Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2010

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

---

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 feedback on my article, and a good assessment of the quality/importance for the Africa Project Thanks, PowerkeysPowerkeys (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana boomer

Hello Powerkeys. First, quality/importance are rated by individual projects, not by the peer review process. I would suggest posting on the WikiProject Africa discussion page (or on a designated assessment page if there is one) in order to get an assessment completed. Second, although I'm not really sure where you want to take the article (i.e. simple improvement, GA, FA, etc), I have quite a few suggestions. It looks like a nice start, but there is a lot of work that is needed for, for example, GA status. Here are my suggestions:

• A lead is needed, see WP:Lead for more information. Basically, a lead summarizes the article, without introducing new information. It provides an overview of the article for readers, and the information presented is then re-presented (in different wording) and expanded upon in the body of the article.
• In-line references are needed to back up statistics and potentially controversial information. At the moment, this article seems to focus on the ongoing conflict, which means that the information is very likely to be challenged at some point and needs in line references. See Wikipedia:Inline citation for more information.
• This article deals completely with the relationship in the past less than 20 years, and mostly on work that has been done in the past 10 years or less. More expansion is needed to add information on the history of these two countries before 1993.
• The prose is vague in some places. For example, "For a few years, relations between". How many years? What year range? Also, "relations between Cameroon and Nigeria have been intensified". How have they been intensified? Intensified in a good way or a bad way?
• The The Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission Intentions and Accomplishments sections could be combined into one, as they are both very short sections. Also, the Accomplishments section could probably be better presented as prose, rather than a list, and prose is prefered by WP guidelines.

I hope these suggestions help. I am watchlisting this page, so please feel free to post here with any questions you may have about my above comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 branching out from bishops and horses to ... Taxes! Yes, medieval taxes, so fun! On a more serious note, I'd like to make sure this article is comprehenisble by the non-specialist, that the prose is engaging, and that there isn't anything left out for context or similar stuff. All in an effort to get to FAC with this. (It just might be the first tax FA!)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I know the perfect day for it too:Tax Day. They turn to wikipedia for the IRS and find medival taxes on the front page. Oh what jolly good fun ^^! ResMar 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and was a replacement for the older danegeld, which was last collected in 1162. What was the danegeld based on, then?
  • I've clarified this a bit in the lead. They were both land taxes, but the geld had become difficult to collect due to the great number of folks withe expemptions (medieval tax loopholes!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It was only collected six times in the years between 1194 and 1224, and never raised sums as large as other taxes collected. Is "as large as those other taxes collected" more fitting?
  • Reworded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In 1194, the assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087. Not particuarly important but I perfer "The 1194 assesment" because the tax isn't a singular event. Also, you should say breifly what the Domesday Book is: ae. "...the Domesday Book, a census of England completed in 1087."
  • Reworded to "The first assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087 which investigated land holdings in England." because Domesday isn't a census, it was a landholding survey, not a counting of people. (People are totally incidental to it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In 1198 the carucage was again collected and was based on the carucate, figured at 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 acres (49 ha). I'de say "figured at either 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 (49 ha) acres.
  • Template issue here, it sets the order on that... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Revenues from this taxation do not appear in the 1200 Pipe Roll, which may mean that it was paid into a special commission in the Exchequer. Further evidence of this is the fact that William de Wrotham is designated as receptores carucagii, or receivers of the carucage, in official records. Who is this William de Wrotham and why is his being the receptor signifigant?
  • It's not that significant that it was W in particular, but it is significant that someone was appointed to that position. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The 1217 carucage was only paid by laymen; the clergy made a donation in lieu of being taxed. Linking laymen and clergy would be nice.
  • Linked Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The 1220 carucage was definitely collected by... Rm definitly. I know what you mean but that's a bit of an interpetation.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No space in FitzBenedict?
  • Nope. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The 1220 carucage was for the defense of Poitou. Link Poitou.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Records indicate that the bulk of the revenues raised were paid into the Wardrobe. What's the Wardrobe oO? Is it their war commitee?
  • Sorta. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your issues: the article is comprehendible to me (lol tax expert) however there are multiple spots that would benefit from a wikilink, or in the absense of such a link a short description. I don't know how feasible that is, but is it possible to give the values of the money gathered in modern terms? That would make the exact amount of money gathered much clearer. Sincerely, ResMar 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The normal {{inflation}} template that is used only goes to 1254 or so, so there isn't really a good way to give equivalent figures. Most history works for this period don't really give equivalents, since it's so hard to gage. (the wage economy is just getting started about 1200 or so, so comparing daily wages isn't good... ) I'll try to work on the others in a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know how this list should be expanded, what should I write? And the tables?

Thanks, Cannibaloki 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: What the article most lacks is a proper lead. Have you looked at featured lists of music awards (per WP:FL) to see the kind of information included in their leads?

• In this case, the lead should at least say who is responsible for the Grammy awards. No prior knowledge should be assumed.

• I expanded the text a bit, what do you think?--Cannibaloki 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should also provide a brief commentary on the 20 years of the award; for example some of the information in your "Category facts" section should be textualised.

• I did, but I think it can be better.--Cannibaloki 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence beginning "Years reflect the year in which..." should be a footnote linked to the tables rather than a sentence in the lead. The citation for this fact should be properly formatted, not left as a bare link.

• I think this sentence can be arranged as an introduction text to the tables (I had this idea after your comments).--Cannibaloki 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Has there been no press or magazine comments over the years, on these awards? These could provide useful sources for facts incorporated into the lead.

• I added a bit.--Cannibaloki 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables look neat, but there is some confusion with the sources. Your main source seems to suffer from a mix-up over years. For example, it repeats 2006 information in 2007, which casts doubt on its factual reliabilty. Since most of the information comes from this source, this is a potential problem.

• Can I use rockonthenet.com as a general source?--Cannibaloki 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find what your source is for the 1989 data, where Jethro Tull is indicated as the winner.
• As to whether the information on the tables can be expanded, the only thing I can think of is to indicate the albums from which the award tracks are taken. Would that be useful information?

• Yes, I added ("track from?").--Cannibaloki 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the above is of some use to you. I am not able to watch my peer reviews at the moment, but if you want to raise anything with me, please call my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 put it forward for the status of feature article. This article have gone through a peer review of wikipedia military history task force, the suggestion given there are followed and now i wonder if it is ready to be send for the nomination for feature article. Comments and suggestions please ...

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Please alphabetize your references.
  • As I pointed out in the Yarmuk article, using Gibbon is not using the best quality sources. He's out of date, and at this point should only be used as a source for articles about the history of history.
  • Your book references lack details to allow them to be verified. They should have year of publication, publisher, etc. at the very least.
  • Decide if you want the sources author last name first or author first name first, (suggest last name first as it's much more common in history articles)
  • Again, the Runciman works are before 1987, should note that you're using a reprint edition of a much earlier work (first published 1951). Like the Gibbon, Runciman is starting to get a bit outdated and should be used with care.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done.

Any other suggestions ???

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Since others have commented on the content, which I know little about, and the sources, I'll comment on issues mainly related to prose and the Manual of Style. I found the article interesting but a bit confusing in places. Here are my suggestions.

• Overlinking. Generally, linking a term once is enough in a short article like this. It might be OK to link once in the lead and then once in the main text. But Caliph Umar should not be linked twice in the lead; dates like 637 and 614 should not be linked; Patriarch of Jerusalem and Sophronius should not be linked twice in "The Siege" section; Christians and Caesarea do not need to be linked twice, and I think you may find others.

• Long paragraphs. The lead and each section consists of a single paragraph. I'd consider breaking the long paragraphs in "Prelude" and "Siege" into two or more pieces along logical lines. For example, paragraph 2 of "Prelude" might start with "Prophet Mohammed". Paragraph 3 might start with "In 634 Abu Bakr died and was succeeded by... ".

• Heads and subheads. The Manual of Style suggests avoiding starting heads and subheads with "The" and also recommends against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. For these reasons, I'd suggest changing "The siege" to "Siege" and "Surrender of Jerusalem" to "Surrender".

• Proofreading. I see quite a few small things that need attention. For example, "Unable to decide the matter, he wrote to caliph Umar for instructions. In his reply the Caliph ordered the Muslims to capture Jerusalem". This sequence uses "caliph" when "Caliph" is needed, and uses Caliph when "caliph" is needed. The word takes a big C when it's part of a formal title and a little c when it's being used in a generic sense; i.e., Caliph Umar is a caliph. Another example would be "true cross"; it's linked twice in the article, but it appears as "True Cross" the first time and "true cross" the second time. True Cross appears to be a formal name; if so, the big T and big C are correct.

Lead

• "After a prolonged siege of six months, Patriarch Sophronius agreed to surrender the city but only to the caliph himself. In April 637, Caliph Umar... ". - This is confusing because "caliph" links to Rashidun here, whereas "caliph" links to Caliph later in the article. Would it be helpful to link to Caliph in the first instance for readers unfamiliar with "caliph" or "Rashidun"?

Seige

• "The Byzantine garrison could not expect any help from the humbled regime of Heraclius and after a prolonged siege of four months, as expected the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius, having no hope of any help from the emperor, offered to surrender the city and pay the jizya, he however put a condition that the caliph himself would come and sign the pact with him and receive the surrender." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The Byzantine garrison could not expect any help from the humbled regime of Heraclius. After a siege of four months, Sophronius offered to surrender the city and pay the jizya on condition that the caliph come to Jerusalem to sign the pact and accept the surrender."

Surrender

• "On Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact was drawn up, which surrendered Jerusalem and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty for Christians in exchange for jizya ("tribute") – known as the Umariyya Covenant." - Suggestion: "Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact known as the Umariyya Covenant was drawn up. It surrendered Jerusalem and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty to Christians in exchange for jizya (tribute)". Also, it would be better to give the translation of jizya on first use rather than here.
• "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles that at the Zuhr prayers time Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but Umar declined fearing to endanger the church's status as a Christian temple and that the Muslims may not break the treaty to make it a mosque as the Caliph had prayed in it." - Suggestion: "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles that at the time of Zuhr prayers Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a Christian temple and that Muslims might not break the treaty and turn the temple into a mosque, declined." By the way, these two thoughts seem contradictory. If Umar was planning to break the treaty and throw the Christians out of the temple and turn it into a mosque, why would his saying of Muslim prayers in the building bother the Muslims?

"Note b"

• "al buladhuri" - Should this be al-Baladhuri?
• "A.I.Akram believe 636-637 to be the most possible date." - Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens; thus: 636–637. Also, "believe" should be "believed", and "most likely" would probably be better than "most possible".

References

• For consistency, either use the author's full name (last name first) or just the last name, but it's best to be consistent whichever form you choose. The existing refs are a mix; e.g. Gibbon in one place but Bernard Lewis in another.

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt texts are not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details. Helpful alt text is one of the requirements at FAC.

I hope these comments and suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for ur suggestions, i have edited the article as suggested by you, also images nw hv alt text. As for the why didnt umar prayed in the mosque fearing the muslims might not break the treaty making the temple, a masque. So dont know from where the work not jumped in and made the statement ambiguous. The confusion was all because of tht not, i have removed it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've considerably expanded the article and would like to receive suggestions on how to improve this article up to GA standards. I am especially interested in content issues but any suggestions are welcome. When complete, the article is going to get a thorough copy-edit for style and language. I am now going to work on the statistics section and will rewrite the lead section at the very last. All other sections are complete from my standpoint.bamse (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, bamse (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Åkebråke:

"National Treasure" has been used since 1897, though the term's pre-1950 and post-1950 significance is different."

How are they different? A short summary at the beginning of the section.

"During World War II many of the designated bulidings were camouflaged, water tanks and fire walls installed for protection. 206 designated buildings including Hiroshima Castle were destroyed from May to August 1945."

So how many buildings were destroyed during the whole war?

"This law was restricted to the ancient capitals Kamakura, Heijō-kyō (Nara), Heian-kyō (Kyoto), Asuka (present day Asuka), Fujiwara-kyō (Kashihara), Tenri, Sakurai and Ikaruga, places with a large number of national treasures."

I think "Asuka (present day Asuka)" should be changed to "Asuka in Yamato (not Asuka in Nara)".

Can the data in the statistics table be presented in another way? For me it does not look so good, it has too many -'s.

Åkebråke (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will add a short summary to explain the difference of pre/post-1950. I don't know how many buildings were destroyed during the whole war. The reference calls the time from May to August: "final phase of WW2." With the Americans getting closer to the mainland around May (Battle of Okinawa from April 1, to June 21, 1945), I would expect that this number is not too far off from the total number of destroyed national treasure buildings. (The earliest small-scale bombings were in April 1942, and bigger operations from China seem to have started in June 1944 from what I understand from the large number of "WW2 in Japan" related articles on wikipedia.) Changed "Asuka (present day Asuka)" to "Asuka, Yamato (present day Asuka, Nara)". Is this what you meant? What do you suggest instead of "-"? I could replace it with "0", but I think it is better for readability this way. (Compare the "0" in the "sum" columns which don't stand out as much, making it harder to see which prefectures have no national treasure. I got the idea with "-" from a FLC where it was suggested (or required, don't remember) to have "-" in empty cells. bamse (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added: "...with the pre-1950 term assigned to a much larger number of cultural properties comparable to today's Important Cultural Properties and National Treasures taken together." to the short summary at the start of the history section.bamse (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the statistics table looks bad not since it has "-" instead of "0", but since it is a big table with many holes. The "Historical materials" column contains over 40 empty spaces and only two 1s. Is it nessesary? What is a "fine art and craft" that is not a ancient document, not a archaeological material, not a craft, not a painting, not a sculpture and not a writing? Åkebråke (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Though honestly, I like the look. The categories are made up by the Agency for Cultural Affairs so I can't do much about it (nor about the number of designated properties per category). An idea could be to merge some of the columns or even all columns such that only the "sum" columns are present (like it was before the expansion of the article). But I like the extra information that this extensive table contains. Actually I merged the two categories (pre/post Meiji) of residences which is kind of natural. "Historical materials" however contain documents, crafts, paintings and weapons, so there is no natural category to merge it in. PS: I am not sure I understood what you were hinting at with your last question ("What is a "fine art and craft" that is not a ancient document, not a archaeological material, not a craft, not a painting, not a sculpture and not a writing?"). Could you explain?bamse (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had just a bit hard to imagine what a "fine art or craft" could be that did not fit into either category. Åkebråke (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, still not sure I understand the problem. There are two main categories: 1. "buildings and structures" and 2. "fine arts and crafts". Each of these is further divided into a number of subcategories. For instance "Fine arts and crafts" is divided in "paintings", "sculptures",... Did this help to imagine?bamse (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is complete enough to be reviewed. IDiscoveri Education has been doing great work in transforming the education system in India and hopefully this article will help more to know about their excellent work.

Thanks, IDiscoveri (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article needs to be completely rewritten, in a neutral style and with proper citations to reliable published sources. At present it reads like promotional literature. You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Article development and with the Maunual of style (WP:MOS), and consult WP:NPOV for information about presenting the neutral point of view which is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. In its present form the article is not peer reviewable. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived this as the article was deleted as a WP:COPYVIO Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is complete and would like a review.

Thanks, Elimitat Tattoo Removal Resource (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am archiving this as the article was deleted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 considering sending it to FAC, and would like a critique first.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Road Wizard

I haven't had time for a detailed review as yet, but after a quick glance over I spotted that the date of introduction was out by a month (now fixed) and the explanatory notes for the Act contradict the statement, "coming into force in May 2000 as the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999" (not fixed). I will carry out a more detailed check in the next few days. Road Wizard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comprehensive

• The description in the lead of when it came into force is inaccurate as it came into force before May 2000; the sentence should be reworded.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The passage of the bill through Parliament is limited to two sentences; can more be said about it beyond the joke about a birthday present? Was there any significant debate, any calls to a vote or any significant amendments to the original bill? If there was nothing significant then perhaps a sentence like, "the bill passed through parliament with no/minimal opposition; no amendments were made to the bill and no vote was required."

  There were no significant amendments that I can find in third party sources; such a sentence would be effectively original research, because it would be me going "I have looked through primary sources and cannot see any massive debates, ergo there were no massive debates". Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth listing the amendments to the act since it came into force? If so a section at the end of the article would be the logical place for it.

  There are only two of them, so I'll probably include them within the text when I have the time. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well-researched

• "This ruling was quickly reversed, and decisions immediately after used the original rule." (unsourced)

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Territorial Extent: Mostly England and Wales, but Northern Ireland for some sections" appears to be incorrect. The text of the Act says all sections apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland except section 9 which applies only to Northern Ireland. The infobox description implies only parts of the act apply to Northern Ireland.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd is a redlink is it worth providing a citation with link to some of the case notes, like so? On a side note are we ever likely to have an article there? Italicised case name with cited case notes may be a worthwhile alternative to a redlink.

  Such a site isn't a WP:RS; I will, however, endeavour to put at least a stub in place within the next few days. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a little wary of the references to the article text. They are useful as supporting references to a secondary source or where a direct quote is used. However, in some places they are the only reference used and seem to support interpretations of the text. The interpretations are quite likely correct but it would be much safer if a secondary source does the interpretation for us. One example I am thinking of is for section 7 (currently titled "Part VII") where the self-reference is the only source.

  Point - I'll try and find a RS covering Section 7. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

appropriate structure

• Acts of Parliament are split into sections and when the text is long they are split into parts. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is a relatively short act, having 10 sections and no parts. The section headings referring to parts need to be corrected. Also, why the Roman numerals? This particular act doesn't seem to use the Roman numbering system.

  Those sources I've seen use Roman numerals, but I see your point about the "Part" point. Since the official text uses standard numerals, I've changed both. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article lacks an External links section. It would be useful if the links to the text of the acts are repeated at the bottom of the article per most other Act articles, especially as the reference section refers to the text.

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that covers the issues I have spotted so far. Road Wizard (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your points :). Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fairly tough read for a non-lawyer (me). After reading the article, I concluded that I would certainly need a lawyer to interpret the law and explain it to me if I were involved in a contract in the U.K. It may be impossible to make anything as complex as this completely clear to the average reader, but I think it would be possible to nudge it a bit closer to that sort of clarity. Most of my comments have to do with minor prose and style issues, some of which are related to clarity.

Lead

• "the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presenting their final report in 1996" - "presented" rather than "presenting"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "a new draft bill in 1991, and presenting their final report in 1996. The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords... " - In this sequence, "bill" is lower-cased in the first instance and upper-cased in the second. I think lower-case is correct. Ditto for other instances of "Bill" in the article except where it is part of the formal name of a particular bill. Ditto for "Act" in constructions such as this: "The Act allows third parties to enforce terms of contracts that benefit them... ". If you think "Act" should remain upper-case to make it distinct from other meanings of "act", then it should be "Act" throughout. In some places in the lower sections, it appears as "act".

  Point; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "The first reversal of this law in Bourne v Mason [1669] 1 Vent.," - I think most readers will understand that Bourne v Mason [1669] refers to a court case, but most will not know what "1 Vent" refers to. Would it be helpful to explain legal jargon like this in parentheses or in a note? "Hetley 30" is similarly mysterious, as is "121 ER 762". Maybe a general note could explain these terms.

  would linking "1 Vent" and the like to Case citation help? Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's a helpful link and covers a lot of territory. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, done. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "whether or not a third party could enforce a contract that benefited them. The dispute ended in 1861 with Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 121 ER 762, which confirmed that a third party could not enforce a contract that benefited him." - The first sentence ends with "benefited them", but the second ends with "benefited him". Probably "him" is correct because "third party" is singular. However, "him" might be considered sexist if used exclusively to mean "her or him". Using "third parties could enforce contracts that benefited them" might be an acceptable solution. Using "him or her" once in a while might be OK too. This same question arises at various places in the article.

  I'd suggest using "him" - it's constantly used in textbooks and the like, simply to lend clarity (dealing with a third person in the singular). Gender is irrelevant, since "him" and "her", in a legal context, are taken to mean the same thing unless explicitly shown otherwise. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the original doctrine

• "A second argument used to undermine the doctrine of privity is to point... " - "was" rather than "is"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of the Act

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the heads and subheads. I'd suggest trimming this head to "Formation" and "Provisions of the Act" to "Provisions".

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "along with a draft Bill" - Lower-case "bill" here and further down in the section.

  Should be fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 3 December 1998, and, when during its second reading, was jokingly offered to Lord Denning as a birthday present due to his fight to overturn the doctrine of privity." - Lower-case "bill" and delete "when"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part I: Right of third party to enforce contractual term

• "An exception to the second rule is if the contract makes it clear that the third party is not meant to be able to enforce the term." - A bit awkward. Would something like this be better: "An exception to the second rule involves contracts that include language barring third parties from applying the rule"?

  Much better, thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Another exception is contracts between solicitors and their clients to write wills... " - Since "exception" is singular and "contracts" is plural, perhaps "Another exception applies to contracts... ".

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the act was first published, Guenter Treitel argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been disapplied by the statement in the contract. The Onus would be on him to prove it,[23] something backed up by the High Court in Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602." - The first sentence is not a complete sentence. Also, I don't think "disapplied" is a real word; "Onus" should be lower-cased and linked, I think, to Burden of proof. Suggestion: "After the act was first published, Guenter Treitel argued that in a situation where the promisor felt that the second rule had been wrongly applied by a statement in the contract, the onus would be on him to prove it. The High Court in Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602" supported Treitel's reasoning."

  Ta, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "involving dozens of sub-contractors with chains of contracts between them... " - "among" rather than "between"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The third party must be identified by name or as a member of a particular group, and does not need to exist when the contract was made." - How is it possible to name a person or group that does not exist?

  the person cannot exist. For example, if Finetooth reviews my article, I'll give his kids 500 quid each on their 12th birthday. This applies to the group "children of Finetooth". These children need not be in existence, but if you get with pod, such children then become eligible. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although the topic is not discussed in the Law Commission's report or the bill itself, it is generally considered that the third party would have no rights against the promisee, regardless of his rights against the promisor." - Shouldn't "would have no rights" be "has no rights"?

  Fixed - will do the rest tomorrow morning. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variation and rescission of contract

• "This is only the default position - the Act allows parties to insert clauses... ". - Semicolon instead of spaced hyphen?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "In certain situations the courts can ignore the consent of the third party and allow the promisor and promisee to change the contract regardless if the third party is mentally incapable... ". - Delete "regardless"?

  Done; I also removed "in certain situations", since those situations are then listed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The contract may give specific methods that assent is to be communicated by, and if so any other method is not valid." - Suggestion: "The contract may specify the communication method(s), and if it does, any other method is not valid."

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The third party does not have to have suffered a detriment from his "reliance" - it is enough that he has simply... " - Wikipedia does not generally use a spaced hyphen. Spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes are sometimes OK, but here I think a semicolon would be better. Ditto for other similar uses of the spaced hyphen elsewhere in the article.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defences available to the promisor

• "The Law Commission directly rejected the suggestion that the promisor should have every defence in a dispute with a third party that he would have in a dispute with the promisee (regardless of if it can be applied to the disputed term)." - "Should have" and "would have" are parallel to "could be applied" rather than "can be applied". I'd also recommend changing this slightly to "regardless of whether or not it could be applied" rather than "if".

  Tweaked "regardless of whether or not it could be applied", but I didn't understand what you meant with the other point. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be vague. I meant that the verb forms should be parallel throughout the sentence; e.g., "could" rather than "can". You've already changed to "could", so this point is taken care of. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Act takes a different attitude for the defences available to the promisor in counterclaims... " - Wouldn't the promisor be the one filing a counterclaim? If so, is "defences" the right word? My point is that in a counterclaim suit, the promisor would be the plaintiff and the third party the defendant.

  Indeed, don't know what I was thinking there; changed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part IV: Enforcement of contract by promisee

• "Part IV preserved the right of the promisee to enforce any term of the contract." - Most subsections of "Provisions of the Act" begin with a present-tense verb, which seems fine. The one beginning part IV is past tense, and so is "overrode" in the first sentence of Part I. I'd suggest changing the two exceptions to present tense; i.e., "overrides" and "preserves".

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary provisions relating to third party

• "and excludes the section of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that covers negligence from applying in actions against a third party." - Should this be "applying to actions" rather than "applying in actions"?

  Indeed; my apologies; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and implementation of the Act

• Shorten head to "Scope and implementation"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Act made it clear that contracts made in the six-month "twilight period" could be enforced by the act if they made it clear in the contract that it was made under the terms of the Act." - There's a bit of number confusion here because of "contracts", "they", and then "contract", "it". Suggestion: "The act made clear that contracts negotiated during a six-month "twilight period" after the act's passage fell under its provisions if they included language saying that they had been made under the terms of the act."
• "It does not repeal or abolish these exceptions... ". - "Did" rather than "does"?

  Done, and done. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The last two citations (57 and 58) are incomplete. For example, 57 needs the date of last access, title, and author (Jeff Brown), and the publication date should be separated from the url.

  Fixed; in my defence, I didn't add them :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Images

• The coat of arms image needs alt text for blind readers. I'm not sure how to go about adding alt text in a case like this. I can imagine the alt text itself (a description of the essence of the image), but the image appears to be part of a template. Perhaps alt text could be added to the template by someone who knows how. The general instructions for alt text live at WP:ALT. Suitable alt text is an FAC requirement.

I hope these suggestions and questions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we would like to submit to WP:FAC soon and wanted a last check to make sure it meets the FAC criteria.

Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am copying User:Brianboulton's comments from the article's talk page below. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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 while I think I've patched up most of the major holes, I would like it checked for scientific accuracy and also any stylistic or similar issues before taking it to FAC

Thanks, Serendi^podous 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Åkebråke:

"These studies showed that the comet's dynamics follow a simple area-preserving map similar to the standard map. Its dynamics were shown to be chaotic and unpredictable on long timescales. Halley's projected lifetime, as determined by differential escape, could be as high as 10 million years."

Both two links are impossible to understand for a layperson. What does "differential escape" mean?

Åkebråke (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really needed, so I removed it. Serendi^podous 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and certainly broad in coverage. Since I'm not a scientist, I can't speak with authority about the astronomy, though the meaning seems clear enough throughout. The article is not yet ready for FAC, however, because of prose, style, layout, and image-licensing questions that I mention below. All of these problems are solvable, though some will require a fair bit of time and effort. Here are my suggestions.

Layout

• The Manual of Style generally recommends against extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. The "Apparitions" section has a fractured (listy) appearance because it contains so many tiny subsections. I'd suggest merging these in some logical manner to make a smaller set of longer subsections.
• Images should not overlap two sections or subsections but be fully contained within the section they illustrate. Combining short subsections should make this layout problems easier to solve. For example, all the BC apparitions might be grouped under one subhead

Lead

• "and can currently be seen every 75–76 years" - Generally, it's better to replace vague time terms like "currently" with something more specific. Would this be better as "since the 18th century"? Also, I think the sentence would scan better if "75–76" years were changed to "75 to 76 years". Ditto for similar constructions throughout the article.
• "Many comets with long orbital periods may appear brighter and more spectacular, but Halley is the only short-period comet that is clearly visible to the naked eye, and thus, the only naked-eye comet certain to return within a human lifetime." - It does not follow logically that the short periodicity and naked-eye visibility make it certain that the comet will return within any particular human lifetime. I'd be inclined to drop the last part of the claim or to modify it to something like "... thus, the only naked-eye comet that might appear twice in an observer's lifetime".
• "after whom the comet is now named" - Delete "now"?

Computation of orbit

• "(he was later found to be correct; see Newton's Comet) - Generally it's best to avoid addressing the reader directly as here in the implied "You see Newton's Comet", an imperative.
• "Halley's prediction of the comet's return proved to be correct, although it was not seen until 25 December 1758 (by Johann Georg Palitzsch, a German farmer and amateur astronomer) and did not pass through its perihelion until March 13, 1759, the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn having caused a retardation of 618 days,[23] as was computed (with a one-month error to April 13)[24] by a team of three French mathematicians, Alexis Clairault, Joseph Lalande, and Nicole-Reine Lepaute,[25] previous to its return." - Too complex. Break into two sentences.

Orbit and origin

• "Its perihelion, its closest distance to the Sun, is just 0.6 AU... ". - It would be helpful to non-astronomers if you converted as astronomical units to miles and kilometers on each use of AU. Also, on first use, it would be good to spell out and link astronomical unit (AU).

Structure and composition

• "which may extend about 100 million kilometres into space" - I'd suggest giving this in imperial units as well as metric. Ditto for other measures given in metric only.

9 June 1456 (1P/1456 K1, 1456)

• The direct quote from Platina needs a source.

1531-1759

• Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
• This short list could easily be turned into straight prose.

20 April 1910 (1P/1909 R1, 1910 II, 1909c)

• Dates like May 18 are not normally linked.
• "Halley's 1910 apparition should not be confused with the Great Daylight Comet of 1910... " - Instead of telling the reader what he or she should do, it would be better to say something like "Halley's 1910 apparition differs from the Great Daylight Comet of 1910... ".

Images

• The licensing for Image:Halleys comet.jpg is a bit shaky. For example, it's not possible to tell from the description where in the world this tablet resides. The image appears to be self-made, but the description does not say so. It would be good to fill in as much of the missing information as possible.
• Image:Tigran Mets.jpg has similar problems and has been flagged at the Commons for lack of source information.
• You may be asked where in the Nuremberg Chronicle the image Image:NurembergHalley.jpg appears and which edition this refers to. If you could add a link to the exact page, that would be helpful.
• Image:Tapestry of bayeux10.jpg lacks a date on its Commons description page. It should be possible to add at least an approximate date for the tapestry's creation.
• "Comet Halley at 28 AU Heliocentric Distance. Credit ESO" - The credit on the licensing page is sufficient and shouldn't appear in the caption.
• The images need alt text, meant to explain the content of images to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details. Helpful alt text is a requirement for FA, and it is not the same as captions for sighted readers. You can use the alt text viewer in the box at the top of this review page to check the alt text.

General

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this page finds four wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

References

• Newspaper names should appear in italics.
• Date formatting should be consistent throughout the refs; in this case, it would be easier to change all nonconforming dates such as November 12, 2009 in citation 71 to yyyy-mm-dd.
• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
• Authors are normally listed last name first.
• Even when a source uses all caps in a title, Wikipedia converts this to title case. Thus, FROM KUIPER BELT OBJECT TO COMETARY NUCLEUS: THE MISSING ULTRARED MATTER in citation 34 should be altered to "From Kuiper Belt Object to Cometary Nucleus: The Missing Ultrared Matter".
• What makes a dot-com source like "www.twainquotes.com" reliable?
• What makes a personal web site like Bill Arnett's in citation 31 reliable? It's doubtful that it meets the requirements of WP:RS.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has FA potential. It's also an important and interesting article. You'll see that it was nominated for GA, and failed, but I believe that at this point, it fulfills the criteria, anyway. (If any reviewer would like to pass it in the process of this review, that would be helpful.)

Thanks, --Christine (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't read it, but looks attractive at a quick glance. The image captions should be shortened per Wikipedia:Captions, and the standalone quotes reduced and/or integrated into the text body per Wikipedia:Quotations. SilkTork *^YES! 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate starting out a review with contraryness, but I think I'll wait on addressing this issue until others have weighed in about the use of captions and quoteboxes. --Christine (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, and finding more images, I've addressed this issue by removing the first quotebox and replacing it with a more appropriate image of Joan Ganz Cooney. --Christine (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long on this review. I learned a lot reading this article, but feel it needs a fair amount of polish before it would pass at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

And sorry it's taken me so long to address these comments.

• I would be careful with statements like this from the lead: By its 40th anniversary in 2009, even the U.S. government recognized Sesame Street as "the most widely viewed children's television show in the world",[1] with twenty independent international versions and broadcasts in over 120 countries.[1] First off, the ref cited is from 2006, so it really does not back up the "in 2009" aspect of the claim. Second, I think one ouse of the ref per sentence is sufficient. Third, the "even the US Government" part smacks a bit to me of POV.

Addressed by removing the quote and restructuring what was left. --Christine (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead goes into too much detail on the dinner party and not enough on some other parts of the article. This is partly a WP:WEIGHT issue, but my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD

One of my weaknesses as a WP editor is my leads. I find them so difficult to write. Addressed the above by removing the reference to the dinner party and restructuring the paragraph a bit. --Christine (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEAD says not to use "The" in headers if at all possible. So could The 1970s just be 1970s (etc.?

Done.

• Please read WP:NFCC carefully - there are five fair use images in the article now, which may be too much. The title card seems standard for TV shows, and the image of Oscar with Gordon and Susan also seems fine. Mr Hooper's death is discussed at length, so that is probably OK too. My guess is that the Elmo's World image could be OK if the text discussed why showing his legs is an innovation. Much as I like Bert and Ernie, the image of them seems most decorative and least likely to pass NFCC.

The EW's image is there because it depicts Elmo in the segment, not because it demonstrates the puppetry. I chose it simply because I liked it. There are other screen shots I could've used, like one with Elmo standing in his crayon-house. Would you suggest that we use a different image? Regarding the B&E image: should we swap that out, too? Emilio Delgado (Luis) and Roscow Orman (Gordon)'s images are free; we could even use Ray Charles and The Carpenters, since they recorded SS songs.--Christine (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I was able to find a good image of Jon Stone; it's also a non-free screenshot, like the B&E one, so its inclusion doesn't change the number of images. The current image demonstrates the content, so I think it's a better choice and addresses at least one of your concerns here. --Christine (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the fair use rationale on this image is particularly strong. I don't think that the reader learns much about Sesame Street by seeing a picture of one of the creators. I think it is easier to justify pictures of the actual show, since the article is about the show. Awadewit (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you include these non-free images of the people, you must include a reason why a free image cannot be obtained on the non-free rationale on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this, after responding to Ruhrfisch below. Obviously, I am in the minority about this. To support my position, though, this article is about the show, but it's also about the people who brought it into being. That, btw, is one of the things I appreciate the most about Davis' book; as Cooney herself said, the combination of the people involved, from the production staff to the research team, was the magic that made it all possible. I hope that this article present the same. That being said, if majority opinion states that the images be removed, I will do so. Regarding the NFRs: I changed the rationale on the Stone image to reflect that he's deceased. Was that enough? If you wouldn't mind, could you or someone who's got it more together see if the rationales are okay, and if not, make them acceptable? Thanks. --Christine (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Will Lee and Matt Robinson (actor) are each linked twice in the article text, for example.

Done. --Christine (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many places where the language needs to be tightened and a few where things either make no sense or should be moved. Here are some examples, but not a complete list:
  • In the 1980s section (death of Mr Hooper) this seems needlessly repetitive and the second sentence does not make sense to me: Parents in the study were encouraged to watch it with their children to help explain it. Following the broadcast, parent viewers were also encouraged to watch the episode with their children. After the broadcast of the show, they told parents to watch the show (which had just aired) with their children??

I see your point. I solved this problem by deleting the first sentence, which meant that I had to reword the following couple of sentences. --Christine (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What is this sentence doing in the 2000's section? Entertainment Weekly reported in 1991 that the show's music had been honored with eight Grammys.[120]

There are two reasons. First, it's an artifact of earlier in this article's development, before the 90s and 2000s were separated into two sections. Second, I was lumping the discussion of the show's awards together. I moved it into the 90s section. --Christine (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The song Rubber Duckie being on the charts for 7 weeks is in there twice in two different sections. In the 1970s section it says this was in 1971, so it does not belong in the Premiere and first season (1969-1970) section if that is true.

More structuring issues, done to keep the discussion of the show's first accolades together. I deleted the phrase about the song in the premiere and first season section. --Christine (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What does this mean Roscoe Orman succeeded Matt Robinson, the original Gordon, and Hal Miller, in 1975.[76] I think it means that Roscoe was the third actor to play Gordon, but it is far from clear.

You're right--he was, and it is very unclear. So I reworded the sentence thusly: In 1975, Roscoe Orman became the third actor to play Gordon, succeeding Hal Miller, who had briefly replaced Matt Robinson.[76] --Christine (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the 1990s section there is a long list of people who died, but not much else on them - I would provide context to the reader and give a brief description of each.

Each were discussed earlier in the article, but I added a description of each and unlinked them. --Christine (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also the pictiue caption for Michael Jeter is the only mention of him in the article. If he is important enough to be pictured, shouldn't he also be mentioned in the article itself?

I've changed the caption to better reflect the article, but without mentioning Jeter himself. Let me know if you think it's enough. I think it's okay to keep him because he is an important part of "Elmo's World", and regular viewers will enjoy seeing him out of costume. Personally, I think an image of Kevin Clash would be more appropriate, but I may be able to go grab another non-free screen capture. What do you think?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Yes, it's very helpful. --Christine (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More from Ruhrfisch

I'm going to go ahead and address R's comments, even though this peer review has closed. Please let me know if I'm overstepping by doing so. --Christine (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a pet peeve, but et al. is Latin (so it should be italicized) and an abbreviation (so it needs a period).

Got it. I understand pet peeves. Mine is the use of its. And how the word "diamond" is often produced incorrectly in American Sign Language, but that's another article. --Christine (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article now has six fair use images. Two of them are just of living people (Joan Ganz Cooney and Jon Stone) and thus do not seem to meet WP:NFCC in any way - images of living people are typically not allowed as WP:FAIR USE since they could theoretically be obtained as free images. Even if they are allowable in this article, they are not in the articles on the two people in question. An actor has to have a free image, the character that actor portrays can have a fair use image.

Stone is unfortunately deceased, so there's only one image of a living person in this article. (I swear, I sighed through the entire last section of Davis' book; there seemed a period, in the early 90s, when a large group of the principle people involved with the creation of Sesame Street died. Very sad.) --Christine (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant part of NFCC here is No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
• The broader question to ask with each Fair use image is "how does this image increase the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text alone or a free image does not?" What does seeing what Jon Stone or Joan Ganz Cooney look like do to enhance our understanding of the History of Sesame Street? The Cooney image is more historic, but both seem to be decorative more than adding to our understanding.

I dunno. Personally, when I read about someone, I want to know what he/she looked like. In article about books, for example, I always want to see an image of the author, if possible, and right away. For this article, the "historical" image of Cooney, I think, is important. Stone, out of any of the early production staff, is probably the most important figure. Plus, for me, as a reader, I want to know what he looked like. So I do know--I disagree with this; I think that neither image is "decorative" and they do add to the reader's understanding. --Christine (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another thing to think about is Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding The image of Oscar with the actors is great as the idea to show both human actors and muppets is discussed in the text. The pitch reel Ganz Cooney is appearing in is not mentioned in the article except for the caption.

Let me work on this a bit. After some additional research, I've realized that there needs to be more information about the media blitz and PR campaign the CTW did in the months prior to The Show's premiere. The pitch reel was part of it, so it's my intention to add that content before taking this to FAC. --Christine (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an image of Elmo is great - my guess is that one that shows as much of what is unique about the Elmo's World segment as possible is the best for fair use purposes.

Now that you say that, I remember a more appropriate image of Elmo in EW, one of him standing within his crayon house. I'll work on this in the coming days as well. --Christine (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Six fair use images seems to be possibly running up against NFCC 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
• I am not an image expert, but from what I have seen at FAC, I think these are valid concerns. I wonder if you can find freer images - for example this image from Flickr showing Murray had a little lamb being filmed. What I am not sure about is how the copyrighted nature of the Muppets / characters plays a role here. The White House image is free (PD-US Gov) but is Big Bird still copyrighted? This I am not sure about. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review. I always get in trouble with images, so I'm grateful for any and all assistance. The challenge with this kind of article, as stated previously, is deciding what should be included and what shouldn't. Everyone has easy access to what the characters look like, though an abundance of both images and video, so the trick with images is to find free images that depict what isn't seen as often--that's why I thought the Stone and Cooney images work. I can't see how the Murray image you mention fits within the content of this article. (It definitely belongs in the sister article; it's not there currently, but I suspect after some more major edits, it will be because it portrays the filming of The Show. If we can't use BB with Pat Nixon because of copyright issues, why would we be able to use Murray, who's just as copyrighted? I think this warrants more discussion.

Again, thanks to everyone who participated in this pr. It may be a good idea to discuss some of the still-unresolved issues on the article's talk page. (I still need to address User:Scartol's pr, which he put over there.) I apologize for how slow I've been in addressing the issues brought up here. --Christine (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last from Ruhrfisch

• I noticed that the images need alt text and added one example - see WP:ALT
• Dab finder turns up five disambiguation wikilinks
• Back to images. Since the CTW/SW presumably owns the copyright to all the images used here under a fair use rationale, have you thought about writing them and asking for permission to use them under a free license? I have had some success with this in terms of pictures from state agencies and images from Flickr. I am not sure how they would feel about releasing images of Muppets or their logo under a non-commercial license, but they might be willing to release the Cooney and Stone images. If I were you, I would mention your work on other FAs like the Wiggles - I think it helps that they can look at an article and see that you do great work.
• I am not an image reviewer, so if I were you I would not remove any images based on this PR. I would think about what you might do if the image reviewer in FAC asked to remove them. My concerns are based on my own experiences at FAC, which has become more stringent about images lately.
• I think the title card (lead/first image) is fine as it is standard for a work on a TV show to have a title card as the lead image.
• Cooney is mentioned 29 times in the article and is clearly important in the history of the show. I am still not convinced that my understanding of the history of SS is enhanced bu knowing what she looked like in 1969. In any case, the fair use image of her cannot be used in the article Joan Ganz Cooney without a separate fair use rationale (and even then I have my doubts).
• The image of Gordon, Susan, and Oscar is fine as it illustrates multiple topics addressed in the article
• Assuming Big Bird is copyrighted by the CTW/SW, the image of Big Bird and Pat Nixon may not be free (the photographer does not own the copyright to Big Bird). I still think this would be OK as Fair Use if needed, as it shows the early popularity and imapct of the show - the purple one who must not be named was not invited to the White Hosue in his first year on air...
• Stone is mentioned 20 times, so he is also important. Since he is dead, a free image of him cannot be obtained by normal means, so I think it can be used in the article on him with a fair use rationale. As with Cooney, I am not sure what seeing him adds to my understanding of the article, but your mileage may vary...
• The Mr Hooper sketch seems fine since it is discussed at some length in the article
• An Elmo image also seems fine given the amount of coverage of Elmo's World - as has been noted before, there may be a more iconic image - the crayon house seems good as it shows the way Elmo uses green screen and CGI, something new.
• The last point is just that there is a limit to the number of fair use media any one article can have - it is not a hard and fast number though. Since this is a show that has been on air over 40 years, I think 5 or 6 fair use images is probably OK, but it may be seen differently by the image reviewer in FAC. As Awadewit noted, it might be easier to justify fair use images that aired as part of the show (Bert and Ernie? Snuffie? some of the animation?) as opposed to talking heads of people behind the scenes.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

• I think the weakest part of the article is the lead. It does not seem to be a good summary of the article. For example, it is missing information on the development and conception of the show, the decision to mix humans and Muppets, the types of changes made in the 1980s, the ratings drop and funding changes in the 1990s, details on the introduction of Elmo, and the impact of the recent recession.

As stated above, my leads are always the weakest part of "my" articles. What's interesting about this is that earlier today, I read this marvelous interview on Tough Pigs with Louise Gikow, author of the epic coffee table book, 40 Years of Life on the Street (which I highly recommend). She said that the biggest challenge in writing that book is deciding what to include and what not to include. We've kind of had the same experience here, on a much smaller scale. What do you include in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, and what don't you include? To you, the intro of Elmo is important enough, but not Snuffy's reveal. I find that depending on your age, and which era of Sesame Street you watched, either as a child or with your own children, is the most important era. For me, it was the very beginning years and the 2000s, and I've tried really hard to avoid WP:WEIGHT. The problem with an article about a subject we're all familiar with is that everyone believes they're an expert, and has emotional connections with its content. That being said, though, I've rewritten some of the lead as per your suggestion. Now I fear that it's too long. What do you think? --Christine (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your sentiments. I actually specifically didn't include the Snuffy reveal in my list because that is what I remember most from my childhood years and I thought I would be weighting my list! I tried to create the list from an honest assessment of the article. I think the lead read much better now than it did before, though, and I don't think it is too long at all. Sizable articles merit sizable leads. Remember, many readers read only the lead, so it is worth spending a lot of time on. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence needs to indicate that Sesame Street is a children's television show.

