention him), and Panofsky who suggested the last relief was of Seth, and is disputed by others. But I haven't been able to get either. Probably with more time I could find and have sent in from a distant library and I suppose that's as good as an argument as any for holding off. Thanks again to both of you and to SlimVirgin for taking the time to read and review. Feel free to keep commenting until the review closes. It's been extremely helpful and certainly pointed to some weak spots and holes in the article. Victoria (tk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support' I think at FA standard, even if some points may want touches. I have made a few edits. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a level 4 vital article on an common vegetable. I'd like any suggestions on how to improve this article for GA and ultimately FAC. Thanks in advance, Sasata (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

Could've sworn I saw this at GAN or FAC recently. Huh. Anyway, here are some overall thoughts:

  • The amount of etymology in the intro is probably unnecessary and should go in History instead.
  • The lead's too short and doesn't summarize the page adequately. I'd prefer three paragraphs: perhaps one about carrots' basic physical, chemical, and biological properties and history; one about their use for humans and nutrition; and one about their cultivation, preparation, and economic value. Something like that.
  • Some of the sources look unreliable, mainly plantea.com and carrotmuseum.co.uk. In general, museums and interactive portal-like sites aren't the most reliable; try to replace as much as you can from gardening and botany journals, stuff like that.
  • History could definitely be expanded.
  • Description should probably be split into subsections.
  • There aren't a whole lot of food GAs or FAs, but try looking at Cabbage and Saffron for a general idea of how this article should be structured and fleshed out.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these or for more advice - and maybe drop a few comments at Czech language's PR if you have time. Tezero (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walther von Brauchitsch

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After working on this article for almost a year, and getting it to GA-status, I believe it's worth FA-status.