I assume you mean the sentence that begins, This article reflects the history of... If so, I've made this change. --Christine (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I should have been clearer. I meant the first sentence of the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses included adulatory reviews, some controversy, and high ratings. - I would suggest expanding this sentence to include a bit more detail about the controversy - what was it about?

I've decided to not follow this discussion as per my response above. I'll address the article's discussion about the controversy below, but I fear that the lead is long enough as it is. I believe that the current version adequately summarizes the content. --Christine (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The show's inception started in 1966 with initial idea by television producer Joan Ganz Cooney to create a children's television show. The idea arose during discussions with - Wordy

• The creativity and effectiveness of the show in reaching millions of children solidified in the 1970s. - Doesn't quite make sense

• By the middle of the decade, Sesame Street was in "full flower", and by the end of the decade it was "an American institution" - Sentence doesn't actually convey much substance

The last three issues have been addressed in the lead's rewrite. I believe that it's much clearer now. --Christine (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Up until the late 1960s, television was widely criticized for being little more than cartoons that depicted violence and reflected commercial values. - All of television or just children's television?

Good point. Children's TV, and it's been fixed. It's late, and I'm gonna turn in, so I'll address the rest of these issues tomorrow. --Christine (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Palmer and his team utilized concepts in the field of formative research, or "research conducted to inform the process of production". - This is a bit vague.

Clarified to: Palmer and his team's approach to researching the show's effectiveness was innovative; it was the first time that formative research was conducted in this way.[48] I think it's a better version now. One my goals for the parent article is to expand its section on research, and perhaps even create a break-out article. --Christine (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not quite sure what "formative research" means. Perhaps another sentence explaining the reserach would clarify it? Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you say any more about This Way to sesame Street? Right now, that paragraph doesn't seem all that necessary.

Up to this point, that paragraph was short because very little has been written about it. Exhaustive google searches elicited very little additional information; even Davis and the Unpaved book briefly mention it. I considered doing what you suggest, and deleting the information, but I instinctively knew that it was important. Two new sources, Sesame Street and the Reform of Children's Television and Lesser's classic book about The Show, Lessons From Sesame Street back up my instincts. This Way to Sesame Street was a small part of the advertising blitz the CTW put out about The Show in the months prior to its premiere. I'm in the middle of reading the Lesser book, and when I finish, I intend to add that information. So for now, I vote to retain the current information. (BTW, the best part about the Lesser book is his inclusion of Maurice Sendak's cartoons, doodled during the curriculum meetings. They are hilarious and typically incendiary.) --Christine (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Times Magazine later reported that Sesame Street endured criticism of its fast pacing, which was said to cause epilepsy in its preschool audience - I'm curious is there is any truth to this accusation or if it was just a smear campaign.

Are you saying that there may be truth to the accusation that The Show causes epilepsy. If so, pl-ease! I think that the article in the NYT Magazine brought that up as an example of one of the more ridiculous criticism, something that the CTW didn't even respond to. One of the reasons I cite the source is that it was their report. One of the things that need to be expanded in the parent article, and thus by extension this article, is a discussion about the criticism and controversy The Show caused, especially in its first season. That info is also in the two above-mentioned sources; Lesser's book was essentially written to address the criticism. Some of that info will probably eventually find itself over here. --Christine (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was unclear. I think the article doesn't do enough to dispel the myth (I assumed it was a myth but I wanted to check). For example, it doesn't say "endured false criticism" or something along those lines. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think about a fair-use clip of part of the "Rubber-Ducky" song?

• What do you think about a fair-use clip of part of the Mr. Hoooper death episode instead of the still image? It is the most famous episode by far.

I'll address the last two issues together. I think that these questions get at what I was talking above about weight. Why use a clip of "Rubber Ducky"? Why not use "Bein' Green" or "Sing", since they're also mentioned. And why the Mr. Hooper episode, even though I personally agree about its importance? (BTW, the clip is included in the "External links" section.) Why not Snuffy's reveal, or Maria and Luis' wedding? This is exactly why I decided against using fair-use clips. I figure that if someone wants to view a SS clip about anything that's mentioned in the article, they can; they're easy enough to find, ya know. Just this week, I watched some clips of Alaina Reed (Olivia), who passed away two weeks ago. It made me realize that she's not mentioned in this article, and I feel a little guilty about that. There are so many of the cast and crew that can be mentioned, but if they're not germane to The Show's history, they shouldn't be. Reed's mentioned in the other SS articles where appropriate, though. OTOH, I may go ahead and add her name anyway. I'll think on it a couple of days first.

Fair enough - I just like to take advantage of the multimedia options we have, if possible. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful! Sorry it took me so long to review the article. :( Awadewit (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've been tremendously helpful, thanks so much. It certainly has taken me long enough to address them. --Christine (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - there are no deadlines on Wikipedia - isn't that wonderful? Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 used a lot of time on it, and want it to reach GA status. The most important for me is, what would it take to get this up to Good Article status? --TIAYN (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with GA in mind.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the voter turnout in the previous election is only in the lead, for example. I think the voter turnout for this election is more important for inclusion in the lead.
• As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. There are eight sections on the campaigns of different parties, but not all of the parties themselves are even mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• In the infobox, I would leave the "Leader since" fields blank rather than use "?". The field will not show up that way, which looks better than three question marks (plus once you find out the dates, they can be added)
• Avoid unnecessary repetition - for example in the Proportional representation system section, both paragraphs mention the 19 counties as electoral districts.
• I would also try to provide context to the reader more. For example, I would briefly discuss the political situation before the election - explain the ruling Red-Green coalition, etc. Another place where context could be added is the Red-Green coalition government would face the same problems as Kjell Magne Bondevik's second coalition government. I would add the years for this for those not familiar with Norwegian politics (yes, it is linked).
• The article needs a copyedit - for example the second sentence here The party managed to gather 949,060 votes, which was 35.4% of the popular vote. An increase of 2.7% and additional 3 new seats in parliament. is a fragment (it has no verb). This could be fixed as something like ...35.4% of the popular vote, which was an increase of 2.7% and resulted in an additional 3 new seats in parliament.
• I would put this later in the article - does a sentence about polls done two months after the election really belong in the campaign section (for Labour)? In an opinion poll done for November, two months after the election, all parties continued to decrease, leading many to speculate that the Red-Green Coalition is "slipping".[22]
• While it generally seems very well referenced, the ref for the table at the end needs to be clearer.
• Since there are sections for the top eight parties in terms of votes received, could there also be one section for all the other parties that stood in the election? Even if it was just "X, Y and Z were in a national election for the first time and each received less than 200 votes" I think it would be helpful.
• Otherwise I think this look pretty good and fairly close to ready for GAN.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. --TIAYN (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article has improved a lot recently, especially with citations. Thanks, SPat ^talk 13:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The references need work. Footnote 4 is an example of a ref that is well presented - the author (where one is identifiable) is stated, and above all the publishing source is listed. This is essential to assisting subsequent discussion of whether sources are sufficiently reliable, which will be important if editors ever want to get this article to good article or feature article status.
• The history section contains too much information that is very recent and topic-specific. Consider either shortening (moving some material to article History of Pune), or moving topic-specific recent material to the relevant topic area (eg. to transport section). History of Pune should be longer than the history section in Pune, which is not currently the case!
• There are whole sections, such as "road" (under transport), "military establishments" and most of "Literature and Theatre", that lack any references at all.
• Military establishments seems a strange section, that i've not seen in other top-level articles about major cities, and which may give undue weight to that particular subject. Perhaps more limited coverage, spread amongst "economy" and "education and research", might be better.

Keep working away at these issues and it will continue to improve. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana boomer Hi SPat. It looks like you and some other editors have made a good start on cleaning up the article. However, there is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done. You didn't specify above where you would like the article to go (i.e. just regular cleanup, GA status, or even FA), but I'm going to assume that you want to go at least to GA. To that end, I agree with the comments that Hamiltonstone made above, and I have a few more comments besides that.

• All of the banners and in-line tags need to be taken care of. The banners especially are a quick-fail criteria for GA.
• There are a lot of bulleted and numbered lists in the article. These are generally discouraged by MOS, and I think that many or all of them could be easily converted into prose.
• There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, which make the article look very choppy, and make it harder to read. These should be combined with other paragraphs, or possibly expanded in some cases.
• There are a lot of red links in the article. Although red links are tolerated and in some cases encouraged, please make sure that all of the red links go to subjects that are actually notable enough to have articles written about them at some point. If the subject isn't notable enough for its own article, don't link it.
• The Sports section has a lot of really short sections. Some or all of these could probably be combined, with Sports institutions the only one that I would leave as its own subsection.
• It is very important that all web references have titles, publishers and access dates. As Hamiltonstone said, this makes it easier to verify the references and make sure they go to reliable sources.
• Check this link, there are quite a few dead links which need to be fixed.
• Check this link, there are several dabs that should be fixed.

• I have dealt with the dab links hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #70 (Pune Basketball) is a blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources.
• If you plan to take this article to FAC, you may want to check out the FA criteria on high quality sources. This means that if a higher quality source (generally a book or journal article) can be found, it should be used in place of a low quality, though possibly reliable source (generally webpages). It is often easier to add these references when initially referencing the article, rather than trying to go back through and replace lower quality sources just before a FAC. Although books and journals may not be the best references (or they may not be available) for subjects on modern-day Pune, they should probably be used for historical areas such as the History section.

I hope these thoughts help. I have watchlisted this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 underlying formula given for calculating the premium paid to the writer(seller) of a puts contract is severely flawed, undermining the entire article. See comment under Error heading on discussion page.

Thanks, SamISmyth (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I know little about puts and selling short, but I do know this article has some very serious issues before it even begins to follow the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest probelm is a complete lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Once they are added, per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• Without references there is no way to verify the information included in the article. I assume SamISmyth knows what s/he is talking about and that there is an error - if so, please fix the error in the article and add references to reliable sources to back up the material. I assume some sort of finance textbook would be a good ref.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD should not be longer than 4 paragraphs - this now has 7 paragraphs in the Lead.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
• The two graphs are confusing to me - they need to be better explained and need alt text per WP:ALT
• I am not sure the one external link meets WP:EL
• Article is very oddly formatted and large sections of it are not even in standard type (because of spaces before the text)
• Headers do not follow WP:HEAD (repeat the name of the article)
• Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined wiht others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a Featured Article in Wikipedia. It only needs some copy-editing jobs and minor details to take care of.

Thanks, ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.moviemuser.co.uk/Features/1239/Peter-Chelsom-Talks-Hannah-Montana-The-Movie.aspx
    • http://top40.about.com/od/singles/gr/mileycyrusclimb.htm
    • http://www.musicnotes.com/download/viewer/default.asp?ppn=MN0073289&mnuid=TZNPBYDXPJVUNXU4F0D5SXQYCBKQB7G7181GC7G7&dltype=0 (also, does this site have permission to host copyrighted material?)
    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cv51tX0KBs
  • The last six refs are just bare urls, they need publishers, link titles, and last access dates at the very least.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrected the bare url additions by other users and those sources are reliable. Thanks!!! -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still bare references. The last two references are unreliable. Youtube is not allowed as a source for wiki. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, I'll format them. If it is the official youtube of the organization/artist ( in the article, the youtube's are GMTV and Joe McElderry's), are they allowable? Liqudluck✽talk 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Con-nominator with Ipodnano05. If you decide to review this article, please note that the last section (Joe McElderry cover) is very new and constantly being edited (this will be sorted out before FA). It is also the source of the bare urls noted above. Please focus on the other sections. Thanks! Liqudluck✽talk 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks prett close to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree this needs a copyedit - there are people who will do this listed at the bottom of WP:PR/V. I will try to point out some places that need a copyedit, but not an exhaustive list.
• I am not sure the first sentence meets WP:LEAD, specifically the part on first sentence: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" - since the Miley Cyrus version is the most well known, should that be mentioned in the first sentence too (though not all the details in the current second sentence)
• This article has seven images and one sound file, six of which are Fair use (or should be, see below). This seems to me to be a big potential problem at WP:FAC - see WP:NFCC. The images from the videos seem most "decorative" / least justified as fair use (especially the Joe McElderry video image - we already know what he looks like from the single artwork, what does the video clip add to the reader's understanding? Ditto for the Cyrus video image).
• The license for File:Miley Cyrus during American Idol rehearsals.jpg is almost certainly not correct - if this was filmed as a part of American Idol (even a reheasral), it is copyrighted and not fair use. The copyright almost certainly does not belong to the uploader and as a fair use image, I fail to see how it adds to the reader's understanding under WP:NFCC. I have nominated the image for speedy deletion on Commons
• Try to avoid needless repetition. For example in the lead, rewriting could avoid repeating US in The song achieved worldwide success and became a top ten hit on charts in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the United States. In the United States, the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 and became the eighth best selling digital single of 2009. Five months after ... so perhaps song achieved worldwide success and became a top ten hit on charts in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the United States. In the United States, the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 and became the eighth best selling digital single of 2009. Five months after its release, the single was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The song achieved worldwide success and became a top ten hit on charts in Australia, Canada, and Norway.
• Problems with this. The first two sentences could be combined, the third sentence has a capital letter at the start of a phrase (should be lower case). The last sentence says "...was the first time the song had ever been heard." which seems to impy that somehow no one had ever heard the song ever before (when writing, performing, recording and producing it. I used strikes for thing to remove and [] for additions: The song's accompanying music video was directed by Matthew Rolston. It [and] depicts scenes of Cyrus climbing a mountain or singing intercut with clips of Hannah Montana: The Movie. Cyrus promoted the song with several live performances; Her [her] first, at the Kids Inaugural: "We Are the Future" event on January 19, 2009, was the first time the song had ever been heard [in public]. Could also end as was the first time the song had ever been performed in public.
• Would it mkae sense to rewrite this starting with "The Climb", so perhaps something like: "The Climb" was not written intentionally for the 2009 musical film Hannah Montana: The Movie, although the soundtrack's second single, "Hoedown Throwdown" was.
• Much of the material in the Background section is actually about the composition of the song. The Composition section seems more like it could be called Structure. Or perhaps the two sections could combined and called "Background and composition"?
• In general a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are at least 15 FAs on songs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music
• It is spelled "MySpace", not "Myspace"
• Since the performances on the X Factor were also cover versions, it seems to me that the X Factor section should be a subsection of the Covers section, not its own section.
• Isn't it called a YouTube channel? The video premiered on McElderry's official YouTube the same day as the physical release.[89]
• Ref 45 needs an accessdate. Also is About.com really considered a WP:RS (I don't know, I don't write about music)
• All the information needed seems to be here and it is generally decently written and referenced. The structure seems a little odd to me (two separate chart performance sections) but there are two different versions by different artists, so I guess it is OK this way - do any of the other song FAs have a similar chart history (topping the chart twice by two different artists) and article structure?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both Ealdgyth and Ruhrfisch for your reviews. Liqudluck✽talk 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just needs a few fresh eyes for copyediting before FA submission. Thanks, ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only made a quick perusal of certain sections in the middle of the article but the impression I was left with was that the article assumes a certain degree of familiarity with the subject from the reader. Someone completely unfamiliar with the series might be left floundering out at sea. The character section for example might benefit from a brief introductory paragraph just to enumerate who the characters in the series are before going into detail. Not sure if the article would benefit from a list of villains but the article does not seem to reflect the idea behind the comment "comparing Quest without Zin to 'James Bond without S.P.E.C.T.R.E.'". Dr. Zin is barely mentioned although I must admit that perhaps that might be appropriate for this incarnation of the series. Lambanog (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I read the comments from the earlier reviews and decided to focus on copyediting and proofing issues. I made quite a few small changes as I went, and I list many more below. This article certainly seems comprehensive and even a bit overwhelming in the Marketing and Critical reception sections. It might not hurt to remove some of the least important material from these sections. I found reviewer fatigue setting in as I neared the end.

Lead

• "The creators staged the show around Dr. Quest's investigations... ". - Who is Dr. Quest? Is this another name for Jonny? This is explained in the main text, but it would be useful to add something like "Jonny's father" here.

Development and history

• "Hanna-Barbera (H-B) created The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest in the early 1990s as part of Turner Entertainment's plan to revive old brands.[13][3]" - Standard practice in Wikipedia articles is to arrange the footnotes in ascending order; i.e., [3][13] rather than [13][3]. Ditto for other sequences like this throughout the article.
• "as part of Turner Entertainment's plan to revive old brands" - Would it be good to say how old? When and how did Jonny Quest begin in the first place? Was Jonny originally an H-B creation, or did he have an earlier existence in a book or comic book? The article later mentions a "classic" version and the 1960s. It would be good to include that here.
• "Combined with a substantial marketing campaign, the project would be their largest corporate initiative undertaken since Turner acquired Hanna-Barbera." - It would be good to make clear here whether "their" refers to Turner or to H-B. In either case, shouldn't "their" be "it" since a corporation is an "it"?
• "Turner executives regarded Real Adventures as the linchpin of the Quest revival, considering the planned live-action movie a reinforcement of the animated series." - The modifying clause is disconnected from the thing it modifies. Suggestion: "Turner executives, who considered the planned live-action movie a reinforcement of the animated series, regarded Real Adventures as the linchpin of the Quest revival."
• "Takashi designed Jonny to be edgy and handsome—"rather than the cute kid he used to be", and rendered characters in the style of Japanese animation to differentiate from prevailing American superhero cartoons." - Delete the em dash? It doesn't seem to have a purpose in this sentence.
• "A Turner executive claimed that Quest was developed for both boys and girls—"Traditionally, action adventure animation may be stronger with boys, but in this case, storylines are being developed to draw girls in...we're really hoping for a wide berth of viewership." - I think the em dash is being misused here too. I'd be inclined to use ""A Turner executive who claimed that Quest was developed for both boys and girls said, "Traditionally... ". Also, the ellipsis looks strange. If "girls in" is the end of a sentence in the quote, and "we're" starts a new sentence but something else appears between these two sentences, then the sequence would look like this: "girls in... We're really hoping... ". This makes the quote scan normally instead of reading as a run-on sentence.
• "Hanna-Barbera axed Lawrence and Takashi in 1996... " - I'd suggest "fired" rather than the slangy "axed".
• "Turner insisted on a prompt completion, but the work was exhaustive because some sequences needed heavy revisions." - "Exhausting" rather than "exhaustive"? Or perhaps "slow" or "time-consuming"? Or "but the work proceeded slowly because"?

Animation and Music

• "Producers contracted seven studios to animate the first season... " - I'm not sure "contracted" is a real word in the sense intended here. Would "hired" be better or "signed contracts with"?
• "Producers applied the process in excess of twenty hours per episode... " - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that it took at least 20 hours per episode to digitally ink and paint each episode?
• The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotes and suggests that blockquotes be used for quotations of four lines or more. I'd suggest changing the long quote in this section to a blockquote and rendering the short quote in ordinary quotation marks as part of the main text. WP:MOSQUOTE has details. Ditto for similar quotations later in the article.
• "We can re-cut the show—effectively ADR the show... ". - The Manual of Style advises against linking anything inside a direct quote. A solution here would be to render this part of the quotation as "effectively ADR [replace the dialogue through an automated process] the show... ". The brackets indicate that the explanation is not part of the original quote. This is a bit clumsy, so you might think of a better solution.
• "Producers originally intended to air the teaser... " - Briefly explain "teaser"? Does it mean "preview" or "overview"?
• "Bodie Chandler directed music for Quest, while several composers wrote incidental music and cues—including Gary Lionelli, Thomas Chase, Stephen Rucker, Lawrence H. Brown, Guy Moon, Kevin Kiner, Christophe Beck, and Mark Koval." - Suggestion: "Bodie Chandler directed music for Quest, while several composers—including Gary Lionelli, Thomas Chase, Stephen Rucker, Lawrence H. Brown, Guy Moon, Kevin Kiner, Christophe Beck, and Mark Koval—wrote incidental music and cues."
• "Stephen Rucker attributed the invention of MIDI to greater ease in scoring Real Adventures." - Something illogical here. Suggestion: "Stephen Rucker attributed the greater ease of scoring Real Adventures to the invention of MIDI." You might also consider spelling out Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI).

"QuestWorld"

• "Amateur employees struggled with lighting and synchronizing jerky motion capture from the House of Moves in Venice Beach, of which Quest was the first capture production order." - The "of which" clause seems to modify "Venice Beach", which makes no sense. I'm unsure of the intended meaning.

International promotion and network run

• "Slated to begin production in mid-1995, filming was delayed until 1996 and ultimately never began." - Since the filming wasn't slated to begin production, this sentence needs to be re-cast.
• "Called "dive-in theaters" and staged in major US cities, the events... " - The events weren't called "dive-in theaters". Please re-cast.
• "To build viral support... ". - "Broad" rather than "viral"?

Creative direction

• dojo and gym for Race - Wikilink dojo?

Marketing

• "the posters were awarded in Converting in 1997" - I'm not sure what this mean. Do you mean "published"?
• "expected to make $60 million of profit a year" - I fixed quite a few of these, but here's another, and I might have missed some. Constructions like $60 million require an nbsp code between "$60" and "million" to hold the parts together on line-break. WP:NBSP has details.
• "Editor Phil Amara assured fans that the comics would tribute the classic Jonny Quest as well." - "Pay tribute to" rather than "tribute"?

Other promotions

• "50,000 children with a median age of ten" - If you start a sentence with a number, it needs to be in words rather than digits.
• "and hosted barbecues, reggae concerts" - Wikilink reggae?

Critical reception

• "Billboard magazine conversely welcomed the change to the all-male cast." - "From" rather than "to"?

References

• The date formatting needs to be made consistent, either all yyyy-mm-dd or all m-d-y.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 although I believe it is as thorough and comprehensive as possible, there's always the possibility that someone else could come up with ideas for improving it. I'm especially interested in discussion of how/if it is possible to get subjects with very little information available up to featured article status.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too will be interested to see how this does at FAC... personally, I abstain from submitting anything less than 20k of Wiki text to avoid any possible "too short" mentality, but I'm rooting for ya here. Here are my suggestions for improvement: Sasata (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• shouldn't the authority be Peckham & Peckham, 1888, and the authority for the older synonym (not included in the taxobox) be Hentz, 1845?
  • The convention (in zoology at least) is to list the authority as the author of the earliest description. If the name is changed from the original, the authority is listed in parentheses, otherwise it is listed plain.
• where was the first species found? (ok, I see it later in the hab & dist section)
• range map needs a caption
  • Done.
• link specific name, subgeneric, classification
  • Done.
• any more info on the subfamily Dendryphantinae? How many species does it include? What characteristics are common? What source tells us the subfamilial placement?
  • Dendryphantinae includes hundreds of species. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to describe the subfamily in a species article, as it is neither immediately above or below the species taxon. It would make sense to describe it in the Zygoballus article, however, so that the reader can understand why all Zygoballus spiders are classified under Dendryphantinae, otherwise we would be duplicating the same text across every Zygoballus species article. I should also note that Dendryphantinae is not easy to describe. It would take at least a paragraph (with lots of jargon) to give a basic explanation for what Dendryphantinae consists of. I've added a source for the classification though.
• make sure to put a non-breaking space when using the abbreviated genus name (including the figure captions) to prevent unsightly line wraps
  • Good idea.
• images needs alt text
  • Done.
• spider anatomy jargon words needs to be better explained so that a reader doesn't have to click other articles to get the gist of what's being described. This is especially true in the lead.
  • See if you like it now.
    • Much better now... even a high school student could understand it. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Mouthparts of male Z. sexpunctatus" figure caption: tell the reader what kind of view this is (frontal? overhead?)
  • Done.
• "...and as wide as long." sounds odd to me... I would use "...and as wide as it is long."
  • Done.
• femora in Description needs relinking (and explaining)
  • I've described the femora in the lead and relinked it in the description.
• "The female can best be distinguished by the form of the epigyne." Yes, but how is it different?
  • No source describes the difference so I'm not sure there's anything I can do about this vagueness.
• "Drawing of Z. sexpunctatus epigyne" figure caption... what am I looking at here? What are the circular things?
  • No source describes the epigyne, so I would only be speculating if I tried myself.
• what's a sweep net?
  • Linked.
• link courtship display
  • Linked.
• Any more detail about the courtship displays or agonistic behavior?
  • Probably not. See discussion on article talk page. The only information available is a one-paragraph abstract which mentions the species. I could add a lot of info from the videos linked in the External links section, but I'm afraid it would either be considered original research or not a verifiable source.

• Anything from here? Sasata (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the same source as the videos mentioned above (David Hill). Do you think I could claim it's a reliable source without getting ripped to shreds at FAC? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes (even definitely yes), seeing as he appears to be the general editor of a scientific journal about jumping spiders. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see Talk:Zygoballus sexpunctatus#David Edwin Hill videos and webpages as reliable sources. More to come. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• link sexual maturity
  • Done.
• re: life cycle - when are the eggs laid? How much time from laying to hatching?
  • No information is available on this. The entire life cycle section is derived from a single row in a table in one article. All the information it is possible to glean from the table is included in the article.
• book references needs locations (else you'll get nailed by Fifelfoo at FAC)
  • Ack.
• need more consistency with capitalization of journal titles... maybe just stick with sentence case
  • Good point.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 1 needs a last access date.
    • Added. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 3 needs a page number
    • Done. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 11 isn't published by the Internet Archive, but by whoever put the website out in the first place, IA is just hosting it. Same for current ref 22. And what makes these relialbe sources?
    • Actually they were originally published on the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive has other stuff besides the "Wayback Machine". I've added the specific collection (Open Source Movies) to the citations to clarify. Regarding the reliability, please see this thread as well as the peer review above. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.peckhamia.com/gallery.html a reliable source?
    • Please see this thread. I would be very interested in your opinion on this before it goes to FAC. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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 Climate Change "opinions" are a Social Science topic:

1. WP:STRUCTURE and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as necessary to balance the article with other sources and sections.
2. Wikipedia:OC#OPINION and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE as applies to changing article title because its a single category of "opinion" and doesn't include other reliability sourced categories, from newspapers, religions or organizational members.
3. WP:HATNOTES as being used to WP:OWN and enforce the single category of opinion.

Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a discussion on the article talk page indicating that Peer Review may not be the most appropriate place for this - a Request For Comment may be more appropriate. Also, I am having trouble understanding your request. Perhaps other involved editors could co-operate to either edit this peer review request for clarity, or suggest to ZuluPapa that it be removed from here and taken to RFC? Just a suggestion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will be honest - I do not understand what Zulu Papa 5 is talking about here either. Looking at the article, it is not stable and seems to be prone to edit wars. I am not an expert on climate change, nor do I intend to get involved here beyond this peer review. Peer review is also not a place to resolve conflicts / disagreements among editors - RfC would be better there. Still, there are several issues in the article where it does not follow the WP:MOS and could, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The External links tool finds at least 13 dead links and several others that are problematic. These need to be fixed if at all possible.
• References are incomplete in the information they provide. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article is a series of statements, followed by extended direct quotations. This is not how WIkipedia articles are supposed to be written. First off the large number of long direct quotes is almost certainly a violation of WP:NFCC, especially 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
• I think it also violates WP:MOSQUOTE on the use of block quotes in multiple places (supposed to be at least 4 lines long, or more than one paragraph).
• The article is extremely listy and does not flow well - there is really not much of an article there beyond the "quote farm" aspect of it.
• It seems to me that a history section might be useful, outlining how opinion has changed over time (this is done to a small extent in places, such as the Surveys of scientists and scientific literature section.
• This uses almost all primary sources - the statements of various organizations and surveys. Has anyone written articles on the topic looking at this from an outside point of view (secondary sources)?
• Could some images be added?
• I realize this is difficult to do, especially when there is an edit war ongoing or threatened, but I would try to write summaries, backed up by the refs cited and the judicious use of selected quotations, using secondary sources where possible. As an example of what I am talking about, please this from Science Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). It merely states that these organizations agree without quoting their statements. Get the idea?

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Due to a long waiting period for GA nom. articles to be reviewed, I think it would be better for the page to under-go a peer review to fix some of it's problem so the GA review will go faster once it begins. It would appreciated if other editors could list problems (and preferably show examples) with the page (i.e.: grammar, formatting, spelling etc). Thanks. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at GAN today and had intended to review it after I'd finished another review; it's not a great idea to have two different reviews for an article open at the same time though.  Skomorokh  19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for planning on GA reviewing the article, I'll close this peer review so the article won't have two reviews taking place at the same time. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 considerably expanded the article and would like to receive suggestions on how to improve this article up to GA standards.

Thanks, Vaughanchris (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by doncram First, it seems to me that the article should be moved to "School for Creative and Performing Arts (Cincinnati, Ohio)", to add the disambiguating and clarifying parenthetical phrase. Google search turns up similarly named schools in San Diego and Pittsburgh; the San Diego one uses "of" rather than "for". The current title "School for Creative and Performing Arts" seems like a non-unique name, and it seems possibly a tad Ohio-centric to assert, implicitly, that the use of the preposition "for" is to be understood by the world to mean the Cincinnati school. I notice also that School of Creative and Performing Arts is currently a redirect to this page; it could/should be made into a disambiguation page listing all instead. Or, is this SCPA that famous, nation- or world-wide, that it is really an obvious primary use for the phrase?

Second, the article seems perhaps more detailed than necessary, and perhaps more promotional in tone. For example, that "The college-preparatory curriculum includes language arts, foreign language, mathematics, science, and social studies" seems unsurprising and not different than what most high U.S. high schools cover. That "Advanced Placement courses are available in many of these subjects. The school serves students will all academic needs, including those with special needs." seems to be relevant for a school brochure for prospective students and their parents, but not necessary for a wikipedia article.

I notice one sentence needing clarification: "SCPA has historically been among the highest-scoring public schools, second only to Walnut Hills High School, the selective public college preparatory magnet.[5]" Among the highest-scoring out of what set, schools in Ohio, the nation, the world?

Hope these quick comments are helpful. doncram (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Actually maybe the school is that famous, and should stay at the current article title. I am just not familiar with it. Also, i did start a disambiguation page at School of Creative and Performing Arts.

I wonder about another claim, that this is "the first and only school to combine a full range of arts studies with a rigorous academic program for elementary through high school". The only school in the world? I am sure that depends on how you define "a full range" and "rigorous". I'd be more comfortable if a broad claim like that was presented as a quotation from a source. If it's the school's own assertion, it can still be given, but it should be identified clearly as being their own claim. doncram (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further about the disambiguation issues, i developed the disambiguation page further and just found School for the Creative and Performing Arts about a Kentucky school, whose wikipedia article started in 2006. I note a discussion section at the Cleveland school's talk page on the issue, previously, too. I'll open a requested move about renaming both of these two school wikipedia pages, to address that. About other matters in this article, perhaps someone else will give more comments. I may not comment further myself, esp. in the absence of some response about my comments so far though. doncram (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. I've made additional edits per your suggestions, and I agree they improve the article. Regarding the renaming question, I think it is a valid discussion and I have commented on the talk page. Vaughanchris (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am hoping for some feedback on this article because it covers such a broad and complex set of issues. I am still doing some polishing but before I went too far polishing I was hoping for a little feedback on the structure and content. Specifically,

• Organization and structure - I have gone for a largely non-chronological organization in order to allow each of the various themes to be discussed more coherently. Thoughts?
• Length - The article is pretty long at this point (some copyediting might cut it down some but not dramatically). Thoughts on that? Is it too long? Are there suggestions on content that is unnecessary?
• Data tables - There are tables regarding populations of different groups. I think these are valuable as they show demographic shifts over time and help illustrate the dynamics. I have debated about using the Show/Hide features so that these don't take up so much room. Also have debated about using graphs for one or more. Any thoughts?
• Other - As mentioned the article still needs scrubbing but any feedback on the writing is still welcome.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Any experts out there with observations on key content that has been left out or understated? --Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the references. The reference dates should be in Months, Day, Year though. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Can you clarify? Which references are you referring to? For books there is typically only a year of publication. No month or day is typically provided by the publisher. Even if such is given the standard is to still only provide the year in the reference. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References like 115. The retrieved date should be in the months day year format. Everything looks great though. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, I see what you're asking. My understanding has always been that date formatting simply need to be consistent in the references. WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) does say to use U.S.-style dates in U.S. articles though I understood this to refer only to the prose, not the references. In any event, I'll change it. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation checker was used for this article. There's a number of them that should be fixed. Dincher (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link checker shows that ref 30 is a dead link. suggest finding updated or alternate link. Dincher (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are fixed. --Mcorazao (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to mention about John Catlin, the Secretary of Wisconsin Territory. After Henry Dodge became US Senator from Wisconsin Catlin became acting governor of Wisconsin Territory the part that was not included in the new state of Wisconsin. Catlin went to Stillwater, Minnesota and called a special election for the vacant seat of the Congressional Delegate from Wisconsin Territory. Sibley was elected and seated as a result and he pushed the Minnesota Territory bill through Congress.Thanks-RFD (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: This article has not yet had a general review, only some quick glances from helpful editors.

Finetooth comments: Just a couple of things to get started.

• The images all need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text is required for FA, and it's not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details, and you can look at lots of examples of alt text in the articles at WP:FAC.
• You asked about Show/Hide features. WP:MOS#Scrolling lists says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing." Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are OK using either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd format for the full (triple) dates in the citations. However, you can't use a mixture of the two. The formatting in the main text does not have to be the same as the formatting in the citations, but it, too, must be internally consistent, and in US-centric articles, it has to be m-d-y. Here's the guideline to back this up: WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting. If you choose to make the formatting m-d-y throughout, that's fine too. Finetooth (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, well-illustrated, generally verifiable, stable, and neutral. In places the prose could be tighter, and I think the article includes at least a bit of unnecessary detail in the "Settlements" section and lower sections. I've tried below to indicate ways in which the article might be slightly trimmed, and I've made some suggestions about image licenses, minor style issues, and layout. You asked about structure. I think it's fine to subdivide by topic, as you have done, rather than attempting a pure chronological order.

• I notice an odd absence of commas here and there in parts of the early sections. An example from the lead is "As the Americans established outposts in the area and the fur trade declined the dynamics changed dramatically." Without a comma after "declined", the sentences scans as "the fur trade declined the dynamics", which causes the reader to back up and start over.
• Here is another one from the first section: "In the 1600s a lucrative trade in furs developed with Native American tribes in Minnesota and other areas around the Great Lakes trapping animals and delivering furs to traders who shipped them to Europe." This scans as "Great Lakes trapping animals", which slows the reading. A comma after "developed" would improve things, but even better would be to recast along lines like this: ""In the 1600s a lucrative trade developed between Native Americans who trapped animals near the Great Lakes and whites who shipped the animal furs to Europe."
• You'll probably catch and fix other sentences like these first two on a future read-through. I'd suggest not only looking for missing commas but for ways of tightening the prose. Concision would help the length of the article and make the reading a bit snappier.
• "Instead the French and the British utilized the natives in the area as a source for trade establishing mostly trading posts." - The modifying phrase "establishing mostly trading posts" in this sentence is disconnected from the phrase "French and British" it modifies and seems at first to modify "trade". The cure for this problem is usually to recast so that the modifier and modified bump against one another. This might work: "Instead the French and the British established trading posts that could be used by the natives." It might be useful to ask someone at WP:PRV to copyedit with concision as the goal.

• Captions that consist solely of sentence fragments don't take terminal periods.

• The Manual of Style suggests using blockquotes only for quotations of four lines or more. Shorter ones should simply be embedded in the main text in regular quotation marks. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

• The article seems well-sourced in general, but a good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph. The paragraph starting "Following an 1845 treaty the Winnebago tribes of Iowa were relocated to the Long Prairie reservation... " lacks a source, for example.

• "It is important to understand that, despite American hunger for land, the leadership in the Minnesota Territory... ". - This begins with a judgment that would be hard to verify. Who says it is important? You could fix this by deleting the opening phrase and starting with "Despite American hunger for land... ", which would also be more concise.

• Lead image: The photo credit to the Minnesota Historical Society that appears on the licensing page should not be duplicated in the article itself. I'd suggest deleting the photo credit from the infobox. Also, it would make it easier for fact checkers if you could provide a link from the licensing page to the source page for the image.

• You might consider moving Zebulon Pike to the left so that he gazes into the page. You'd have to move him down a bit to avoid bumping into the subhead.

• The Chief Little Crow description page includes no source, date of creation, or author information. Fact checkers will have a hard time verifying the license without at least some of this data.

• The St. Paul steamboats description page says that the image comes from a Rhoda Gilman book. It should say what book and give other details such as the publisher, date and place of publication, and page number, if possible.

• Publisher and place and date of publication should be added to Eastman Johnson Painting America on the wigwam description page. Details like this are easy to find on the Internet, via Amazon.com for example.

Native Americans: "President Andrew Jackson's policies toward the tribes ultimately was to either pacify them sufficiently to along westward expansion of American settlers or else remove the tribes from the areas in which they interfered." - Word missing?

• Perhaps the "Settlements" section contains unnecessary detail and could be shortened. For example, this paragraph adds length but not much in the way of essential data: "When several hundred settlers abandoned the Red River Colony in the 1820s, they entered the United States by way of the Red River Valley, instead of moving to eastern Canada or returning to Europe.[84] The region had been occupied by Métis people, the children of voyageurs and Native Americans, since the middle 17th century." And this: "Henry Hastings Sibley, Justice of the Peace and future governor, built the first stone house in the Minnesota Territory in Mendota in 1838, along with other limestone buildings used by the American Fur Company, which bought animal pelts at that location from 1825 to 1853.[86]"

• It might also be possible to tighten the lower sections by eliminating repetition such as "By the late 1840s, however, all blacks had been completely disenfranchised. In addition they were prevented from running for office and their children were segregated in schools", which appears in the "Society" section but appears again in the "African Americans and slavery" section as "By the time Minnesota had achieved statehood, however, blacks had been disenfranchised and schools were segregated."

• Just to give one more example of how the prose might be tightened, I'll mention this from the "Government and Politics" section: "On August 26 of that year a meeting was held at the store of John McKusick in Stillwater with the goal of establishing a new territory. The meeting, which would come to be known as the "Stillwater Convention," elected Henry Sibley as a representative to Congress." I think the store location may be unnecessary detail. This could be compressed to "On August 26 a meeting held in Stillwater and known as the "Stillwater Convention" led to the election of Henry Sibley to represent the proposed territory in meetings with Congress." Or something like that.

• "In the 1830s a group of squatters, mostly Métis from the ill-fated Red River Colony in what is now the Canadian province of Manitoba, established a camp near the fort. A number of the people at the fort, including Taliaferro, did not appreciate the new presence. As the fort imposed new restrictions, the squatters were forced to head down the Mississippi River.[87] They settled at a site known as Fountain Cave." - Couldn't this and subsequent sentences be compressed to "In the 1830s a group squatters, mostly Métis, settled at a site known as Fountain Cave, later re-named Pig's Eye, then Lambert's Landing, and finally St. Paul"?

• Would it be possible to create a map showing the locations of the places mentioned in the "Settlements" section?

Society

• "By the late 1850s English had grown to be the most spoken language. New immigrants, though, brought additional languages to the territory. Newspapers were published in German (Die Minnesota Deutsche Zeitung), Swedish (Minnesota Posten), and Norwegian (Folkets Rost)." - Newspaper names should be in italics.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Mcorazao (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has something for everyone: monsters and clothing made out of hair, the creator of Devil May Cry, a much-criticized port between consoles, bullet time, browser themes, lollipops, and a glasses-wearing witch with a nice ass who apparently looks like Sarah Palin and can shoot from guns on all four of her limbs before transforming into a panther.

I'll appreciate any and all comments and improvements, except I don't want advice on improving the plot—I might want to get and play this game unspoiled some day, so please make any desired changes there yourself.

Thanks, an odd name 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torsodog review

First off, let me say that this will be my first real peer review, so wish me luck on this thing. Secondly, I have never played a DMC game, nor do I plan on playing this game, so you'll get a very fresh, unbiased pair of eyes on this article. Aaaaaaaaaaaand here we go...

General

• I think it is customary to put the "Gameplay" section before the "Plot" section. Is there any particular reason it is switched here?
  • I'll need to fix Gameplay for context later (e.g. who is the player controlling, and who is Bayonetta?), but it doesn't seem as dependent on Plot as I once thought. Moved. --an odd name 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Plot

• Yikes, this puppy is beefy. Honestly, I'm going to glaze over this section for the moment. It obviously needs to be cut down quite a bit, and having never played the game or having any idea what it is really all about, I'm certainly not the one to decide what is or is not important. Give me a shout if you ever get a chance to edit this section after you play the game!
  • Before "Plot" became the current mega-section, I tagged it for expansion with "a broader concise plot summary" (emphasis added). Oh well. :) --an odd name 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

• "Combat in Bayonetta, a single-player action game, resembles that in Hideki Kamiya's prior Devil May Cry." - Seems a bit convoluted and abrupt for an opening sentence to me. Maybe "Bayonetta is a single-player action game. The game's combat is similar to director Hideki Kamiya's previous title, Devil May Cry."?
  • Changed, with slight edits because I don't like the repeated "game". --an odd name 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The player is encouraged to explore ways to dispatch enemies with as much flair as possible through the use of both melee and long ranged attacks, complex combo strings, and multiple weapons." - I would switch these around, eg: Using both melee and long ranged attacks, complex combo strings, and multiple weapons, the player is encouraged to explore ways to dispatch enemies with as much flair as possible."
  • Changed, and combined with a brief explanation of what Bayonetta and her enemies actually are. --an odd name 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Such devices range from guillotines to iron maidens." - Link guillotines
  • Linked. I expect one or two complaints about overlink if it ever reaches FAC, but whatever. I think more people know what a guillo looks like than its name (or at least that's the order I learned of them thanks to Saturday morning cartoons and such). --an odd name 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The player can perform many standard action game moves—"double jump, lock onto enemies, rotate the [third-person view] camera, backflip to avoid attacks, swap between weapons on the fly, break apart background objects ... and break through doors"—and can unlock the ability to transform Bayonetta into a panther or one of various other living creatures to enhance her abilities." - I would lose the dash here and break this into two sentences. I would also try to lose the quote if possible.
  • Dash gone. I want to change the quote, but will leave it until I can think of a less paraphrasy way. --an odd name 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a start for now. I'll be back for more ASAP. --Torsodog^Talk 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tips! --an odd name 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

• Lead:
  • Given the size of the article, I think three paragraphs would be a better size, with paragraph two describing development and marketing, and paragraph three describing release and reception. That will allow you space to develop some areas of the article left out in the lead
    • Will do after the rest. --an odd name 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful not to use to many specifics ("Witch time" and such). Remember that it's an intro and we don't have the benefit of reading for details.
    • Agree with both; will change later... --an odd name 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Gameplay:
  • "Special commands or actions are woven into events, finishes, executions, and unique "Torture combos" in which Bayonetta summons a variety of devices to deal devastating blows to her enemies. Such devices range from guillotines to iron maidens.[4]" With this sentence you will have lost 99% of nongamers (and probably 50% of those who haven't played the game in general). What are these finishes and executions (as they relate to the game)?
  • Try and structure the gameplay section so that novices and relative newbs (who haven't played the game, or DMC, et al, can understand.)
    • Except for the finishes and executions part, I understand it perfectly; still, wouldn't further explanation of that part be WP:GAMEGUIDEing or giving undue weight to those details? Either way, I'll have to save that for others (copyeditors, I guess). --an odd name 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section: "Kamiya, who first added such a mode to Devil May Cry..." to the end either seems like it should go to development or marketing/release, or cut as trivial. It's not gameplay, and I don't think it's a good idea to introduce too many creative staff too soon.
    • Will move later... --an odd name 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Plot: The template's right, you gotta hack and slash that puppy, as well as update it for release. I'd say cutting it by more than half would be a good benchmark (especially if you leave the setting and characters detail in.)
  • Will stay that way until I fork the $300-ish for the 360 and game or until they port. No 7th gen consoles in my place yet... --an odd name 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Development:
  • "and the two settled on her original concept for the character despite her work "over a year" on other concepts." Huh? Not really clear what you mean here. They settled on the concept before she worked for a year on others? They got the initial concept done even though she was busy on other projects?
    • She made one design early on. She then ran other designs past Kamiya, but none of them worked out and they just stuck with the early one. Not sure how to say it in English. :) Ref 21 says "Kamiya-san [Game Director Hideki Kamiya] and I really liked the first concept, and we weren't satisfied with all the other concepts we came up with over a year, so we went back to that original idea." (The actual designs included red-haired and blonde Bayonettas, as shown in a Japanese TV special.) --an odd name 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conversely, she ..." change "she" to Kamiya, as its unclear after the reference before that's who you're referring to.
    • "She" is Shimazaki. (Kamiya's a man!) Will change later... --an odd name 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mari Shimazaki's "Final Design" of the witch Bayonetta had long limbs to avoid a short, thin look in the game.[16]" First off, why is final design in quotes? Second? Having long limbs gives the character a thin look, if not short. Appears to be a garbled translation? "Thin and short" doesn't really compute unless we have a sense of scale for the character.
    • Will unquote. Also, Ref 16 says "When a female character appears in an action game, her limbs often seem thin and short. That is why I tried to make her more appealing as an action game character by adjusting her proportions and extending her limbs." I guess I could emphasize the "adjusting her proportions" part, but otherwise not sure how to fix. --an odd name 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd lose the "short" bit and just say he tried to make her more appealing with longer limbs and adjusted proportions. I think he's mixing his metaphors or meaning a bit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will do later... --an odd name 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reception:
  • I'm not a major fan of "pre-release" content staying in an article, espectially in such an in-depth manner. Perhaps if individual reviewer's comments were contrasted or there was a significant discrepancy it would be notable, but once it comes out in all territories I'd say lose it. We should be informing people about the final game most of all.
    • See this discussion. Maybe if I were less focused on comprehensiveness and the other editor was less pointy, it'd be a non-issue. Maybe later... --an odd name 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd reduce the amount of quotes substantially; when you have more critics to summarize, this shouldn't be as much an issue.
    • I thought that was a problem too. It's easy to place quotes, and a bit harder (for me) to judge reviewer intent and summarize and contrast their opinions. --an odd name 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• General comments
  • The prose is awkwardly phrased in many areas; why use three or four words when you can use one or two? Ex. "" There's lots of pervasive repetitious (and damned boring) construction: "Camera views can be rotated, enemy targets can be locked on, and weapons can be switched during play."
    • See Torsodog's fourth "Gameplay" point above—I still can't think of a way to word it in (ideally) active voice without repeating "The player" or (worse) repeating the quote. --an odd name 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments were helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were. Thank you. --an odd name 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close this one. I doubt I'll request review again until (a) I play the game and read up further, and (b) the edits by others (not Fuchs or Torsodog) die down. Still clearly far from GA, etc. and I think the latest edits have made it POV and howto-ish (but they're not obvious vandalism or such, so I won't just revert outright). I'd rather take a break from the article until the game's new owners edit less (which is sad, because they're also the ones who'll probably need a good Bayo article most) and I regain interest than ram head-first into drama and dispute. If this seems unwarranted, re-open the review or ping my talk page. :) --an odd name 13:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 should look like some feedback before going for Featured List status. It has a referenced table of what I consider the key data about the works concerned in the context of the canon. The lede provides a summary which I think contains all the appropriate content, any more details belonging either in a history of the Bayreuth Festival or in an article on Wagner or the development of his operatic style. However, I've never nominated featured content myself and therefore should like feedback on anything that I'm missing.

Thanks, Peter cohen (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A very interesting list, to me at least, but Peter, aren't you being a mite diffident about your experience of the featured process? You co-nommed Rhinemaidens at FAC 18 months ago and helped a lot in getting it through. FLC is slightly different territory, and I've much less experience there, but I believe the criteria are essentially the same, even if it's mainly different reviewers applying them. Here are some suggestions for attenton:-

• File:Bayreuthfest.jpg: What is the source of this image? We require details of its original publication before 1923, support for the statement that it is an 1882 photograph and, if possible, the name of the photographer.
  • I've tried google image and have identified one copy that seems to be sourced independently of us. It confirms year but does not provide date of publication. I may substitute another picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now replaced with appropriately licensed picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Richard and Cosima Wagner.jpg: I think the correct licence is PD-US not PD-old, and as with the above we need full details of original publication, date etc.
  • On this at least there is pre-1923 publication in the source on Gutenberg.
  • Have now identified creator as Fritz Luckhardt who died in 1894. So PD-old is fine. Info added on Commons.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Presentation: I believe that the appearance of the list would be much improved if all dates were centred in their columns. This is a tiresome procedure I know, but generally worth it from a presentational point of view, which is a fairly important FL consideration.
  • done.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the columns is headed "Most recent Bayreuth performance". As the information in this column is given in years, I think "Most recent Bayreuth season" might be preferable. I assume the intention is to update this column after each season; even so you should specify in the column heading the date to which the information is complete, e.g. "Most recent Bayreuth season (to 2009)" A similar date indicator needs to be added to the "Total" column header.
  • Done.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the information is obviously available to you, why not put the actual dates of each opera's first Bayreuth performance, e.g. Das Rheingold, 13 August 1876 etc?
  • Actually that isn't the case. The five premieres under Wagner himself are well documented, those under Cosima aren't. I've posted at WP:Wagner to see if someone had a reference exact dates for the five works that Cosima introduced. No one has yet replied. I've got access to the archive of The Times but they only covered a critic to three of the relevant five festivals. For one of these there a definite date can be calculated; for two probable dates can be. (See notes at User:Peter cohen/sandbox2.) Until I have exact dates for all 20 premieres, I think it looks better having for none.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think some of the information in the key is a bit over-fussy. For example, in the Opera column, having indicated by a symbol which are the Ring cycle operas, we can surely deduce that those without symbols are not Ring operas, without being told. A similar point applies to the Première column. I also feel that the final column is cluttered with info-notes and colour coding. Most of this information, relating to the special years reserved for a single opera production, could be transferred to the text, with perhaps some indication of the relevant circumstances.
  • Done.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of points in relation to the text. First, the statement "The term can therefore also be used as shorthand for those of Wagner's works that form part of the central operatic repertoire" reads like the editor's own judgement as to which of Wagner's works form part of the central operatic repertoire, and sounds POV. Can this judgement be cited to a source? Secondly, I would expect to see in the text some explanation as to why Parsifal has more than twice as many Bayreuth performances as any other opera save Mastersingers. I imagine this has something to do with Cosima's edict that Parsifal could not be performed anywhere else, a rule which more or less held until 1904. Whether or not this is so, the high number of performances in relation to the other operas definitely needs explaining.
  • second point done. I hope it's not too much.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both now done.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer to see a bibliography, in alphabetical order by author, to provide an at-a-glance resumé of the sources. In that case citations could be written, e.g., as "Cooke, p. 132".
  • done--Peter cohen (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can come up with. I look forward to watching this article's progress, and please let me know when you decide to send it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• PS. Both images require alt text. Also, the toolbox in the top right corner of this review page indicates that there is one disambiguation link that needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig fixed. Alt text to be generated.
  • alt now done.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this. I'll reply individually to points as I process them. As for my one FA, it was you who decided when it was ripe for nomination. That's why I wanted to consult.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

• If we can't get all the Bayreuth premiere dates, how's this for a compromise:-
  • Alter the column heading to "Bayreuth première season"
  • Give the actual premiêre dates in the preceding column, i.e. Rheingold 22 September 1869 etc. All the premiere dates can be cited to a single source, e.g. Osborne's The Complete Operas of Wagner.
  • I have now found all dates, unfortunately finding that the date for Tristan you found was wrong. I haven't found another source for Dutchman, so I'll go with the source you founf even tough it is the same people who got Tristan wrong.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates now entered. I haven't got a single source with all the premieres. If you feel it is important, could you supply or let me know to ask at WP:Wagner.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source for the premiere dates is Osborne, Charles (1992): The Complete Operas of Wagner, Victor Gollancz, London, ISBN 0-575-05380-1 Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Performance totals: any reasons why these are not centred in their column like everything else?
  • Now centred.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Richard and Cosima Wagner should have a link to the appropriate Gutenberg page, and should also give the book's original publisher. The correct licence for an image published before 1923 is PD-US rather than PD-OLD, which is intended for unpublished material.
  • done. Curiously the first edition date identified at http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=Hughes&bt.x=93&bt.y=14&fe=on&sortby=3&tn=The+Love+affairs+of+great+musicians is a year later than that give in Project Gutenberg. PG does not identify whether it was this edition that was used. There was also a 1905 UK edition.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose comments
  • re Parsifal, "solely staged there until 1903" is slightly ambiguous; "and staged nowhere else before 1903" would be clearer
    • Done.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Wagner dubbed the opera..." needs some internal punctuation
    • Done--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "uniquely" occurs in succesive sentences. The first usage, "uniquely associated with Bayreuth" is a bit dubious; it is associated with Bayreuth more than the other operas, rather than "uniquely". I suggest a rephrase.
    • Removed second usage. I've tried to explain the first better. The cited source (Beckett) says "The stage history of Parsifal is unique: the presentation of no other dramatic work has been so intimately connected with a single theatre." --Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that some reviewers will object to the bullet-point format, and to the preponderance of incomplete sentences.
    • Now a definition list.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: You mentioned on my talkpage about taking this to FAC next week. Did you mean FAC or FLC as at the top of this page?

• My mistake. I mean FLC.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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 failed GA twice and I am getting nowhere, the cycle counties. To get this to GA i deiced that peer review would be the best.

Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

• As pointed out in the GA review, there are many book sources that are usable. In a very short time I found several good sources which spoke about all kinds of things in the league from arena conditions, to african american players in the league, to behind the scene conflicts, to how the league used players from the NBL to help bolster it and keep it alive. All of that is very useful information in improving the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To get to GA, the article must be expanded to include most if not all info provided by the available sources.—Chris!_c/t 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I agree that it seems somewhat incomplete. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Dab finder finds one disambiguation link
• The lead is only one paragraph and should be expanded per WP:LEAD - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the NHL / NFL / MLB stuff seems to only be in the lead.
• My general impression reading this is that it is not detailed enough - since almost all of the refs are online, I would look at n=more books and see what else can be found. For example, how did the ice rinks deal with basketball games (were there scheduling problems)? Or where did they get the teams / players from? Were most from other basketball leagues or from colleges or what? Surely more than one paragraph can be written on the second and third seasons?
• Article needs a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but noticed However, these arenas where often empty. (should be were, not where), and The best three teams from each division advance to the playoffs. (surely this should be in past tense)
• Avoid the use of words like "currently" as these can become out of date. So Currently known as the Detroit Pistons could be Known as the Detroit Pistons since 1957
• Is the league logo available for fair use as an image? How about images of some of the players?
• The second GAN has some useful comments on sources / books.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 seems really good in places but is only a C class. Where can it be improve by NPOV and sources. Thanks, LizzieHarrison 12:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article seems to have been abandoned by its main contributors, so it's not clear who would respond to the detailed points that would arise from a peer review. Maybe it needs a little TLC before a review? What about it, Lizzie? Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with Brian, but it is the oldest article on the backlog and so I will make some general comments / suggestions for improvement.

• For me the biggest problem is focus - how is this article different from the article on United Kingdom – United States relations? What are the criteria for including material here vs the other more general article?

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article but the current lead is too short per WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
• Needs a ref Their troops had been fighting side by side—sometimes spontaneously—in skirmishes overseas since 1859, and the two democracies shared a common bond of sacrifice in World War I.
• The whole thing is a bit muddled - the section CHurchillian creation starts with the fact that the special relation was recognized in the 19th century (so did he really create it?), then points out that he first used the term in 1945, but with reference to both the US and Canada. Then the next section says no it all started in 1941. This is just confusing. What is the special relationship? Is it it just the unusually close relatiuon between the two countries since the early stages of WWII (although I would say if that is the case, Lend-Lease might be seen as an earlier start than the joint chiefs.
• Now I see Lend-Lease is not even in the article!
• In the Personal relationships section, I would add a Churchill and Roosevelt header - otherwise the Table of COntents looks very odd.
• Dab finder finds several diambiuguation links that need to be fixed
• External link checker finds several dead or problem linksthat need to be looked at more closely and repaired if possible.
• This reads like a disjointed collection of incidents and facts and does not flow smoothly in many places. The Public opinion section is especially choppy - polls from 1942 to 2008, then a 1967 letter to The Times with no attempt made to tie these two sections together, then the Friendly Fire section on the first Gulf War but it also includes the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then a section on that.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 this is an extremely notable work of fiction that deserves to be great article. I think the editors working on it so far have got some great content to build on. So with improving the article in mind, let's have your views!

Thank you for your time and opinions. Davémon (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments by Finetooth: This happens to be a novel that I love, and the article looks interesting at first glance. Before wading in seriously, I can mention a few things for starters, and I'll add more no later than tomorrow (Dec. 26).

• All of the "citation needed" tags will need to be addressed.
• Although much of the article looks well-sourced at first glance, some whole paragraphs lack sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, every set of statistics, and every direct quotation.
• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text is now an FA requirement and is not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• The link checker tool finds a couple of dead urls in citations.
• Many of the citations are incomplete. For example, citations to Internet sources typically need author, title, url, publisher, date of publication, and most recent date of access, if all of these are known or can be found.

Further Finetooth comments: Rather than doing a line-by-line review, I've noted several fairly large-scale things that need attention.

• If I were trying to improve this article for another shot at FA, I'd expand the "Reception" and "Themes" section by undertaking a more comprehensive survey of the literary criticism of the novel. The sources for most of the claims in these two sections are periodicals, and that's fine as far as it goes, but they seem to deal mainly with the popularity of the book rather than the book's structure, themes, meanings, moral implications, characters, use of history, or relationship to other literature. Reading a survey or two of the criticism might uncover important themes that are not yet mentioned in the article. I'd start with Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism, edited by Rose A. Zimbardo and Neil D. Isaccs (2004) and Reading The Lord of the Rings: New Writings on Tolkien's Classic, edited by Robert Eaglestone (2006), and see where they led me. A section of the Eaglestone book is titled "Gender, sexuality, and class", for example. The "Themes" section of this Wikipedia article mentions race and class but says nothing about gender or sexuality; perhaps it should.

• I'd suggest turning the list of characters into prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists, which says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." An example of how this might be done appears in The General in His Labyrinth, an FA article about a novel. Cousin Bette, another FA, is another example, and you can find others by searching through WP:FA#Literature and theatre.

• Many parts of the article are unsourced or incompletely sourced. The entire Music section is unsourced. The "Posthumous publication of drafts" section is unsourced. Individual claims such as "Tolkien's frequent use of alternative spellings for the plurals of elf and dwarf (elves and dwarves, instead of elfs and dwarfs), which had been abandoned in modern English, have caused them to return to common usage" need sources. Another example is the claim that "The enormous popularity of Tolkien's epic saga greatly expanded the demand for fantasy fiction. Largely thanks to The Lord of the Rings, the genre flowered throughout the 1960s." This may be true, but what reliable source says so? The paragraph that begins "The book has been adapted for radio four times" is another example.

• "As for the magic Ring around which the story revolves, it seems quite likely it was inspired in large part by "The Testament of Solomon," in which King Solomon controls a cadre of demons and commands them to build the Second Temple.[2]" - This claim in the "Influences" section should not be sourced directly to an external web site. Also, it's doubtful that the source qualifies as reliable as defined by WP:RS. Citation 52 links to a site "maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings". It's hard to see how it could be considered a reliable source. All the sources should be checked to make sure they meet the RS guidelines.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm planning to nominate it for FA, and would like feedback first.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(at under 10,000 words, should be a stroll in the park) Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry, hard to do a comprehensive article on a man who was active politically for 60 years in much under 10K.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the Smye self-published ref reliable?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Bzuk added that when I got to the part about the Arrow, it's his area of interest. I'll drop a note on his talk page asking him to replace it with another reference. One way or the other it will be gone before FAC. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: First half of my review. I am sorry to say that Diefenbaker left no impact on my generation of Europeans, and before this article I would not have been able to identify him. I imagined he might be a German footballer (Johann Diefenbaker, the famed Bayern Munich striker) so this article has been an education for me.

• Alphabet soup: the post-nominals in the first sentence differ from those in the infobox. In my view both are a little excessive; I don't know what the status of FRSC is in Canada, but FRSA is a very low-level British "honour", not in any way related to or equivalent to FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society) which is the real McCoy. In the infobox, do his academic degrees, including bachelor's, need to be shown? I'd stick with PC, CH, QC and, if it cuts the mustard, FRSC.
• Lead: my only issue is the personalisation of the achievements of Diefenbaker's government: he did this, he did that, he appointed whomever, and so on. This makes him sound like an absolute ruler; I would prefer "his government".
• Early life
  • "including his son" looks odd and anonymous at the end of the first paragraph, especially as William had more than one son. Suggest rephrase the last sentence: "... four of the 28 students at his school near Toronto in 1903, including his son John, four served as Conservative MPs in the 19th Canadian Parliament beginning in 1940." (And William was a Liberal!)
  • "When the United Kingdom declared war on Germany in 1914, it did so on its own behalf, and on behalf of Canada and the other Dominions." A trifle verbose; it could be "When the United Kingdom declared war on Germany in 1914, it did so also on behalf of Canada and the other Dominions."
  • The shovel injury: "Was Dief a cowardy-custard?" Discuss. Seriously though, was this incident ever raised and used against him?
    • Not that I'm aware of, but his wartime record may not have been available until after his death. Mentions during his political career, including his obit, see here. Dief never made it to France. He certainly allowed some mythology to grow up around his wartime service, no matter how you slice it. His biographer, Smith, says that Dief's superiors were convinced that this was not a man they wanted leading troops into action.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "articling student": I've had a similar discussion with you about this terminolgy (see Early Neville Chamberlain). "Articling" doesn't make sense, if the word indeed exists; Diefenbaker was "articled", not "articling", in the same way that a prisoner is manacled, not "manacling". Why not use the standard term, to which you have linked - articled clerk?
    • It is Canadian terminology, see here. Seems to still be the term, judging by the nature of some of the sites.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wakaw days
  • As written, it sounds as though the Court of King's Bench sat in three places. Can this be clarified?
    • The sources don't make it clear, but the judges probably "rode circuit" as used to be common both in North America and the UK. I will change it to "places where the Court of King's Bench sat".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It would be the last election he would win for twenty years." This is probably SBO (Statement of the Bleedin' Obvious), but under the Wikipedia regime it should be cited, or it could be considered as OR. As an alternative, absorb it into the previous sentence, thus: "In late 1920, he was elected to the village council—the last election he would win for twenty years—to serve a three-year term.[15]" That would not be challenged.
    • It not a contentious matter, and I did not feel it had to be cited. That being said, obviously it will be a lightning rod at FAC and I will strike the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Aspiring politician: will all readers know that "Tory" means "Conservative"?
  • First paragraph of lede gives alternative names. Should I clarify further in the body?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perennial candidate
  • "Thirty years later, the winning candidate, H.J. Fraser, challenged Diefenbaker for his parliamentary seat, and was defeated by a 5-to-1 margin." This info may be better as a footnote rather than disturbing the chronology.
  • "a nomination to again stand against" Inelegant; try "a nomination to stand once more against..."
  • "...Commons — their..." No spaces around mdashes
• Mackenzie King years
  • "...had but a slight role" Oddly antique phrasing; "...had only a slight role" has a more contemporary feel
  • There's a useful wikilink available for "gadfly"
  • What is a floor leader?
  • "by by-election" - unfortunate. Suggest "through a by-election"
  • "...would have their leader in the House of Commons." Surely, had their leader – established fact.
• Leadership contender
  • Explain "at large delegates"
    • The source doesn't explain it. Meisel, talking about the 1956 leadership convention, mentions that that the provincial party organizations got to appoint additional delegates as at large delegates. I will research further and see if I can find a better answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've linked to at-large. Is this only a North American term?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The governing Liberals repeatedly attempted to deprive Diefenbaker of office" Not "office", which suggests a governmental post, but "his parliamentary seat" (that's English parlance; there's no doubt a way of expressing it in Canadian)
  • "The Liberals were not above more petty annoyances" - this phrasing is definitely non-neutral, and should only be included as part of a specific quotation, i.e. as someone else's wording.
  • "most Canadian troops" → "mostly Canadian troops"
  • "...prejudicing the jury against the Crown prosecutor"; "prejudicing" sounds like sharp or disreputable practice. Can another word or phrase be used?
    • The manslaughter case against Atherton only regarded the train crew, not the passengers. Dief kept mentioning the troops, and the the prosecutor said, "We're not concerned here with the privates". There were many former enlisted men on the jury, the prosecutor was an ex officer, and Dief responded, "Not concerned with the privates? Oh, Colonel!" and for the rest of the trial referred to him as Colonel so and so. He won the case. I think the phrasing is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Olive Diefenbaker was also a great source of strength to her husband, and made his enemies her enemies." Not sure about the "also"; "and made his enemies her enemies" sounds like a quoted phrase, unless it's POV
  • "began to arise" → "arose"
• Leader of opposition; 1957 election: no specific issues

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the issues I will address, except where I quibbled.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except where quibbled. Thanks, will await more.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest:-

• Minority government
  • "As the Houses of Parliament had been lent..." etc. Slightly confusing to British readers who tend to equate "Houses of Parliament" with the institutions rather than the bricks and mortar. Could you cahnge to "As the Parliament buildings had been lent..." etc?
    • • That is good, it will allow me to pipe to Centre Block, which had been bothering me as it is the proper name for the buildings, but is not widely known.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first to be opened in person by the monarch" - does "the monarch" mean just Liz, or "any British monarch"?
    • Any. I will change to "any Canadian monarch" (Betty is Queen of Canada, you know!). She also said some nice thinks about the Chief after his death, that I couldn't work in.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lester Pearson took his place as Leader of the Opposition" - a bit confusing (took whose place?). Perhaps "assumed his duties" or some such?
    • That's difficult. The Leader sits in a specific place in the Commons, directly opposite the PM. It therefore refers to both his physical seat there, and his shadow office.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amendment to supply" is a technical term that even with the link may confuse readers. I suggest following with a parenthetical note: (a technical device whereby oppositions attempt to secure the government's resignation).
  • "stated that the state" - try to avoid the repetition
• 1958 election: no comment, beyond its being an excellent summary.
  • Thanks! As it was the high point, in many ways, of Dief's life and career, I am glad you think well of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mandate 1958-62
  • I wonder if we can do something about the number of commas in this sentence (and yes, I did just add one): "Minister of Finance Fleming, with the support of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne, proposed conversion of the wartime Victory Bond issue, which constituted two-thirds of the national debt, and which was due to be redeemed by 1967, to a longer term. Perhaps this would work: "Minister of Finance Fleming, with the support of Governor James Coyne of the Bank of Canada, proposed conversion of the wartime Victory Bonds due for redemption in 1967 to a longer term issue. Victory Bonds constituted two-thirds of Canada's national debt."
  • "The St. Laurent government had serious misgivings and planned to discuss its cancellation after the 1957 election, according to C.D. Howe, the minister responsible for postwar reconstruction." I imagine the misgivings were about the whole project, not just the RCAF's downscaling. I'd make that clear, and also I'd write the sentence the other way round, and change Howe's label to "former" minister, thus: "According to C.D. Howe, the former minister responsible for postwar reconstruction, the St. Laurent government had serious misgivings about te Arrow project, and planned to discuss its cancellation after the 1957 election
  • "The company, blaming Diefenbaker for the firings, immediately dismissed its 14,000 employees...etc". Again, this might be better rejigged as "The company immediately dismissed its 14,000 employees, blaming Diefenbaker for the firings, though it rehired 2,500 employees to fulfill existing obligations (over 50,000 other jobs were affected in the supply chain)."
  • "...Diefenbacker slighting Quebecers in his Cabinet" - how/when did he do that? Have I missed something?
    • Dief only appointed one Quebecer to his cabinet. He wasn't against Quebec, per se, he simply was reluctant to appoint ministers without parliamentary experience, and the PCs had only 2 Quebecers in caucus before 1957, and only 7 from 1957 to 1958. In 1958, of course, the floodgates opened, but they were all newbies. Quebec, however, took it as a slight. I will rephrase slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "This refusal, along with..." is rather muddled, both as to its focus and particularly its chronology, ending as it does with something that predates Diefenbaker's 1958 election victory. Some adjustment advised.
  • "Hastily printed, mocking "Diefenbucks" swept the country." I get the idea, but the phrasing is too cryptic. I assume the "Diefenbucks" (the devalued banknotes) were mocked rather than mocking, and "swept the country" has the wrong feel. I suggest something like "Hastily printed banknotes, mocked as "Diefenbucks", were soon in wide circulation."
    • • They were faux notes, printed to denigrate Diefenbaker and his government. An example can be seen here. There was no change in the official banknote series, which remained more or less the same between 1953 and 1967 (excepting a modest engraving change because some saw the image of a devil in the Queen's hair, I kid you not).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a date for the election, rather than just "1962"
• Britain and the Commonwealth: "Britain and New Zealand disagreed"' It is not clear what they disagreed with - the proposal not to reject South Africa's application, or the principle of racial equality. Knowing how British Conservative governments, right up to 1990, used to suck up to South Africa, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the latter, but it should be made clear.
  • UK and NZ opposed Dief's proposal on racial equality. Suspect Macmillan didn't want to force a Commonwealth member out through the back door. The new Commonwealth members in Africa heartily supported Dief's proposal. Not clear what was up with the Enzies.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ike" and "John": No significant issues
• Bilateral hatred
  • Is "bilateral hatred" your own (rather neat) summary of the relationship, or someone else's? I'm a bit concerned by "hatred" which seems extreme; "mutual antipathy" seems a less histrionic and possibly fairer description.
    • Mine. It's kinda based on the title of the Nash book. What about "bilateral anger"? I really like the word bilateral in there.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As no other president is in view, could not Kennedy just be "the President" rather than "The American President" or "the US President"?
    • I think initially he should be the US President. However, I'll cut out the US's after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1962, a year in which a general election was likely, the American government was becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of a commitment to take nuclear weapons." I'm not sure of the relevance of the general election clause, and the latter part of the sentence should specify a lack of commitment "from Canada".
  • "upcoming campaign" → "upcoming election campaign"
  • "Canada also had a change in ambassadors, and when the new envoy, Charles Ritchie arrived in Washington..." A bit loose, and why "also"? Suggest: "Canada appointed a new ambassador to Washington, Charles Ritchie, who on arrival received a cool reception...etc"
• Downfall
  • "...but the Defence Minister soon sought clarification..." I'm not sure what "soon" is doing there; in the context of the whole sentence, "still" would read better.
    • Harkness originally thought that Dief was supporting his position. He was interviewed by the press, and realized that they didn't think that was what Dief's speech meant. He approached Dief, who was not exactly happy with Harkness, to say the least ("You've ruined everything!"). I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...short of an absolute majority" It would be helpful to know how many short, e.g. "six short of..." (or whatever the number is)
• Return to opposition
  • "In what Diefenbaker saw as a partisan attack." This is not a sentence though shown as such. Where does the clause belong?
  • "There were calls for Diefenbaker's retirement, especially from the Bay Street wing of the party as early as 1964, which he initially beat back easily." I'm unsure about the punctuation and the organisation of this sentence, and I don't like two adverbs in such close proximity. A slight reorganisation/rephrase would give: "As early as 1964 there had been calls for Diefenbaker's retirement, especially from the Bay Street wing of the party. These he had, at first, beaten back easily."
  • "party president" might be better form than "party President"
• Final years and death
  • Caption (Dief portrait 1968) I may be wrong, but I think it's Trudeau on the left and therefore Stanfield in the centre.

Whoops. Quite right. Brain fart.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Three images in the section - image clutter? and text "squeezing"? I have reduced the size of the 1977 image, but there is still a feeling of clutter. Also, I'm not sure that all the text in the final paragraph (describing the funeral) is necessary in an encyclopedia article. Magazine/newspaper, yes. Encyclopedia - doubtful.

Sigh. I'll cut out a sentence somewhere. Some of it is needed to show he was still honoured after all the time and controversy. Maybe the crowds lining the tracks. I will slice the gravesite photo as least valuable, or maybe put it in the references section, if that is not a firing squad offense per the MOS. Problem is, I could only use half of the 1977 photo of Dief, as the other guy in the original image is not identified. It is not Trudeau or the governor general, and yet it was taken at Rideau Hall.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Legacy: "Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, would become the only other politicians to win elections to become Prime Minister as Progressive Conservatives." I've no doubt this is true, but perhaps a footnote should mention Kim Campbell (who became PM as a PC but not through election victory) and Stephen Harper who won election as a Conservative after a merger with the PCs.

And that's it. As a general comment, you are setting standards for political biographies that others may be stretched to maintain. I particularly like this new emphasis on less immediately recognisable figures. I trust one day you will look at Alex Douglas-Home, who was briefly UK's PM in the 1960s, and left no impression whatever. Maybe he deserves a day in tHe sun. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and for the praise. These sort of articles are good also because I rarely encounter editors actively involved in the article, and can rewrite with a free hand. I'll consider Douglas-Home. He is interesting not only for the odd circumstances under which he became PM, but also for the connection with my buddy Neville (he was Nev's PPS. I will look into the availability of secondary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be getting to these in the next day or two. No particular hurry, I don't want to start the FAC for at least another week and am hoping to attract additional reviews, I've left notes at the Canadian Wikiproject and so forth. I am also hoping Connormah will go over the article to check for proper Canadian usage, eh?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I read it over this morning, it all looks good, and I'll run up the Red Ensign and see if anyone besides Dief salutes!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 need to gain input in comparison to other Guitar Hero articles as this is a slightly different beast.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my input:

• Infobox needs ratings from OFLC, BBFC and PEGI, with citations. You should try and fill out as many fields in the Infobox as possible.

• Lead section does not broadly summarize the entire article. Need to mention critical response and commercial success here.

• Gameplay section is good.

• File:DJ Hero spread out.jpg should probably go somewhere else. You probably might need to open a "Promotion" sub-section under Development and move the image there.

• The Development section might need some better organization.

• There are six references after the following sentence in the Soundtrack section: "The individual songs themselves have been pulled from a large number of music genres, including pop, grunge, soul, R&B, techno, hip hop, and house." Realistically, there should only be about three there at the absolute most.

• The Reviews sub-section is going to need a makeover because it's not broad enough in its coverage. I don't think I need to elaborate as it's fairly obvious what needs to happen with the Reception section.

• The Pre-release sub-section is pretty small and way too choppy. Consider expanding it, or merging it somewhere else.

• References 31 and 50 need proper formatting. Reference 38 is from YouTube, and should probably be removed as there are already two other citations before it.

Hope this helps. CR4ZE (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 prose requires checking before submittal to the FA selection process. Also, any instances where text clarity can be improved to cater for the lay reader would be most welcome.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding

(A) I think we are assuming some background knowledge here. The locos were tested on the LNER, fine, then tested on the Southern, fine, then Gresley terminated the tests. Hmmm.

The problems that I have with this are:

1. Who was "Gresley"? (he is not mentioned earlier) - yes, we know (and I've linked him), but read on...
2. What was Gresley's relationship to the Southern Railway and these tests? - bearing in mind he was the LNER CME (there's your assumed knowledge!)
3. How come Gresley got the Southern trials stopped? (Had the LNER trials already finished?)

This will require a bit of restructuring I think, but it needs to be sorted.

(B) A second, minor point. Would it be helpful to clarify as "as surge in the side tanks", or would this imply there were other tanks? (Wasn't sure, so left it as-is.) Later in the section, 'side tanks' is appropriate terminology.

EdJogg (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were tested on the LNER, and as a guess, I think it was because it had main lines in a better state of repair that the Southern on which to gain an objective assessment of the running characteristics of the class. I'll have to wait a bit to confirm this, but it should be done by Monday/Tuesday evening.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(C) Did the locos retain their names after rebuilding? I presume not, but we don't actually say as much! EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above has been dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precision

The {{convert}} tags for feet-and-inches to metres are set to a precision of 3 decimal places, whereas the ones for feet alone give one place. A very trivial point in a very comprehensive article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've standardised all to 3 sig-figs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Details

This section has a pile of placename links which need replacing by the appropriate station links (which is the usual convention for railway-related articles). Can use {{stnlnk}} in many cases, although some (eg London, Portsmouth) may require some thought (eg [[Portsmouth railway station]] is a DAB page). Rest of article will need checking for same. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have sifted through the article and modified those that I felt needed modifying in this way. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

There is no "Further reading" section; I have three suggestions for that:

• Fryer, C.E.J. (1992). Railway Monographs No.1: The Rolling Rivers. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. ISBN 1 872524 39 7.
• Bradley, D.L. (April 1980) [1961]. The Locomotive History of the South Eastern & Chatham Railway (2nd ed.). London: RCTS. pp. 66–82, 115–122. ISBN 0 901115 49 5.
• Nock, O.S. (1987). Great Locomotives of the Southern Railway. Guild Publishing/Book Club Associates. pp. 98–102, 115, 132–137, 154–160. CN 5587.

I realise that Bradley is already in the references, but that is for first edition. The above 2nd ed is much expanded (note the different page numbers). Nock is a Book Club edition, and was first published by Patrick Stephens Limited. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles I have been involved with once had a 'Further reading section', but whilst I have no problem with it, a reviewer stated that it implies that not all sources have been accessed, which is true in most cases. However, no-one has access to all sources, so to save argument, I removed it. I may re-instate it on articles already passed for FA. Will think about this. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why this "reviewer" should object to a "Further reading" section; it's mentioned at MOS:APPENDIX as the fourth of five standard appendices. Articles might get denied GA or FA because they don't follow MOS - but IMHO, anybody suggesting that it's wrong to follow procedures actually laid down in MOS, must be wrong themselves.

Later at WP:FURTHERREADING it's given a fuller definition - the operative phrase here is "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". After all, we're not here to write the definitive account - professional authors do that; what we should be doing is stimulating peoples interest so that they can then go and read the definitive account written by Bradley or the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't put it better myself, so as you can see, I've added one of the texts suggested. I'm thinking of ordering a second hand copy of Bradley's revised edition of SECR locomotives after Christmas to see if there's anything important that wasn't included in the 1961 version. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:APPENDIX notes that Further Reading should be a level 2 heading, so I have raised it accordingly. As noted above, this section is for sources that have not been used in the article, potential references, if you like. The above-linked pages note that the section is similar in scope to an 'External links' section. I would say you can easily get away with adding the other two books, if you are certain that the loco is covered sufficiently within. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to above list:

• Grayer, Jeffery (July 2009). "Scuppering the "U-Boats"". In Robertson, Kevin (ed.). Issue No 7. The Southern Way. Corhampton: Noodle Books. pp. 60–65. ISBN 978 1 906419 17 2.
• Robertson, Kevin, ed. (July 2009). "Scuppering the "U-Boats" - Years Earlier". Issue No 7. The Southern Way. Corhampton: Noodle Books. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978 1 906419 17 2.

The first article describes what happened to the Maunsell moguls (including the N class) after Dieselisation of the Reading-Redhill route in January 1965. The second article is essentially a selection of photos; a posed photo of A790 in service, plus three (with lengthy captions) of A800 awaiting repair at Ashford after the accident. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have this publication, and will also use it when improving the U class article. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "pps." mean (this edit) - "p." means "page", and "pp." is "pages", so "pps."=? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional:

• Chacksfield, J.E. (1998). Richard Maunsell: An Engineering Biography. Oakwood Library of Railway History. Usk: Oakwood Press. ISBN 0 85361 526 8. OL102.

Most info on the Rivers and the rebuilds is in two chapters, which are chronologically out of order. Chapter 8 "Tank Engines and the Sevenoaks Incidents" (pp. 96-108) and chapter 7 "The Moguls: The Maids of All Work" (pp. 84-95), but there is more elsewhere, such as pp. 65,67. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. is something I picked up from a previous FA attempt, not to mention my referencing as an MA student of History. As usual it represented a compromise between how the editor and the reviewer wants the article formatted. I think I'll change to PP., as this seems to be the common way to do it, looking at recent FAs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine book references formatted using the {{cite book}} template (such as my earlier examples), you'll see that these have their bare page numbers in a |page= or |pages= parameter, and the visual rendering is as "p." or "pp." respectively. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

I have just checked the referencing. It was something of a mess; here is a composite diff of my fixes. Most of the problems concerned the use of the name= attribute to the <ref> tag. Put simply, each occurrence of value in <ref name=value> must be unique - and there were several non-unique instances. It must be appreciated that if we have a ref like this:

<ref name=Bradley2nd>Bradley 1980, pp.66-7</ref>

then to reference the same page in the same book, you simply do this:

<ref name=Bradley2nd />

but to reference a different page in the same book, you cannot do this:

<ref name=Bradley2nd p.69/>

Instead, it needs to have a fresh ref like this:

<ref>Bradley 1980, p.69</ref>

(where the ref is only needed once, the name= attribute is not required).

There are still two problems outstanding, and I can't sort those because I don't have the book in question. In the lede we have this:

<ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 18</ref>

under Sevenoaks disaster we have this:

<ref name=Scott-Morgan />

So far, so good. But under Rebuilding we have this:

<ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 46</ref>

The value of the name attribute, ie "Scott-Morgan", has been used before. It is not unique. If you examine the Notes section, you will see that all three have been consolidated into one entry, reading "3. ^ ^{a b c} Scott-Morgan, p. 18". What needs to be done here is that the page number for the sentence "To recoup the expense of constructing the engines, Maunsell was given permission to rebuild them to the new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." should be determined; if it is 18, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 46 ref; conversely, if that sentence be backed up by page 46, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 18 ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference p. 46 now separated from the two p. 18 references. I'm surprised I let that one slip, but its good to have someone going over these things. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead section

• Presumably "...were among the first non-Great Western Railway (GWR) types to use and improve upon the basic design principles established by GWR Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) George Jackson Churchward." is included as part of the K and K1 classes' reasons for notability. It is probably explained later in the article, but, at this early stage, it leaves the question hanging for those readers not in the know: what were Churchward's basic design principles and how did the K and K1 classes improve on them?
• Ditto, what were the Midland Railway concepts?
• I have added a link to George Jackson Churchward to in first paragraph.
• If all of the engines were built between 1917 and 1925, the time frame "between the first and second world wars" is a bit artificial as they were all built in a seven year period out of 21 years. It is also slightly inaccurate because the first was built during WWI not after as "between" implies. It is also at odds with the class construction history section which indicates that 10 were built in Brighton in 1926. I think it would be better to say that the design was completed in 1914, the prototype was built in 1917 and the remaining 20 engines were built in 1925-26.
• The use of "the" in "as part of the SECR's fleet standardisation" implies that the standardisation has been mentioned previously or that the reader is familiar with it. At this stage, they may not be. Suggest change to "a SECR fleet standardisation".
• "various" in "various rivers" is redundant. A common term like river does not need to be linked.
• Again "the 1927 Sevenoaks railway accident" assumes prior knowledge. Suggest "a railway accident at Sevenoaks in 1927".

Background

• "On the lines of the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) – inherited by the SECR in 1899 – beach pebbles had been used for ballast rather than conventional ballast with irregular shapes that "lock" together to keep the track in place. These economies in construction meant that only locomotives with low axle loadings could operate safely over the track. The SECR was therefore unable to follow a coherent locomotive strategy in reducing the number of locomotive types inherited from the two constituent railways" has a number of problems because it assumes prior knowledge in several places which needs to be addressed:
  • Where are the lines of the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway?
  • How did the SECR inherit the LCDR?
  • Why did the SECR want or need to reduce the number of locomotive types?
  • The LCDR was one constituent railway of the SECR, but what was the other one, that, presumably, had done the sensible thing and used standard ballast?
• Can it be explained why the SECR just did not reset the tracks in standard ballast rather than design a new engine?
• "Despite increased passenger and freight traffic between London Charing Cross and the Kentish coast during the first decades of the twentieth century, the Operating Department had to use mismatched classes of underpowered and obsolete 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 locomotives which could operate within the restrictions imposed by the infrastructure."
  • "London Charing Cross" should be "Charing Cross station" or just "Charing Cross".
  • "Kentish coast" should be "Kent coast"
  • How is the second half of the sentence "despite" the first half? I think it should start "Although passenger and freight traffic between Charing Cross and the Kent coast had increased..." and then discuss how the limitations on the engine loadings restricted the SECR from responding efficiently due to the obsolete locomotives.
  • Why did this result in "double heading"? It is partially explained in the design section but should be mentioned here.
• Why was Wainwright's retirement enforced? There is nothing in his article to explain this.
• "in a too heavy axle loading" should be "in too heavy an axle loading".

Design

• "The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, only the Great Central Railway 1B class freight locomotives (later known as the LNER Class L1 and L3 classes) having preceded the K class." Is awkward; suggest "The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, having only been used on the Great Central Railway's 1B class freight locomotives."
• Why was 2-6-4 uncommon? Did it have technical disadvantages or limitations that made it less suitable?
• How had track curves constrained the size of locomotives on the SECR? Presumably it was tightness of curve, but was this another problem caused by the LCDR's shoddy construction or was it a problem on other non-LCDR sections?
• "London Charing Cross" used again and linked for a second time.
• What was the first step in the standardisation programme?
• A lot of the influences on the K class design seem to have come from Maunsell's assistants. Is it fair then to say that Maunsell designed the class?
• Churchward's first name should be given.
• Again, what were Churchward's design principles?

Construction - K Class

• ",but as with the N class," needs a comma after "but".
• "due to the requirements for armaments manufacture by Ashford works during the First World War" would be better as "due to the use of the Ashford works for wartime armaments manufacture"
• July 1917 is not towards the end of the war. At that period the war still had 15 months to run.
• Chief Mechanical Engineer is used in full although CME has previously been used as its abbreviation. It also is linked again.
• Punctuation in the third paragraph needs improvement.
• "London Cannon Street" should be "Cannon Street station" or "Cannon Street".
• 300 long tons equals about 305 metric tonnes not 300; use {{convert|300|LT|t ST|sigfig=3}} to get the correct conversion plus the short ton conversion.
• "...to address complaint of rough riding by earlier members of the class" should be "...to address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class"
• I have rephrased the last sentence about the accident.

Construction - K1 Class

• The conversion templates are producing conversions from inches to mm to thousandths of a millimetre. I note above that you say that you have set them to three significant figures; actually you have set them to round to 3 decimal places which is not the same. Use {{convert|6|ft|mm|sigfig=3|abbr=on}}, {{convert|16|in|mm|sigfig=3|abbr=on}} and {{convert|3|in|mm|sigfig=2|abbr=on}} instead to produce conversions to the nearest mm.
• What were the conversions applied to N class locomotive 822 in 1922?
• The article says that the main visual difference between K and K1 classes was the use of "a slab-front" on the K1 class. What is a slab front and what did the K class have instead?