Thanks. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although not mandated by the process, I suggest to expose the article to the WikiProject Military history A-Class review first. The likelihood of find a subject matter expert who can also help you improve the content of the article is much greater than at the more generic FA level. The decision is of course is yours to take. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, but I believe the article meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AustralianRupert
  • G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article so far. I have a couple of quick suggestions/observations:
  • at six paragraphs, the lead doesn't conform with the guidance in WP:LEAD which asks for no more than four paragraphs - I suggest merging a couple
  • I suggest having the article copy edited from start to finish before taking this to FAC as a quick look found a couple of issues: perhaps you could list it at WP:GOCE and see what the kind souls there can do to help?
  • in the References you use "Biesinger 1967" but in the Sources it is "Biesinger, Joseph A. (2006)" --> are these the same works? If so, please adjust one of the years so they are consistent. If 2006 is the reprint date, you could use the "origyear=1967 |year=2006" parameters in the cite book template if you wish to;
  • in the Personal life section, I suggest moving the sentence starting "They were divorced in 1938..." to appear after the part where you introduce Charlotte Rueffer as this will help the section flow chronologically;
  • the Legacy section seems quite awkwardly worded - particularly the first paragraph, but additionally the two other paragraphs do not seem to flow as part of a narrative. Is there a better place within the article that you could work these descriptions in so that they are discussed a little more seemlessly and have a bit more context to these opinions?
  • anyway, good work and good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and suggestions, AustralianRupert. I have implemented some of your suggestions but also declined a few, such as the copyedit suggest, as the article has already been looked over by many editors for different purposes. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Halibutt
  • Hello there and thanks for your hard work. The article is indeed quite nice and informative.
  • While this is not mandatory, I would suggest restructuring the article a little. I would consider turning some of the sections into sub-sections. That is, create a ==Biography== section and attach current sections 1 through 6 to it as level 2 subsections (===Early life=== and so on). This makes the table of contents cleaner and also simplifies the article a little for people who drop by to look for particular piece of information. I decided to be bold and did it myself, see if it works.
Excellent point, I would impelemented it myself, but I see you already have. :) - JV
  • Before taking the article to FAC I would consider limiting the reliance on William E. Hart. The book is pretty old and it was published during the war, so I'm a little worried about its' status as a reliable source. While using old sources is fine, FAC reviewers might question this one.
Well, there is a bio-book on Brauchitsch from 2001 I have access to. However, I decided to use Hart instead precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion). - JV
  • In the case of on-line sources without page numbers it is a good practice to mark paragraphs you are referring to. Paragraph numbers, first couple of words, any system would do. This is particularly important in case of long articles similar to the one from Eurozine, where one would have to read through all of it to verify your sources. Not practical.
If you click on the Eurozine link, you can just press Ctrl + F and you can type in "Brauchitsch" and every time his name is mentioned in the Interview, it will be highlighted in yellow. That was how I found it, which I believe is good enough? - JV
  • The later stages of his life are definitely under-represented in the article. It only briefly mentions his complicity in German war crimes and doesn't even mention that he was a witness during the Nuremberg trials, nor does it mention his internment in New South Wales.
Island Farm was located in New South Wales. I suppose I could change "in a British military hospital" to "in a British military hospital in New South Wales". I will add some comments about him witnessing at the Nuremberg trials right after responding to all your suggestions. - JV
  • Some wikilinks are misleading. For instance a link labeled "William E. Hart" leads instead to the publishing house that printed one of his books.
Hart does not have a Wikipedia article, so I directed "William E. Hart" to the publishing house that published his book. If it's a big deal, I can just remove the link. - JV
In a few minutes I will have implemented all of your suggestions. THEN I'm sure it's FA-ready. And thanks for all your input, Halibu. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hawkeye7 (talk)
Done. - JV
  • He married his second wife, Charlotte Rueffer, shortly after his divorce with Karstedt. Suggest "his divorce from Karstedt"
Done. - JV
  • Any idea how many brothers and sisters he had?
Six. He was the second-last. - JV
  • Where was he born? Add this.
Birth place added. - JV
  • A "housekeeper" is someone paid to manage a household. Are you sure you don't mean a "homemaker"?* Worth mentioning that two of his brothers also became generals?
Changed "housekeeper" to "housewife".
  • "By the outbreak of World War I in August 1914" Link World War I
Done. - JV
  • "He would be in the very thick of The Great War from start to finish." Kind of encyclopaedic. Consider omitting the sentence. And no need to capitalise "the".
Tweaked. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch saw more than twice as much action" By what measure?
Tweaked. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class and ended the war with the rank of major." Link Iron Cross. And major. All the military ranks. Actually, he was promoted only once in four years of war. Not all that impressive, and at odds with the claim that he was not unnoticed.
I disagree. Brauchtisch was a staff officer during the war and the Iron Cross was not something you easily got, so did not remove or reformulate anything. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch managed to avoid sanction." I don't understand this.
After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles said Germany could only have an army of 100,000 men. Because of this, hundreds of thousands were dismissed, relieved, or in any other way, kicked out of the military. By writing "Brauchitsch managed to avoid sanction" it means he managed to avoid being dismissed. - JV
  • " 11th Army District " -> "II Military District" Note that it was the second, not the 11th.
Fixed. - JV
  • " to transfer to the staff office of the 2nd Artillery Regiment" Delete "office"
Done. - JV
  • " Brauchitsch was named Chief of the East Prussian Military District and Chief of the 1st Division in Konigsberg In 1937." Chief -> commander
Fixed. - JV
  • " So when the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Werner von Fritsch, was accused of homosexuality" Link the Blomberg-Fritsch Affair
Done. - JV
  • "Koch was known as somewhat of a dubious gangster " I don't think "gangster" is the right word here.
Replaced "gangster" with "crook". - JV
  • "Hitler appointed Brauchitsch the new army chief,[4] on the recommendation of the Army High Command." Link Oberkommando des Heeres
Done. - JV
  • "In the final months before World War II" Link World War II
Already linked earlier in the article. - JV
  • "ordered that Commissars were only to be shot if their anti-German sentiments were "especially recognizable"" Link "Commissars"
Done. - JV

Looks reasonably good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for you comments and suggestions, Hawkeye7. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Iran

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I don't think it would hurt to have a peer review to see what is still needed to bring this GA article to FA status.