Naming the locomotives

• The article gives the name of three rivers used for the names of the locomotives - Adur, Avon and Frome. To satisfy the question as to what the others were named, I think the link in the See also section to List of SECR K and SR K1 class locomotives needs to be moved up to this section.

K and K1 class construction history

• I think that this section should be above the naming section.
• As the notes column only repeats information already in the text above, I think that this can be removed.

Operational details

• What are "service trains"?

Performance of the tank locomotives

• I have fixed grammar issues in this section.
• Who was the chairman of the board who over ruled the directors in their efforts to ban the K class from passenger traffic? Was this before the Sevenoaks accident?

Sevenoaks disaster

• What impact on the SR's standing did the accident have? Was compensation paid?
• It is interesting that the accident report concludes that the engines were well designed and suitable for express services on well maintained track. Perhaps this conclusion should be added to the article, either in this section or the Operational assessment and preservation section.
• The linked PDF report includes a good engineering elevation on page 42 of the K class which could be added to the article as the Crown copyright on the report has expired.

See also

• This section is not strictly necessary as the items listed in it are already linked elsewhere in the article.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have undertaken several of the changes listed here, apart from the 'See also' section, as there aren't really any rules for inclusion or removal. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • https://sremg.org.uk/
  • You need more information on the Ian Allan ABC of British Railways work. Is it this work? The entry needs to give enough information that it is possible to locate the work, which right now the entry doesn't do. At the very least, you need publisher/author/etc.
  • Which edition of the Holcroft work was used? World Cat lists three different editions, you need to be more specific in order for it to be verifiable.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response Have attempted to address the reference issues above, and have replaced SEMG with verifiable sources.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would normally regard the SEMG site as Reliable; certainly as reliable as any book published on the subject. It is published by a group of enthusiasts in the subject matter, comprising historians, modellers and other interested parties. The nature of such railway enthusiasts is to strive for accuracy. The site itself is not editable by 'anyone', and hence any facts must at least be reviewed by the specific person responsible for applying edits. What prevents it from being 'Reliable' in WP terms is (presumably) a lack of visibility of any peer review / editorial oversight of its content, much of which is likely to take place by broadcast email. Incidentally, I am NOT a member of SEMG, just an occasional visitor over many years, usually researching for WP (!) or my modelling. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too think its as reliable as any text (I daresay more so than Wikipedia!), but I believe the problem lies with the fact that its hard to verify the data used in the articles, a situation compounded by the lack of a bibliography and/or footnotes. Generally, I've tried to use this site for photographic evidence to illustrate complex issues, as well as other items in the absence of my own reference material. However, since I have a few more references in hard text, it is now possible to begin to change over to something more verifiable. However, the site is still useful as an external link in most articles.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A nice review against the FA criteria is much appreciated, especially comments on prose. PRB88 (T) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am still suffering from Mozilla Firefox bugs which are causing access problems and generally slowing my work. However, here is the first two-thirds of my Rumours review. I'll deliver the rest as soon as I can.

• Lead
  • "it was produced by the band, Ken Caillat, and Richard Dashut,..." Suggest you rmove a slight ambiguity by changing this to: "it was produced by the band in conjunction with Ken Caillat and Richard Dashut,..."
    • DONE. Just "with".
  • "strived"? The word is "strove", but "strove to expand" sounds forced. I'd say "tried"
    • DONE. "wanted".
  • "The studio time for Rumours was marked with disquiet and hedonism..." This is odd phrasing - "disquiet and hedoism". Why not say the studio time was "marked by interpersonal strife and hedonistic behavior as..." etc
    • DONE.
  • "While the lyrics were informed by the failure of personal relationships, the compositions were moulded using acoustic and electric instruments to create a pop-influenced sound." There is no "while" here; there are two separate, unrelated factors: what influenced the lyrics, and how the musical sound was produced. Personally. I would attach the first clause to the previous sentence, to give: "The studio time for Rumours was marked by disruption and crises as all band members went through breakups; the lyrics were informed by these personal relationships failures." Then, new sentence: "The compositions were moulded using acoustic and electric instruments to create a pop-influenced sound."
    • DONE.
• Origins
  • "Following six months of non-stop touring, the McVies divorced after eight years of marriage." I'm struggling with this. Presumably the six-month touring began after July 1975 and went on until early 1976. Then the McVies divorced? I don't know how things work in the US, but in the UK a divorce takes time. The marriage would have to have broken down before the tour started, to get a divorce immediately after it finished. Was this the case? When, exactly, did they divorce? This may sound like chasing after irrelevancies, but it seems that the personal relationships in the group had a lot of baring on the making of the album, so I'd like to be clear on this.
    • DONE. Finalised them.
  • I can't work out what this means: "Buckingham and Nicks—who had joined the band before Fleetwood Mac after guitarist Bob Welch left—..." Can you clarify?
    • That's the album, not the band. That's why it's in italics.
  • "Despite any anger..." Is "any anger" the right wording? I'd say "Despite mutual hostilities..."
    • DONE. "the hostile environment".
• Studio sessions
  • First paragraph contains rather a motley collection of facts. The first three sentences follow logically. Then we have a repeat of the production information given in the lead. Then information about Buckingham's role. Then unrelated info about no live takes. Then Buckingham and McVie working together, and finally Fleetwood at his drums trying to guage his co-producers' moods. All relevant stuff, I'm sure, but it needs to be put together a bit more coherently if we are to get the feel of these studio sessions.
    • DONE.
  • Third paragraph: Buckingham's statement in the first sentence surely needs a direct citation.
    • All cite numbers cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or the previous paragraph break. PRB88 (T) 18:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the concerts finished, Fleetwood Mac returned to the studio, but this time at Los Angeles venues.[2]:111 Not really a "return to the studio", more "resumed studio-based sessions". And what does the "111" signify to te reader (and later similar notations)?
    • DONE. The numbers are the pages of the books. They're part of the citation template. I didn't want to make the article cumbersome with a ref section for just three cites per book (only two).
• Promotion and release
  • What is a "shipping advance"?
    • DONE. Explained better.
  • "Rumours was released on 4 February..." Add year.
    • DONE.
  • "...the members..." Is this the band?
    • Yes. All members mentions follow the use of band in the sentence before. I didn't want to repeat same words.
  • Can you clarify? "the members encountered poor receptions from fans who were not accustomed to the new material." Yet it seems that the European tour which followed was a success. So should this be "initially encountered poor receptions..."?
    • DONE.
• Lyrics
  • "Christine McVie has pointed out that, only with hindsight, did the fact that the lyricists were extensively focusing on the various separations become apparent to the band." Dodgy punctuation and rather awkward construction/phrasing. More fluent would be "According to Christine McVie, the fact that the lyricists were extensively focusing on the various separations became apparent to the band only with hindsight."
    • DONE.
• Composition
  • "...Buckingham and producer Dashut built it up..." Built what up?
    • DONE. The demo.
  • General observation: too mant specialist terms which, though linked, make reading impossible for the less aware. Thus "a simple acoustic demo"; "shuffle"; "tack" etc. - unfamiliar language to me, I had to keep clicking on links, and rather lost the thread. I know it's a problem, but maybe a little more explanatory text, as well as links, could be included.
    • DONE. I think demo should be OK to understand and is linked and mentioned previously a few times. I explained all the instrument parts with more detail.
  • "a hum choir". Was this the band themselves forming "choir", or some outside agency?
    • DONE. Band.

More follows Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

• Composition: "a keyboard instrument called a harpsichord," is maybe an explanation too many. Harpsichords, unlike (say) dobros, are mainstream and don't require explanatory text.
  • DONE
• Reception; commercial
  • "debut at", not "debut of"
  • "In February..." → "In February 1978..."
  • Paragraphs should not begin with numerics, so "Thirteen million...etc"
  • "13 million copies of Rumours were sold worldwide by 1980" "were" and "by" don't go together, so try "had been sold".
    • ALL DONE
• Critical
  • "attained acclaim" doesn't sound right; acclaim is earned or won, rather than "attained" which means "reached". Suggest change word.
  • "...pointed out that it "jumps right out of the speakers at you" Facts are "pointed out", not personal impressions. He "wrote that...", perhaps, or "thought that..."?
  • Could you include a date for the retrospective piece?
    • ALL DONE
• Legacy
  • I'm not sure that what follows amounts to a "legacy" (something left behind for the benefit of others). It's really just a summary of the album's continuing success. Perhaps a change of title - though don't press me for a suggestion.
    • "Something left behind for the benefit of others" = The influence and tribute album. Legacy is also the place of the album in history through lists. By definition, e.g. Is This It, Legacy is Influence and Accolades. I originally had them separate but it didn't look right so I merged them. But essentially it is the same as before. PRB88 (T) 00:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the album contained each song of the original covered by a different act who was influenced by it." Meaning unclear, and wrong use of "who". Does it mean that each song in the original album was accompanied by a new song from some other group that had been influenced by the original?
    • DONE

Everything else looks pretty tidy. I won't be able to watch this review page; if you have a specific query arising from my review, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 2 needs page numbers
  • Same for current ref 4

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

They were in the text with the Rp template but put them in the reflist. PRB88 (T) 00:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 G.A.N. page is congested with nominees and has a long waiting period, so it would be in the best interest of the page to try to fix the pages problems so when it's review for a G.A. begins the review will go faster. So it would be greatly appreciated if any editors could list the articles issues, preferably showing examples, of grammar, spelling, format, etc. Thanks, Ashley92995 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bradley0110

• I have reviewed this revision.

• Further to my previous comments on your talk page, the number one issue with the article right now is redundancy. Two examples from the lead and first section:
  • "She made her film debut as Kitty Bennet in Pride & Prejudice (2005). Following her film debut, she had television roles in the BBC Charles Dickens adaptation Bleak House (2005) and the following year she appeared in The Amazing Mrs Pritchard."

 Done Changed first "her film debut" to "her acting debut" and changed second "her film debut" to "Following Pride & Prejudice" Ashley92995 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "[...]before she began professionally acting, she had once "secretly" applied to three drama schools on her UCAS form, but was rejected by all three schools.[2][5][9] Mulligan stated that after she was rejected three times by acting schools and did not make the cut...". Then a little later, "In 2009, Mulligan stated that she had felt that being rejected three times by the schools..."

 Done Reworded to "before she began professionally acting, she had once "secretly" applied to and been rejected by three drama schools on her UCAS.[2][5][9] Mulligan stated that after she was rejected and did not make the cut after another audition she began to question pursuing an acting career and went through a "confusing time".[5]" and "Mulligan stated that those negative experiences had a positive effect on her because it made her "realize just how much" she wanted to act.[13]" Ashley92995 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondly, there's a lot of "lumpy" grammar, e.g.:
  • "After Mulligan's father accepted a job, which was managing the European arm of Intercontinental Hotels, at the age of three, her family moved from England to Germany." Her father accepted the job at the age of three?(!) Try "At the age of three, Mulligan moved with her family from England to Germany after her father accepted the job of managing the European arm of Intercontinental Hotels."

 Done Ashley92995 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Despite being screened at film festivals,[20] the film was without a release date for a long period of time, until receiving a release date in November 2009...". Again, there's redundancy here and a slight misunderstanding about film distribution; what the film lacked was a distributor, which would then set the release date. The use of "Despite" at the beginning of the sentence implies that it is unusual for an indie film like The Greatest not to get a distributor straight away, when it is in fact the norm.

 Done I changed/re-worded the sentence to "After being screened at multiple film festivals,[4] the film was without a distributer for a long period of time, until receiving a distributer in late 2009 which gave the film a release date in November 2009 internationally and a limited release in North America in March 2010.[5]" Ashley92995 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "In 2009, her most notable role of both the year and her career was, An Education in which she played the lead role of Jenny. Mulligan was twenty-two when she was cast as Jenny, who is sixteen to seventeen in the film.[25] The film's creative team were initially concerned over Mulligan's casting due to the fact that she, twenty two at the time, was to portray a sixteen year old, but after seeing her screen test, felt confident about her casting". More redundancy.

 Done re-worded to "In 2009, her most notable role of both the year and her career was, An Education in which she played the lead role of Jenny. Mulligan was twenty-two when she was cast as Jenny, who is sixteen in the film;[9] the film's creative team were initially concerned over the age difference but after seeing her screen test, felt confident about her casting.[10]" Ashley92995 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The layout of the article is generally good, however I'm a bit confused by the way you've chosen to display the awards. The actors wikiproject is lenient with the way awards are displayed; they can either be merged with the filmography or, if the person has received many accolades, have their own table. I've never seen "specific" and "general" awards split in this manner. My advice would be to have all of the awards in a separate table, since she's had quite a lot for An Education.

 Done I reformatted Mulligan's award chart and added her awards and noms. from her filmography chart to the "Awards" chart. Ashley92995 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with improving the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help. I've corrected all the problems you've listed above, If there are anymore please let me know. Ashley92995 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are anymore things that need editing in the article please let me know, if not (or if there isn't a response) I'll close this peer review in a few days. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though there haven't been any responses, I'm going to close the articles peer review. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is a companion piece or daughter article of Jack the Ripper. This article aims to focus on the actual murders that were considered as part of the original Victorian investigation into the series of murders that occurred in London in 1888–91. The other article is intended to focus on the development and characterisation of the "Jack the Ripper" persona. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Not the most restful of reads, but absorbing nevertheless, even though the ground has been covered on multiple occassions in books, films, documentaries etc., (and in Alban Berg's opera Lulu). Here are my comments on the first half of the article, mainly prose issues. I will return with further comments on the rest, in a day or two.

• Lead
  • delete one comma from first sentence
• Context
  • delete comma after Anderson
  • Awkward parenthetical phrase "(plus the Black Museum)". Does "plus" in this case mean "together with", which would be better phrasing?
  • Two successive phrases in quote marks is also awkward.
  • "These factors were focused..." I don't think "focused" is the best word here - perhaps "prevalent"?
• Emma Smith
  • "Easter bank holiday Monday" → "Easter Monday bank holiday"
  • "...who also conducted inquests on nine of the other victims." As these nine are at this point in the future, this should be rephrased: "...who would also conduct inquests on nine of the other victims." (or some such)
  • "Based on the statements of a fellow prostitute, and PC Thomas Barrett who was patrolling nearby, soldiers at the Tower of London and Wellington Barracks were put on an identification parade by Inspector Reid, but without positive results." A bit awkwardly phrased and perhaps grammatically suspect as it stands; suggest: "On the basis of statements from a fellow prostitute, and from PC Thomas Barrett who was patrolling nearby, Inspector Reid put soldiers at the Tower of London and Wellington Barracks on an identification parade, but without positive results."
• Martha Tabram
  • "At the time, the police did not connect the murder with Smith's, but they did connect it with the later murders." I am a bit confused by this sentence. "At the time, the police did not connect the murder with Smith's,..." Did they at any time connect the Smith and Tabram murders? The second part of the sentence doesn't quite connect with the first. My guess is that the meaning is something like "Although the police did not initially connect the Smith and Tabram murders, they eventually did so, along with the other later murders." Am I right? In any event the sentence needs some attention.
• Mary Ann Nicholls
  • "Her throat was slit..." → "had been slit..."
  • Do we have a date for the Nicholls inquest?
    • Thanks for the careful review! With regard to the date, the inquest was spread out over a week, with the first testimony on the Monday following the murder, but the summing up not until the following week, after the murder of Chapman. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Annie Chapman
  • "...to pay for the rent." → "to pay her rent"
  • "A notorious local character called John Pizer ... was arrested by the police on suspicion of the murders on 10 September." How many does "murders" mean - all four to date? Also, the sentence reads better with the date at the front, thus: "On 10 September John Pizer, a notorious local character dubbed "Leather Apron", with a reputation for terrorising local prostitutes, was arrested by the police on suspicion of the murders." (but you still have to explain "murders")
  • The £100 reward should be given an approximate current value. Using the "current value" template indicates a current equivalent of about £8,000.
  • Overlinking: "Police Commissioner" and "Charles Warren" linked in previous section. "Scotland Yard" also linked earlier.
• Double event
  • "It is possible that the murderer was disturbed before he could commit any mutilation of the body by someone entering the yard, perhaps the body's discoverer Louis Diemschutz." Needs a reshuffle: "It is possible that, before he could commit any mutilation of the body, the murderer was disturbed by someone entering the yard, perhaps the body's discoverer Louis Diemschutz."
  • I think a paragraph break is required at "Due to the location of..." (I have done this - see if you agree)
  • "...108 to 119 Model dwellings Goulston Street, Whitechapel" This address could be written more tidily, perhaps as "Numbers 108 to 119 Model Dwellings, Goulston Street, Whitechapel"
  • "graffito" is singular, therefore "a chalk graffito"
  • "the pathologists emphatically denied that Stride had..." I don't think "denied" is right - it has the sense of refuting an accusation. Try "the pathologists stated emphatically that Stride had not...etc"
  • £500 has a current value of around £40,000 - big money!

That's all so far. Please don't feel obliged to adopt every one of my suggestions, some of which are perhaps personal preferences, "the way I would do it" rather than necessary amendments. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing, with just a few more points:-

• Mary Kelly: "and indicated that she had undressed..." → "which indicated..." etc
• Rose Mylett: no issues here
• Alice McKenzie: is this 17 July 1889? The year needs to be stated
• Pinchin Street torso
  • Again, we need to have the year.
  • "...refuted after the latter was found" I don't think you can use "latter" when there is no "former". Just "she" would be OK
  • "Another claim that the victim was a missing girl called Emily Barker..." "claim" or "theory"?
  • "These murders are suggested..." Clarify what is covered by "these". The dismembered bodies of Rainham and Chelsea? The "Whitehall mystery" victim? All of these?
  • "active in the same area"? I'm confused. Neither Rainham nor Chelsea is close to Whitechapel, and Whitehall is a completely different district, and none of these districts are close to each other. So to what does "the same area" refer?
• Francis Coles: "the Ripper himself" - "himself" unnecessary
• Legacy: the date of the Shaw letter should be provided.

That completes the review. Sorry for the intermission. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what I still need to do to improve it to GA. I started working on this about a week and a half ago (from when I requested this review) because I saw that several other presidential libraries are good articles and that it seemed like a future candidate for a good topic. This particular one was rather short, and I've expanded it and tried to find sources for every statement. Any suggestions on what to do next would be appreciated greatly, I'm trying to find information about the exhibits at present.

Thanks,  fetchcomms☛ 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So far the article is looking great, well referenced, good structure, and it covers the topic fairly well. I've upgraded it to B-class for now. Thanks for your work on it Fetchcomms. -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article, as Coffee gave it, is probably B class worthy. To get it to GA, I strongly suggest adding more content. Some of the sections are really slim. For example, the Anniversary and Environmental impact sections are only a few sentences in total. Adding more content would add needed depth for a GA. It's on the right track though. No problems I can see from a brief skimming over with the referencing and citations, which is good. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your input. I'll try and find more information to add!  fetchcomms☛ 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are all of the external links necessary? It's nice to keep them to a minimum, and I can't tell if they all apply. Just a thought. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed only the official sites of each major part of the library, but I'll remove the store link because that's not really as important.  fetchcomms☛ 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 been working long and hard on this article (which is also the condition that causes me to be disabled). It is my hope to elevate the article to Good Article status. With your review and assistance I feel this can become a reality! Thanks, Basket of Puppies 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak/archive1.

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to Featured List status and I wanted some input before I put it up for review there. Thanks, Remember (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I have a few suggestions, mainly about prose, style and layout.

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

Image license

• The Cartmell image licensing page at the Commons does not have enough information to allow fact-checkers to be sure that the image is properly licensed. The link to the University of Pennsylvania archives leads to an "entry denied" message. This problem is probably fixable.

Lead

• "The North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball program is a college basketball team... " - A "program" is not exactly a "team". I'd look for a way to re-state this. Doesn't the program include the coaching staff, the basketball arena, the trainers, and a lot of other things in addition to the team?
• The opening paragraph repeats "North Carolina" too many times. It shouldn't be hard to vary this a bit.
• Atlantic Coast Conference should not be linked twice in the opening paragraph. How about using unlinked "ACC" on the second reference?
• "During those seasons, three coaches have lead the team to... " - "have led" rather than "have lead"
• "Smith is the only coach to lead North Carolina to an NIT championship... " - NIT should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use.
• "Smith has had the longest tenure at North Carolina" - "had" rather than "has had"?

*"to have won a Olympic Gold Medal for coaching basketball" - "an" rather than "a"?

Key

• The layout here is very strange. Why all the white space? Also, the "Other awards" box extends beyond the edge of the page on my computer screen. Could this whole section be re-organized somehow?

See revised key

References

• The abbreviation for a single page is p., but for multiple pages it's pp.
• Some of the citations lack the date of most recent access.
• Some names, like "Southern Conference" in citation 1, are in italics when they shouldn't be. Journals and newspaper names should appear in italics but not universities, conferences, or other publishers.
• The publisher of the Wall Street Journal entry in citation 8 appears to be Dow Jones & Company.
• The publisher of citation 16 appears to be CBS Interactive. The author is Bill Free. I'm not sure what "Umterps.cstv.com" refers to.
• The wikilink in citation 3 appears to be circular. Ditto for citation 4. Ditto for citation 12. There may be others like this that are self-referential.
• In general, I'd suggest checking everything in the references section for formatting errors and to make sure all the refs are complete. My rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of last access, if all of these are known.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the comments. I will get too as soon as I get a chance. Remember (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think of some of my revisions. Remember (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text is looking better. I changed a hyphen to an en dash and a few more things of that sort on a read-through this morning, but a few similar things remain to be done to some of the other citations (as noted above). However, the layout is still less than ideal. There is no single right way to lay out a page, but it's often helpful to try out several possibilities before settling on any particular one. For example, you might try re-organizing your two explanatory tables along the lines of the explanatory table at the top of the "Statistics" section of the List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. If you merged your two explanatory tables and made the columns just the right width, you'd probably be able to place the two images (Cartmell and Smith) to the right of the new table. This (if it actually works) would solve the white-space problem and make the page more visually appealing. I don't know for sure that it will work, but it, or something similar, is something you might try. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was easier to move the images than to try to explain what I had in mind. Wikipedia articles don't include photo credits; they belong on the image licensing page. By removing the photo credit, I made room for Dean Smith to fit under Roy Williams without overlapping two sections. Cantrell fit nicely in the space to the right of the key. I changed the head from "List" to "Statistics" to avoid repeating a main work of the article title, and I slightly revised the two subheads. If you don't like these changes, please revert them. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. I moved the images around because the layout did not work on a larger monitor like mine but it may not solve the problems on smaller monitors. I may just have to keep playing with it.

If there are no further suggested revisions, could someone please close this peer review? Remember (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Put a lot of work into the article, I'd like to get a little insight and input before I take it to GA. The theme and reception sections need a little polish, but I'll get to them soon enough. Source check would also be appreciated. One issue is the length of the plot section, I can't find ways to trim it myself, not without earning the scrutiny (and reverts) of other edits. It's a very long and complicated book and series, hard to keep out of universe too, any advice on trimming would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Rehevkor ✉ 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'is the title of' srsly?
• No very quick sketch of Sanderson?
• 'Rand/Egwene' sentence repeated in summary section
• Synopsis in general assumes you already know what Arad Doman etc are. (I do because I'm a fan, but otherwise it is impenetrable.)
• Might want to split synopsis section into Rand and Egwene and maybe Others section.
• first 2 paragraphs in intro might make more sense elsewhere. Do all readers immediately need to know 'first we was all it's gonna be one big book and then the publishers were all nuh-uh and so we were all well alright then 3 books it is'? Especially since most is repeated there.
• Reception and theme are way too small. It ought to be a urgent topic of interest after 3 screens of material on Jordan's death & Sanderson's publishing to know how well he did, yet... Themes is also intrinsically some of the most interesting material to cover - it's literary analysis - but also some of the hardest and most evanescent & hard to research later material. So this is probably the most important thing to do.

--Gwern (contribs) 00:18 26 December 2009 (GMT)

Not quite out of Christmas mode but I'll chime in here. The synopsis in this case is a problem, it's already far too long in my eyes, and addressing every in-universe word, place, etc would make it twice as long. I've tried re-writing it all from scratch but it's not made much of a dent. Any help there would be awesome. And the problem with the reception and theme sections is the lack of sources, I'm still keeping my eye out for new ones, so it should be expanded eventually. Rehevkor ✉ 00:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done a little trimming of the plot section, decided to be bold and just remove or replace a lot of the in-universe words and phrases. Will give it further work when I can. Rehevkor ✉ 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Ruhrfisch comment I know the requirements for GAN are looser than FAC, but I read the lead on this and saw lots of places where it could use a copyedit to tighten things up. Just the first paragraph could be The Gathering Storm is the title of the 12th book of the The Wheel of Time fantasy series. It was incomplete at the time of the death of [when] its author, Robert Jordan, who died on September 16, 2007 from cardiac amyloidosis[,] having written 50,000 words. His widow Harriet McDougal and publisher Tom Doherty chose [Brandon Sanderson] to continue the book posthumously. Brandon Sanderson was then chosen to finish writing the book. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated the above suggestion, will try and go through the rest of the article and copyedit, but it's not my strong point. Rehevkor ✉ 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this up to a GA nomination once this review has pointed out possible problems and weeknesses.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is almost ready for GAN. It's broad in coverage, verifiable, stable, neutral, and reasonably well-written. I have some suggestions about prose and style issues, and I'm concerned about the licensing of the article's only image. Here are my comments and suggestions.

Image

• The author listed on the image description page cannot be verified via the information given. No date of creation is listed, and the "own work" claim seems highly doubtful since the photo must have been taken between 1939 and 1942. The claim that the photo is free of copyright restrictions can't be verified by the information provided. To fix this, you could (1) track down and add to the license page the missing data that would allow the "free" claim to be verified or (2) find another suitable image.

Lead

• "It was his judgment of Jeff Bagwell that led the Astros... " - "Judgment" doesn't seem quite right. I thought "evaluation" was better when I got to it in the "Scouting career" section.

Early life

• If the information is available, it would be good to add the names of his parents and give some idea of the family size and economic circumstances.

Minor leagues

• In an article this short, I don't think I'd link terms like "minor league baseball", "batting", "home run", "Philadelphia Phillies", and the like in this section or later sections since they are already linked in the lead.

• "It was at the conclusion of this minor league season, that he became a late-season signing of the Philadelphia Phillies." - Maybe "a late-season acquisition of" rather than "a late-season signing of"?

Return to the minors

• "He returned to the Baltimore Orioles of the International League for the 1944 season, now an affiliate of the Cleveland Indians." - Move modifier next to thing modified? Also, "then" rather than "now"? Suggestion: "He returned to the Baltimore Orioles, then an International League affiliate of the Cleveland Indians, for the 1944 season." (At least I think this is what you mean. I know the Orioles are not now an affiliate of Cleveland.)

• "The Indians called up Benjamin for the 1945 season, and even though he was part of their regular roster, he only appeared in 14 games, but he did bat .333 in the time he did play." - Tighten a bit? Suggestion: The Indians called up Benjamin for the 1945 season, and even though he was part of their regular roster, he appeared in only 14 games, batting .333.

Recognitions

• "... baseball operations, said of Benjamin, “Stan’s positive evaluation of Bagwell was definitely a catalyst in our taking him.’’ And that “He was a vital cog in our organization who had the ability to convey his opinion in a precise manner. You always knew where you stood with him. He was a longtime employee, but more important, a longtime friend.’’ - Maybe an ellipsis would be better than the "And that" connector if this is all part of the same quote. If so, it would look like this: "baseball operations, said of Benjamin, “Stan’s positive evaluation of Bagwell was definitely a catalyst in our taking him... He was a vital cog in our organization who had the ability to convey his opinion in a precise manner. You always knew where you stood with him. He was a longtime employee, but more important, a longtime friend."[3]

Scouting career

• "and spent countless summer evenings evaluating some of the nation’s best college players" - "Many" rather than "countless"?

References

• Rather than listing the url as the work, I'd list the newspaper, the The Boston Globe in citation 3. The url is already captured by the clickable title link. Ditto for the The Denver Post in citation 5.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions were very helpful, and I believe it has improved the article, thank you !Neonblak ^talk - 11:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm nominating this because it's already been through the GAN process, and I'd like to pursue an FAC for it. I'm pretty sure it's as comprehensive as can be, I don't think I've left any source unturned, but I'm open and anxious for any feedback on prose issues or any way this could be further improved before I nominate it for FA. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you're pursuing this for FAC, best start would be to add ALT text, a must as FACs. The Flash ^{talk} 03:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right you are. I added it, but struggled with the alt text in this article a bit, so feel free to modify it or make any suggestions. — Hunter Kahn 04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, it all looks fine. Thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 04:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://franklinavenue.blogspot.com/2009/04/story-behind-that-parks-and-recreation.html (Note you've repeated this ref, once at 39 and once at 46..might combine if it's reliable)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I removed the source; the info was repeated by the other sources anyway. — Hunter Kahn 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well, seems comprehensive, and has few flaws that I can detect. I have just a small number of suggestions:

Lead

• The premiere episode was watched by 6.77 million overall households, but declined almost every week in the Nielsen Ratings, ending with a season-low 4.25 million-household viewership during its finale episode, "Rock Show". - The extended adjective string might be a bit too much. Suggestion: "The premiere episode was watched by 6.77 million households but declined almost every week in the Nielsen Ratings. The show ended with a season-low viewership of 4.25 million households during its finale episode, "Rock Show".
• "The first season received generally mixed to negative reviews, with several commentators finding it too similar to The Office." - "With doesn't make a very good conjunction. Often sentences with "with" clauses like this one can be slightly improved by re-casting. Suggestion: "The first season received generally mixed to negative reviews; several commentators found it too similar to The Office." Or, "Commentators, several of whom found the show too similar to The Office, gave the first season generally mixed to negative reviews." Two similar sentences start the "Crew" section and might be slightly improved by re-casting.

Writing

• "Mark asked Ron to green-light the park" - Make greenlight one word and wikilink?
• "At the time that the season concluded, the writers had not decided what would happen between the developing romantic plotlines between Leslie and Mark, or Mark and Ann." - Replace the first "between" with "with"?

Filming

• "Parks and Recreation faced early production delays because Amy Poehler... " - Here and a few places elsewhere, the full name, Amy Poehler, is being used rather than just the last name, Poehler. Usually (unless two people have the same last name, for example) in Wikipedia articles the full name is used only on first reference, and the last name suffices on subsequent uses. In the reverse of this pattern, you are using only the first name on subsequent references for fictitious characters like Mark and Ron. I think that's helpful in that it makes it easier to distinguish between actors and the characters they play, but perhaps the patterns should be utterly consistent; i.e., Leslie (fictitious character) but Poehler (live person). The article includes a large number of unfamiliar names, and it's fairly easy to get confused, especially in the early sections. Just a suggestion.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Finetooth! — Hunter Kahn 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe this is looking to be around Good Article standard. However, there are no similar high-quality articles to compare it to (apart from something like 2007 UEFA Champions League Final). As this is somewhat of a first for athletics articles, I want to make sure that it is done correctly. Specifically:

• Is the tone and focus understandable and interesting for the non-specialist reader?
• Are there any obvious omissions in terms of content?
• Is the order and presentation of the content cohesive and logical in progression?

Also, any feedback on the infobox would be helpful as I've just created it in the middle of expanding this article.

(The number of pictures shown is largely due to the generosity of Erik van Leeuwen!) Thanks, Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Tone and focus are fine; I don't see obvious omissions or problems with logic or cohesiveness. The images are nice indeed. On the down side, the listing of so many medal winners in the lede might be a bit too much. Would it be better to list only the gold medalists and let interested readers look at the main text sections and the tables for more details? Here are several other suggestions for improvement.

• Number of medallists in lede reduced.

• Even though this is not yet GA, you might consider adding alt text to the images. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it's not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details. Alt text is now a requirement for FA.

• Alt text added.

• Irina Sergeyeva is linked to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.

• Fixed.

• The article has an unusual number of red links. This could be reduced by red-linking individuals only once and only if it seems likely that articles will be written about them. I'd also suggest unlinking 2012 European Cross Country Championships since it's bound to stay red for two years. The sea of red is distracting, and I think you could easily reduce it by two-thirds.

• Removed repeated/unneeded red links

• I'd also suggest reducing the number of redundant blue links by linking individuals only once. Hayley Yelling, for example, is linked at least five times.

• Removed repeated/unneeded red links. I've removed links to medallists lower than 8th in the U23 and 5th in juniors as these are unlikely to be notable, or perhaps even "future" notable.

• Perhaps you could explain in a footnote that the lowest team score is the best. This is the opposite of many sports in which the highest score is best. Perhaps the note could be inserted right after Spain's score in the men's senior team race table. Otherwise, the tables all look good to me.

• Good point. I've explained the scoring system now. It's still quite new to me to be honest!

Lead

• Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, I'd try to work something in about the "Bidding" and "Course" sections.

• I've added a little bit more about the course. I think it's fine leaving out the majority of the bidding. In contrast to major Games-type events, the bidding for championships like these is a bit "behind closed doors" and it only really becomes newsworthy once a host has been selected.

• "holding off Irina Sergeyeva in the home straight" - Wikilink straight?

• Linked in body

• "Almost 7000 spectators attended the championships" - Add separator comma; i.e., 7,000?

• Given that the sources show the course lengths without commas, I thought I'd go with consistency and leave out commas for the other 'thousand' numbers.

• "he was the first Spanish runner to win in the history of the Championships" - Should "championships" get a big C or a little c? You use both in the article, but probably should choose one or the other. I think little c is better unless Championships is part of a formal name as in 2009 European Cross Country Championships.

• To think about it, you're absolutely right. Usually I'm a bit willy-nilly with big and small "C"s but it only makes sense if there's a proper noun involved!

• "The 2012 European Cross Country Championships will also be held in Ireland, with Killarney serving as the host city." - "With" is generally a weak conjunction. Better might be "The 2012 European Cross Country Championships will also be held in Ireland; Killarney will be the host city." Or "The 2012 European Cross Country Championships will also be held in Ireland, in the city of Killarney."

• I've rephrased it with a semi-colon. I realised that towns can't really be host cities and "host town" sounds plain wrong.

Bidding

• "The bidding process came to a head in October 2007, and the Irish bid beat off the two other proposals from France and Poland to win the chance to host the Championships." - Delete "off"? Delete "the two other"? In other words, "... the Irish beat proposals from France and Poland...". Also, replace "came to a head" with "ended"?

• Done, masses of redundancy going on there!

• "IAAF World Cross Country Championships in 1979 and 2002... ". - Would it be helpful to readers to spell out as well as abbreviate IAAF on first use?

• I've pipe-linked out the IAAF because there is only one World Cross Country Championships this could be talking about and it's not the skiing one.

• "but this was the first time that Ireland had ever hosted a major European athletics competition" - Is that really true? Does that include tennis, golf, cricket, and every other sport? I ask because "athletics" in North America refers to a huge variety of sports. If "athletics" only means track-and-field in Europe, that point should be clarified somehow for non-Europeans.

• This seems to be a common sticking point. I'll explain on your talk page!

Course

• "The course was designed as a loop, with races taking a number of laps as a way to facilitate the running of different lengths of race." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Usually sentences that use "with" in this way can be improved by recasting. Suggestion: "The course, designed as a loop, accommodated races of any length." Or "Because the course was a loop, it accommodated races of any length".

• That was an awkward one. I've rewritten it now.

• "The four course lengths were: 9997 metres for the senior men's race... " - Generally metric measurements are also given in imperial units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions; e.g., 9,997 metres (6.212 mi).

• Done

Men's race

• "injury two weeks prior to the race had affected his preparations and he was pleased to receive the bronze medal" - Is the claim that he was pleased verifiable?

• From the trailing reference: (Lebid:"because of the injury I am happy with my bronze medal.")

Under-23 and junior races

• "Moen ended up fourth, but he won a team bronze with Norway with Britain and France winning the gold and silver team medals, respectively." - Suggestion: "Moen ended up fourth, but he won a team bronze with Norway. Britain and France won the gold and silver team medals, respectively."

• Done!

• Cheers for all the pointers. Sorry it took so long to get seen to! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 17:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 suggestions on how to improve the article in general. Where are its weakest points, and what can be done to improve it to GA status?

Thanks, Åkebråke (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and clear that a lot of work has been done on it, still more work is needed before this owuld have a chance of passing GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The automated tools find several problems with the article that will need to be fixed. There are several disambiguation links (dabs). There is at least one dead external link and one problem link that need to be repaired or replaced. The images have no alt text - see WP:ALT
• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD - the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.  Done
• For expansion, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - for example the title of the article should not be repeated if at all possible, so "Effects of serotonin deficiency" could just be "Effects of deficiency" or perhaps even just "Deficiency"
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.  Done
• Article needs more references, for example the name serotonin is something of a misnomer and reflects the circumstances of the compound's discovery. It was initially identified as a vasoconstrictor substance in blood serum – hence serotonin, a serum agent affecting vascular tone. This agent was later chemically identified as 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) by Rapport, and, as the broad range of physiological roles were elucidated, 5-HT became the preferred name in the pharmacological field. needs a ref or more than one. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.  Done
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Be consistent on abbreviations (periods at the end). See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Gross anatomy section is very listy - could this be converted to prose to improve flow?  Done
• Also try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they also impede the flow of the article - either combine these short paragraphs / sections with others or perhaps expand them.
• Do the Americans have names? Serotonin was originally discovered by Italian Vittorio Erspamer in Rome in 1935 and American scientists in the late 1940s.  Done
• Think of the reader and provide context - see WP:PCR
• Be nitpicky and make sure things are consitent - C. elegans should be italicized every time, for example

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments! Åkebråke (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 this article to FAC early next year. Did you know that Ricky Ponting is Australia's leading international cricket run-scorer? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems complete, as far as I (an outsider to the sport) can tell. However, it includes a lot of jargon that outsiders are sure to find mysterious. I think the cure (wikilinks and brief explanations) will not be too difficult. Where a longer explanation of the scoring or rules might be helpful, you might add it in the form of a footnote. I did some minor c/e as I went. Here are some other specific suggestions.

Image

• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the image. WP:ALT has details.
• It seems a bit odd to use a photo of Ponting at age 35 since this is about Ponting only to age 20.

Lead

• The combination "35-year-old" in the image caption needs two hyphens. In the first paragraph of the lede, you have 14-year-old, which is correct, but "16 year-old", which needs the second hyphen. Ditto for any similar instances in the article.
• Dates like "15 February, 1995", which appears in the lede, don't take a comma.
• "after completing year 10" - Is "Year Ten" a formal name? The linked article suggests that it might be a formal name (proper noun) that must appear as "Year Ten" rather than "year 10".
• "Ponting received a bat sponsorship with Kookaburra Sport" - Wikilink Kookaburra Sport here on first use?
• "he became the youngest Tasmanian to score a first-class century" - Jargon. "First-class century" should be linked or briefly explained here rather than later in the article. Ditto for "twin centuries".
• "Ponting made his ODI debut a" - Spell out or explain ODI. If it refers to One Day International in the first sentence, it should be abbreviated as well as spelled out there. Then ODI will make sense on subsequent uses.

Birth

• "lived in Prospect 4.1 km (2.5 mi) south of the city centre" - Generally the primary units of a measurement are spelled out. In this case, "km" should be "kilometres". I like to use the {{convert}} template for conversions partly because it gets the spelling and abbreviations right; e.g., 4.1 kilometres (2.5 mi).

Junior ranks

• "On the Monday, he struggled to trouble the scorers... " - Perhaps "first day" would be better than "Monday" since the day of the week seems irrelevant. Then perhaps use "second day" for Tuesday, and so on? Also, "struggled to trouble the scorers" seems slangy. Perhaps just "struggled to score" or "did not score" would be more straightforward.
• "mainly on the back of the four centuries" - Slang.
• "from what we had been told it would be in conditions like we has never experienced before." - Did he really say "we has never experienced before", or did he say "had"?
• "We were all excited with the prospect if taking on the South Africans... " - Did he say "if taking" or "of taking"?

Early Australian domestic career

• "he strode out to the crease at number four against South Australia" - This will be mysterious to a reader who does not know cricket. What does "crease" mean"? What does "number four" refer to? I think these should be linked or briefly explained.
• "At the end of the first day's play, Tasmania were 6/200... ". - Someone unfamiliar with cricket scoring will not know how to interpret "6/200".
• "having endured three rain breaks and 54 minutes in the nineties" - What does "the nineties" refer to here?
• "Ponting stroked 17 boundaries... " - What are boundaries? What does it mean to "stroke a boundary"?
• "the nation's fastest wicket" - What is the meaning of "fast wicket"?
• "there's talk in the papers that I'm a chance go on an Australian tour if England... ". - Did he say "if England" or "of England"? Also, the quote needs quotation marks at the end.
• "He finished the tour second highest in the aggregates behind Langer." - What does "aggregates" refer to?
• "Set 366 in 102 overs..." - What does "set 366" refer to?
• "When Tasmania played Western Australia at Bellerive Oval on November 4, 1994... " - The triple dates need to be formatted consistently in the main text. You used d-m-y in the lede, so this should be "4 November 1994".
• "Ponting was 117 not out at stumps" - What is the meaning of "at stumps"?
• "against Western Australia-Sir Donald Bradman is the only other batsman... " - Semicolon rather than hyphen.

Notes

• The citation date formatting should be consistent. Citation 26 has a mixture of d-m-y and yyyy-mm-dd. In this case, I'd probably just flip the d-m-y because the others in the citations seem to all be yyyy-mm-dd.
  • Is correct I think, does it automatically because of the work and publisher fields are used. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

• I'd flip the authors' names to last name first and then arrange the two entries alphabetically. Also, I'd add the place of publication for each book.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Better to put your References in last name first order in the individual references, and then alphabetize by last name, since you use the last name in the notes.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has remained fairly stable since achieving GA status in March 2009 and I would like to see what needs doing before taking it to WP:FAC

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the article is too far from FAC nomination standard (but I'm biased as I have edited in the past), but I spotted a few areas for work:

• All images need WP:ALT descriptions added.

• Alt text added. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The table in the Demographics section creates lots of white space - I think this could be presented horizontally rather than vertically.

• Table is now horizontal. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole article could do with a copyedit - specifically for things such as "indie band" (in arts section) which should be either explained or wikilinked

• I'll get to this when some of the other issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although there are lots of citations there are some bits which are unreferenced eg 2nd sentence of Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery & Royal West of England Academy.
• Use the tools (top right of this page) which show several broken external links in references.

I'll try to take a closer look later.— Rod ^talk 09:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts:

• In the lead what does "it ranked amongst the top three English cities" mean? Is this population, economic or industrial output or the more nebulas "importance"?

• Fixed and re-cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest doing strikethrough yourself once issues have been addressed.— Rod ^talk 19:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this has been discussed in the past but we have population figures in the infobox of 421,300, 551,066 & 1,006,60. In the lead we have 416,400 & 561,500. In demographics 416,900, 441,556 & 551,066. I know it is difficult to get agreement on definitions etc, but if this goes to FAC it will be picked up.
• The lead has the unreferenced claim "Royal Charter in 1155" which should be in history or governance & referenced. In history we have "Traditionally this is equivalent to the town being granted city status." which is ? Dated 1140 & unreferenced.
• In history we have "perhaps 15,000–20,000" - I'm not sure perhaps is the best word?
• Is a reference needed for "17th century establishing colonies at Bristol's Hope and Cuper's Cove."
• I had to read the sentence "Competition from Liverpool from c. 1760, the disruption of maritime commerce caused by wars with France (1793) and the abolition of the slave trade (1807) contributed to the city's failure to keep pace with the newer manufacturing centres of the North of England and the West Midlands." 3 times to make sense, which is never a good sign, but I'm no copyeditor!
• Does ref 34 cover the claim "The rebuilding of Bristol city centre was characterised by large, cheap 1960s tower blocks, brutalist architecture and expansion of roads."?
• In governance we have Liberal Democrat wikilinked twice & the second time called "Lib Dem" which might be considered unencyclopedic language
• "next General Election" could be dated & linked to United Kingdom general election, 2010.
• South Gloucestershire is wikilinked in boundaries but not in governance which comes first.
• Does new Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency will include the suburbs in South Gloucestershire. need a ref?
• Burke "famously insisted" without a ref
• Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence & Tony Benn also need refs
• Should African-Caribbean be wikilinked?