Thanks, SSZ (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

I honestly thinks it looks nice., but here:

  • Some of the sources appear unreliable (e.g. #49, #50, InfoMine).
  • Some, like, 49 and 50, need publishers in their citations. #254 needs a title and URL.
  • With others, the publishers need to be formatted correctly, e.g. "Parsi Times" instead of "Parsitimes.com". In general, don't use ".com"s and such in the source's name (not to be confused with the URL; there it's fine obviously) unless they're an actual part of the source's name, ideally in the logo. (For example, Pets.com is fine, but not IGN.com.)
  • I think the prose looks fine from a very cursory skim, but if there's one niggling complaint that's almost impossible to anticipate and yet is a frequent cause of oppose votes, it's prose quality, so consider getting a copyedit just in case.
  • Macroeconomic trends, the section, is a little over-loaded with short and choppy paragraphs.

Tezero (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will use this info to improve this article further (for your info, this article has been copy-edited already). SSZ (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Mexico

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listed for peer review as a precursor to a possible FL candidacy. I know self-noms aren't such a great idea here, but the changes I've made have propelled the quality of this list to be much higher in currency and formatting and I want to tidy it up before getting it nominated for FL.

The list is produced using an innovative use of transclusion from tables in 32 other lists, a concept that User:revent considered. The list preparation involved a tedious, three-week-long cross-checking of Wikipedia information against Mexican government sources along with a completely new table format across all 32 other lists. When this was done, the massive nationwide list, which was further out of date, was replaced with the current transcluded format.

Looking for advice about content and format. There are some TV callsign redlinks that should be redirects, and also some redlinks for articles about various Mexican localities that do not have them. A disambiguation/redirect fixing bot should really be run across the state lists, too.

Thanks, Raymie (t • c) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of 'attribution', the technique of using transcluded parts of other articles like this is used in quite a few of the 'events by decade' article, that assemble themselves from the 'events by year' ones. Not all do, but a lot of the ones for the 16th at 17th century. Reventtalk 05:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymie: Can you please add a {{Complete list}} hatnote with the date of the source you used to verify the list? Reventtalk 05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Raymie (t • c) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animatronics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently the focus of major editing by Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement and I believe it may be ready to be nominated as a good article.

Thanks, David Condrey (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points off the top:

Animatronics is the use of mechatronics to create machines which simulate animate life with lifelike characteristics[1

I'm not a fan of using one strange term to define another. I believe this could be simplified by removing "mechatronics", and introducing that elsewhere, likely here...

Animatronic figures are often powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means

Like... "Animatronic figures are mechatronic; powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means"

rather than artificial robotic.

Every animatronic device I've ever seen has dramatically unnatural movements. Is this really part of the definition? I ask, because neither of the linked cites make this claim.

Automated life in lifelike form is Animatronic. Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. The Slavic word robota (forced labour) was coined to describe the man-made workers central to Czech playwright Karel Čapek's 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots).[6] While robots, coined by Josef Čapek Karel's brother,[6] are used in industrial activity, "androids" (or female "gynoids") and animatronics play, entertain, teach, and amaze. With modern day labels for each, animatronic is typically reserved for non-humanoid lifelike characters; though humanoid characters can be considered animatronics, they can be labeled more precisely as robots or androids dependent on their function. All of these terms are a subset of the more general term “automaton”, coming from the Greek meaning “self-mover”.[7]

This doesn't really demonstrate the etymology of the term at all, it defines several similar terms but not this one.

I was under the impression that the term combined animated and mechatronic, while the wikionary defines it as animation and electronics.