Hope these comments are useful? I can look at the rest of the article if you want if it is too much just tell me to stop.— Rod ^talk 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are really useful, all good points. I know it will take some time to get this into shape, but i shall plod on with it. Thanks for your time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK some more comments:

• In Boundaries should ref 49 be at the end of the sentence about Greater Bristol? Is CUBA worth a mention?
• In climate is a specific ref needed for the rainfall figures?
• The infobox has imperial measurements then (metric) & the climate table has metric (imperial) - I know at least one FA reviewer who will pic this up & debate the need for consistency as set out in WP:MOSNUM
• The note about the historical popn data should probably be a proper "Note" & appear in a notes list at the end.
• In Economy & Industry - Is Bristol time worth a mention?
• The GDP per head figure needs a ref
• Is Bloodhound SSC worth a mention?
• The first part of the para on Concorde might need a ref
• In sustainability why are Cyclebag & Resourcesaver in bold?
• In Arts - the number of seats in each theatre might need a ref
• Thomas Lawrence & Francis Greenway might need refs
• The 2nd & 3rd paras of Sport & Leisure are almost unreferenced
• In education... Cecil Frank Powell needs a ref
• I think there may be too many pics, but the layout on my screen is affected by the ALT TEXT reader I have installed.

I will try to help to resolve some of these issues & if you need further explanation of any of my comments please let me know.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References - I think there may be some queries at FAC over some of the references (current ref numbers in brackets):

• What makes Geody (6) reliable?
• What makes roman-britain.org (10) reliable?
• Bryan Little - page number needed
• Rayfield (16) page nos needed
• What makes Love my Town (18) reliable?
• Black Lives in Britain (23) needs English Heritage as publisher
• John Penny Luftwaffe..(32) needs author & publisher sorting
• McNeill (35) needs page nos
• Chris David (40) needs date accessed
• Atkins (49) needs page no
• Stats Office (56) is borked somehow
• Lattimer (65) needs page nos
• Knowles (69) needs page nos
• Gross value added needs publisher etc
• Sustrans (93) not sure if "relevant section produced here" will do?
• What makes Residence.org (101) reliable
• Coleridge, Wordsworth... (120) needs page nos
• Burrough (139) needs page nos
• Church of St James (140) & all IoE (141-143) needs EH as publisher
• Foyle (144) needs page no
• Bamford (150) needs page nos
• Stoke (158) needs page nos
• Elmes (160) needs publisher etc
• al-baseera (163) needs more info

I'm going to stop now as I don't want to be too depressing but can find other issues if needed!— Rod ^talk 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness - having taken another look at WP:UKCITIES there doesn't seem to be a section in this article on public services. This might include: Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Avon Fire & Rescue Service, Wessex Water, Great Western Ambulance Service, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Southmead Hospital, Frenchay Hospital etc.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of this Rod, I shall plod on with this. I expect it will take a few weeks, but i really am grateful for these pointers. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to close this peer review now as I have plenty of issues to address. I will look at all of these and then bring it back later. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

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

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently jut re-written the entire article and would like to receive feedback on further improvements to bring this article to GA status.

Thanks, warrior4321 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a read through, here are some comments.

• I don't think you need to mention the Encyclopedia Iranica in the lead as your source. If the statement is good enough to stand in the lead, you can put the source for it in a footnote.
• "and that the decay and downfall" -- either get rid of the "that" or rephrase. If you drop the reference to the Encyclopedia Iranica the "that" will go fairly naturally.
• "Darius is believed to have ascended the throne by assassinating the previous ruler Bardiya [...] and becoming crowned emperor the next morning." Poor phrasing again; you probably want a period followed by "He was crowned emperor the next morning"; the current phrasing pairs "assassinating" with "becoming" as the two steps by which he became emperor, which doesn't work.
• Generally the prose needs work -- if I have time I will try to do a copyedit pass, but I think you need a good prose editor to work with you on this. I will point out some more examples, but not all as that would be timeconsuming.
• If you mention the invasion of Greece in the lead I think you need to let the reader know that it was unsuccessful.
• It may not be necessary for GA, but if you want to go further than GA I would suggest an initial paragraph or to to give the reader some historical context. I know little about this period, but here's an example of a couple of sentences of the type I mean: "By the early sixth century, the Medes were the dominant state in the area that is now Iran. In 550 BC, Cyrus the Great's victory over the Mede king Astyages marked the beginning of the Persian empire." Something like this would give a reader who knows nothing about the period a foothold to make sense of Darius's life.
• You might also want to have a section discussing sources. You refer to Herodotus a lot, which is understandable; but Herodotus isn't a modern reliable source. You cite modern sources that discuss Herodotus, which is appropriate, but I think it would be useful for the reader to know a little about the interpretation. For an example of what I mean, take a look at the third paragraph of the "Background and sources" section of Offa of Mercia. The Behistun inscription is also a source in this sense and could be mentioned, along with the ancient historians. See also the sources section in First Persian invasion of Greece, for a more relevant example.
• "According to the account of Herodotus, Ctesias, Trogus and Xenophon, Cambyses had left Patizeithes in charge of the kingdom" is confusing. The "and" between "Trogus" and "Xenophon" makes this impossible to parse. Are Herodotus, Ctesias, Trogus and Xenophon all historians? In that case it should be "accounts", but if so I'd avoid listing all the primary sources. The reader wants to know what happened, with just enough material promoted from footnote to narrative to give the reader a sense of the authority of each statement. So how about "all the contemporary sources agree that"? You could even eliminate the reference to the historians altogether, if this is uncontroversial. This is another place where a note on the sources would help; if you've explained who these historians are, then the reader will understand what the primary sources are for Darius's life, and they only need to be mentioned again if they conflict or there are some problems of interpretation.
• "The Babylonian revolt was led by Nebuchadnezzar III had occurred" -- another example of illogical syntax. If you read the article aloud you'll find a lot of these.
• A map would be useful for the campaigns.
• The article on the First Persian invasion of Greece has quite a bit of good, sourced material in it. I think it's appropriate to have a "main" reference to that article, as you have; however, I think you could expand this section somewhat. If it's one of the most important events in Darius's life, as it seems to be, it could stand to be more than half a screenful.
• Generally I think the article is a little short. Adding some of the material suggested above would help.

This isn't a really thorough review; I think there's a fair amount of work to do before GA. If you make the content changes and ping me on my talk page I will try to find time to do a copyedit pass and give you feedback on the changes you've made. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am sorry it has taken me so long to review this. As promised, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• First off I agree with all of the comments above (though the article has been edited since, so some of them no longer apply).
• Commons has several images here which might be useful here too - closeups of the Behistun Inscription, etc.
• There are several problems with references in the article - first off, the article needs more references in a few places, for example The inscription begins with a brief autobiography of Darius including his lineage, continues with a lengthy sequence narrating nineteen victorious to put down a year of rebellions after the death of his predecessor, and includes praise to Ahuramazda, the god of Zoroastrianism, whom Darius credits with his successes. The instruction has been instrumental in the decipherment of cuneiform script. has no ref(s). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• There are also places where sources should be identified in the text, for example Some modern historians consider that the person who ruled as Bardiya was no impostor but the real son of Cyrus, and also suspect that Darius may have killed Cambyses on the way back from Egypt.[7] should identify the modern historians.
• Not all information is given in refs for sources that is needed. Encyclopedia articles are often signed by their authors - the article in Iranica on Darius identifies its author and this information must be included here too. Or this ref "Sélincourt, Aubrey (2002), The Histories, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0140449086" needs to say it is Herodotus' History and Selincourt is the translator. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Many people who are Jewish or Christian and have no idea about the history of Persia will still know Darius as he was the ruler who allowed the Jews to return from the Babylonian captivity and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Darius is mentioned in the Bible in several places). I would think this needs to be included if the article is to pass GAN.
• The German article on Darius is featured - the table of contents there might give some ideas on how to organize / expand this. Here is my quick translation of the TOC there: 1) Primary sources 1.1) Persian 1.2) Greek 1.3) Bible 2) Youth 3) Rise to power 4) Early reign 4.1) Foreign policy 4.2) India 4.3) Libya and Egypt 4.4) Thrace and Scythia 4.5) Greece 5) Domestic policy 5.1) Administration and military 5.2) Business and society 5.3) Threats to internal peace 6) Religion polcies 7) Building activities 7.1) Susa 7.2) Persepolis 7.3) Pasargadae (not sure of the English name) 7.4) Egypt 7.5) Artistic and architectural developments in Darius' reign 8) Personal life 8.1) Family 8.2) The "Seven Persians" 9) Self-representation 10) Reception 11) Chronology
• Section headers need to follow WP:HEAD, so "The Behistun Inscription" should just be "Behistun Inscription"
• Units need to be given in both metric and English - the {{convert}} template is useful here

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after working on it this fall, I feel it is fairly complete and may meet the featured list criteria. Because I've never nominated anything for featured status before, I'd like some feedback first.

Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Richard75 This is a good list, and I think you should nominate it for featured list status. However first I think you should make all of the lists on that page follow the same format for diffrentiating between elected and acting governors. The first list has blank spaces in the Notes section for elected governors, the second says "Elected Governor" and the third just says "Governor" which os the worst. I suggest making the 2nd and 3rd lists look like the first one. Good luck. Richard75 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not only is this good for consistency, but the list is also more reader-friendly now – less cluttered and busy.

A related change I made was in the third list, where the fact that DiFrancesco and Codey were listed as Governor is supported by a footnote. I changed their cells in the "Notes" column to "Unelected Governor⁶" (rather than just "Governor⁶") because I still felt it was a worthy "note." Thanks very much for the review; I appreciate the feedback! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting list but needs considerable work to get ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions.

• It's often helpful to look at FL articles to see how other editors have solved similar problems. WP:FL#Lists of heads of state or government includes quite a few featured lists of U.S. governors. I wouldn't imitate them slavishly because if you look closely you'll probably find things that could be improved, but they are valuable models nonetheless.

Lead

• There's a trend away from starting lists with the boilerplate "This is a list... ". Also, leads in similar articles usually extend beyond a bare-bones explanation of what "governor of X" involves. See, for example, the leads of List of Governors of New York, List of Governors of Pennsylvania, and List of Governors of Delaware. I think the New Jersey lead should include more detail about the governor's powers, duties, term lengths and limitations, and other details relevant to the office and its history.

• I see your point, but the New Jersey list is fundamentally different from those because of the existence of Governor of New Jersey, which is an actual article already covering that information. (In contrast, Governor of Delaware is a stub and Governor of New York and Governor of Pennsylvania are redirects to the lists.) I personally think linking to Governor of New Jersey and keeping the present amount of information in the lead is sufficient.

Perhaps, but this is likely to be an issue at FLC. MOS:BEGIN says in part, "If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..."." I hadn't noticed the double bolding of the title before you mentioned it. That may draw fire too, per WP:BOLDTITLE, which says in part, "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title." Generally the bolded titles aren't linked. I don't raise these points to be argumentative but to point out possible trouble spots as you move forward. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, no doubt. I've unbolded the link, and I re-worded the first sentence so it doesn't begin with "This is a list...". I think I've avoided WP:MOSNUM issues because that guideline allows numbers that start sentences to be written out.

• In the table of governors, would it make more sense to arrange the parties by number of elected governors; i.e, Democratic, Republican, Federalist, Whig, Democratic-Republican?

• Done. Good idea.

• This list needs images. Mug shots of governors seem standard, and you might consider using an infobox like the one in List of Governors of New York.

• Hmm. I added {{Infobox political post}} with a picture of Jon Corzine, the current governor. Would you suggest adding more still?

I think the page looks much better with the Corzine image and the infobox. You can add more if you like, but it might not be necessary. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I moved the infobox to Governor of New Jersey. I'll be adding some images in the main body of the list tomorrow.

A whole host of images added within the past hour or so.

• Bear in mind that when you add images, you'll need to add alt text as well as captions. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

• Done for the Corzine image.

Done for all images.

• It would be good to use a notes system that makes the second tier of note numbers embedded in the sublists clickable. Several systems can be used. List of Governors of New York uses an A, B, C plus 1, 2, 3 system. List of Governors of Pennsylvania uses something similar, and so does List of Governors of Delaware. In my own work, I'm leaning toward the system in Forksville Covered Bridge, but my direct experience with two-tier systems is limited. I can't point you to an explanation of how all these systems work; my own approach is to find things I like in other articles, study them in edit mode, and imitate.

• Doing.

• Done. I liked the system in Forksville Covered Bridge too, and I used it in the article.

• The Manual of Style suggests avoiding the repetition of the article title in the heads and subheads. For that reason, I'd suggest truncating at least some of the heads to eliminate repetition of the words "Governor" and "New Jersey". The first two, for example, could become "Colonial" and "U.S.", and the first subhead under "U.S." could become "1776–1844".

• Done, but not in the exact way you proposed.

• Citations 4 and 5 need the publisher's name and the date of most recent access. Can it be said who the author in each case was? Was it the New Jersey Legislature, for example? Citation 3 looks strange to me. What is Francis Newton Thorpe the editor of? Should the publisher, Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale University, of the linked version be mentioned? The date of most recent access is missing. To be honest, I don't know exactly what the right form would be for these citations. For Internet citations, it's generally good to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Complaints about too much data in a citation are not often heard, and it's always easier to delete a bit of excess than to hunt down a missing date, page number, or author.

• I struggled with figuring out how to cite this. I ended up using {{citation}} withthese parameters, which I thought would be decent because it included parameters like "year," "date," and "place," which seemed appropriate for a constitution.
• Thorpe was the editor of the 1906 book which republished the 1776 NJ Constitution. The author in each of these cases was a constitutional convention that collectively wrote the document.

I'll take a stab at fixing this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think the way to handle this is to acknowledge the source but not the source's source. The Lillian Goldman Law Library is the cited source, and it is citing a source (Thorpe) who cited, presumably, the primary source. The actual source we are citing is the law library, which I think is a reliable source (as defined by WP:RS) in this instance. To cite Thorpe, you would need to get a copy of Thorpe's book and add publication details and page numbers, but I can't see any reason to do that. To see what parameters I needed for the "Citation" template, which I've not used before, I looked at the samples at WP:CIT. Armed with that info, it was easy to modify the citation template you'd already installed. By the way, I removed the unneeded parameters from the Thorpe (now Law Library) template as a housecleaning measure. Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that these citations need improvement, but I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. Do you think {{Cite web}} would sufficiently give credit where credit is due? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think changing citation families will solve the underlying problem, which is figuring out which data goes where. Let me work a bit on the Thorpe entry. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe is done. I think you can fix the others in similar fashion. Use the actual author (even if it's something like "Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey") for the "last" (name) parameter, the actual title (such as "Public Law Chapter 282: An Act concerning the title of Governor and amending R.S.52:15-5"), the publisher of the document you are linking to, the url, the publication date (if any) listed at the site, and the access date. If you stick to this basic information and these fairly straightforward parameters, you can't go far wrong. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do.

Done. The "actual author" I used for the second and third refs was "The people of the State of New Jersey, in convention," which is the most accurate reflection of what the actual documents say.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; they are very helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to review this article, and I certainly will try to help out with the PR backlog. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an infobox on this article? I note that List of Governors of Indiana doesn't have one... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, on second thought. I moved that to Governor of New Jersey. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. I like the photos of the governors along the right-hand margin. Since you are taking this to FLC, it's fine if you close the PR yourself. Instructions are at WP:PR near the top, under the heading "How to remove a request". Good luck at FLC. Finetooth (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed this going on; as the person who's done most of the other featured governors lists, I'll give this a workover tomorrow to bring it to the template established in the others. --Golbez (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the heavy lifting is done. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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 recently passed GA, and is structured similarly to 1941 AHS, also an older Atlantic cyclone season. I'd like to get it to FA eventually, and while it's comprehensive, I'm sure a few tweaks could be made. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the prose a once over. It looked good, but I made a few small changes. I'm not an experienced copy-editor, so I won't be offended if you wind up reverting some (most?) of it. Besides that, images need alt-text. That's all I could find. Good luck! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your chances look great, thanks! It's always great to have an uninvolved pair of eyes to look over the more specialist articles. I think I added alt text to most of the images already, actually. Might have missed one or two though. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Not a full review, but here are a few (hopefully) helpful suggestions:-

• Second sentence: The word "generally" looks superfluous, as you are only saying that most tropical cyclones form in this period.
• Are "tropical cyclones" and "tropical storms" the same thing? If there is a distiction it should be explained.
• I think the timeline diagram should indicate the year 1939, as I feel diagrams/images should be self-contained if possible
• The term "hectopascal" is not well known, and should have a link.
• Some mph figures are converted to kph and others not - at least, "50 mph" isn't.

I hope this amounts to a bit of a helping hand. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this review, I'll work on addressing these points shortly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I made a dozen or so minor c/e changes, including adding conversions where needed. I have just a few other suggestions. Aside from this and the things mentioned in the reviews above, the article generally looks fine to me.

Main infobox

• Alt text is missing for the top image. I think the solution might be to add the |Track alt = parameter to the infobox and then add the alt text.

Lead

• "All of the storms impacted land to some extent. - "Affected" rather than "impacted"?

Tropical Storm One

• I added a conversion template for 50 mph, which yields 80 km/h. The infobox for this storm gives the metric equivalent as 85 km/h, which I think must be an error.

• The infoboxes use knots instead of mph, perhaps that's the issue? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• It looks like the newspaper archive you've linked to requires a subscription. You might use the "|format =" parameter to add "subscription required" to the newspaper citations to keep readers who want to read the source stories from getting frustrated.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo on citations

This was an invited review

""Gull Section Beats Hurricanes" Are you sure there's no author?

"Atlantic hurricane research division (2009)." is a database with numbered lines

Please provide the relevant lines for the quotes. A massive text file database needs the section cited to be indicated, eg, "at lines 00845-00860" in the |pages= field with |nopp= used if using the cite X templates

Is this original research? It is a non obvious statement arising from a database. In my field database interpretation is OR. Meteorology might be different. Consider? Prepare to refute if you run into Humanities people on A / GA / FA

"Jean Galleen (1939)" appears to be published, in a journal. Italics please if it was published. Check for journal issue & volume etc.

" "Gale Winds Expected Along Florida Coast". The Daily Capital News." Author?

""Hurricane Passes Over Florida Tip". The Gallup Independent." Author?

""Bermuda Hurricane Rips Up Trees, Halts Utilities". The Chicago Daily Tribune. " Author?

If any of this no author news articles came through via a wire, (AP, Reuters, etc) you might want to indicate that fact

Bermuda weather service .doc file, was it published, or just lying around on their website? Have a think about it. It was issued by an authority (published in the wikipedia sense), but citation publication has a different sense, ISSN / ISBN etc.

Looks good, essentials are there, this is all polishing. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 must be close to at least GA standard, because it is very similar to the Margate F.C. and Leek Town F.C. featured articles. So just looking for general comments and improvements that could be made to nominate the article for GA.

Thanks, -- BigDom 14:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: An intersting history of a little-known French football club. My biggest problem was my lack of understanding of the French league football structure, which like the English, I imagine, will have changed several times during the club's 80+ year history. With a little more work, however, this could easily become a Good Article. Detailed comments are as follows:-

• Alt text: this is supposed to enable a blind or partially sighted reader to visualise the image. Alt texts such as "Chamois Nortais logo" and "14 men pose for a team photograph" are uninformative, and need to be rewritten.
• Lead
  • "They play at..." Specify "they", e.g. "The club plays at..." or "Chamois Nortais plays at..."
  • Link "home kit" to Kit (association football)
  • "...following the Second World War" → "after the Second World War"
  • "They achieved promotion to Division 3 in 1970 and stayed in the division for the following nine seasons." OK, that takes us to 1979. What happened between then and 1985 when they were promoted to Division 2?
  • "They played in Division 1 for the only time in the 1987–88 season, but were relegated, finishing one point behind RC Lens." Presumably they first had to be promoted to Division 1? The "finishing one point behind RC Lens" information is overdetailed for the lead.
  • Third paragraph: the information seems to be organised illogically. First, the match result info "after a 0–0 draw with Pacy Vallée-d'Eure" is again overdetailing for the lead section and should be removed. Secondly, you should say how the club got into the Championnat National before recording that they were relegated from it. As I understand it, the Championnat National is the third tier in French football; in the previous paragraph you only indicate that the club was relegated from Division 1.
• Early years
  • "subscripted"? The word is "conscripted"
  • Committees are formed or elected, rather than "created"
  • "Throughout the 1930s, the club continued to grow in size" – in what respect did its size increase? More players? More members? More supporters? Needs clarifying
  • "seventh-place" rather than "seventh-placed"
  • General point: it would be helpful to the reader if some brief explanation of the structure of French football, as it existed in the 1920s and 1930s, was included somewhere, perhaps in this section.
• After the Second World war
  • General point: I am struck by the fact that the war itself, in which France was occupied by German forces, appeared to have no impact on the club. Thus, in 1940 the big news is of the signing of a Czech international; in 1943 the club helps found an amateur league, then wins some competition for three successive seasons, taking us beyond the war. Surely, the war must have affected the club in some way, and that would be as important a part of its history as its various movements between leagues and divisions.
  • Getting confused: they were founders of something called the CFA in 1943, but we now read that they "rejoined" CFA in 1948-49. When did they leave it? Is the "Division d'Honneur" the same thing as "DH Centre-Ouest"? If so, perhaps one name could be used?
  • Citations lacking for second part of second paragraph
• Professional status
  • "The promotion to Division 2 meant that the club had to become fully-professional for the 1985–86 season." No hyphen in "fully professional". You also need to say why this was so, along the lines: "According to the rules of the French Football Association, the promotion to Division 2 meant that the club had to become fully professional for the 1985–86 season."
• End of an era: this is a journalistic rather than an encyclopedic heading. I would suggest you use something more factual.
• Colours and badge
  • First paragraph is uncited
  • All-white kit: in what circumstances is this used?
• Stadium
  • You say: "At present, the stadium has five stands". You then name four, and go on: "The four stands..." etc. What about the fifth?
  • Also, it's confusing to be told in the lead that the stadim has a "capacity" of 10,898, only to learn in this section that the ground record is 16,175
  • "reminiscent of..." - "typical of..." might be more accurate.
• Supporters
  • First three sentences are uncited, and don't really go beyond what's stated in the lead. Also, I don't think the information about local rivalries is relevant to this section.
  • "uni" is the French word for "united", not "kingdom", which in French is "royaume"
  • "The group is strictly apolitical and non-violent..." Presumably the "group" is the supporters' organisation. One would not expect a supporters' organisation to be political as such, and its violent elements would be unofficial and uncondoned. So ather than describing it as "strictly apolitical" etc., I would simply say "The organisation has no history of violence or extremism, and works closely with..." etc. (assuming this to be true, of course!)
• Managers
  • Avoid wordiness: For example, "there has been a total of 31 different first-team managers" could be "there have been 31 first-team managers".
  • "longest-ever serving" → "longest-serving"
• Sources: all French-language sources should be appropriately marked.

As I am unable to watch all my peer reviews at present, please leave a message on my talkpage if you want to raise anything with me, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments -- BigDom 13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latouffedisco comments: As a Frenchman, I do understand mostly the problems of league levels etc..., so I will try to help to be more precise. Introduction: link to Centre-Ouest lead to a Burkinabé region. It is not a real French region but a subdivision made by the FFF to organize lower league levels. As an amateur team prior to WWII, I can understand the club was not really affected by the war, but Niort was a city in the bad side (see the map), so I don't really know. On the contrary pro clubs were really affected, as it was abolished in 1943. There is nothing on the strange name of the team. "Chamois" should be explained, in my opinion. The name was given by Mr. Boinot who was the director of this factory [1] who made "chamoiseries", a kind of tanner. You just say "local chamois leather factory owner" but without mentioning the question of the name. Division 3 was formed in 1970, not 1971. "Upon the restructuring of the league system, the team joined the newly-formed Division 3 in 1971". Should be corrected. "the promotion to Division 2 meant that the club had to become fully-professional for the 1985–86 season". No, Division 2 is only fully professional since 1993, but Niort had to be fully professional if they wanted to get promotion to Division 1/ligue 1. However, good work, for this little-known side, that's great.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to find out what portion is needed to improve it. Over the years, the article got unprofessional, fancruft look. I can't do the task that you suggested by myself alone. So I need someone's help.

Thanks, JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Edited 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Comments by Bradley0110

• I have reviewed this revision of the article

• First and foremost, this article does not currently use any secondary sources that establish the notability of the topic. This is very important!
• The general format of the article is quite unorganised. Have a look at articles on animated series that have reached featured or good status, such as The Simpsons and Avatar: The Last Airbender, to get an idea of a good layout.
• The first section of the article ought to be a "premise" section; what is the series about? There is a brief sentence in the lead about the series protagonists and the catalyst for their adventures, but it isn't enough to give someone like me, who has never heard of the series, a good grounding of what it is about.
• The production and development section needs to be expanded with information about how the series was conceived, how it is written, and how it is animated (again, look at the model articles above for ideas). Information may be found in animation magazines, reliable websites, or books.
• The characters section ought to have a very brief "in universe" summary of the characters' roles and motivations in the series, followed by an "out of universe" summary of the characters' development by the producers over the course of the series. Again, this information may be held in secondary sources. See also the guideline Wikipedia:Writing about fiction.
• The lead states that this is a French television series but the infobox states it is French and American. Am I right in thinking that this series was made and originally broadcast in France, then purchased by an American company and dubbed into English by American voice actors? If so, the article must reflect the series as originally made (i.e. less emphasis on the American dubbing; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias).
  • The best way to present this information would be to create a section entitled "Broadcast" with two subsections; the first subsection would be named "French broadcast" and would detail how the series is broadcast in France—networks, ratings, etc—; the second subsection would be named "International distribution" and would detail how the series is presented in other countries such as the US and the UK. This is where you would detail how characters are redubbed by English-speaking actors, etc.
• The article currently lacks a reception section; what do reliable critics think of the series? Is the animation well-received or slated? Is the storytelling viewed as imaginative or derivative? Has the series won any major awards? In order to present a balanced view of the reception, analysis from both French and international critics should be incorporated.

I hope this review has been of some help. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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… Given that William S. Clark was a significant figure in the history of US/Japan relations, I'm hoping his page might be a good candidate at some point for "featured article" status. Looking for any suggestions to make this a better article. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

• Please add ALT texts to your images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add references where there are citation needed tags.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The civil war section is too short to be on its own, have it as third level header under Early life...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had been intending to expand the Civil War section to include a better narrative of his experiences. I've just done this. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and informative article but needs significant work to reach GA. I did some minor copyediting as I went, and I have further suggestions below. I see significant problems with the lead, the lack of sourcing in places, some of the citations, and two of the image licenses.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of the entire main text. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
• "a Member of the... " - Lowercase "member".
• "Though he worked most of his life to further agricultural education in Massachusetts, ironically, he is best remembered... ". - Delete "ironically" since it is an editorial comment that would be hard to verify.
• Link Sapporo and Sapporo Agricultural College?

Done. Thoroughly re-wrote and expanded the lead section. I'm hoping it now conforms to WP:LEAD. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family

• The last two paragraphs of this section lack sources. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as every claim that is challenged or likely to be challenged, every set of statistics, and every direct quote.
• "Among these, his eldest child and daughter, Emily Williston Clark... " - "Their" rather than "his" since in the preceding sentence you name both parents. Ditto for "their" rather than "his" in this sentence: "One of his sons, Hubert Lyman Clark, became a prominent zoologist."

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Early career

• The entire section lacks sources.

Done. Section consolidated with "Early Life" and citations added.

Civil War

• Words like "colonel" don't start with a capital letter unless part of someone's title; e.g. Colonel Joseph Smith. Ditto for "major" and "lieutenant colonel" in this section and "professor of chemistry", "agricultural college", "president" and others later in the article.

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Agricultural College

• I'd consider rendering the long quote that begins "In the good time coming, the refining, elevating, and strengthening influences... " as a blockquote. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

• The first paragraph needs a source.

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known. I like to use the "cite family" of templates, which can be copy-pasted into articles at the proper location and filled in. You can find these templates at WP:CIT. If you choose to use the templates, don't mix the "cite" family with the "citation" family, which are also at WP:CIT. Alternatively, you can enter the missing data by hand. You don't have to use templates.

Done. Thanks, that's a very handy template. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image licenses

• Copyright questions can get very complicated. When I see photos of statues, I generally check to see if the country of origin has a copyright law affecting what's called "freedom of panorama". In the U.S., it's not legal to photograph copyrighted statues and to publish the photos. I looked up Japan just now, and, alas, it restricts such photos to non-commericial use, which I think makes them unusable on Wikipedia or the Commons because they can't be legally duplicated by Wikipedia readers for commercial purposes. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan has details. This probably means you won't be able to use either of the statue photos in the article.

Done. It was somewhat sad to remove the photos of Clark's various statues, but I appreciate your pointing out this licensing issue. Historical Perspective (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

• The images need alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images and is not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details and you can see examples of acceptable alt text in the articles at WP:FAC. Acceptable alt text is a requirement for FA.

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I appreciate the feedback and will get to work on the edits. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 another opinion about this article. It is about a new album by a Spanish songwriter named Bebe, that is why almost all the refs are in spanish language. I just created the article and I want all the feedback possible about it.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made quite a few changes on the page and have left some notes on the article talk page and your talk page too. My only big suggestion is to remove much of the talk about each individual song and its meaning, and instead focus on the overall musical style and lyrical style of the singer in this album. Hope this helps. Please contact me (or reply here) if you have more questions. Mononomic (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but the article needs the attention of an experienced copyeditor. I fixed a few minor glitches as I went, but much remains to be done, especially in the "lyrical style" section. Here are further suggestions for improvement.

• The dabfinder tool notes that "mix" is linked to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.

Lead

• The word "released" is used three times in the opening paragraph. You might replace the second use with a different word for variety.
• "Recorded for almost a year period in Madrid and Cadiz, Spain," - The phrase "almost a year period" is a bit awkward. Perhaps "Recorded in Madrid and Cadiz, Spain, in 2008 and 2009... " would be better. .
• "Bebe wrote all the lyrics, including prevalent themes such as love, sex and self-respect." - Strictly speaking, love, sex, and self-respect are not themes. Suggestion: "Bebe wrote all the lyrics, which dealt mainly with love, sex and self-respect."
• "Y. received a Grammy Award nomination for Best Latin Rock, Alternative or Urban Album and was re-released in December 2009 on a double album edition, including the original songs and a separate album with B-sides and collaborations with Lucio Godoy, Luis Pastor, Pedro Guerra and Kultama." - How about "as a double album" rather than "on a double album edition"?

History

• "The album, as told by the singer... " - Perhaps "as described by the singer" rather than "as told by the singer"?
• "The album, as told by the singer, is a collection of 13 songs that pour into feelings and thoughts that are spinning." - How do song "pour"? Perhaps "13 songs about feelings and thoughts that are spinning"?

Recording

• "The entries in her notebook reflected on her thoughts about various emotions like sadness and sexual exploration." - Sexual exploration isn't an emotion. Also, the sentence could be tighter. Suggestion: "The entries in her notebook reflected her thoughts about sadness and sexual exploration." If something important is missing from the list of two, it would be better to mention it directly instead of saying "various".
• "In her personal blog, Bebe comments that the process of creating... " - Linking "blog" once in the article is enough; I'd unlink it here.

Musical and lyrical style

• "evolving into a subtle groove of reggae" - Wikilink reggae?
• "with lyrics open to an endless number of interpretations" - "Many" would be more accurate than "an endless number".
• ""Qué Mimporta" is an angry theme, sung in rap rhythm, with a more vibrant pace, almost funk on drums, to acquire more rock after a voltage which alternates with a more relaxed environments that maintain a swing." - This doesn't quite make sense as it stands. Do you mean "within a more relaxed environment that maintains a swing"? What is the meaning of "after a voltage"? Are you using the term metaphorically to mean "high-powered" or "vigorous", or do you literally mean that the band did something with the electricity running one or more of its instruments? I think the sentence could be revised to be more clear.
• ""Nostaré" begins with sounds of water drops and returns to deal with melancholy disappointment in love with a fine instrumental support led by Jean, looking for the simplest, most elemental, taking off any superfluous beat." - This also is a puzzling sentence. Perhaps breaking it in two would help; i.e., " 'Nostaré' begins with sounds of water drops and returns to deal with melancholy disappointment in love. Instrumental support led by Jean, using the simplest, most elemental beat, omits anything superfluous." I left the word "fine" out of this re-casting because it seems to be a judgment rather than a verifiable fact.
• "This jazz fusionated single is a look back... " - "Fusionated" is not a word. Do you mean "jazzy"?
• "In the guitar driven "Sinsentido", the singer recognizes the abuse that has given to her body over the years." - This sentence is not quite complete, and its meaning is unclear. What kind of abuse? Is she talking about normal aging, or does she mean physical or sexual abuse? Also, I would not link a common word like "body", familiar to virtually all English speakers. Ditto for words like "sea", "night", and so on that are linked later in this section.
• "Y., as told by the lyricist, is a combination of aggressive themes, insolent, with more gentle and delicate, form a scene of a lot of improvisation, which led the feelings flow." - This is not a coherent sentence.
• I'll stop at this point with my line-by-line review except to say that this section needs significant copyediting.

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. My rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and most recent access date, if all of these are known. Citation 4, for example, should include the author, Julio Soria (Efe), and the date of publication, 26/06/2009, since they are given on the source page. The newspaper name (El Mundo") should be in italics, and I believe the publisher is Unidad Editorial Internet, S.L., in this case. It would be good to check the other citations for similar missing information.
• The date formatting within the citations should be consistent, either yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y but not a mixture. Since Spain is the main country in the article, you might consider using d-m-y formatting rather than m-d-y here and in the main text as well.
• What makes each of the dot-coms reliable sources?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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've done a significant amount of work on this article since the last Peer Review (including reorganizing the article and removing some extraneous material). Are there any more steps that need to be taken before this article becomes FA quality?

Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment by Mcorazao: IMHO, the lead has a little too much of a critical bent to it (not that I am defending the program; just advocating for NPOV). The last couple of sentences in particular basically present the views of some its most ardent critics seeming to indicate that they represent the consensus of the experts. Rephrasing the sentences to describe this as an opinion of critical groups would tone done the appearance of bias. Additionally, it would be good to give more of an idea of the show's popularity and base of support to give balance to the discussion. Also, the article leverages groups with pretty specific agendas as sources for a lot of the criticism. It would be good if more mainstream sources (major news outlets, well-respected politicians and commentators, etc.) could be used more as sources. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes http://www.palmettoscoop.com/ a reliable source?

Statement sourced to palmettoscoop removed. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

My points of concern raised on the talkpage, 25 November, were as follows. My up to date comments on these points are shown in italics.:-

• "Other names" in the infobox: where does this unattributed description come from?
  • Now cited
• The Foundation and history section still looks weak; the suggestions I put forward at peer review have generally not been implemented.
  • The section has expanded. I think tat the conservative credentials of Edwards and Farley should be mentioned at the start of the section, as the motive for their wanting to start a "paleoconservative" radio show. Some of the detail in the section, e.g. Farley's failed Congress bid, is irrelevant and should be removed.

Extraneous information removed. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose style is fragmented, with far too many short single-sentence paragraphs.
  • This seems to have been overcome
• The article is further fragmented by having too many, usually very short, subsections.
  • This, too, is largely resolved.
• All sources used are on-line. Has there been no analysis of the impact of this and similar radio stations in printed form (books, articles etc)?
  • It seems that you have tried, but have been able to find, reliable printed sources upon which to draw. Fair enough. Perhaps these will materialise when the programme is a little older.

In addition to these I have a couple of further points:

• Staff section: it's a bit odd having a section called Staff which consists almost entirely of a subsection dealing with one member of staff. What I would do is call the whole section "Primary host", and include the brief info on other staff members in a sentence at the end. Like this:-

James Edwards, a lifelong resident of Memphis, Tennessee, is the founder and primary host of The Political Cesspool. He is a lifelong resident of Memphis, Tennessee. In 2000, Edwards volunteered for Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign. He later said that this experience inspired him to become politically active, ... etc

...has written that Edwards "has leveraged sponsorship from neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups to become America's most popular white supremacist radio host."^[1][2][3]

Other staff of The Political Cesspool include primary host co-hosts Bill Rolen, Winston Smith, and Eddie Miller, and producer Art Frith. Most of the show's staff claim descent from Confederate soldiers. ^[1][4]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Controversy and criticism section: "The Anti-Defamation League, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, has frequently criticized The Political Cesspool and its ideology." The Anti-Defamation League has already been listed as a critic of The Political Cesspool in the previous paragraph, so this sentence is unnecessary. You can attach the refs to the preceding paragraph.

Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All in all the article has developed well from when I last saw it. Most articles benefit from a copyedit from a fresh pair of eyes, and if you can find somwone willing to do this I think there will be further improvements. I raelly can't spare more time, but I hope that my contribution has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has. Thanks! Stonemason89 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as a new user of Wiki, I'd like to know if this page is suitable to become a good article (or would its brief nature affect this?) Also, what needs to be changed/improved?

Thanks, WossOccurring (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is already a decent article. Looks like some good effort at researching and referencing.

If you haven't already, take a look a look at the following:

• WP:Good article criteria - Summary of the criteria for a "good article."
• WP:Article size - Guidelines for appropriate article size.

Comments on your article specifically:

• The prose is well-written in general.
• Some copyediting by a third party might help a little. E.g. "The programme was hosted by Holly Willoughby, featured a host of other performers and acted as a lead-in to the final of the sixth series of The X Factor, in which Cole is a judge." Somewhat awkward sentence.
• Since you asked about length, I'm not aware of a minimum size guideline for articles. My thinking in general is that you should either be able to say a lot about a topic or else perhaps the topic really isn't substantial enough to merit an article. I would encourage looking for more content although, as I say, there is no explicit requirement.
• The source for the Setlist section is not explicitly specified. I have seen articles get away with that but I wouldn't give an article GA if a whole section were missing a citation.
• I didn't see the show but if the interviews had significant content then it would be interesting to read about what was discussed.
• The Reception section feels a little cobbled together. It is certainly good that you are citing specific reviewers. Still, though it is tricky to do in a neutral way, it would be good to also give a more overall impression of the reception rather than just listing opinions.
• Be careful about using expressions like "Chezza" without explaining them. Granted it wouldn't be too hard for a reader to guess that this is a nickname for Cole but it is preferable to be more clear.
• One thing that might get questioned in a GA review is the notability of the topic. What reason is there to think that this show will be remembered or regarded as especially unique years from now? To tell the truth, though, I think you there are a lot of editors that would support an article on a TV special regardless.
• Be careful about expressions like "whilst". I don't know if WP has a specific policy but, for example, the Times style guide says to use "while" instead (see [2]).
• It's probably hard to do but more images would be nice.

Take a peek at My Musical as an example of a GA article covering a TV episode.

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make the columns in the setlist table wider so that they don't cause the table to be so long. It is also possible to set them to be a percentage of the available screen width so that they auotomatically adjust to the most appropriate size.--DavidCane (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 feedback on how to improve it further and hopefully get it to GA standard in the future. I don't know which areas need the most work etc and wold like some comments. I have been a casual editor of this article for awhile.

Thanks, Mark E (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I have some thoughts. First, the lead section is supposed to be 3-4 paragraphs, depending on the size of the article. (I think the section can succeed with 3 full paragraphs.) Secondly, the "Synopsis" section may be a little long. Per WP:PLOT, such summaries should be concise, and I think that the musical can be summarized further. I don't know what WP:THEATRE's guidelines are, but WP:FILM tries for 400-700 words for films of average feature length. In addition, the last three subsections in "Productions" are unnecessary for the sparse amount of content under each one. It may be better to group these as one subsection perhaps titled "Productions outside United States" or something similar. In "Casting", per MOS:BOLD only the table headers need bold formatting, so I recommend writing the characters' names without bold or italic formatting. In addition, it may help to stretch the table 100% across the screen. In "Critical response", I recommend avoiding one-sentence paragraphs. Try to merge some passages and have transitions, perhaps between related criticisms. Some passages there seem to lack citation, though! Review all passages in the article body and ensure that they all end with a citation. In "Awards and nominations", I would recommend "Awards and honors" because "nominations" shouldn't really be distinct from "Awards". You may also want to consider a table format for that section -- see Changeling (film)#Awards and honors as an example. Lastly, I recommend using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} templates to write out the references. It would help to link to some of the works, such as USA Today. I also recommend writing the dates in full. Which brings me to my last point; indicate in the lead sentence that it is an "American musical". We tend to do this for non-American musicals, but we forget that this English-language Wikipedia is for a global audience and necessitates clarity about American topics as well. Hope these suggestions help! Erik (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments!!!

So far I have

• Combined lead into 3 full paragraphs
• Put the 3 other productions into an "International Productions" header
• Unbolded the casting table
• Cited the news etc + added link to USA today
• Added american musical

Still to do (Hello new year!)

• Tidy up Critical response section + Add citationsDone, although there will be alot more incoming in the next few weeks as the show opens in London
• Add citations where neededDone
• Sort out the awards section into a tableDone
• Trim the plot further Trimmed as much as I can. By comparison, GA MT articles Wicked and Hair have much longer plot summaries.

Brianboulton: As promised, here are a few comments. This sounds like a very enjoyable musical and I'm not surprised that it was a hit. The main problems I found with the article were, first, a tendency to overdetail and secondly, insufficient citations in some areas. I have done bits and pieces of tidy-up copyediting as I've gone through.

• Lead
  • Can a link be used to explain to non-American readers what a "sorority girl" is?Done
  • The phrase "succeeds in winning the trial" is unclear. I suggest "successfully defends exercise queen Brooke Wyndham in a murder trial."Changed
  • Clarify: is the official title of the show just Legally Blonde, or is it Legally Blonde: The Musical as illustrated in the infobox? If the latter, the article title should be changed. In any event I would alter the second paragraph opening to read: "The musical version of Legally Blonde..." etcim pretty sure its just Legally Blonde but they add "the musical" so people don't get it mixed up. Have changed it.
  • "Jerry Mitchell made his directorial debut and choreographed." Too telegraphic; I suggest "Jerry Mitchell made his directorial debut, and choreographed the dance numbers." have changed to just Jerry Mitchell directed and choreographed.
  • "The West End production..." You should specify that this is the London West End production. London's West End is as New York's Broadway so I don't think it needs to be stated.
  • "...and opens January 13, 2010. It stars Sheridan Smith as Elle Woods and Duncan James as Warner." To save having to alter the text in a couple of weeks, I suggest you replace the phrase "and opens January 13, 2010" with "prior to its formal opening on January 13, 2010." Then follow with "This production stars..."i'll change it next week when it opens, im going to one of the performances that week so will remember hehe.
• Synopsis: I have read earlier review comments, and have to say I had a few difficulties with this section, mainly because of the following:-
  • It is still too detailed. Perhaps it's best to stick to the main storyline and leave the subplots alone.
  • Some of the descriptions are overdone, e.g. "perky, sweet, and strikingly blonde" could lose a few adjectives.
  • It isn't necessary to work into the synopsis every musical number, including reprises. When reference is made to musical numbers these should be in parentheses , otherwise it is not clear that these are numbers from the show. For example, "...he tells her that he needs someone more "Serious" and breaks up with her" needs to be reworded, as does "a Greek Chorus visible and audible only to Elle, tell her to stay "Positive".
• Musical numbers
  • Re Paulette's former song "Good boy", you don't say when or why this was replaced. Also, the phrasing "Where Paulette's song "Ireland" is now, was the song "Good Boy"" is very awkward. Try "Paulette's song 'Ireland' is a replacement for an earlier song 'Good Boy'...", followed by the when and why information.
  • I have copyedited the sentence relating to Prof. Callahan's deleted songs
• Productions
  • The show's nominations for seven Tony awards needs to be cited.
  • Laura Bell Bundy overlinked throughout this section
  • The North American tour and the International productions should be briefly mentioned in the lead, which is supposed to summarise the whole article.
  • There is a lot of uncited, and relatively trivial information, in the North American tour section (the last two paragraphs). In my view none of this information is worth keeping.
  • Also, uncited information (e.g. the £2 millon advance sales) in the West End section.
  • Note the citation tag in the Netherlands section.
• Recordings
  • "The album sold 93,000 copies as of May 2008." Uncited
  • "In 2009 Sheridan Smith who is to portray Elle in London recorded a pop video of "So Much Better" with members of the cast. This was used as promotional material." Uncited, and hardly worth a mention, really.
  • Awards and honors: the sources for much of this material are unclear.