That's a good start for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What depth should I go here? GA quality, or right to FA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz:Hi Maury, thanks for your feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out later this week (probably this weekend) and post again, afterwards. I think it would be reasonable to consider FA.. what do you suggest? David Condrey (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, just be aware that I'll be extra picky as a result, and that it will take a while also. But no reason not to, it's a perfect article for FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and don't forget to ping me if I don't respond. I have about 20000 pages on my watch list (really) so it's easy to miss things... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Maury Markowitz:, I have rewritten and simplified the definition. Etymology is going to take me a bit more time to figure out. Currently it's written more towards explaining how animatronic is different than robot. But I will be looking for better sources and elaborating more on the animatronic term itself. Please let me know what else you've got.. thanks! Let me know what you think of the new definition. :) David Condrey (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, WP:FACR 3. calls for non-free images to be marked in their description pages (here on WP; non-free images aren't allowed on Commons) as being used in this article and a rational to be give for their use. The images here are File:Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.jpg and File:StanWinstonTRex.jpg. I'm confident the T-Rex one will pass as there is a verbal description of its size and lifelike nature that really needs that image to be comprehensible. The Lincoln one is a bit trickier.Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln has an article of its own, and Animatronics only says that this android was built and toured and its "[b]ody language and facial motions were matched to perfection with the recorded speech" - something which the image can't even illustrate since it's not animated (therefore can't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCCP 8: Context) ). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop: I replaced the images in question with similar images of similar quality if not potentially better quality since the originally used images were debatable.
@Maury Markowitz: Regarding the etymology of the word; I made some edits to the text recommended by @Sigeng: and separated the text to make it more clear but I think that the statement The word animatronic is a subset of the more general term automaton, coming from the Greek meaning self-mover is adequate. Please let me know if you have any further thoughts on it. I just haven't been able to find anything better yet. At this point I believe all of the comments you've mentioned have been addressed and I'm going to move on to @Sigeng:'s comments. If you have anything further please let me know. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

  1. Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. I think we're trying to say that "robot" was once a generic word that became specialized over time. People didn't use the word "animatronic" because it wasn't popularized, they didn't use it because there wasn't a need to be that specific.
  2. Early implementations: Clocks: consider adding an introductory sentence to the effect of "While functional, early clocks were also designed as novelties and spectacles." - To make it clear that we're not picking up clocks as being mechanical automatons, but the "amusement factor" of them.
  3. The construction begins by building the structure, by using internal structures that are often made of steel. Awkward wording especially repetition of "struct". Maybe: An animatronics character is built around an internal supporting frame, usually made of steel.
  4. Disney has an entire research team.... Omit "entire" or maybe find out a little more about the team to demonstrate its importance.
  5. Design section
    1. Put analogous comparisons in quotes, e.g. "bones", "muscles", not bones as they are not literal bones.
    2. While there are similarities to robotics engineering and biological systems, I wonder if the comparison is necessary. It may invite a nontechnical reader to carry the analogy too far, and also seems to suggest that these are the only designs. Animatronics with a very limited range of motion could be made out of styrofoam blocks with actuators rather than a skeleton frame, for example.
    3. I think the Design section would benefit from a diagram or animation that shows an animatronic skeleton/frame, some equipment on the inside, and flexible material on the outside, showing how the mechanical motion of the frame is made to appear lifelike through the flexible covering material.
    4. Caption for the image in this section should be updated to describe the animatronic as incomplete, or a demonstration of internals.
  6. I suggest finding a review from a prominent film critic rather than Rotten Tomatoes. (I checked Ebert, but he pans the overexposure of the dinosaurs, so you'll need someone else.)
  7. Rather than Students achieving a bachelors in robotics.... I don't know of bachelors in robotics as a degree; probably would be bachelor in robotics engineering or just mechanical engineering. Consider "Engineering courses relating to animatronics include:" A citation would be helpful here too. Also "foundational theory of robotics", "robotics engineering", "introduction to robotics" are fairly redundant.

Sigeng (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Singeng: thank you for the very thorough feedback. I've already implemented several of the points you layed out.. namely points 1 through 5. #6 regarding the usage of analogues I'm not sure of but I do think that the overall design section needs some work and think that this will likely come about in the improvement of the section as a whole.
I do very much agree that the section is in dire need of illustration but have been unable to find any adequate images currently on Wikimedia or on the internet. Though I did find numerous images I would like to use which are owned by a specialist in the industry. I actually just finished composing an email to him requesting permission to use his images. I've never emailed anyone before to ask if I could use their images.. hopefully I did ok. :)

Hi Mr. Nolan, I wanted to request if I may use some of your images on Wikipedia? I have been working on the Animatronics article featured here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Animatronics which is currently undergoing a peer review in order to be nominated as a featured article on Wikipedia. The details of the peer review can be seen here if you'd like to have a look: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Animatronics/archive1 I was hoping to use some of your images which illustrate the creation of animatronics within the Design section of the Animatronics article. Your input on the actual details of the article would also be very much appreciated if you have the time your welcome to contribute to Wikipedia yourself or I'd be delighted to work with you if you would like to just let me know of any details you'd like to contribute. Thank you very much.

If he authorizes permission I will add some of the images from his gallery to the section as well as any other details if he would like to offer any additions to the article as an expert in the field.
The rest of the points you've mentioned I'll address later. If you have anything further please let me know and thanks again for the very thorough and great feedback.

Pending closing

[edit]

I'd like to ask if anyone else would like to provide feedback on this article before I close the review process. Unless anyone else has any feedback regarding this article I will be closing the peer review once I've finished addressing the points which have been mentioned thus far. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just got into a rather severe motorcycle accident yesterday and only have the use of 1 arm at the moment so whereas I had planned to get this finished up this week, I may have to postpone for a couple weeks while my arm heals. Just wanrted to let it be known so you don't think I've disappeared. Its just difficult to do anything efficiently when typing 1 handed. I'll be back! David Condrey (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, feel better! I intended to get back here sooner but got caught up in my own FA (are you SURE you want to go to FA?!) and only returned here now. I'll do some more reading/tweakjng this week.

Ok, I've done a bit of re-arrangement in the LEDE to gather related items together. I'd like one more paragraph there - after long experience I find that 3 or 4 paras is almost always the right number. But for now I'd like to concentrate on this:

Animatronics is the use of electronics and robotics in the creation of puppets which simulate life.[1] Animatronic creations include animals (including dinosaurs), plants and even mythical creatures.

I'm not sure what, if anything is bothering me about this. But I was thinking...

Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life.

What say you all? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz:My major qualm with this is the lack of substantial reference with regard to any straight forward laymans definition of the term. All seemingly suitable references I'm able to find end up contradicting each other. My best would be something like "Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life, though the specific boundaries as to what makes a robot classifiable as animatronic is disputed."
I hate to leave it up in the air but leaning in any one direction I think opens up a big door for conflict. I still feel confident I can get this to FA. What do you think? (ps: please ping me whenever we chat so I see your msg)David Condrey log talk 09:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Olympics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC

Thanks in advance, NickGibson3900 Talk 03:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you directly take it to FAC since there is no response. But since I am here, I will just review a bit: "Media coverage" section, last paragraph, last sentence, I do not know whether the YouTube external links in the main text is appropriate. HYH.124 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tag or talkback me if you require further peer reviews or a response from me. HYH.124 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed that citation 12 has its access date as "July 295, 2012". This obviously isn't right, so I looked back and found that it should be July 29 (no 5) and corrected it.
Be sure to check out the automated peer review as well. It commented about American vs. British English, citations after punctuation (such as "NOCs[b]," in the first paragraph of the lead - [b] should come after the comma), and some dead links in the references. Be sure those all get fixed before nominating for FA. http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:2008_Summer_Olympics
Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Checklinks tool shows several problems throughout with dead links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
  3. Uncited sentence at end of sect Olympic and world records.
  4. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, you may wish to consider expanding and/or merging them up.
  5. Entire paragraph uncited at end of Venues sect. Including direct quotations uncited. That's a major issue.
  6. Remove hyperlink in direct body text in last paragraph of Media coverage sect, instead use a citation please.
  7. Consider moving portal links to bottom and using {{Portal bar}} and expanding with a few other additional relevant portals as well.
  8. First two notes, A and B, in Notes sect, are completely uncited. This is a major problem.
  9. Consider using less images in article. 13 total images used. That's a lot for an image reviewer to do a full thorough image review at FAC.
  10. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Iordache