I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Seegoon: I can see that you have some travails ahead of you in taking in Brianboulton's recommendations, so mine will be a cursory once-over regarding style and whatnot, largely.

• In 'Musical numbers', the tracks are delimited by spaced em dashes; either use unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes. Whichever you choose, be consistent. For reference, using unspaced em dashes is traditionally American English style.
• On a related note, should all song titles be in "quotation marks"? They certainly should as far as music articles go.
• In 'Casting', the references seem arbitrarily spaced. Give it a once-over. Also, "Original Broadway Cast", "Original US Tour Cast" and "Original London Cast" have some extraneous capitalisation going on.
• Space needed after ref #20; delete full stop after #21.
• "SamSungDong CoEX Artium" - for one, was that 'dong' added as hilarious vandalism? Secondly, should the last word be 'atrium'? Googled it and surprising it seems to be called that haha.
• You have a couple of raw citations (numbers 5 and 7). Beyond that, there seems to be a high degree of inconsistency in ref formatting. Consider using {{cite web}} to standardise them.

This was a pretty quick glance, so there might be more issues to iron out. I also might have repeated some other users' feedback. If so, sorry. Seegoon (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 been working very hard on this list, writing articles for all the songs included (with the exception of "La Bamba" and "Don't Wanna Lose You"). I want to take this list to the FL status, so I'm asking for all the feedback possible.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

• Previous Top Latin Billboard listings, e.g. List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s, have all referred to albums, not songs. Some explanation for this is required in the lead. I note from the 1990s list that it was first published in July 1993; was there a previous listing of songs which was superseded by the album listings? Or did songs continue to be listed separately?
  • FIXED!
• The 1980s list starts at September 1986. Is this the start date for this listing (if so, this should be stated in the lead)?
  • FIXED!
• The number "thirty-three", if written out, requires a hyphen. Under WP:MOS, however, numerical values greater than 10 should be written numerically, i.e. as 33.
  • FIXED!
• "being the first one" should be "the first one being..."
  • FIXED!
• What is a "Spanish late singer"? If she has died, the correct form is "the late Spanish singer", but this still reads awkwardly. Unless her death is significant to the chart, I would simply delete "late"
  • FIXED!
• Linking of countries is not normally necessary, hence "Spanish", and later Australia, Switzerland, France and New Zealand should be delinked - I note you have not linked United States.
  • FIXED!
• "...who replaced Dúrcal at the top of the chart with a song performed by him," Awkward phrasing, suggest "...with his performance of his own song,..."
  • FIXED!
• ""De Mí Enamórate" by Daniela Romo," should say sung by Daniela Romo
  • FIXED!
• The phrase "peaked at number-one" seems a bit of a tautology; perhaps simply "reached" number-one?
  • FIXED!
• "which was awarded with the Grammy Award..." This is clumsy; try " which received the Grammy Award... etc"
  • FIXED!
• "The director choose..." → "...The director chose"
  • FIXED!
• "in United States" → "in the United States"
• FIXED!
• "becoming the longest running chart topper of the 80s" - clarify whether this refers just to this chart, or to all pop charts
  • FIXED!
• Wayward grammar: "This was her first release as a solo artist, without billing her as a part of the Miami Sound Machine." Only the first clause is relevant; you could either drop the second part, or reword it for example "independent from her part in the Miami Sound Machine."
  • FIXED!
• You mention "Ana Gabriel, who spent 14 weeks at the top with her single 'Ay Amor'." The list shows this song at the top for 12, not 14 weeks. See also her picture caption.
  • She had two separate runs at the top, 12 + 2 weeks with her single "Ay Amor". FIXED!

Can't see anything else. Good luck with it Brianboulton (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you Brian. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was previously peer reviewed and changes have been made.

Thanks, Flyguy33 (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments by --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• You need to double the size of the lede.
• Is it a corporation or organization? Infobox is not the same as lede.
• It was founded in 2002, why hasn't there been inductees at that time?

Images

• I suggest having an image in the lede, maybe the oldest inductee or something.
• You have to add Alternative texts to your images.
• Captions that aren't in sentences shouldn't have a period at the end. (like Ryan Howard. Smarty Jones.)

Style

• Why isn't "Pride of Philadelphia Award" in table format? This would give consistency throughout the list, please change it.
• I suggest using Name instead of Person; and Year instead of Inducted.
• Please make the tables sortable, check also List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame to see how it may be done.
• I don't see the relevancy of the see also section, please remove it.
• Remove the colors in the table.

References

• You have to have consistent dates in the references, so it's either 2009-08-01 or 1 August 2009.
• The title of the references mustn't be all capital, even if it is so on the original page.
  

---

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 Gunsmoke ran for 20 years on television and is generally regarded as a television classic. Therefore it's in need of a good episode list page which, hopefully, I have provided here. The page is patterned after the List of Smallville episodes page, which has achieved featured list status. I'm hoping to make this page a featured list as well.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is pretty impressive listing. Someone other than me will have to check the pin-point accuracy of each of the 600-odd entries, but in overall terms it looks very good. A few quibbly items, however:-

• No images. Have efforts been made to locate a relevant image that might be used, if necessary on a fair use basis?
  • An image has been added with alt text.
• I note that List of Seinfeld episodes, a featured list, precedes its listing with a "Series overview" table which, among other things, gives a key to the colours used in the main tables. The use of colours in the Gunsmoke listing is unexplained (unless I've missed something). Could a rationale be provided?
  • I took out the color scheme. I decided I didn't like it and didn't think it was needed anyway. I've had three filmographies (Gene Kelly, Charlie Chaplin, and Mary Pickford) achieve featured list status and they did not need any color schemes. (Plus, I've gotten complaints about how colorblind people can't see the colors properly.)
• Some overlinking, e.g. "producer", "black and white". I don't see the reasons why the names of the main actors should be linked at the start of every season's listing, and in any event there are inconsistencies; Ken Curtis is linked in the lead but not in the lists. Also, why are the characters "Matt Dillon" and "Festus" repeatedly linked?
  • I've prunded a lot of the links so that there should be only one apiece in the episode log. I've also taken out some refs that seemed superfluous as the intro states my sources.
• From the WP article Gunsmoke I gather that the programme was called "Gun Law" when shown in the UK. Would this be worth mentioning?
  • Added.
• Perhaps a more sensitive description than "half-breed" could be used? "Mixed race", possibly?
  • I removed this.
• Some repetitious prose in the lead, for example successive sentences beginning: "All the episodes of the series" and "The first episode of the series". The word "episodes" occurs four times in the sentence beginning: "During its run..."
  • I reworded the text. It should be better now.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the help. Jimknut (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good fast responses! The image is good and I would support the fair use rationale. I think you made the best decision over the colours, too. Other responses fine. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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 needs one for featured topic retention—I'm going to add another one too, but I promise I'll do some reviews to balance it out! :) There's not much content here (the press information flood doesn't come out until video gaming magazines hit the stands in January), but any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No dabs or dead external links—good.
• I added alt text for the image; check that it matches reality. :)
• Ref date are ISO style after some edits.

If you want to review a non-Halo game article, there's a sexy witch that needs attention. --an odd name 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• add references where there are citation tags...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mikerooney (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: As you say, there's not much here yet. The article is a kind of breaking news story or prequel to a complete article. It's inherently unstable and can be expected to morph into something more like a full article later in 2009. Meanwhile, I did a bit of minor copyediting, and here are a few suggestions and comments.

Lead

• I'd suggest expanding the lead to include at least a mention of the plot and perhaps a few other details from the text sections. The question I ask myself is "If I deleted the main text sections, would a reader get a fair idea of the content from the lead alone"?
• I changed "Fall" to "fall" because the seasons normally don't start with a capital letter. If you think this makes the sentence ambiguous, you might use "during autumn" or "late in" instead of "during fall".

Plot

• "Halo: Reach is a prequel" - Wikilink prequel?
• "and is identified by the call sign" - Wikilink call sign?
• "The announcement trailer shows the colony world" - Wikilink trailer?

Audio

• "Martin O'Donnell returns to score Reach." - Past tense, "returned" to match the past tense of the next sentence?
• "With the game's music, O'Donnell wrote more "somber, more visceral" music because the plot is character-driven and focuses on a planet that is known to have fallen." - Rather than repeating "music" or using "with" in this way, perhaps re-cast? Suggestion: O'Donnell wrote "somber, more visceral" music because the plot is character-driven and focuses on a fallen planet.
• "The music piece shown in the world premiere of Halo: Reach, titled "Lone Wolf", shown at the 2009 VGA's, is available on Bungie's website." - Move the modifiers next to the things modified? Use VGA instead of VGA's? Suggestion: The music piece, "Lone Wolf", part of the world premiere of Halo: Reach, is available on Bungie's website. The premiere was shown at the 2009 VGA.
• I'd suggest merging the two paragraphs to make one slightly larger paragraph.

Screenshots leak

• "a new rifle, and a new HUD" - Spell out "head-up display (HUD) on first use?

References

• What makes "Bungie Weekly Update" a reliable source per WP:RS?
• What makes the Microsoft Live Blog reliable?
• What makes Koku Gamer reliable?
• What makes Kotaku reliable?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Bungie ref for a better one. I'll work on your suggestions later today. Mikerooney (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My reason for requesting a peer review is so that I can add this article to the already established Good Topic Video games developed by Key, and as such an "individual quality audit that includes a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed" is needed before I propose this article's addition in that GT. Thanks.--十八 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images needs alt text as per WP:ALT. RB88 (T) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article seems fine. I've copyedited it and it should be OK now. Having gone through the FTC process myself, I'm wondering if it's too early to add it as the release date is summer 2010. But if all they want is a peer review, then you have it. Keep adding material as it comes. I don't think there's much more anyone can do here at PR. RB88 (T) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, Rewrite was added last October, and that game has yet to even have a tentative release date, not to mention that the retention periods of FTs/GTs are set up for just the purpose of giving editors a chance to improve an article to FA/GA within a given time. Thanks for the copyedit.--十八 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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 appreciate someone else's assessment of its NPOV. Also a review of its quality rating.

Thanks a bunch, Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need alt text per WP:ALT
• It's currently C-class. If you want to get it to B, I suggest increasing the intro to fulfil WP:LEAD and the last two sections about personal life and death.

RB88 (T) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I've copyedited the whole article and made it more in line with Wikipedia policy. Things to do include:
  • Adding a few more citations to solidify the political career.
  • Using all/finding more scholarly sources on the subject.
  • Initiating a constructive discussion with experienced bio editors and experts on the subject about the POV and OR material I've put on the talk page.

RB88 (T) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 eventually submit it to FAC and to minimize any editorial problems with this article at this stage. Though it has gone through a tremendous amount of work already and is approaching FA quality, I am concerned especially about any questions regrading the Alma problem. A major source for this article is R-K's autobiography, which though excellent is not without its flaws, and no modern in-depth biography of R-K apparently exists in English. While secondary sources include both the 1980 and 2001 versions of the New Grove, they are limited in terms of the depth of information they offer. The question then becomes, can this article realistically approach FA quality with the sources at hand? This, among other things, is something I hope other editors can answer as they review this article.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...

• Given the length of the TOC, I would argue for merging some of the subsections together where possible
  • Done Jonyungk (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The last sections are out of order: Bibliography should follow References. Furthermore, IIRC convention dictates that a section titled "Bibliography" in a biography referred to works by the subject of the article, not about them
  • The order of the last sections has been changed and the section names changed—"References" is now "Notes" and "Bibliography" is now "References". Jonyungk (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The prose could be tightened up considerably. There are some redundant words, and some areas lack the clarity of writing required for FA
• FA requires alt text for all images
  • Now that the images have been finalized, I will provide alt text for them. Jonyungk (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Images need some work in order to verify licensing tags. For example, the lead image claims PD-old, which requires that 70 years must have passed since the death of the author. Since the portrait date and the author are not listed, this cannot be verified (and though unlikely, it is possible that copyright still remains). Similar problems exist for other unsourced (or uploader-as-source) images. Also, look here for details on the PD-art tag, which is used for a couple of the images in the article. My spam filter blocks the source link for File:Belayev by Repin.jpg - are you sure it's right? Permission links on Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov_-_Bumblebee.ogg‎ are broken.
  • How would I fix the links for Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov_-_Bumblebee.ogg‎? I have never worked with oggs so this is very daunting for me. Jonyungk (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the media file itself that the problem, but the external links under "Permissions" on the file description page. You could try either googling or going through the home site (for example, the home site for the second link would be http://www.eff.org). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The permission link has been repaired. Jonyungk (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Referencing format could be more consistent. Also, why do some references have parentheses around them?
  • The New Grove references use parentheses because two different versions are being used, published in 1980 and 2001. Therefore, the publishing date appears in parentheses to indicate which version is being used. I am a litttle puzzled by your comment about consistent referencing, as the use of references is otherwise consistent throughout the article. Could you please elaborate? Jonyungk (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to the parentheses, I'm looking at Notes 92 and 93, which are entirely enclosed and aren't New Grove. As for consistent referencing, some notes use ndashes for page ranges while others use mdashes, there are extra punctuation marks in some and marks missing in others. Some references lack ISBNs, and the format is not constant (some use commas after authors while others use periods, etc).
      • Thank you for pointing out these discrepencies. The referencing format has been standardized. Jonyungk (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm greatly enjoying reviewing this article - it is already of a very high quality. My first comments are about the images, as they need some serious attention. I will move on to other issues in a bit.

Images need a lot of work

• File:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - Bumblebee.ogg - The links to the licensing information are broken, so the license cannot be verified at this time. Please fix the links.
  • As mentioned above in comments to Nikkimaria, the permission links have been fixed. Jonyungk (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only one not fixed is the "is interchangeable" link. It would be helpful to have that. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This link has also been fixed. Jonyungk (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:NARK.jpg - The image description page needs the following information: date, source, and author of the original image.
  • This image has been replaced with File:Rimsky-Korsakov 1904 Elson.PNG. Jonyungk (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright on replacement image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Rimsky-Korsakov 1866.jpg - The image description page needs the following information: date, source, and author of the original image.
  • I have contacted the uploader of the file. Jonyungk (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replaced this image with File:Rimski korsakov birthplace.jpg, which appears to be PD. Jonyungk (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should find out where Niva magazine is published and the appropriate license for that jurisdiction as well. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Niva was published in St. Petersburg, Russia prior to 1917, so the license tag currently on the image should be appropriate. Jonyungk (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Voin Rimsky-Korsakov.jpg - This image was added and apppears to be PD from the tag but am not entirely sure. Jonyungk (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you find the image on the website and verification of the date of publication? Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This image has been replaced with a new version of File:Rimsky-Korsakov 1866.jpg with updated licensing. Image info more clearly indicates PD. Jonyungk (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Almaz1863.jpg - This image was added and appears to be PD. The stated date and place of the photo (1863, New York harbor) is confirmed by R-K's autobiography, in which R-K states the Almaz was in New York in 1863.Jonyungk (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be best to link the image to the HTML page, rather than the JPG, per WP:IUP. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image now linked to the HTML page. Jonyungk (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Stpetersburgconservatory1900.jpg - The image description page needs the following information: date, source, and author of the original image.
  • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image has been replaced with File:Stpeteconservatory.jpg, which was found at Commons. Jonyungk (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commons is like any other wiki - people upload images with incomplete information or sometimes copyright violations. This image, like the one above, needs basic information like: date of publication, source, and author. You might try contacting the uploader and asking if s/he can add it to the image description file. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That might be difficult, as the uploader, Ghirlandajo, is apparently no longer part of English Wikipedia. I could try to contact him through Russian Wikipedia, but there are no guarantees on receiving an answer. Jonyungk (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the file info, the image's original date is 1913. Question: If the original image were a postcard, as this image apparently is, and if the author were unknown, would it qualify for PD under PD:OLD? Jonyungk (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we could establish the publication date as 1913, we could use PD-1923, but many postcards don't have dates on them. In the past, users have scanned both sides of the postcard to establish the date. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This image has been replaced with File:Sergeymila conservatory.jpg. Jonyungk (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Nadezhda Purgold.jpg - The image description page needs the following information: date, source, and author of the original image.
  • I have contacted the uploader of this file. Jonyungk (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Question: Is File:Franz Xaver Winterhalter Portrait of Madame Barbe de Rimsky-Korsakov.jpg a portrait of the composer's wife, as is claimed in a couple of websites? It's a wonderful portrait, but two things about it bother me. First, the portrait was painted in 1864, and Nadezhda Purgold did not become Madame Rimsky-Korsakov until 1872. Second, since Nadezhda Purgold was born in 1848, this must have been one very attractive 14-year-old sitting for the portrait. In short, as much as I'm tempted to replace File:Nadezhda Purgold.jpg with this one, the dates just don't add up. If I am wrong and this is actually Nadezhda Purgold in the portrait, I'll make the switch. Second opinions, please. Jonyungk (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have chagned the licensing of this photo to non-free use and given a rationale in the file info for doing so. It illustrates the subject in quesiton (Nadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova) and is unrepeatable (i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, it qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law and can be used. Jonyungk (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should probably add something about not knowing who the copyright holder is. Also, I'm not sure why you have the "non-free-promotional" tag on the image - is there a reason to believe this was a promotional image? Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My mistake. The tag has been replaced with {{Non-free historic image}}, which should be appropriate. Jonyungk (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Walentin Alexandrowitsch Serow 004.jpg - This file needs an English translation for its information.
  • Do you mean a translation of the Permission given in note [1]? I could probably attempt something through Bebelfish, but someone who is fluent in German might have better luck. Jonyungk (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For all of the fields labeled "Deutsch" we need to have "English" fields as well: the title, technique, etc. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ruhrfisch has very graciously translated the information. Jonyungk (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Stravinsky rimsky-korsakov.jpg - We need some proof of publication location to fulfill the terms of the licensing tag.
  • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Chaliapin Godunov 1912.jpg - We need the death date of the author to establish "death plus 70 years". Also, it would be good to list where the painting resides.
  • Death date added - 1930. "Death plus 70 years" applies for PD. Jonyungk (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Yevgeniya Zbrueva as Lel 1894.jpg - The image description page needs the following information: date, source, and author of the original image.
  • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:RimskyScheherezadeThemes.png - Please add the death date for the author to establish PD.
  • Do you mean to add R-K's death date, as it is his composition? Jonyungk (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will add more later. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small point - while removing the images from this article will clearly remove any image problems, it might be nice to try and improve the information on these images so that they can be used. Since you have access to R-K sources, you might be able to find information about them. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You write that there is "no modern in-depth biography" of R-K in English - is there in Russian? Is there any possibility of working with a Russian-speaking editor to see if anything significant has been missed?
  • The only in-depth biography in Russian that I know about is the multi-volume version by R-K's son, which is now quite old; I would also question the veracity of the author, consisdering it is a member of the R-K family. Working with a Russian-speaking editor is a good question. I do not know any, but would not shy away from the suggestion for that reason. Jonyungk (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that an old biography written by his son is far from ideal - I'm really surprised there isn't something better. I'm happy to hear there isn't some stellar biography in Russian that hasn't been consulted, however! The featured article criteria require that a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" be included in the article. Clearly, it would be good to have information from the son's biography, but I'm wondering how necessary that is. It will be good to have other people weigh in on this question. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What kinds of research have you done? I read about your concerns regarding sources above. I'm curious if someone with access to a good music library might be able to help you or if we are at the end of the sources? Do we need to contact a musicologist? I'm at a very good music school and might be able to help out.
  • Other than R-K's autobiography, my research has included both New Groves, Brown (the multi-volume Tchaikovsky biography) Figes, Maes, and Taruskin. Unless something pops up, we may be out of sources, which has been part of my concern with this article; there simply may not be the wealth of information for R-K that is available for Tchaikovsky. Contacting a musicologist may not be a bad idea, provided there is more information available. I'm open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAs don't require that a lot of information exist, only that the article represent what is available (that is why we can have FAs on TV episodes, for example). Also, I don't see that many books about R-K's music in my school library, but I do see a lot about Russian music and during that time. I'm not really sure how many sources are necessary to cover R-K's music. (Brianboulton might be a better person to ask.) The little I know about R-K is covered in this article, but I only have a passing familiarity with his music, so I'm not a very good judge. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will add more later. Awadewit (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the material sourced to the autobiography, here are the statements I would like to see some additional sourcing for or an acknowledgment in the article that the information is from R-K's autobiography:

• Mikhaíl Azanchevsky, who had taken over that year as director,[15] had wanted new blood to freshen up teaching in those subjects
• The other members of the Five showed little enthusiasm for the symphony, less still for the quartet
• Worse still was Anton Rubinstein, a well-known, musically conservative composer who did not agree with the nationalists' music or their philosophy. After Rubinstein heard the quartet, he commented that now Rimsky-Korsakov "might amount to something" as a composer
• Tchaikovsky continued to support Rimsky-Korsakov morally. He told Rimsky-Korsakov that he fully applauded what Rimsky-Korsakov was doing and admired both his artistic modesty and his strength of character.
• Within a couple of years, as Tchaikovsky grew in confidence in the relationship, his visits became more frequent.
• He died in Lyubensk in 1908, and was interred in Tikhvin Cemetery at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg. - It's unclear how R-K can discuss his own death and burial.
  • The manuscript for the autobiography was discovered among his papers following his death and edited by his widow before publication. Either she or a subsequent editor could have added it; nevertheless, it is in the autobiography. This is now explained in the sentence in question. Jonyungk (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All statements above have been attributed to R-K as requested. Jonyungk (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any sources that discuss the lack of R-K biographies? It might be nice to tell readers about that. At the beginning of the "Biography" section in the Jane Austen article, for example, we have explained the limitations of the sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not come across this personally, but perhaps it should be noted nevertheless. Perhaps the answer will become clear once you have reviewed the prose Jonyungk (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another option is what I did at Mary Martha Sherwood, which is include this sentence at the top of the "Bibliography": "There is no complete scholarly biography of Sherwood. Most of the biographical details in Cutt, Dawson, Demers and Smith are drawn from Sherwood's own autobiography, which is itself a compilation of her manuscript, some diary entries and some sections added by a later editor." Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I will keep this in mind as a possible solution. Jonyungk (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain more specifically what your concerns are regarding the Alma problem? Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern was a perceived overreliance on R-K's autobiography as a major source. This potential issue was brought up during the review of the article as part of the Composers project. Lacking an in-depth modern source to counterbalance the autobiography, I was concerned this perception might still be considered the case. Jonyungk (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using autobiographies is always tricky, but at least you do have other sources. I think that the careful use of attribution is key as is the careful selection of details. My only concern in that area was that a lot of the "inspector of bands" material seemed to be taken from the autobiography. Do the other sources not cover this topic as much? Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in as much detail. I can go back into the New Grove to see what can be pulled or reattributed. Jonyungk (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will add a few comments on prose next. The prose is very good and does not need very much work, in my opinion. The writing is a pleasure to read and clear. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the article suggests that Nadezhda played a large role in her husband's compositions and musical development, only one paragraph is devoted to this topic. Is any more information available on this topic? Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on Nadezhda has been frustratingly limited—she barely gets a mention in R-K's autobiography, and nothing on this subject. The New Grove has been better in mentioning her contributions, so it probably wouldn't hurt to check it once more; hopefully, Frolova-Walker has some new information in the 2001 edition that I may have missed earlier. Otherwise, everything available is in the artiole. Jonyungk (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New Grove did not have a tremendous amount of new informaiton, but I was able to fill in a couple of details. The paragraph now reads, Nadezhda was to become a musical as well as domestic partner with her husband, much as Clara Schumann had been with her own husband Robert.[37] She was beautiful, capable, strong-willed and far better trained musically than her husband at the time they married,[39]—she had attended the St. Petersburg Conservatory in the mid-1860s, studying piano with Gerke and music theory with Nikolai Zaremba, who also taught Tchaikovsky.[40] Nadezhda proved a fine and most demanding critic of her husband's work; her influence over him in musical matters was strong enough for Balakirev and Stasov to wonder sometimes whether she was leading him astray from their musical preferences.[22] Musicologist Lyle Neff writes that while Nadezhda gave up her own compositional career when she married Rimsky-Korsakov, she "had a considerable influence on the creation of [Rimsky-Korsakov's] first three operas. She travelled with her husband, attended rehearsals and arranged compositions by him and others"[40] for piano four hands, which she played with her husband.[22] "Her last years were dedicated to issuing her husband's posthumous literary and musical legacy, maintaining standards for performance of his works ... and preparing material for a museum in his name."[40]
      • Thanks - that is better! Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The one sound clip contained in the article is buried in the "References" section - I would suggest featuring this more prominently. We need to take advantage of Wikipedia's multimedia capabilities. Also, is there a possibility of gaining any other clips? Brianboulton and Shoemaker's Holiday have worked on this for other classical music articles - they might be able to help you. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and other small questions

• However, his initial music lessons were completed with questionable enthusiasm, as he was weak at counting and played poorly - This sentence is not quite clear - was R-K unenthusiastic because he didn't play well?
  • That is also my guess—the sentence was added by another editor as part of an educational project. Is this information really needed? I was bowing to consensus by leaving it in. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a passage in the autobiography that confirms this and have amended the lassage to read, However, his initial music lessons were completed with questionable enthusiasm, partly because of lack of interest but also, he later wrote, because he played "badly, carelessly, and was poor at keeping time".[8] Jonyungk (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • R-K and I have the same problem. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1856, the 12-year-old Rimsky-Korsakov's poetic love for the ocean could not override realism or his father's inability to pay for anything more prestigious than the Corps of Pages - This is the first we hear of this love for the ocean.
  • Again, this was added by another editor as part of an editorial project and was left in as a bow to consensus. The only other mention of R-K's love for the sea that I have read was Balakirev's giving R-K the task of writing Sadko in hopes that the theme might be fostered by R-K's love for the ocean. Should this sentence be left in or taken out? I noticed that it is also not attributed. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I have found a passge in the autobiography that backs up R-K's love for the sea, though not the other information, and have amended the passage with this information: Although he started composing his own compositions by age 10, Rimsky preferred literature over music;[9] he later wrote that from his reading as well as the exploits of his brother Voin, a naval officer 22 years Rimsky-Korsakov's senior, he developed a poetic love for the sea "without ever having seen it".[10] It was this passion for the ocean, along with some prompting from Voin, that encouraged the 12-year-old Rimsky-Korsakov to join the Imperial Russian Navy.[9] Jonyungk (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• took his passing-out examination in April 1862 - Is it called a "passing-out examination" in the sources? That is a new phrase for me, but I'm unfamiliar with Russian educational terms.
  • "Passing out" comes from the sources, but perhaps "final examination" would be better. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Overture on Three Russian Themes be redlinked?
  • Yes. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Balakirev, who had formerly opposed academicism with tremendous vigor,[21] had encouraged him to assume the post. - I think we might need to explain to readers what "academicism" in music means.
  • Or perhaps change "academicism" into "academic training in music", which would define the term more clearly. Jonyungk (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After he strove "to crowd in as much counterpoint as possible" into his Third Symphony,[2] he applied his newly acquired knowledge to chamber works in which he adhered strictly to classical models. These included a string sextet, a string quartet in F minor and a quintet for flute, clarinet, horn, bassoon and piano. - Should we have articles, or at least redlinks to articles, about these pieces?
  • I will provide redlinks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two projects helped Rimsky-Korsakov focus on less academic music-making. The first was the creation of two folk song collections in 1874,[7] which he credited as a great influence on him as a composer.[8] The second project was the editing of Mikhail Glinka's orchestral scores in collaboration with Balakirev and Anatoly Lyadov. - This paragraph seems a little thin - can more be added on what R-K gained from these two experiences?
  • More material hass been added: Two projects helped Rimsky-Korsakov focus on less academic music-making. The first was the creation of two folk song collections in 1874. Approached at Balakirev's suggestion by folk singer Tvorty Filipov,[63] Rimsky-Korsakov transcribed 40 Russian songs for voice and piano from performances by Filippov.[64][65] This collection was followed by a second of 100 songs, many supplied by friends and servants, and others taken from rare and out-of-print collections.[65][66] Rimsky-Korsakov later credited this work as a great influence on him as a composer;[67] it also supplied a vast amount of musical material from which he could draw for future projects, either by direct quotation or as models for composing fakeloric passages.[65] The second project was the editing of Glinka's orchestral scores in collaboration with Balakirev and Anatoly Lyadov.[46] This project was prompted by Glinka's sister, Lyudmila Ivanovna Shestavoka, who wanted to preserve her brother's musical legacy in print, and paid the costs of the project from her own pocket.[68] No project like this had been attempted before in Russian music.[65] Guidelines for scholarly musical editing had to established and agreed upon by all three editors.[65] While Balakirev was in favor of making changes in Glinka's music to "correct" what he saw as compositional flaws, Rimsky-Korsakov favored a less intrusive approach.[65] Eventually, Rimsky-Korsakov prevailed.[65] "Work on Glinka's scores was an unexpected schooling for me," Rimsky-Korsakov later wrote. "Even before this I had known and worshipped his operas; but as editor of the scores in print I had to go through Glinka's style and instrumentation to their last little note.... And this was a beneficent discipline for me, leading me as it did to the path of modern music, after my vicissitudes with coupterpoint and strict style".[69]

• Nevertheless, despite the ease at which Rimsky-Korsakov wrote this opera and the rapidity at which he penned the next, The Snow Maiden,[11] he became intermittently paralyzed creatively from 1881 to 1888 - Are there are any speculations about why he couldn't compose much during this period?
  • I haven't seen any in the sources so far, only that there was a creative crisis Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1905, approximately 100 St. Petersburg Conservatory students were expelled for taking part in the February Revolution - A sentence or two explaining the political issues at stake and why Rimsky-Korsakov took the positions he did would be helpful.
  • I have added substantial material to this paragraph. On one hand, I think the new information is relevant; on the other, I am concerned about overdetailing and would appreciate some feedback. In 1905, demonstrations took place at St. Petersburg Conservatory as part of the February Revolution; these, Rimsky-Korsakov wrote, were triggered by similar disturbances at St. Petersburg State University, in which students demanded political reforms and establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia.[91] "I was chosen a member of the committee for adjusting differences with agitated pupils," Rimsky-Korsakov recalled; however, almost as soon as the committee had been formed, "[a]ll sorts of measures were recommended to expel the ringleaders, to quarter the police in the Conservatory, to close the Conservatory entirely".[91] A lifelong liberal politically,[92] he wrote that he felt someone had to protect the rights of the students to demonstrate, especially as disputes and wrangling between students and authorities were becoming increasingly violent.[91] In an open letter, Rimsky-Korsakov sided with the students against what he saw as unwarranted interference by Conservatory leadership and the Russian Musical Society.[91] A second letter, this time signed by a number of faculty including Rimsky-Korsakov, demanded the resignation of the head of the Conservatory.[93] Partly as a result of these two letters, Rimsky-Korsakov wrote, approximately 100 Conservatory students were expelled, and Rimsky-Korsakov was removed from his professorship.[94] Not long afterwards, a student production of his opera Kaschei the Immortal was followed not with the scheduled concert but with a political demonstration,[95] which led to a police ban on Rimsky-Korsakov's work.[95] Due in part to widespread press coverage of these events,[96] an immediate wave of outrage to the ban arose throughout Russia and abroad; liberals and intellectuals deluged the composer's residence with letters of sympathy,[97] and even peasants who had not heard a note of Rimsky-Korsakov's music sent small monetary donations.[92] Several faculty members of the St. Petersburg Conservatory resigned in protest, including Glazunov and Lyadov.[98] Eventually, over 300 additional students walked out of the Conservatory in solidarity with Rimsky-Korsakov.[99] By December he had been reinstated under a new director, Glazunov,[96] and would retire from the Conservatory in 1906.[100] However, the political controversy continued with his opera The Golden Cockerel.[99] Its implied criticism of monarchy, Russian imperialism and the Russo-Japanese War gave it little chance of passing the censors.[99] The premiere was delayed until 1909, after Rimsky-Korsakov's death.[99] Even then, it was performed in an adapted version.[99]
    • In my opinion, there isn't too much detail. This paragraph makes the incident so much more potent! I think it is a vast improvement. Awadewit (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Compositions" section, could you explain what made his harmonies "radical"?
  • His use of the whole tone scale and the octatonic scale, both of which were considered adventurous by Western classical standards, made his harmonies seem radical. Conversely, the fact R-K was careful about how or when in a composition he used these scales made him seem conservative compared to those who would follow him, such as Igor Stravinsky, even though, in a sense, they would build on R-K's work. Jonyungk (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The purely orchestral works are mainly programmatic in nature, more so if we take at face value Rimsky-Korsakov's comment, "To me, even a folk theme has a programme of sorts." - I think the technical term "programme" needs to be explained here.
  • How about this: The purely orchestral works are mainly programmatic in nature—in other words, the musical content and sequence of events are determined by a story, a painting or some other non-musical source, rather than by abstract rules of musical composition.[3]

• They show the dual influence of Balakirev and Liszt,[3] and continue the musical ideals espoused by the Five, such as in the use of liturgical themes in the Russian Easter Festival Overture; - What specific influences of Liszt and Balakirev?
  • Balakirev in the use of the whole tone scale and musical orientalism; Liszt likewise for harmonic adventurousness as well as the prevalence of a non-musical stimilus (i.e., a program) to determine musical content and action. Jonyungk (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should more of the compositions in the "Orchestral works" section be linked or redlinked?
  • They could. I had linked them much earlier in the article, but it probably would be appropriate to link them in this section as well. Jonyungk (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we add Flight of the Bumblebee into the article? I think it is one of R-K's most well-known works (to the general public) and we should probably make mention of it.
  • I'll see what I can do. It is a short excerpt from his opera Tasr Sultan, so maybe it could be mentioned in the paragraph discussing the operas. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The last two paragraphs of the "Students" section is interesting but I wonder how necessary it really is.
  • They could probably be cut. I was starting to become concerned about overdetailing in sections such as this. Jonyungk (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Publications" section should list the publication information for the first editions in Russian and English.

I haven't done a very close WP:MOS review - I will leave that for others - but certainly everything certainly conforms to the basic MOS rules. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to be slow in reviewing this and glad to see it has received som many comments already. I agree this looks quite good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Should his naval career be mentioned in the lead?
  • Yes, and thanks for the suggestion. This informaiton is now mentioned with the lead, and expanded upon more thoroughly in the section on his early years. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Distances need to be given in both metric and English units - {{convert}} does this nicely. See for example Rimsky-Korsakov was born at Tikhvin, 200 km east of St. Petersburg, into an aristocratic family with a long line of military and naval service.[4]
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some places that have years could use his age too - for example He studied at the School for Mathematical and Navigational Sciences in St. Petersburg and took his final examination in April 1862.[7] (he was about 18).
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also could the year be added to the Repin portrait?
• Mussorgsky is linked twice in just the Early life section
  • Corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can it be made clearer from the start that R-K is wrioting about himself here? As a teacher at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, Rimsky-Korsakov [wrote that he] soon became "possibly its very best pupil, judging by the quantity and value of the information it gave me!" (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov).[33]
  • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not undertsand the part of this after contrapuntal exercises: ... he taught himself from textbooks[34] and followed a strict regimen of contrapuntal exercises, fugues, chorales and a cappella choruses.[22] What was he doing with the fugues etc.? Studying them? Composing new ones? Playing them?
  • He was composing new ones. I will make thia amendment in the arricle. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Missing word? However, his quest for excellence far exceeded [his?] competence as an instructor and became a search for perfection.[22]
  • Amended. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Tenses do not agree (should all be past?): As Inspector, Rimsky-Korsakov visited naval bands throughout Russia, supervise the bandmasters and their appointments, review the bands' repertoire, and inspect the quality of their instruments.
  • Let's see if my fingers can stop confusing tenses and get this one starghtened out. :) Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Should the deaths of M and B be mentioned: He kept busy during this time by editing Mussorgsky's works and completing Borodin's Prince Igor.[56]
  • Yes, they should. Jonyungk (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What year was this? Rimsky-Korsakov became acquainted with capitalist and budding music patron Mitrofan Belyayev (M. P. Belaieff) at the weekly "quartet Fridays" ("Les Vendredis") held at Belyayev's home
  • This informaiton has been included in the article. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Missing something? The Russian Symphony Concerts were just one of several avenues through which Belyayev worked to aid Russian composers, and through which Rimsky-Korsakov became associated [with what?].
  • I have amended this passage to read, The Russian Symphony Concerts were just one of several avenues through which Belyayev worked to aid Russian composers, and for which Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We? The purely orchestral works are mainly programmatic in nature, more so if we take at face value Rimsky-Korsakov's comment, ... how about "if R-K's comment is taken at face value"
  • Will make this change. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Glazunov linked twice in close proximity (students and Editing)
• He was not a member of the Five and the complete orchestration of Alexander Dargomyzhsky's swan song, The Stone Guest.[19]
  • The links have been removed—he was linked earlier in the article as well. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Over all this seems quite good to me. I wonder if a crop of his head from one of the color portraits might not be a better lead image?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • My personal preference is that if you use some titles in your shortened footnotes, that you use all of them for consistency.
  • I've read the above about sources, and given that knowledge, what sources you're using are reliable.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested review of "The Five" and "February Revolution" material

• I think that the February Revolution section has just the right level of detail but that the new material on "The Five" might have too much quotation. The two long quotes might need to be shortened, particularly the second one. Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reviewing these sections. in the section on "The Five", the first quote has been shorteend and the second absorbed into the text. I am still concerned about overdetailing in this section but the section itself appears more manageable now. Jonyungk (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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 part of an insane idea to promote 2008 Formula One season to Featured Topic status.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to use the full constructor names of the teams in the first paragraph of Background from 2008 Monaco Grand Prix.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Got a better way of saying "were next up"?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm wondering whether it is really worth detailing the tests at Jerez. If they were at the Hungaroring, fair enough, but the influence on this race tests in Spain could have are potentially quite small. Would we be better served having that paragraph at 2008 Formula One season?
  • I think I've pared it down as far I can from how I first found it. I personally prefer a bit of context in the background section.--Midgrid(talk) 17:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Ferrari used the F60 in 2009, not 2008.
  • Whoops! Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to go through the article and link some of the more technical words.
  • Done, I think, althought I'm not sure exactly where "brake duct" and "hydraulics" should go.--Midgrid(talk) 17:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For standard 2008 practice, you should combine P&Q.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the practice sessions need so much detail? I can understand that they can be quite interesting, but it may give undue weight to something which has no direct bearing on the race result.
  • I've tried to keep them as brief as possible, with only one short paragraph per session. Qualifying and the race are covered in proportionately greater detail.--Midgrid(talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the tyre names deserve proper noun status (i.e., Soft and Super Soft)? I've never seen them referred to as such before. Same with corner names.
  • That's strange, because in my experience I usually see them with capital letters! Both Autocourse and Autosport, my two principal sources, both habitually treat them as proper nouns. In any case, I think using capitals for the tyre compounds is a good idea, as it reduces confusion (especially because commentators, pundits etc. usually describe the two compounds as "soft" and "hard", whatever Bridgestone's official designations are).--Midgrid(talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note why you are using the first part of qualifying to describe the spread (it is mentioned before, but once more can't hurt).
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per MOS:IMAGES, people in images should generally face the text. There are a few you can swap in this article to achieve this (Glock, and Kovalainen, for example). In addition, the images need alt text.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "sandwiched" seems a little informal.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Trulli finished seventh, ahead of a very disappointed Kubica, who was very disappointed with the uncompetitive performance of his car at the Grand Prix closest to his home country of Poland." Bit of repetition.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The podium finishers were overshadowed by the ill fortune of both the weekend's pace-setters, Hamilton and Massa." Who facilitated the overshadowing? The media?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Regarding Hamilton's puncture, Hirohide Hamashima of Bridgestone said that it was impossible to identify its cause definitively due to the damage the tyre had sustained, but that the failure was caused by debris." May need rewording to highlight that the ambiguity was caused by not knowing what type of debris caused the puncture, not whether it was debris or not.

Apart from those largely minor points, it should be said that this is a very well written article. I would seriously consider taking it to FAC when this PR is done, as GA would seem to be a waste of time with this one. Apterygial 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review! I'll address the remaining points later on.--Midgrid(talk) 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Thanks again for the review!--Midgrid(talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!--Midgrid(talk) 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 less anxious to go to FAC this time. I welcome any possible comments how this article might not yet satisfy the FA criteria. It had undergone substantial copyediting since the previous PR and FAC, so now's a good time for another one.

Thanks, Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and seems comprehensive. However, I think the lead would be better if it had something about Horillo's accident and the protest and slightly less about Di Luca's drug tests. Some WP:MOS issues still need attention, and I'm not sure the "Jersey wearers when one rider is leading two or more competitions" subsection should stay in the article. Here's my short list of suggestions.

• Reading through the comments generated by the last FAC discussion of this article, I see mention of WP:MOSNUM issues. I don't think they've been completely addressed. The article more often than not uses digits for numbers from 10 up and words for one to nine except in sentences where both big and little numbers appear or where a number starts a sentence. So far, so good. However, this pattern is not entirely consistent within the article. For example, a sentence in the lead says, "The tenth and the sixteenth stages were both called the race's queen stage... ". Shouldn't this be "10th and 16th stages" for consistency? I think "invited as the Giro's twenty-second" should use "22nd" to be consistent. Other examples are "ten-lap criterium", "eleventh stage", "twenty-five minutes", and "eleven teams". If you go through the whole article just looking for these, you'll find more. A sentence like "Points were awarded to the top 20 finishers overall; 170 for first went to Denis Menchov and 2 for twentieth went to Lars Bak" is a mixed bag, but "twentieth" stands out as an odd duck. WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words has details.

Lead

• "Denis Menchov won the race, having taken the lead in a long time trial in stage 12, and marked closely any attacks by his closest challenger, Danilo Di Luca, during the mountain stages of the last week." - Insert "having" between "and" and "marked"? Also, would it be helpful to explain "attack"? Perhaps "surges"? Suggestion: "Denis Menchov won the race, having taken the lead in a long time trial in stage 12 and having marked closely any attacks (surges) by his closest challenger, Danilo Di Luca, during the mountain stages of the last week."