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently rated as Start-class, and I think that it should be rated higher. Please leave your opinions as to what rating you think this article deserves.

Thanks, Riley1012 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Onel5969

[edit]

Okay, this is definitely at least a C-class article.

  • First, the lead is too brief. It needs to be fleshed out slightly to more accurately reflect the content of the entire article. This could be the largest reason it's sitting at Start class.
  • The personal section is also brief. What are her parents' names? What was the grandmother's name? Where was she born? Where did she train in her early years?
  • The Junior Career section needs to have a brief intro statement. Why did she decide to actively compete at this time? Who was her coach?
  • 2010 reads like a bullet list, rather than a prose section. It simply tells the results of the three competitions she was in that year. Did nothing else happen during these months? Why did she choose these three events? Did she not compete in others, and why?
  • Same issues with 2011 reading like a bullet list. Same questions, too. In addition to those, there are others. Why was she chosen as a guest at the French competition? When did she make the Romanian team? Any info on the Romanian team trials?
  • Also, in general during these two years, who was her coach? Her choreographer?
  • In the Senior career, again there needs to be an intro section. Why did she move up from Junior to Senior? Whose decision was it? When did it occur?
  • 2012. A little better (due to the paragraph on the Olympics), but still mostly reads as a bullet list. Were the early meets all as part of a Romanian national team? If so, how was it selected? (I'm wondering if these were tune-ups for the Olympics). It might also help (in these senior years) to mention who she lost to in some of these meets.
    • The quote from Belu in May is good, the article needs more of that.
    • The Olympic paragraph is the best paragraph so far. However, how did she develop the foot injury? When did she? After the competition was there any information about how it actually effected her performance? On the whole, this paragraph could be greatly enlarged... she led her team to a third place finish. Who finished first and second? The inherent drama here is missing, even though she was injured and still managed to help her team.
    • After the Olympics, did she simply rest the remainder of the year? If so, was it due to her injury?
  • 2013 is the best overall year, being the least year which sounds like a bullet list. In the Qatar event, was that as part of a Romanian team? If so, how did they finish (my guess it was individual). The European Championships is the best overall paragraph in the entire article. Still, it ends too abruptly with that last sentence. Who beat her in the floor? Who did she beat in the beam?
    • When was the Anadia World Grand Prix? Where? The single sentence is grammatically awkward.
    • At the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, who were her rivals? Who finished ahead of her bronze medal finish? And was the bronze in the All-Around, or only for the Floor? The description of her competition is nicely done, although at times it is grammatically awkward.
  • 2014 is woefully brief. The prose that is there also needs to be worked on. The section needs to be expanded, who did she compete against? Where were the competitions held? When were they held?
  • The infobox is good, as is the table regarding her competitive history.

On the whole, I can see that this article is definitely a C level article. The prose needs work overall. It's well cited, and the pics are nicely done, and have no copyright issues. Some final points:

  • Article needs expansion overall, their are no segues between years. A personal life section would be interesting as well (where does she live?). Discussion should be included about her coaches: when she was with each one, why she changed coaches.
  • I also think that the article is weakened by ignoring the rich history of Romanian women's gymnastics. It shouldn't be a large part of the article, but I feel it definitely should have a part, I mean, this is the country that produced the first 10.

I hope this helps. I don't know a whole lot about women's gymnastics (or gymnastics in general, for that matter), other than watching it every four years. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject will add notes.Onel5969 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/October_2014&oldid=728092383"