• "but won the mauve jersey as points classification winner" - Jargon. "Mauve jersey" and "points classification winner" will be mystery terms to non-cycling fans unless they are briefly explained on first use. Just a word or two in parentheses might be all that's needed. Ditto for "A-samples" in the next sentence and "B-samples" in the next. Perhaps the solution is to stick to a general summary in this paragraph and to give the details and translations in the main text sections.

• "The analysis of the B-samples from those controls confirmed the initial results, making it likely that Di Luca will be stripped of some or all of his results from the race." - Should the verb be "would" instead of "will"?

Teams

• "so the Giro began with a peloton of 198 cyclists" - Wikilink peloton?

Race previews and favorites

• "Silence–Lotto star Cadel Evans was originally announced to be taking part in the Giro,[16] but he publicly announced shortly afterward that he would not ride it, and accused RCS Sport (the organizers of the race) of using his name to promote the event." - Replace the first "announced" with "said" to avoid repetition?

• Should "breakaway" and "sprint" be briefly explained?

Route and stages

• "other first-category climbs" - Should "first-category climb" be explained? Can it be quantified?

Race overview

• "Di Luca had given two positive tests for... ". - Here's where the A and B tests could be explained rather than in the lead.

Jersey wearers when one rider is leading two or more competitions

• The details about the jerseys seem unnecessary to this outsider to bicycle racing. I'd consider deleting the subsection entirely.

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 3 should include the publisher, Future Publishing Limited, and so should the other citations to Cycling News.
• The author's last name should come first in the citations. For example, citation 4 should start "Gallagher, Brendan" rather than "Brendan Gallagher".
• I think Cycling News should be italicized since it's a periodical with an editorial staff. The "About us" link at the site has details about the nature of Cycling News. Ditto for Velo News(citation 59), which also needs to include the publisher.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 Al Ameer Son and I have been working on it for months now and wish to bring it to FA status. We wanted a peer review from an uninvolved user to give us some comments on how to further improve the article and spot any issues in there.

Thanks, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating article, packed with information about an important historical figure. The prose is generally flowing and clear. I wonder about the heavy reliance on Aburish (100 or so citations), and I have several other comments or suggestions for further improvement.

• Most of the images need alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details, and you can see recent alt text in the articles at WP:FAC.
  • done If u could review that too, would be great...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These look generally good on a quick read-through. However, instead of saying "Nasser" or "Palestinian flag", it would be better to stick to what can be said about the image itself rather than adding information from elsewhere; i.e., "a man" and "a flag", with brief descriptions of their appearance. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done all alt texts conform with the criterias now...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The link checker shows that at least one of the citation urls is dead.

done removed the link, it's his book so no need for a weblink really...

• The dabfinder tool in the box at the top of this review page shows that Unef is linked to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

doneAll disambiguated....

Lead

• "This period of glory for Nasser had eroded roughly as soon it came about and three years after the founding of the union... " - Tighten to "This period of glory for Nasser quickly dissipated, and three years after the founding of the union... "?

done

• "TIME magazine wrote that... " - Generally Time is lowercase except for the first letter even though the trademark name is all caps. Ditto for other places TIME occurs in the subsequent sections.

done

• "may have been enough to balance his flaws and failures." - Since this is a direct quote, it needs a source. Generally, direct quotations need a reference placed immediately after the end punctuation of the quotation rather than somewhere later in the article. Ditto for similar situations in the main text sections.

done

Ancestry

• "Hussein Sultan's in-laws emigrated to Alexandria... "- Wikilink Alexandria here rather than in the next section?

done

• "With his elementary diploma he entered the postal service in 1908 or 1910." - In North America, elementary school usually refers to a school for children up to about the age of 12. That would be too young to enter the postal service, so I'm wondering what "elementary school" and "elementary diploma" mean in this context. It might be good to include a brief explanation in the text.

Influences

• Wikilink Qur'an on first use?

done

Family

• "His entry into the officer corps secured him relatively well-paid employment in a society where most people lived in poverty." - Would it help to say, "His entry in 1937 into the officer corps had secured him relatively well-paid employment in a society where most people lived in poverty"? This would make it clear that his military career began before he married. It isn't until the next section that we learn any details about that career.

done

Free Officers

• ""nobody knew all of them and where they belonged in the hierarchy except Nasser." - Every direct quote needs a citation to a source.

done

• "After the Wafd government abrogated the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, on October 11, 1951... ". The triple date should be flipped to d-m-y format; i.e, 11 October 1951. Ditto for any other full dates in the main text.

done

Disputes with Naguib

• "and in a visit with the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, he promoted an image of him being Egypt's head of state" - For clarity, would it be better to say, "and during a visit with the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Naguib promoted himself as Egypt's head of state"?

done

Collapse of the UAR and aftermath

• "On September 28, 1961, Syrian army units in Damascus... " - The date formatting in the main text must be consistent to pass FAC. I changed quite a few dates, including this one, to d-m-y format to match what you used in the lede and infobox. You should check all of the remaining dates in the main text to make sure they are all d-m-y.

done

Revival on Arab stage

• "After Nasser allowed them to operate from Cairo, it gained a considerable following among minor Saudi princes and the co-founder of OPEC, Abdullah al-Tariki." - For clarity, perhaps change "them" to "the Free Princes movement"?

done

Internal dissent and shifts in policy

• "Amer's increasing autonomy led Nasser, who had diabetes" - Wikilink diabetes?

done

• "Nasser aligned himself with the ANM of George Habash" - Should Arab Nationalist Movement be spelled out here as well as abbreviated? I think it's the first use of the term.

it's mentioned before in Pan-Arabism section

Writings

• "Nasser authored a number books during in his lifetime including the following" - To be comprehensive, the article should probably include the complete list with all the usual bibliographical details.
• The link to Egypt's Liberation is dead. Also, it would be good to include the publisher and place of publication for this book.
• Towards freedom needs the bibliographical details.

References

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. I fixed a lot of these as I went, but a lot more need to be changed.
• Aburish is cited about 100 times. This heavy reliance on one source is sure to raise eyebrows at FAC. I don't know enough about the field to say whether or not it's possible to find other sources (possibly disagreeing with Aburish on various points) or not, but you'll want to be sure before going to FAC that you've thought about this question. Are the views of Aburish over-represented? Have the views of other important scholars in the field been left out?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one in the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the great review, I reviewed Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-141159215.html a reliable source for "Mona was married to Egyptian billionaire Ashraf Marwan until his death in 2007. They bore two sons." I would not consider Getty Images a reliable source for presumably a BLP, quite honestly.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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 that this article become a Good article.

Thanks, MisterWiki talk contribs 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While this has improved since my last peer review of it, there is still a lot of work needed to get it up to standards where it can pass WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the Zona Típica is only in the lead and a reference and is not expalined in the rest of the article (as an example)
• The current lead seems too short and lacks detail as a summary fo the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• The disambiguation links finder tool (top right corner) finds six dabs that all need to be fixed
• I do not read Spanish so I am not able to judge, but make sure all sources used are reliable. This http://www.elrancahuaso.cl/admin/render/noticia/7987 seems to be a blog, for example. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources uinless the person writing them is a recognized expert.
• Spell out numbers under ten per the WP:MOS
• Measurements should be given in both metric and English units, the {{convert}} template is useful for doing this easily
• The language in the article is in serious need of a copyedit to clean things up - my guess is that at least some of the authors are not writing in their native language. For example the dock burnt, it was not "fired": Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired.[14]
• Make sure to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
  • For example the history section gives very few years, so it is hard to tell when the things described happened. The Ortuzar family section is especially unclear as to time.
  • Or the first sentence tells the reader the name is derived from Mapudungún but no explanation of this is given (who speaks Mapudungún? Do they still speak it in Pichilemu?)
• Is it Agustin Ross (section header) or Agustin Ross Edwards? WHen was he born and when did he die?
• Watch needless repetition - the Population history section repeats the 2002 population of 12,392 THREE times (table, end of first paragraph, beginning of next paragraph about Census and polls.
• More needless repetition - the Ross Casino is mentioned in the History section, then in the National Monuments (in two places - its own section and with the hotel), then in Important Places, then as a see also. See also is usually for links not used elsewhere in the article.
• Images need alt text - see WP:ALT Licenses on many images are also doubtful - if the date is not known, how can you be sure it is PD-old?
• I also think the article would benefit from removing some of the pictures - Magdalena Petit is not even mentioned in the article except for the image caption. Why should her photo be included? If she is important, put her in the article. Or what are "Cáhuil salines"? Only mentioned in the image caption again (salt evaporation pools?)
• There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - to improve article flow these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• Some places need more refs - for example none of the schools are cited - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Are there no books on Pichilemu? Every source cited seems to be web based.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Lock Haven, Pennsylvania is an article on a small city that just became an FA last week and may be a useufl model. More FAs on cities are at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a community project I am actively promoting. I want this article to be neutral and not be deleted from Wikipedia.

Thanks, Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been proposed for deletion - see WP:PROD. Until that has been resolved, this PR has been closed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate this at WP:FAC in the near future.

Thanks, obentomusubi 01:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article slowly morphs into a version of Recognition of same-sex unions in Hawaii. One could think about a up-merger. Hekerui (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs some work from the primary contributors (mainly myself) and have the scope figured out before coming close to FA status, so please don't bother. Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, stable, neutral, and broad in coverage. The images look good. however, the explanation of the Baehr cases could be more complete and clear, and I have quite a few suggestions about prose and style.

• The images need alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details, and you can see examples of alt text in the articles at WP:FAC. Suitable alt text is now a requirement for FA.

• I'd suggest shortening the head "Content of the bill" to "Content" to avoid repeating the main words of the article title and changing subhead 2.2, "2009 bill", to "2009 proposal" or something similar. I'd also suggest removing "The" from the head, "The Baehr cases (1991–1996)". Wikipedia generally uses a telegraphic style without "the", "a", or "an" as the first word of a head.

Content of the bill

• "To be eligible for a civil union, the bill outlines that 1)... ". - Suggestion: "The bill suggested that to be eligible for a civil union 1)...". The existing sentence order suggests that the bill itself might be eligible for a civil union. Also, sticking to past tense would probably be better than switching from past "proposed" to present "outlines" to past "enumerated".
• "Section 1, § —9 of House Bill 444" - Would it be more clear to readers if "§ —9" were replaced by "paragraph 9" or "subsection 9" or something of the sort?
• "In addition, House Bill 444 would have repealed a statute that declared "private solemnization [is] not unlawful." - The Manual of Style advises against wikilinking anything inside a direct quote since the link is not part of the quote.

Baehr cases

• In the majority opinion delivered by Judge Steven Levinson, he presents a twofold argument: 1) that marriage is not a fundamental right, and is not included in the right to privacy, but that 2) denying same-sex couples from marriage would be a breach of equal protection." - Suggestion: "The majority opinion, delivered by Judge Steven Levinson, presented a twofold argument that: 1) marriage is not a fundamental right and is not included in the right to privacy, but 2) denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a breach of equal protection."
• "[n]o person shall ... be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex, or ancestry." - Is the italicized portion of this italicized in the original?
• "In the dissenting opinion, Judge Walter Meheula Heen states that he agrees... " - Past tense (stated, agreed, disagreed)?
• "Judge Kevin Chang delivered the opinion of the Court yet again" - Delete "yet again" since this is the first mention of Chang?
• "asserting that, in order to limit one's rights" - Suggestion: "limit someone's rights". "One" has a self-referential feel.
• "According to Judge Chang, the defendant was unable to prove that there was compelling interest behind his motives to limit the rights of others... ". - It might be helpful to explain who Baehr was and who Lewin and Miike were. It's not entirely clear which these are private individuals or whether one or more of them represents the State of Hawaii or some part of its government. I found myself wondering how Miike was in a position to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

2009 bill

• "It passed the Hawaii House Judiciary Committee on February 5, 2009, with 12 members voting in favor and none opposed[3] and was approved by the Hawaii House of Representatives in February 12, 2009, with 33 members voting in favor and 17 opposed,[1] one vote fewer than the two-thirds vote needed to override a veto by the Republican Governor Linda Lingle,[7] who did not indicate whether she considered a veto." - Too many clauses. I'd consider breaking this into two sentences.
• "A hearing by the Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations (JGO) was held at the State Capitol on February 24, 2009,[1] with the outcome of three senators supporting the bill and three opposed;[1] the bill was therefore not passed out of committee." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "The Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations (JGO) held a hearing at the State Capitol on February 24, 2009,[1] during which three senators supported the bill and three opposed it;[1] the bill was therefore not passed out of committee."

Reactions

• "U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie supported the bill, stating "it is shameful that while they must give their equal share to the government, the government will not give them equal protection" about gay and lesbian citizens of Hawaii." - A bit awkward. Perhaps "U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie supported the bill, saying of gay and lesbian citizens of Hawaii, "it is shameful that while they must give their equal share to the government, the government will not give them equal protection".
• "A letter later sent to senators in support of the H.B. 444 by community groups, including the Local 5 union, the Hawaii NAACP, the Hawaii State Democratic Women's Caucus, and the Japanese American Citizens League." - Missing word or words? This is not a complete sentence as it stands.

• Overlinking: Hooser, Alona, Abercrombie, Lingle and others are linked multiple times. Once is probably enough, though perhaps two is OK if in different sections of the article. Linking common words like "education" is unnecessary and adds a kind of blue clutter. I don't think I'd link fairly self-evident terms like "Hawaii House of Representatives" more than once in the whole article.

• The same people that are linked multiple times are referred to multiple times by their full names. Usually only the last name is needed after the first use.

References

• Newspaper names like Honolulu Star-Bulletin should be in italics.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • What makes http://www.bidstrup.com/ a reliable source for court decisions? Also, it should be listed as the publisher of the website.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I post this on behalf of the WikiProject Bob Dylan collaboration team, which consists of Mick gold, Rlendog, Moisejp, Allreet, and myself. We have been all working hard on the article for the past few months, with the ultimate goal of FAC. I'm interested in hearing any feedback, be it praise or criticism, as any input will help. I'm hoping others from the collaboration team will also post here, expressing what they're specifically looking for in this peer review. Until then, anything helps, and we'll appreciate even the slightest input that any of you have on this.

Many thanks, I.M.S. (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article has an "Under construction" banner. Is this still in force? The text needs to be in a more or less stable state for its peer review, so I suggest you remove the banner. You can always replace it after the review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply there to alert users that the article is currently the focus of the WikiProject Bob Dylan collaboration team. I'll remove it if you like. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "under construction" banner to enable peer review to proceed. As Brianboulton says, we can always replace it after peer review has made suggestions. Mick gold (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is much improved snce the last time I read it (for the previous PR), here are some suggestions for improvement based on FAC criteria.

• The language is good, but I think it still needs some polishing before FAC - getting to WP:WIAFA Criteria 1a is often the most difficult part of the article improvement process. For example, the lead sentence could be tightened to just "Like a Rolling Stone", a song by American songwriter Bob Dylan, is one of his best-known and most influential compositions.[2][3][4]
• Would it make more sense to call it "Columbia Records" in Dylan recorded "Like a Rolling Stone" a few weeks later, but Columbia, unhappy ... - see WP:PCR too
• I mentioned this in my previous PR, but I am not sure that the Springsteen quote belongs in the lead - the quote does not specifically say that the song is Like a Rolling Stone and it seems a bit too detailed for the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. Also this is the only place in the whole article where Springsteen is mentioned and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and not have anything new / solely there.
• If you want to keep the quote in the lead, perhaps if the snare shot in the song were mentioned earlier? Or perhaps if a shorter version of the quote were used in the lead and the whole quote was used later in the article? So something like As Bruce Springsteen recalled in his 1988 speech inducting Dylan into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the first time he heard the song "that snare shot that sounded like somebody had kicked open the door to your mind ... Dylan freed your mind the way Elvis freed your body."[12][13]
• I would add the year in Rolling Stone magazine ranked it as the number one song on their "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" list.[17] I would add years in other places like the Playboy interview too.
• I think Al Kooper needs a bit more background when introduced.
• When I read this I thought who is Arthur? Is this a first name or last name? In the days following the rejection, Considine took a discarded acetate pressing of the song to Arthur—then the hottest disco in New York.
• ALT Text is nice, but the caption says Dylan performs "Like a Rolling Stone" at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, backed by Mike Bloomfield and Al Kooper and the alt text points out there are four people in the image, so I think the caption should all of them. Might also want to identify who is who by instrument - assume Kooper is on the organ, for example.
• The Cover versions section seems to me to be weighted a bit too much towards the foreign language bands. What is the criteria for inclusion of a cover? My guess is that many more covers have been released than the ones mentioned here (and by the way, The Replacements covered it too, changing the lyics to "Like a rolling pin").
• Did any of the covers ever chart anywhere?
• The external link checker finds one dead link.
• Amazon.com as a source? I think the names of newspapers and magazines need to be italicized too. I also think that abbreviations like CBC and NPR in the refs need to be spelled out.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch, I think that's very helpful. Lots of good suggestions for copy editing. Mick gold (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some very fine suggestions, Ruhrfisch. Thank you for reviewing! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
    • http://www.bjorner.com/songss.htm
  • Newspapers and magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Decide if ou're going to do your shortened footnotes in Last name (year) format or Last name Title format, and make them all the same.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted NPR, but there may be others)
  • Current ref 81 lacks a publisher
  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thanks for your comments. I write in response to your query: What makes Bjorner website a reliable source? When Bob Dylan article last went through WP:FAR, I defended use of Bjorner as WP:RS. I reproduced an email I had received from Michael Gray, one of the most distinguished critics of Dylan's work. You can find the email here: [[3]]. In part, Gray wrote: "For myself, I found in the course of researching the 800+ entries within The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia that Mr. Björner’s work was both extraordinarily useful as an assembling together of otherwise widely dispersed facts and figures and phenomenally accurate. All his listings are of verifiable facts - which musicians played behind Dylan at what concerts, what songs were performed on different individual nights of a concert tour, etc. - and it seems to me demonstrable that www.bjorner.com is an invaluable source, built up with great care by someone who knows and disseminates freely a vastly greater amount on his topic than any mainstream publication such as The Times or any mainstream media organization such as the BBC." I believe Gray's view was accepted by other editors involved in FAR of the Dylan article. best, Mick gold (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two testimonies to Bjorner's website. In The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, a key Dylan reference book by Michael Gray, we find the following description of Bjorner's website:

The result is the enormous and invaluable website www.bjorner.com, which (so far) offers a detailed run-down on every Dylan year from 1958 to 2005: offering a catalogue of his recording sessions, his concert performances—listing every song performed in every concert—plus his record releases, books published by and about him, tapes newly coming into circulation, and more besides. The detail is extraordinary, and the level of accuracy phenomenal. There’s also a section of Olof’s site with transcriptions of Dylan interviews from the 1960s to the 1990s, and a vast listing of cover versions of Dylan songs by other artists (accessible by song or by artist). Truly a gigantic undertaking, maintained to a very high standard indeed. (The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, 2006, p. 50)

Bjorner's website info is also published by Hardinge Simpole. [[4]] who have made Bjorner's website available as hard back publications.[[5]] Hardinge Simpole have a strong chess list, they also have specialist lists in travel, Buddhism, and Bob Dylan. Mick gold (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a potencial for becomeing an FA and makeing another legend of zelda games.

Thanks, Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Did you talk to Igordebraga before you made this Peer Review? He's been trying to make it a Featured Article twice. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaguya-chan comments: *The entire first paragraph of the section "Wii transition" is unsourced

• Kondo spelled as Kondō in Music section

Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and seems comprehensive. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

• The link checker at the top of this review page finds two dead urls in the citations.
• The "show-hide" box in the infobox causes overlap on my computer screen. Lines of type appear on top of one another; specifically, the release date information runs into the "show" button and overlaps "Action-adventure".
• I don't think the Shadow Beast image is necessary for a reader to understand the material. Its fair-use rationale seems weaker to me than the other two.

Lead

• "The title changed as development progressed, with the name Twilight Princess officially announced at E3 2005." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and E3 should probably be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use. Suggestion: As development progressed, Nintendo announced a new title, Twilight Princess, during the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in 2005.
• Spell out Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) on first use?
• Explain that "T" stands for "Teen"? Not all readers will know what it means.

Gameplay

• "Using Link's wolf senses, players can see wandering spirits and hunt for ghosts named Poes, which is not possible in his human form." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Using Link's wolf senses, players can see wandering spirits and hunt for ghosts named Poes; they can't do these things when Link returns to human form".

Creation

• "American sales of The Wind Waker were sluggish because the cartoon appearance created the image that the game was designed for a young audience" - Maybe "created the impression" rather than "created the image"?

• "Aonuma's team had created the horseback mechanic with a realistic presentation" - I'm not sure what "horseback mechanic" refers to. Perhaps "Aonuma's team had created a way to present realistic horseback riding"?
• "reveal to the public with a trailer" - Wikilink trailer?
• "By emphasizing the two worlds and wolf transformation, the realistic Link was lacking." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Emphasis on the two worlds and the wolf transformation had made the Link character unrealistic."

Wii transition

• "Details about Wii controls began to surface in December 2005, when British publication NGC Magazine claimed that when a GameCube copy of Twilight Princess played on the Revolution would give the player the option of using the Revolution controller." - Missing word? The sentence doesn't make sense as it stands.

Music

• To eliminate the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end of the section, I'd suggest merging it with the paragraph above.
• "Both six- and seven-track versions of the Official Soundtrack... " - "Official Soundtrack" without italics? Or, if it's not actually the title of anything, just official soundtrack with no caps and no quotation marks?

Technical issues

• "execution of custom code from an SD card" - Spell out as "a secure digital (SD) card" on first use"? Ditto for ELF in the next sentence?
• It might helpful to explain why anyone would want to execute custom code from an SD card. What would their goal be?

Reception

• In the PAL region, Twilight Princess is the best-selling Zelda game ever." - Would it be helpful to include a brief explanation of what PAL stands for?

Notes

• Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 27 lacks the date of publication (2007-03-11) and the publisher (Nintendo World Report). A quick glance tells me that others also lack data. My rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found.

References

• These should be arranged alphabetically; i.e., Aonuma then Pelland.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to have gotten to these, but now that I had time and had help from others, they should all be done now, except for the formatting of references which simply requires time and patience. I'll see how much of that I can get done. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the subject is a notable public figure, page visits are relatively high right now, and it needs tightening up. I've done a very significant rework of the article this week, but I'm concerned that its weighted very much against Choudary. This is because I cannot find anyone who has anything nice to say about him, anywhere. Maybe this reflects the general view of him, but still, it needs looking at to remove any sign of bias that might exist.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom 14:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that he would be difficult to write about.

• intro can explain Islam4UK better. 'group...advocating British shari'a'? Would replace later mention.
  • I've inserted a line from the Islam4UK article, unfortunately the source is dead right now, either its been taken down or is subject to attacks. Parrot of Doom 15:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• http://islam4uk.com/ is dead?
  • See above Parrot of Doom 15:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• more personal background. Is he the children of immigrants? Is he nth generation British? The difference is major: if the latter, then the reader knows that part of his image will be as a race traitor, a quisling, a Hanoi Jane; if the former, then he will be seen as ungrateful foreign immigrant scum
  • Nothing is available right now. There's a quote from a college friend which claims he is of Pakistani heritage, but I can't really use that as a reliable source until the journalist says so. Hes certainly British though. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• a picture is important in general, and especially if you can't deliver on the previous
  • Hopefully someone will get one, if the march proceeds. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• how was he radicalized? Like an article about Saul of Tarsus without his vision...
  • Through his meeting with Bakri, but that's about all we have right now. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Al-Muhajiroun' doesn't follow any clear narrative; sectionize maybe
  • Yeah, this is a bit of a problem. He's relatively 'new' with regards to notability, so I'm waiting for journalists to do the work, so I can fill it out. I have access to Newsbank so I'm still looking. Parrot of Doom 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Choudray said "You may see one or two coffins being returned to the UK every other day, but when you think about the people of Afghanistan its a huge number in comparison', "its"? This quoted right? or 'Choudary stated that the proposed march was to "engage the British publics minds on the real reasons why their soldiers are returning home in body bags and the real cost of the war.'
  • Fixed, thanks Parrot of Doom 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Views" section seems to be nothing of the sort - just more personal history
  • It's a good point. I'm trying to build a narrative, in the same way as I did with Nick Griffin. I may have to look at cutting back some of this, but I'm trying to piece together his views from his actions. Parrot of Doom 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• likewise, 'personal life' contains much matter about his early days that one would expect to go into the section on his early life. --Gwern (contribs) 00:02 9 January 2010 (GMT)
  • I'm uncomfortable doing that - the reports of his student days are clearly done in a negative light. I'd rather plot a path from his education, through his actions, associations, views, and then leave the personal criticism up to the end. Parrot of Doom 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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 passed GAN a couple of months ago and would like to know from uninvolved editors if there are an glaring errors or omissions in it before I take it to FAC.

Thanks, Bradley0110 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: She's a great actress, one of my favourites, and this article is a decent attempt to do her justice. It does need futher work, however, if it is to go to FAC which can be a hard place. Here are my detailed comments. It is a great shame that there isn't an image, but I do understand the problems involved in obtaining free images of living celebrities. I trust you have left no avenue unexplored in this respect.

• Lead
  • As per WP:LEAD, the opening statement of the lead should say who or what the subject is and why he/she/it is notable. Thus I would expand the first sentence to something like: "Fay Ripley (born 1966) is an English actress who from the late 1990s onwards has achieved considerable success in film and television comedy-dramas."
  • "Ripley was born in Wimbledon, London and her parents separated when she was two years old." Inappropriate "and" connector, since the clauses are unrelated.
  • The term "technical college" will confuse non-UK readers. Unfortunately the wikilink, which you use in the main text, is not helpful as it leads to advanced technical institutes rather than colleges of the Brooklands sort. The most useful link is probably thus: technical college. This should be used at first mention of the term.
  • Overdetailing in lead, for example: "During her training she lived in a small flat in Streatham, South London" and: "...in the south of England."
  • "Breakout" becomes "breakthrough" later in the article. Suggest consistency.
  • "Initially a supporting cast member..." I think "supporting part" would be neater.
  • Why are Bon Voyage and Monday, Monday described as "ITV" dramas? The term is meaningless outside the UK; why not just "TV" or "television"?
  • Children should not be named unless they are themselves notable, which in this case is not so.
• Early life: Generally, this section is too long and overdetailed for an encyclopedia entry, with various anecdotes of no relevance to her career. With due respect to her talents, Ripley's schooldays don't warrant this degree of treatment, and her recorded musings on her inadequate education are somewhat unmemorable. My advice is to drop the quote, chop the first two paragraphs considerably and keep most of the third.
• Early performances: The section is a little too anecdotal for a summary emcyclopedia article, with phrases such as "she was distraught" contributing to a generally non-encyclopedic tone. Indeed, the amount of text devoted to explaining her (non)-appearance in the Branagh film (130+ words) is a little excessive and could be edited down.
• Breakthrough roles
  • A run of three consecutive linked phrases (Granada Television Comedy Premiere Cold Feet) is excessive. The "Comedy Premiere" could be left out, and you could describe the show as a "pilot" comedy rather than a one-off. Then you could say: "In 1996, Ripley auditioned for Cold Feet, a pilot comedy for Granada Television"
  • "In the audition, she performed with an inelegant approximation of a local Manchester accent." This sounds like a quotation; if so it should be in quotes, and cited.
  • "...just a supporting role" - "just" is redundant
  • "given", not "giving"
  • "Ripley had not experienced childbirth before..." sounds as though she was now experiencing real childbirth. I suggest "At that time Ripley had not experienced childbirth,..."
  • Although links are not normally used within quotes, I think that "Elaine" and Seinfeld should be linked - not everyone in the UK will understand the reference.
  • In order to follow the chronolgy of Ripley's career, it would be useful to have more dates in this section. When was the first Cold Feet series shown? What were the dates for the second and third series? What was the year of her BAFTA nomination for Best Actress? When did she advise the producers tat she was quitting the series, and what was the date (or at least, year) of her heavily pregnant final appearance?
  • You should mention that The Herald is a Glasgow newspaper
  • "She considers I Saw You the television show she is most proud to have worked on, and acted in it alongside her husband Daniel Lapaine." Another inappropriate "and" conjunction; suggest rephrase: "She considers I Saw You, in which she acted alongside her husband Daniel Lapaine, the television show she is most proud to have worked on."
• Leading roles
  • "BBC" is sufficient, rather than "BBC One"
  • "Instead of being invited to audition, the role was offered directly to Ripley." Not grammatical as it stands. Try: "Ripley was offered the role without being invited to audition."
  • "baddie" is slang, definitely not an encyclopedic term.
  • The lengthy information given on Bon Voyage lacks any critics' comments on Ripley's performance. I'd cut out some of her own reflections on the film, and include some quotes quotes from critics. Likewise, there is nothing on her Reggie Perrin performance beyond her own comments on the role. I seem to remember that the series was critically panned, and presume that someone said something about Ripley.
• Other work: Overdetailing – I'm not sure that we need to itemise her work on advertisements. A single sentence should cover this.
• Personal life
  • Why has the 1983 Romeo and Juliet appearance, with James Purefoy, not been mentioned until now?
  • Note again comments relating to the naming of children
  • "...to draw attention to child sponsorship" Could you add a few words to clarify what work she was doing on behalf of ActionAid?
• General
  • Some of the online sources lack access dates
  • Is it not possible to get confirmation of her birth date? The date 28 June crops up in hidden notes, which appears to conflict with GRO details – unless she was born on 28 June 1965 and was registered late, which could happen. Either way, if the GRO records show her birth was registered between Jan-March 1966 it is quite likely that her birth year was 1965 not 1966. I'd be surprised if her actual birth date is not on the public record somewhere, unless Ripley herself has suppressed it.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Brian. I've made a few of the changes you recommended this evening and will give you detailed feedback tomorrow. Bradley0110 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long with this, Brian (house under six feet of snow, work underwater, etc). I've fixed all of the grammar issues and clause fixes you've suggested, and have some specific responses and defences:

• WP:ACTOR has stopped doing "So-and-so is an actor famous for this and that" in the first sentence because it often smacks of original research and has point-of-view issues. The notability of the subject is established by the article itself and a fully-developed lead.
• I'm not sure the link you've suggested for the tech college is any better than the one I've used. TBH, the context in which "technical college" is being used in the sources isn't helpful either. I've delinked it and just replaced it with "local college".
• Bon Voyage is described as an ITV drama because... that's what it is. One could also say NBC or ABC are meaningless terms outside of America.
• I've removed the childrens' names from the lead to avoid bloat but have left them in the personal life section. Their names are widely repeated in media so I'd rather leave them in for comprehensiveness.
• I've cut down the early life section. I think the main problem was the large quote, which made the section appear larger than any other in this article. I've left in a lot of the other stuff though because it's important to say precisely how and why she became an actress.
• Since her role in Frankenstein is an important milestone in her career (regardless of the scene's presence on the cuting room floor) I'd rather leave this in. I've cut out some of the fluffy bits though.
• The quote about her Manchester accent is "I managed to bodge together a sort of Manchester accent", which I've recast to keep the text formal and avoid overuse of quotes.
• I've linked Seinfeld but not Elaine Benes, as that article doesn't really help readers understand the reference. From the context of the review, it seems that the critic is comparing her to the actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, rather than the character, so it's no big loss.
• I've added a couple of dates to the breakthrout section. Is it desperately important that The Herald be noted as a Glasgow newspaper? Are the opinions of the mad Scots worth signposting so? ;)
• Bon Voyage didn't seem to have much critical response specifically relating to Ripley's performance (bar "good" and "brilliant"). I've added a couple that supplement the information about her on-set pregnancy but I could hear the sound of the barrel scraping as I typed.
• Similarly, she doesn't have any comments personally relating to her role in Reggie Perrin (it seems Martin Clunes and Simon Nye bore the brunt of the Daily Mail's ire). The BBC is supposed to be doing a second series later this year so she might get some criticism or praise then. Same with Monday Monday--very little in the way of useable reaction beyond one word compliments or "she irritates me".
• The National Lottery and Tesco adverts were major campaigns with significant coverage relating to Ripley's participation, as opposed to ones where she just provides a voice over (how weird that there is one playing on TV exactly as I type this).
• The Romeo and Juliet performance appears to be a school play, rather than a professional appearance. Beyond the fleeting mention of it relating to James Purefoy, there is no coverage of it.
• All online sources have access dates.
• Regarding her date of birth; 28 June is batted about online (IMDB, Hello magazine, etc) but it does not appear in any verifiable sources. It might be that Ripley or her agent don't want the exact date out there, in which case 1966 will have to do. Jan-March 1966 is from the records on Ancestry.com. The exact date is probably on file in the Wimbledon records office. I'm not sure what could cause a delay in registering a birth from 1965, unless it occured late in December or something. Otherwise, 1966 is the best it is going to get.

Thanks again, Brian. I appreciate the time and effort you put into these reviews. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a feature article. I went through the entire article, it is well-referenced, I've just added a few more references to some of the points. I can't find any blatant flaws, or places where the article could be significantly improved, and please highlight any such things as you find them.

Thanks, Sultanofhyd (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead section is too short and doesn't adequately summarise his career outside his championship-winning years. I also think his position as a UNICEF ambassador and his nickname are too trivial for the lead, and should be moved to the Personal life section of the article.
• The article could do with a thorough copyedit; the writing, spelling and grammar is quite good, on the whole, but there are places where it could be improved (e.g. "He is an avid card tricks fan and usually plays cards when he's hanging out with Robert Kubica during the race weekend").
• There's nothing on how he got the Minardi seat in 2001 (AFAIK, Briatore placed him there for evaluation purposes). The fact that Briatore was his manager should be mentioned earlier in the article, as I believe it dated from his year in F3000.
• The sections on his 2003 and 2004 seasons are far too short in comparison with more recent years. Even though this was before he won the championship, he still scored numerous results and broke several records.
• The 2005 section is also short on references, including a direct quotation.
• The 2005, 2006 and 2008 sections are quite disjointed in terms of the writing; they still read like they did when they were first updated at the time.
• The 2009 section is also not long enough, and doesn't cover the whole season.
• I would like to see the Controversies section integrated into the main, chronological part of the article. The first four bullet-points, in particular, are nowhere near as notable as "Spygate" and "Crashgate".
• I'm not sure if either of the See also links are justified in their inclusion.
• The formatting of some of the referencing could be improved by using the {{citation}}, or filling out additional parameters in the existing templates.
• I'm not sure if F1 Fanatic (blog) and the Formula 1 Database (user-generated content) count as reliable sources.
• The table of awards, sporting achievements and records is very large, and it may be worth considering placing it in a collapsible box (as in the Michael Schumacher article).

I hope this is helpful to you!--Midgrid(talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Midgrid. I will try and expand the 2009 section, and do a copyedit of the whole thing tomorrow, also I'll try to add some more references. Thanks again. Sultanofhyd 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to integrate the controversies into the main part of the article. Some those "controversies" are pretty ridiculous too. He break tested D.Coulthard? Come on if that's a "controversy" then most racing drivers (like for example Senna or Hamilton) should have tons of them.  Dr. Loosmark  21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The personal and Early life chapter seems an uneasy combination to me. Detailing later life events like his wedding and trivial notes like card tricks seems wildly out of place in the second paragraph. Perhaps this could be separated with later life events placed in their own chapter after his racing career and could include details such as his UNICEF and GPDA roles.

• Adrián Campos gave Alonso his first test in a race car in October 1998. What was the car? A very important detail missing surely. His post-karting, pre-F1 career needs expansion generally.

• 2002-2004 years need some expansion. At least a second sentence about his first win at Hungary 2003, instead of half a sentence shared with the 2003 Spanish GP.

• The see also notes for each of the Formula One teams seem unneccessary to me, the slight implication being that Fernando Alonso is one of the most significant people in these teams histories, which while may be true of Renault F1, certainly isn't for Minardi or McLaren.

• 2010: Switch to Ferrari - just Ferrari should be sifficient. Switch to Renault or Switch to McLaren was not deemed necessary.

My opinions. Take or leave, but good work for taking the effort to improve the article and to ask for comment. --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2008 section sends me to sleep. There's a results section for the race-by-race stuff, major events and a brief summary are what belong in the prose. What value does "In the European Grand Prix, Alonso performed strongly in all three practice sessions and the first round of qualifying." have if I wanted to find out more about this Alonso-guy? It's about as relevant as listing what he had for his dinner in terms of his major achievements.

• The 05 and 06 sections are also quite boring. 'He finished 6th at this GP, he qualified 2nd but finished 3rd at the next' just isn't interesting to read. Tell us about the major incidents, the big victories etc. These yearly sections are where the controversies belong for example, rather than their own section.

• "In the May 2007 issue of F1 Racing, Alonso said that the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix was his greatest race." - It's the fact that's important here, not where it came from. Better as "Alonso later said the the 2005 Brazilian..." with the F1 Racing issue cited.

• Picture overload: There are five very similar pictures of Alonso in a Blue and Yellow Renault stacked above each other on my screen. Choose the two (or three max.) best ones, and then alternate right align then left per the MOS.

• Caption: "In the final day of the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix" - the race was held over multiple days? Most people see the GP as being the race itself. Caption therefore needs revising.

• Referencing is OK, but I'd like to see better refs for the TdF thing, replacement sources for F1DB, F1Fanatic, F1Complete and GPUpdate stuff if possible. Some of the refs need Authors, Date and Agency information included (Rediff ref for example). AlexJ (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead and main body don't match up. There's nothing in the article about his UNICEF, GPDA work or his 100ptsX3 achievement. The lead could also do with a bit of extending with a very brief summary of his career mentioning for example the year he came into F1, the teams he drove for and the year he won his second title. AlexJ (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That covers most of the major issues I can see with the article. Hope it's of some help. AlexJ (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to find out what portion is needed to improve it. Over the years, the article got unprofessional, fancruft look. I can't do the task that you suggested by myself alone. So I need someone's help.

Thanks, JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Edited 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

MCorazao comments:

• My first recommendation would be to look at an article like Superman or Batman and use it as a model. Try to build your article in a similar fashion.
• Most of the article is lists of comic issues and books. But the article is not fundamentally a list article. I would say that, if the lists are considered notable for some reason, they should be moved to their own articles and removed from this one. It would be better for the article to discuss the series as a whole. To the extent that individual issues or books are mentioned, in general they should either be discussed (i.e. say something about the issue), or else not mentioned.
• Aside from the lists of issues and books, the article largely focuses on the storylines. There is some discussion of how the series was created and such but ideally there should be more discussion about this, the popularity of the series, reception from critics if applicable, etc. Look at the Superman article as an example.
• There are almost no citations/references. Each paragraph or item should have at least one inline citation (<ref>).
• The one reference that is provided (http://www.kaaberboel.dk/uk-the-witch-series.htm) is a dead link. Even at that the site itself looks like a self-published site. Ideally the article should use authoritative sources like books, newspapers or news sites, etc. (and preferably secondary sources).
  • Also, when referencing foreign-language sites it is often a good idea to insert a quote from the site translated into English. That makes gives reviewers that don't speak the language a little more confidence that your references are legit.
• Book names should be in italics.
• <ref> tags should generally go at the end of sentences.
• Avoid abbreviating things; make statements plain. For example, "Lene Kaaberbøl has written nine books taking place in the W.I.T.C.H. universe, published 2002-2003" should be "Lene Kaaberbøl has written nine books taking place in the W.I.T.C.H. universe, which were published in 2002 and 2003" (or something similar).
• The Manga and Welcome sections are extremely short. Sections like this should either be expanded or merged into other sections.

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A comment on the "plot holes" question: The first question, of course, is what is the basis for calling these "plot holes". If the basis for calling these plot holes is that some editor noticed an inconsistency then that is original research (i.e. it doesn't matter if these really are plot holes; the labeling of them as such must be based on the observations of an authoritative source). In general I would tend to argue that such a section is inappropriate anyway. If some recognized critics have argued that there are plot holes it is probably best to simply include these criticisms as part of a section discussing critical reception. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like trivial plot holes. Anyway, I removed it.

---

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 been working on it for a while now and i believe it is at a close to done point. The list is complete according to the Smithsonian website but i would like some input into the categories of the table and the other sections. Any other input would be great as well.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Mostly OK, a few points needing attention

• A disambiguation link needs fixing (Portraiture)
• Alt text missing from all images.
• Linking: Arts and Industries Building linked twice in lead. National Zoological Park is not linked. Some unnecessary linking of everyday terms, e.g. Design, Visitor center, zoo.
• The list itself looks impressive. One small quibble is that the "Date opened" heading should read "Year opened".
• The years themselves would look better if they were centered in their column, and the column itself is unnecessarily wide.
• For the benefit of non-American readers it might be worth including a phrase which explains that the National Mall is an area running between the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument.
• MOS point: bolding should not appear in the text.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have fixed most of what you suggested. still working on a few more points.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara As promised...

• "List of Smithsonian Museums" vs. "List of Smithsonian museums" — Is "Smithsonian Museum" a title given to a museum or does just mean a museum who is affiliated with the Smithsonian? Although, I wouldn't move the article just on my account (as I'm not sure myself), I think a second opinion on this would be desirable.
• Flipping some the locations in table might read better (For example: "Anacostia, Washington, D.C." instead of "Washington, D.C. (Anacostia)"). If you do add a phrase explaining where the National Mall is (per above comments), I'd drop "Washington, D.C" from "Washington, D.C. (National Mall)" and indicate the museum's location as just "National Mall.
• I'd mention somewhere in lead that most of the museums are located around the National Mall, but a few are in New York City and Virginia.
• I would't italicize the two museums that are closed or not yet built as it's indicated in the table that they are different.
• Using {{Panorama}} for the satellite photo might be useful. Also, I'd indicate what number each museum is in the photo's caption instead of the prose.

​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am working on the suggestions you have given me. Got quite a few done but still some small (and not so small) things left to do. Thanks again!--Found5dollar (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing... i did a little research and i can not find an official place on the Smithsonian website where the term "Smithsonian Museums" is stated to check if it is capitalized or not. After a quick google search though it seems that most news sources refer to them as "Smithsonian Institution museums." I'm not sure if that means that the page should move there or if the "M" should be lowercase, or if it means nothing what so ever. --Found5dollar (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move it if it's not used with capitalization, worst case it'll be moved back. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SO should i move it to "List of Smithsonian museums" or "List of Smithsonian Institution museums?"--Found5dollar (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'd say just Smithsonian, per WP:COMMONNAME, as I rarely hear anyone refer to it with its full title in just everday conversation. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I moved the page, but now this peer review does not connec tto the new talk page... help?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with Ruhrfisch, who knows the inner workings of PR better than I. Redirects where set up for the article and its talk page automatically when it was moved, however the links to its history don't work anymore. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

• I fixed the link from the article's (new) talk page. Since most of PR is handled by two bots, PR pages are not generally moved. There is a "page=" parameter to add to the PR template that fixes the link to the old name. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would replace the word "Currently" with something like "As of 2010" or indicate the year when the current condition began. For example in the list itself where it reads "Currently closed...", I would instead use "Closed since YEAR..." or "As of 2010, closed...". It is also used in the lead.
• Could the anticipated completion date of the National Museum of African American History and Culture be given somewhere?
• I was also wondering if "Half of the National Museum of Asian Art" could be expressed better? Perhaps "Part of the National Museum of Asian Art" or even "One part of the National Museum of Asian Art, along with X" where X is the other museum
• Would it make sense to add what the other numbers are to the caption of the aerial view of the Mall? After the museums are identified, could it then say something like "Other Washington DC landmarks which are not part of the Smithsonian include: 1) The Washington Monument, ...
• Since all but three of the museums are in Washington DC, should this be stated earlier in the lead? In the first paragraph even?
• I think I would also explicitly state the number of museums in DC but not on the mall.
• The MOS says numbers under ten should be spelled out in most cases (2 is used where I think two should be)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! i will work on alot of this.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed a list article before, but this one looks good. May need more annotation for 'Type of Collection' column before submitting to FLC. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I started this page on a whim when I noticed it was a red link, and I had Ashbrook on hand. It is not a well-known Donizetti opera, mostly because it was never performed. It is significant, though, because it is connected with the failure of the opera company Donizetti was working with in Paris and marked Donizetti's return to Italy. I'd like to get this to FA. I believe it is comprehensive; it is on the short side, but I exhaustively researched it at home and at a music library. I think I've included all available information on this opera. I'd like specific feedback on the chronology of the "Contract" heading; it was my bugbear for a while. I'd also appreciate comment on the placement of the "Differences" heading; should it be part of "Reworking"? Any other general comments welcome.

Thanks, Andy Walsh (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:- It is good to see this much detail on an intriguing foonote to the Donizetti repertoire. Additional facts are hard to find, though I did manage to prise one small nugget out; evidently, L'ange was chosen by Théâtre de la Renaissance in preference to Wagner's Liebesverbot (Fauser, Annegert (2009): Music, Theater and Cultural Transfer: Paris 1830-1914, Chicago University Press, p. 233)

Further points:

• Lead
  • An English translation of the title (presumably "The Angel of Nisida") would be useful for non-French speakers.
  • Awkwardly phrased and constructed sentence: "He planned to give it in France owing to the potential difficulty getting its subject matter, involving the mistress of a Neapolitan king, past Italian censors." What does "give it" mean ("present it"}? The sentence should be reworked along the lines of "Because the subject matter involved the mistress of a Neapolitan king, and may thus have caused difficulties with the Italian censors, Donizetti decided that the opera should be presented in France."
• Background
  • The first two sentences could be contracted to "L'ange de Nisida incorporated many of the manuscript pages from Adelaide, an unfinished score that Donizetti was probably working on in 1834, from a libretto of unknown origin. This libretto contained elements from the 1790 Parisian play...etc" - thereby removing repetitions.
  • The reference to La Fiancee du Tyrol should be explained - what was this?
• Composition: the first part of this section is repetitious; we were told in the previous section when Donizetti began work on the opera, so this section could begin "Donizetti completed L'ange on 27 December 1839..."
• Contract and cancellation
  • "no language" sounds a bit stilted; "nothing" sounds more natural.
  • What is the basis of the financial conversion?
  • The theatre company closed "later in January", but "it" closed completely in May 1840. What does "it" refer to, if not the theatre company?
• Reworking
  • "The plot of L'ange would have been controversial in Italy due to its subject matter dealing with a Neapolitan king and his mistress, and likely censored." This info has already been given in the Background section. All that's necessary here is: "To circumvent the Italian censors Donizetti agreed to plot modifications; La favorite is about a medieval King of Castille."
  • Clarify that "Donizetti's autograph" refers to La favorite. The terminology "autograph" may be unfamiliar to some readers, so I suggest a link.
  • I'm confused by this: "the legend that Donizetti actually composed the last act of La favorite in a single night by "lifting" all of its material from L'ange." You don't compose something by "lifting" it from somewhere else, you either compose or lift. My understanding of the legend is that Donizetti was said to have composed the act in a single sitting when, in fact, he lifted it from L'ange, except for two solo passages. That's what Ashbrook says in his Oxford Music Online article, and this seems to be confirmed by your next sentence.
• Synopsis
  • "Sylvia"? It's "Silvia" in the list of roles.
  • "A Monk appears..." Why capitalise?
  • Second para, last two sentences: it's not always clear to whom "he" is referring
  • Last para; it is not clear why Sylvia is asking Leone for forgiveness. The reference to her being "near death" is a bit sudden; was this not indicated earlier in the opera?
• Differences
  • "Ashbrook has compared the surviving autograph score of L'ange de Nisida with that of La favorite in the interest of understanding precisely how much material L'ange provided for the latter." Rather cumbersomely expressed; could be shortened to: "Ashbrook has compared the surviving autograph scores of L'ange de Nisida and La favorite, to determine precisely how much material L'ange provided for the latter."
  • It's a bit confusing to say "Donizetti changed the first half of La favorite dramatically." I don't know how to interpret "dramatically" in that context. I am guessing that what is meant is that for La favorite, Donizetti made fundamental changes in the first half of the story, and if this is so the text should be reworded to that effect.
• References: More detail required of the recording from which Marston's album notes are quoted.

I hope this is helpful. I saw nothing basically wrong with the Contract section chronology - my comments on that section are as shown. "Differences" doesn't seem worth a section of its own and could easily be absorbed into "Reworking". Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I will work on addressing your comments in the following couple days. I hope you enjoyed reading about the opera. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. I realized the fault in my 19th-century Franc to modern Euro conversion was that the web site I used was based on American inflation rates. I had converted the 5000 francs into modern Francs, and then converted those to Euros. Anyway you cut it, two conversions need to be done, and then it's only accurate to the year Francs moved to Euros. What a mess. I removed the conversion until I can find a reliable method of calculating it. Anyway, thanks again! --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's had only a small number of editors working on it, and I think both I and the editor who has provided most of the content would like a few more to take a look. In particular, advice on how it might be raised to GA (or even FA) level would be appreciated.

Thanks, Camembert (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• There are no disambiguation links in the article which is always good, and the external links are all working.
• I'd recommend archiving all of the online references in case the webpages are taken down at a later date; that way the sources remain even if the original content does not. Web Cite is a quick and easy to use option, and with only 16 online sources it shouldn't take too long to do. They can be slid into the citation templates using the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters.
• Looks like all three of the images used in the article are missing alt text; this is used for readers who are blind and require programs to describe the images for them. That addition will be a must for any FAC should you take it that far. You'll also need specific rationale for fair-use images (how does their use significantly aid the reader's comprehension of the subject?)
• The audio sample needs a specific rationale for the article in addition to the general rationale automatically added with the upload. I'm not entirely sure why it's tagged as needing a smaller version; since the song runs for 10:10 and the sample is :28, it should fall under the guidelines imposed.
• Most of the references look good, but authors should be added where applicable. You may want to link the sources where possible (ex. Allmusic, The Guardian, and so on). Works that are only online, such as Allmusic, should not be in italics; you may want to consider using "publisher" in place of "work" in the references for those. Additionally, I'm not sure how reliable a source Discogs is considered to be; you may want to find an alternative for those.
• Everything in the lead should also be mentioned elsewhere in the article, so you may want to move the "Holy Grail information" down to Legacy.
• Finally (and last point from me), is there enough in the way of reviews to create a section for Reception? That would, I think, help add to the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of my first attempts at writing a comprehensive article on a fictional topic, so I am interested in getting feedback on any shortfalls. I'm somewhat out of my comfort zone in writing syopsis/plot sections and alt text in particular, so advice on that particularly appreciated. I hope to nominate the article for featured status if all goes well. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I thought I'd take a brief look at this and then perhaps review it later in the day. However, I was immediately drawn in. I suppose this has something to do with the subject matter, but it also has something to do with the high quality of the prose. Nice job. I have only a few suggestions.

• The alt text looks fine, and there are no dead links or disambiguation problems.
• The images look fine. However, the source link on the license page for the cover-art image doesn't link to the source; it links only to the image. To make it easier for fact-checkers to verify the source, the link should go to the page from which the image was copied.

Lead

• "Hotel Chevalier is a short film by director Wes Anderson, released in 2007." - Since Anderson wasn't released in 2007, I'd think about recasting this opening sentence. Suggestion: "Hotel Chevalier is a short film directed by Wes Anderson and released in 2007."
• I'd consider splitting the single paragraph in two between "500,000 times" and "Hotel Chevalier".
• "The film garnered near-universal critical acclaim, with reviewers praising its richness, poignancy and careful construction, and comparing it favorably with The Darjeeling Limited." - I think it's generally best to avoid using "with" as a conjunction, especially multiple times in the same article. Suggestion: "The film garnered near-universal acclaim from reviewers, who compared it favorably with The Darjeeling Limited and praised its richness, poignancy, and careful construction."

Synopsis

• "showing the woman perched against an armoire" - Wikilink armoire?
• "After they step out on the balcony together" - Tighten by deleting "together"?

Background and production

• "It was shot by a crew of 15 using Panavision film stock" - Wikilink film stock?
• "The dialogue exchanged by the characters at the end of Chevalier... ". - Perhaps "between the characters" instead of "exchanged by the characters"?
• "is recounted by Schwartzman's characters to his brothers at the close of the feature film" - Should this be "is recounted by Whitman to his brothers... "?
• "Portman's character has a brief cameo" - Wikilink cameo?

Release

• "A press release posted before the première "the brief coda to a doomed romance and the prologue to The Darjeeling Limited"." - Missing word or words? Perhaps "A press release posted before the première described it as, "the brief coda... "?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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 advance of a featured article candidacy. It was listed as a good article last month, and I have made a few changes since. This includes the redistribution of content from a stubby section to other larger sections. I would appreciate a copyedit as I have reached my limit of good writing.

Thanks, Arsonal (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems close to FA quality. I have a few suggestions for further improvement, but this is a very nice article.

Lead

• "Japanese high school students training to become astronauts in the early twenty-first century" - Maybe "21st century" rather than "twenty-first" since other two-digit numbers in the article appear as digits?
• "a disaster that causes a high number of civilian casualties" - Perhaps "many" rather than "a high number of"?

Story

• "causing a high number of casualties" - "Many" rather than "a high number of"?
• "the public accuse those involved" - I believe "public", like "group" is singular, and that the verb should be "accuses".

Main characters

• "Their friendship develops in several short stories prior to serialization as Twin Spica, where he nurtures Asumi's interest in space throughout her childhood." - I think you mean that the nurturing occurs in the short stories rather than in Twin Spica. Since the preceding sentence makes clear that the short stories preceded serialization, could this sentence be re-cast as "Their friendship develops in several short stories in which, throughout her childhood, he nurtures Asumi's interest in space"?
• Should Asumi actually be referred to as Kamogawa on second and subsequent references? Using the last name for men (Yaginuma and Fuchūya, for example) and the first name for women (Asumi and Marika, for example) reveals a (probably unconscious and traditional) gender bias. In addition, the men are not consistently referred to in the article by surname on subsequent use; I think these uses should be made consistent. Surnames (on second and subsequent use) are the norm in Wikipedia articles, per WP:SURNAME. Exceptions exist, for names in direct quotations from sources, for example.

• Subsequent usage of Kou Yaginuma's name does follow the policy you cite. It is somewhat difficult to apply this to fictional characters as, oftentimes, manga and anime stories have characters of the same family, so using only the family name may be confusing. (See List of Twin Spica characters.) WikiProject Anime and manga has been following the principle of writing character names the way they are referred to in reliable sources. It wasn't intended to be separated according to gender. Shū Suzuki, for example, is subsequently written with given name only. Arsonal (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "When she decides to apply into the Tokyo Space Academy... ". - Maybe "to apply for admission to" rather than plain "into"?
• "Shū Suzuki, who is named student representative for the astronaut program, is portrayed with an easygoing personality and possesses a distinctive facial appearance without his eyebrows." - This makes it sound as if he takes his eyebrows off from time to time. Suggestion: "Shū Suzuki, who is named student representative for the astronaut program, has an easygoing personality. Born without eyebrows, he has a distinctive face."
• "After three years in the astronaut program, Asumi is chosen out of eleven remaining students to take part in Japan's second human spaceflight mission,[25] making her the youngest person to go into space at the age of eighteen." - Modify slightly to "After three years in the astronaut program, Asumi is chosen out of eleven remaining students to take part in Japan's second human spaceflight mission,[25] making her, at the age of eighteen, the youngest person to go into space"?

Writing

• "estimated at an average of 10 million miles (16 million km)." - I added the metric equivalent, but the basic statistic needs a source. Who says the average is 10 million miles?

• That sentence and the one after it use the same reference, which I have made more specific. The relevant quotations have also been added. Arsonal (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Comic Flapper is redlinked in the lead, I don't think I'd redlink it here.

Manga

• The Manual of Style suggests keeping images within the section they relate to. Image:Comic Flapper September 2009.jpg overlaps two sections. You can probably fix this by moving the image up and shortening the caption, which is a bit too long in any case.

• The image somewhat links the Manga and Anime sections. The second sentence in the caption is mentioned in the Anime section. I think the current usage fulfills the non-free rationale, but if the second sentence were removed, I'm afraid that people would see it only as a decoration. Arsonal (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• I'm curious about the alternative way of connecting the stars in Virgo. To me, the diagram looks like twins joined at the hip. This makes sense, but I thought that the idea (if I've got it right) could be made explicit in the main text to good effect. It might also be possible to add something to the main text about the importance of the idea of twins or twinning in the series. Does the writer or any of the critics discuss the idea of twins directly?

• I have not seen any commentary about the significance of this rendition, though it is clearly different from the common way of drawing them. There aren't exactly any ideas about twins (there are none) or twinning, though the concept of using Spica is relevant to the theme of friendship. In a conversation from the first manga volume, Lion-san tells Asumi about Spica being a binary star. He says something along the lines of: "The two stars support each other. It will be a very long before either of them disappears." Asumi responds with the question: "You aren't going to disappear right? We'll be together for a long time right?" (Remember Lion-san is a ghost.) He answers, "Yeah, as long as there are stars in the sky." Lion-san does eventually leave in the penultimate chapter. Arsonal (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Your other suggestions have been implemented, as I find them more appropriate. Arsonal (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.indiantelevision.com/special/y2k5/kidsgender.htm
      • Indiantelevision.com is a long-time web source conducting research on the Indian media industry. It sponsors the annual Indian Telly Awards, and its data have been cited by various print publications. Arsonal (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://animealmanac.com/2009/10/16/interview-how-vertical-owned-the-nyaf/
      • The information cited from this reference is not the opinion of the writer itself, but rather quotes from the interviewee Ed Chavez, which is the marketing director of Vertical, the licensing company. If there is concern with the possibility of misquoting, the writer of Anime Almanac has been cited by notable manga critic Deb Aoki. Chavez and Aoki have previously been considered reliable individuals to reference. Arsonal (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/flipped_david_welsh_interviews_verticals_ed_chavez_on_their_new_announcemen/
      • The Comics Reporter is a website by writer Tom Spurgeon. The writer of this specific article, David Welsh, is also a writer whose work has been published by BusinessWeek, among others. You can see a previous assessment of the site's reliability in WikiProject Anime and manga's list of online sources. Arsonal (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av010/060119launch.html
      • Spaceflight Now is the sister site of UK magazine Astronomy Now. If this is not enough to prove reliability, the reference is easily replaceable as the information it cites is not exclusive. Arsonal (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone, I've listed "City of Blinding Lights" as a peer review request for several reasons. The article has recently undergone a major revamp in an attempt to bring it up to a decent standard quality. Once the major reconstruction was finished I listed it as a Good Article nominee, and it passed with flying colours. Looking at some of the current examples, I think that the article is now at a place where it could potentially become an FA, but before nominating I would like some feedback on how you think the article currently stands. Is there a section I'm missing? Some detail that needs to be added? Is the prose confusing or badly worded? Is there any part of it that needs tightening up? Are the citations all reliable? Are the soundclip rationale and alt text appropriate? Any and all feedback that can be provided on any aspect of this article is very much appreciated.

Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! The article tells me everything I could imagine knowing. I do half wonder, not coincidentally since I've been the primary editor of The Devil Wears Prada, if anyone has noted in a way that we can use that the song's use in that movie evokes the same themes as Bono says the lyrics do, but in a more downbeat fashion ("I see you in the clothes you made ... What happened to the beauty inside of you?" has a more accusatory meaning in the film, since Andy has just been accused by Emily of selling her soul). At the very least it might be interesting to add the sourced bit from the DVD commentary in the DWP article, where the director, David Frankel, says he fought for the song in the soundtrack after using it in a montage of scenes he shot during location in Paris.

I don't have the Devil Wears Prada DVD on hand but I do think that it would add a bit more to the article. I'm not sure how well the accusatory meaning could be sourced, but if you could add in the bit about how hard David Frankel worked to include the song it would be very much appreciated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; I reworded what you put in The Devil Wears Prada film article and modified the reference so that it now includes the director's commentary track. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all you really need; I think that a director's reasons for using a certain song in a movie are encyclopedic enough to include in an article about the song, especially when that use of the song has been repeated in an episode of a popular TV show taking off on the movie. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now that I think about it ... you may want to find some way to add a free image there won't be any doubt about before you go to FA. Not only could the picture taken at the Wachovia Center show stand to be cropped in a bit, it may potentially not be a free image since the ticket terms usually preclude commercial reuse of any pictures taken. Perhaps there's some free images of the younger and contemporary Bono you could use?

Cropped as suggested; I don't think that the images will be of too much concen; U2 has always been very open about allowing their fans to take and use images, and live concert shots haven't been much of a problem in previous FACs for U2 and No Line on the Horizon. If a problem does come up then I guess I can always substitute it for this image; since the image is in the public domain I thought it would be a good way of helping to visualize the music video without actually taking a screenshot. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever U2 thinks about it doesn't matter legally ... the venue sets the rules, usually. I admit there's some disagreement over this here ... some people believe that no one else can restrict your ability to license your own image as you see fit, provided there's no third-party copyright involved; while my side of this points out that attending a concert or sporting event is a purely voluntary act and doing so gives assent to the terms under which your ability to selectively copyright an image is limited. The problem is that those policies were instituted to prevent people making direct commercial use of those images for their or their employers' own personal gain; no one anticipated an environment whereby people would make those images free for commercial reuse by others without any expectation of compensation themselves. It's a legal gray area.

But, in any event, you've addressed it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of young Bono from 1983 added to be safe (good idea of including it since a similar image was an inspiration for the theme). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to write a section that sort of takes a reader through the song (I might be willing to write one if you find that difficult). Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider doing a section that takes the reader through the song, but other song-related FACs haven't contained them in the past and I couldn't think of anyway that it could be properly sourced.

Thanks for all of your feedback so far! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days I would have said well, we can cite the CD. But now we have this at Ilike, which to my understanding is done with the copyright holders' permission so it's OK by WP:EL. (I really don't see why song articles don't have narrative descriptions of the song ... one of my favorite Beatles' books, Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, has some great ones in this department. At the very least we can tell people what instruments they're hearing (although I can see where things might get subjective and run afoul of WP:OR). Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, would you be willing to write it for the article? It sounds like a good idea but I'm not particularly sure how it would be done. You seem to have some experience with it. If it is just the instruments though, isn't that already covered in the Personnel section at the bottom? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I would start it:

{{quote|The song begins with a single electric guitar harmonic that slowly builds to feedback. After several seconds, a rhythm guitar part begins, playing an alternating pattern of chords and muffled strings, and then a piano begins playing a nine-note descending theme. [Whatever number of seconds it is], a lead guitar begins playing the chorus [[melody line. Then the vocals begin ... (and so forth)}}

Think that format would work? Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that format would work pretty well taking care not to stray into OR. What section would you be puting it into? Composition or a new one? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the stuff at WP:SONGS, which does say "write a description of the song", I see that creating a separate section with the word "song" in it is discouraged (why? At WP:WPARCH, we have no problem with a section headed "Building" describing the building), so I will just start that under composition and theme, probably giving the music and lyrics separate subsections.

One of my ideas that also ties into the image thing is something that I think we could do with song articles more ... use a free image to illustrate the words. For example, in the U2 song department, "Until the End of the Worl" wouldn't be hurt by adding an actual image of Gethsemane. And who says we can't have a little stacked image, in "Beautiful Day", of Bedouin fires at night or oil fields at first light, if we can get those images?

So I'm thinking about how we could illustrate a lyric from the song ... probably by taking one of our many New York City skyline at night photos and running it through a star filter and pumping up the highlights to express that "city of blinding lights" idea (it's otherwise not an easy song to illustrate: "Neon heart dayglow eyes/ City lit by fireflies"? I'm at a loss). Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look through and I have to admit that I'm already quite partial to these two images; this one of the Brooklyn Bridge, which the band played under (as noted in the article), and this image of Manhattan. I think that both bring across the "city of blinding lights" part and they both have relevance to other parts of the article (I somehow don't think that images of a banner advertisement being dragged by an airplane {We're advertising in the skies} or a clown laughing {Don't look before you laugh} would illustrate it quite so well, =P). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I LOVE that pic of the bridge. Let me see if later today I can give it some dazzle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've added a star-filter effect to the Midtown pic per this tutorial as it was smaller (the bridge photo is an 11MB panorama; it will take more time). Unfortunately I can't upload at the moment because of the server upgrade. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'm looking forward to seeing it! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a few edits, I just added the pic, gave it the chorus as a caption, and wrote that expanded narrative description of the song to give the images and quote box more room without squeezing so much text. I hope you like it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that you did with the song description and the image. It's added quite a lot to the article and it looks much better as a result. I can't thank you enough for all that you've done! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this for featured article status in the future.

Thanks, Besu (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

• Three links lead to disambiguation pages (Ca Mau, Veracity, and Yuan); find the page you're trying to link to and change it so that the reader is directed there.
• Looks like you've got at least four dead links. Those will need to be replaced or repaired.
• Most of the references look like they need some sort of formatting. It'll take some time to do considering the number that are present, but it needs to be done if you intend to nominate for FAC. Try using the templates available on WP:CITET; they are fairly easy to use. Remember that you'll need the link (all currently present), the title, the source, the date, the author (if mentioned), and the accessdate.
• Some links in the prose need formatting so that they appear in the references section (ex. [15] in documented cases).
• There are a couple of {{citation needed}} tags in the article that need sources added.
• Is there an applicable infobox that could be added?
• The automated peer reviewer tip box suggests some examples of weasel-wording and inconsistent use of either British or American english. Take a look through the article and ask somebody to copyedit if need be.
• I'd suggest some work done on the sections; perhaps as follows:

==Reasons for removal==

===Medicine and psychology===

===Assault===

• I don't think that you need all of those examples that are currently present; it comes across as being very listy and ultimately doesn't add a lot to the article to have so many examples. I'd recommend merging it from bulleted points to prose and eliminate the majority of what is there. Keep some of the more notable examples such as Napolean, Grigori Rasputin (citation needed), and the first successful penis replantation (citation needed). Better yet, merge those examples into the appropriate sections above to help illustrate the medicinal/assault cases. As for what's left, I'd suggest to either get rid of them or merge them into an article called "List of cases of penis removal" (or some such thing) and then place that list under the "See also" section. The former would probably be the better option though. Almost all of these cases are from the last 20 years; I'd like to see some more historical examples added to the prose to give the article more balance and depth.
• The lead should be a general overview of the entire article. I'd recommend bumping what you have down into a new section (say "History") and then re-write the lead from scratch.
• Cut down on what's presently in the "See also" section; that should only detail related articles that aren't already linked in the text, so pages such as Lorena Bobbit should be removed.
• I'm not sure whether those external links are needed or not, but I'm inclined to think not; they might fail WP:ELNO. The first should be removed since it adds no worthwhile information to the topic at hand, and the third seems to be more about some person's sex life than anything that's really relevant to the article. I think only the IMDb link could potentially stay.
• As for whether an image is needed... I'll let other editors decide on that one (I'm a bit too squeamish to try hunting around for one that could be used)!
• I'd recommend going through the good article nomination process first and building on their comments before heading towards FA.

I hope that this helps, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan to nominate this for featured status soon. I need a review of the prose, comprehensiveness, and any minor/major issues that stand in the way. Thank you very much for your time. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Standardize your Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations (Mainly, they should both be italicised.)
  • Current ref 81 (Velde..) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've removed the "arms" section; none of the sources I have available mention her arms, nor do they confirm the date on which they were conferred. It's a shame, but not a great loss to the article. ODNB refs standardised. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I feel that this is a very strong article. The only comprehensiveness issue I had, which was about Princess Alice's hospital work, I mentioned to you on Skype. The prose is quite good - I've included any issues I saw below. The most serious issue is the images, which need a great deal more information.

• Alice's education was devised by Albert's close friend and adviser, Baron Stockmar. - I expected more information about Alice's education to follow this sentence in the lead - it is a little cryptic right now.

• Her life in Darmstadt was unhappy as a result of impoverishment, family tragedy and worsening relations with her husband and mother. - "impoverished" is a little misleading, I think - Can we find a better way to express what happened to her economically?

• Alice was a prolific patron of women's causes, especially nursing, and was a follower of Florence Nightingale. - Can one be a "follower" of Nightingale? That sounds more like how one would describe religion.

• Why were Alice and the Prince of Wales so close?

• Alice became her mother's unofficial secretary, and for the next six months, the physical representation of the monarch - The representation to the public? I feel like something is missing here.

• For the ceremony, Alice wore a white dress with a veil of Honiton lace, but was required to wear black mourning clothes before and after the ceremony. - "required" sounds a bit odd here

• There are several quotations about the funereal nature of the wedding - would one do?

• Alice wrote back to her mother that "I believe the people never gave so hearty a welcome",[33] while her sister Helena wrote that "nothing could have been more enthusiastic than her entry into Darmstadt was″. - Perhaps just one quote or a paraphrase?

• In 1863, she travelled to England for the marriage of her brother, the Prince of Wales, to Princess Alexandra of Denmark, and delivered her first child, Victoria Alberta Elizabeth Matilda Marie, on 5 April in the presence of Queen Victoria. - Sentence needs to be rewritten to fix pronoun referent problem.

• Furthermore, the realisation by the Queen that Alice had found true happiness and would therefore be visiting England less began the difficult relations between mother and daughter that would continue until Alice's death. - Awkward sentence

• In 1866, Vienna called for Berlin to hand over the joint Habsburg-Hohenzollern administration to the Augustenborg family. - Could we name the governments in question?

• On 11 July, she gave birth, and when Prussian troops were on the verge of entering Darmstadt, she begged the Grand Duke to surrender on Prussia's terms. - This is a little confusing - were the Prussians knocking while she was in labor?

• One general's hysterical behaviour angered Alice after he rushed into a hospital shouting "The Prussians are coming, every man for himself" at 1 am. - Is this really necessary?

• Alice wrote to her mother, who in turn wrote to Victoria, who responded that there was nothing she could do to relieve the "painful and distressing position darling Alice was in" as it was "one of the unavoidable results of this dreadful war". - I wonder whether this quote is necessary - it doesn't add much.

• After the Prince's recovery, the Queen was anxious that the credit for his recovery should be focused on the Princess of Wales, rather than Alice - "focused on" seems like an odd phrase

• Any quotes with italics should probably indicate "emphasis in original".

• However, her continued unpopularity in Darmstadt, coupled with her mother not wanting her in England, caused strain, and she and her children spent July and August in Houlgate, Normandy, where Louis often visited them. - Awkward sentence

• There are a lot of quotations in the "Grand Duchess" - I would reduce them.

• There are some portraits looking off the page rather than towards the text.

• Whatever those weird numbers are in the family tree should be identified somehow.

• Not all of the notes have "p".

• Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Letters to Her Majesty the Queen. London: John Murray. 1885. - This reference can have an author.

• Martin, Theodore (1908). Queen Victoria as I knew her. W. Blackwood. - Needs a publication location.

• File:Princess Alice reclining1.jpg - Needs a death date for the author to establish "life of the author plus 70 years" and it is best to link to the HTML link rather than the JPG link per WP:IUP.

• File:Alice e victoria em osborn.jpg - Needs an English description. Since there is no author, the current license isn't valid. You either need to find the author or establish the information for anonymous authorship and publication.

• File:Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse-Darmstadt and by Rhine.jpg - Since the author is not listed, the license is not valid. You either need to find the author or establish the information for anonymous authorship and publication.

• File:Princess Alice with her husband, Prince Louis of Hesse.jpg - Since there is no author, the current license isn't valid. You either need to find the author or establish the information for anonymous authorship and publication. It is best to link to the HTML link rather than the JPG link per WP:IUP.

• File:The Hessian family in 1876.jpg - Needs a death date for the author to establish "life of the author plus 70 years".

• File:AliceHesse.jpg - Needs a date, source, and author.

• All images need alt text.

I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and apologies for getting to this so late. The snow knocked out the street's internet connection for the last four days, hence the delay. Done some of the images but I'll get to the rest soon. Thanks again for your comprehensive review, Awadewit. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 at a loss as to how to proceed to improve the article yet further. I've had a look at those FAs within the category of Awards, decorations and vexillology and would welcome pointers as to how to raise this article to a similar standard.

Thanks, Endrick Shellycoat 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Excellent and informative summary article, subject to a few minor points as listed.

• One dablink needs fixing - use box in top left of this review page to identify
• Images need alt text; see WP:ALT
• Capitalisation: some words should be capitalised only when forming part of formal titles, but not in the general text. For example, "royal", "the" (as in "The Saltire", "The Sovereign) should not generally be capitalises ("royal emblem", "royal residences", "the Saltire", "the Sovereign" etc) Please check through the article for capital usage.
• The lead gives three names for the Royal Standard of Scotland, and uses all of them, apparently indiscriminately. Would it not be better to refer to the Standard consistently by one of its names?
• Design: Brilliant! the clearest translation of heraldic gobbledygook I've seen. But perhaps the History section should come first, so we have an idea of who was responsible for this design
• History: I've done some minor prose tweaks in second paragraph.
• Use at royal residences: "royal" should not be capitalised in section heading. The parenthetical content should be made into a grammatical sentence, and the parentheses are not necessary.
• Use by royal representaives: shouldn't this be "Use by the Sovereign's representatives"? It is she they are representing.
• Use by the Heir Apparent: It would be better for the reader if at this stage, rather than later, you identified this duke as Prince Charles.
• National Flag of Scotland: I have removed a bit of wordiness. Perhaps you could give, say, one example of the "certain exceptions" with which the section currently ends.
• Images: File:Alexander II (Alba) ii.JPG has the wrong licence - should be PD-US not PD-old (image published in the US before 1923)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your time and effort re. all of the above; very much appreciated. I'll attend to your recommendations A.S.A.P. Regards Endrick Shellycoat 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 outsiders' opinion on how to improve this list so that it could receive the featured list rating. Also, any help with referencing would be appreciated.

Thanks, Timbouctou (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The structure of the table is good, although I'm not sure about the way nationality is done. The columns should be clearly labelled, and I'm not sure if the three letter codes on their own adequately explain the flag. One solution would be to use a key explaining the shorter codes, another would be to use the full country names in these columns too.

• The images and captions are fine, although they need alternative text. And perhaps File:Copa Intercontinental (MAG).JPG could go in the lead?

• A main concern at FLC would be the lack of inline citation in the lead. My suggestions for citations would be:
  • Citations for the various rule changes over the years. You might do this by using one source several times, by using <ref name=rules>{{citeweb|url=...}}</ref> the first time, and simply adding <ref name=rules/> to subsequent statements.
  • A citation where it is stated that specific venues hosted the competition in specific year ranges.
  • Citation for "The competition was then discontinued and merged into the FIFA Club World Championship which was held for the first time in 2005."

• It should also be explained that winners of the Champions League/European Cup did not always enter.

• The dashes in the table should all be centrally aligned.

• Personally I feel that this is a worthwhile list, but I think some others might have a different view at FLC. Be prepared to justify why this needs to be a stand-alone list if asked.

Hope these comments help. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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, and am looking for any rough spots in the prose (what there is of it), anything that doesn't make sense to the non-horseperson, and any ideas for things that would make the context clearer.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This one is easy, quite clear to a non-horseperson. The bishops are tougher than the horses.

• The image needs alt text.

• "Quarter Horse" links to a dab.

Lead

• "She won $28,725.00 ($228,598 in 2010) on the racetrack as well as 17 races." - It might be more clear to say "(equivalent to $228,598 in 2010)". Also, would $28,725 be better than $28,725.00? You omit the cents further down in the article.

Pedigree

• The footnotes after Miss Myers in the chart should be flipped from [8][1] to [1][8].

Citations

• Citations 6 and 7 need publication dates and dates of most recent access, or maybe it's just that the publication dates should be added to the corresponding references in the Reference section.

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

this is my first major article creation and I've worked pretty hard on it...i want help in geography, transport and politics and governance.... Thanks, Nirvanareborn(TeenSpirit) 15:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: not a review, but a few comments on images.

• Too many for a short article. You have image location problems anyway, due to the enormous infobox. Some of your left-aligned images could easily go, for example the signboard, and perhaps one or other of the statue or the war memorial.
• The images are generally too tiny.
• Your image placement at present squeezes all the text between images and infobox
• The answer, I believe, is to place all images except those in the infobox into a gallery at the end of the article. This would solve the squeeze problem and would enable you to display the photographs at a larger size. See WP:GALLERY
• You will need to write alt text for all the images that you retain. See WP:ALT

By the way, if this is your first article it's not a bad job (I'm glad you can't see mine) Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks a lot. i've added the alt text. increased image size a bit too. but all city articles i've seen rarely seem to have any galleries. the only problem i have with this article is Pune cantonment is identified as a part of Pune so it is pretty difficult to get vital statistics about the population.thnx Newayz.Nirvanareborn(Teen Spirit) 08:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 find it's really progressed beyond its initial classification of B-class. I welcome whatever feedback.

Thanks, Haider2003 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and makes an enjoyable and illuminating read. I did some minor proofreading as I went, but another sweep by a different set of eyes would be a good idea. I have quite a few suggestions for further improvement.

• Whole paragraphs such as the last two in "Early military career" and the first one in "Judge of Mujibur Rahman's trial" are unsourced. My rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for each paragraph as well as any statistics, direct quotations, or claims that are apt to be questioned.

• Overlinking. - I'd suggest unlinking words like "General", "province", "policy", "civil unrest", "civil disorder", and "airfields" that most readers of English are familiar with. If too many things are linked, the links lose their effectiveness.

• Over-capitalization. - I don't think "mujahideen" should be capitalized except when it starts a sentence. Also, phrases like "military academy", "corps commander", "president of India", and "chief instructor" don't take capital letters unless they are part of a formal name such as Pakistan Military Academy. If too many things have capital letters, the capitals lose their effectiveness.

Term as martial law Governor of Balochistan

• "Prominent tribal sardars" - What is a "sardar"? Could this be linked or briefly explained in the text?
• "Forty million dollars were committed to the programme... " - Were those U.S. dollars or dollars in another currency? The currency should be specified.

Containment of Soviet-Afghan war refugees

• "heroin freely entered with the mujahideen, to pay for arms, as well as sophisticated weaponry itself" - How are "arms" different from "sophisticated weaponry"? Maybe this would be better as "heroin freely entered with the mujahideen to pay for weapons".

Mistaken identity in Al-Zulfikar hijack

• "The decision to kill Rahim was taken after consultations between Murtaza and KHAD chief Mohammad Najibullah[32] in view of this assumed relationship." - Perhaps KHAD should be briefly described as "KHAD, the secret police of Afghanistan," or whatever phrase is most appropriate. Also, "in view of this assumed relationship" is probably not necessary to say and could be deleted.

Resignation

• "He now resides in Rawalpindi with his wife Saqiba... " - "Now" is ambiguous because it refers to no particular time. Better would be something like "As of 2010, he resides in Ralwalpindi... ".

Legacy

• "As Cadet Number 1 of the Pakistan Military Academy who would later become Chairman Joint Chiefs, Rahimuddin's military uniform is displayed at the Academy's museum in Kakul for its historical significance." - Misplaced modifier. Since the uniform did not become Chairman, I'd suggest something along these lines: "Because Rahimuddin had been Cadet Number 1 of the Pakistan Military Academy before becoming Chairman Joint Chiefs, his military uniform is displayed at the Academy's museum in Kakul for its historical significance."

References

• Many of the citations are incomplete. For example, Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.
• Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens; e.g., 1970–71 rather than 1970-71.
• The abbreviation for a single page is p. but for multiple pages it is pp.

Other

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds several links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The fair-use image in the infobox has been tagged on its licensing page for reduction in size to meet the fair-use criteria. If you eventually take this article to GAN, for example, the image size may be questioned.
• It would probably be helpful to foreign readers to include a map of Pakistan that shows where Balochistan is in relation to Afghanistan and in relation to other provinces and major cities of Pakistan.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Need a peer review before nominating to featured list. Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Itzjustdrama

Lead

• The episodes follow Kazuki Muto who becomes an Alchemic warrior in the battle against monsters known as Homunculus.

  More of a clarification: is Homunculus the plural form?

Episodes

• Ep 1: I believe 16 year old is hyphenated (16-year-old).
• Flash back is one word (Flashback).
• Ep 2:

  She explains that Homunculus are created when a parasite called Homunculus matter attaches itself to an organism and take its brain turning it into a Homunculus.

  Is it possible to explain it better?
• Ep 3:

  After learning that the Homunculus creator is a student at Kazuki's school, the pair search for him but to no avail.

  I'm not a big fan of the second part of the sentence. There's nothing particularly wrong with it though. Maybe "the pair search for him and fail to find him". But I don't particularly like that either....

• A Plant Homunculus appears and prepares to finish Kazuki but is intervened by Tokiko who destroys the Homunculus.

  Same thing with this one. I'd suggest something like "A Plant Homunculus appears and prepares to finish Kazuki but Tokiko intervenes and destroys the Homunculus."
• Ep 4:

  will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus; A humanoid Homunculus with abilities

  Lowercase a.

I only got as far as episode 5. More comments later. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In general: Because Homunculi is the correct plural, make sure the rest of the article is correct.
• Make sure the phrase Alchemy Warriors is consistently capitalized throughout the article.
• Ep 6:

  He then proceeds to eat everyone around his vicinity until he is killed by Kazuki.

  I believe it would be better as "everyone in the vicinity".
• Ep 7:

  Kazuki, Tokiko and Bravo are then attacked by a Homunculus of the L.X.E. but is quickly dispatched by Bravo.

  "But it is", I suggest.
• Ep 8:

  Tokiko is able to avoid her classmates and kill the Homunculus freeing them from his control.

  Comma after Homunculus.
• Ep 15:

  The next day, they decide to head to the beach where Tokiko runs into Gouta Nakamura who tells her they will discuss something important later.

  Comma before who.
• Ep 17:

  Meanwhile, Gouta finds out a team led out by Alchemy Warrior Sekima Hiwatari is sent to confirm Kazuki's death.

  Instead of "finds out", I suggest "learns that".

I have to read the remaining 9 summaries. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the rest, and they look fine. Good luck on that FL! ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 17:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• With 9 DVDs for the Japanese release, you could split the Region 2 DVD release table in half and attribute the releases to Geneon. See List of Last Exile episodes for an example.
• The box release for the Japanese version can be stuck to a bigger table that encompasses all Japanese releases.

Done but I can't seem to fix the line at the end of the table.

• Region 2 should be changed to Japanese releases and Region 1 to North American releases.

Done.

• The episode summaries should be between 100 and 200 words with 150 words as a good medium. Most of the episode summaries are too short with episode 23 at 35 words. Episode 1 at 151 words is a good length to follow. Only 4 episodes (1, 2, 11 and 26) are over 100 words with eps 2 and 11 just barely over.

This would take me too long to fix so I guess this has to wait another day.

• All references with Japanese characters need to be translated using |trans_title=

Done, thanks for the review. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming for FL. I'd also appreciate a copy-edit too; my writing is usually worse than I think it is. Thanks, ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is typo in episode 2, the money sentence. Also is "New York City, Senator Beriam places the safety of the train's cargo over the safety of his family." relevant to the plot? That's all I could find. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The typo is no longer there. And I removed the sentence, I removed what became of that mini-sideplot before I moved it to mainspace.

Plot comments

Well I never watched the series so these things are new to me but there are a few things I don't understand.

• Episode 1"In 1932, New York City, the vice president of the Daily Days newspaper Gustav St. Germain and his assistant Carol are investigating loosely connected recent events and are attempting to choose a starting date, ranging from 1711 to the 1930s, and a main character from about twenty candidates." Events as in murders? And what is the candidate for?
  • The events are basically what happens in the series. Although, the episode only shows random snippets. I don't have any other way to describe other than "strange events". The candidates are for the main character, mentioned slightly before the phrase in the sentence.
  • Now says: "In 1932, New York City, the vice president of the Daily Days newspaper Gustav St. Germain and his assistant Carol are investigating a series of strange events and are attempting to choose a starting date, ranging from 1711 to the 1930s, and a main character from about twenty people."

• Episode 3, are, are the people going to visit the information broker parts significant?
  • Cut.

• Episode 4, "Nicholas, learns from Elean, another employee, that there is classified information on Dallas because he may be immortal." Not sure but Elean is immortal so he knows about Dallas?
  • Rearranged sentence to make it clearer. Says: "the two receptionists, Nicholas and Elean, discuss that the information on Dallas is classified because he may be immortal."

• "Meanwhile, Dallas attacks Barnes." Is this significant or could it be excluded till later?
  • It's actually mentioned earlier. I removed this specific mention.

• Episode 6, "Nick sees blood pooling out of another cabin. Ladd walks out of the cabin and refuses to take responsibility for the carnage in that cabin." This can be combined right?
  • Combined to say: "When Nick sees blood pooling out of another cabin, Ladd walks out of the cabin and refuses to take responsibility for the carnage in it."

• Episode 8, "Nice and Nick to search one half of the train while he and Donny search the other." Typo
  • Got it.

• Episode 9, "Dune walks in. The conductor, unable to get information he wants from Dune, decides to torture him." Could be combined?
  • Combined to say: "Dune walks in, and the conductor, unable to obtain any information from him, decides to torture Dune." Although I don't think that's the best way to combine it.

• Episode 13, is the blood alive?
  • No, but I really don't know how to stick that into the summary.
• "He explains Vino was born Claire Stanfield and was adopted by the Gandor." Is Claire Vino's true identity?
  • Fixed. Now says: "He explains that Vino's true identity is Claire Stanfield, adoptive brother of the Gandor."

• Overall, Is Isaac the same person as Issac? They both appear in the article more than once. Also, maybe some three word sentences would be combined with the sentence behind or in front of the previous ones.DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. They are; I just can't spell Isaac. I can't really find any short sentences. I might have missed them though. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

• Source 4's date should be changed. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 01:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I listed this article for peer review for GA-class as I think that an important piece of art such as this should get to superior quality. I would like to know what could be done for the article to get to this class.

Thank you. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga/archive1.

---

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 already a GA and I would like to attempt to nominate it for Featured Article. Since I've only done one FAC nom before and it wasn't successful, I'd like to see where improvements are needed here before a FA nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 18 needs a page number
    • The title of the book is the catchphrase that he coined; I would have thought this was sufficient...? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, it's just a reference to the entire book .. that's fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/ a reliable source?
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Current ref 32 is just a bare url, it needs title, publisher and last access date at the least.
  • Standardize whether you are italicizing website names or not.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Besides my comment, the above are all done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Clearly a lot of work has gone into this account of an intense baseball rivalry. The article seems comprehensive and is generally well-written. However, my main thought is that it has structural problems that stand between it and reaching FA. For one thing, the lead is not a good summary of the entire article. More importantly, the overview of the rivalry and its causes tend to get lost in the many details of individual heroics and individual seasons. To fix these problems, I would consider adding a new top section (just below the lead) about the rivalry and similar rivalries (moving some of the material in the lead to this new section) and moving the "Causes" section into the new section as well. After that could come the material about individual players, years, feuds, and dust-ups.

In addition, I would consider shortening some of the main text sections by eliminating details unrelated to the central idea of a rivalry. Here's an example from the Jim Bunning section: "Through the first four innings, Bunning totaled four strikeouts through twelve batters. In the fifth inning, Phillies second baseman Tony Taylor preserved the perfect game with his strong defensive play. A diving catch and a throw from the knees kept Mets catcher Jesse Gonder off of the bases." These details would be relevant to an article about Jim Bunning or an article about this particular game, but they seem unnecessary in an article about the rivalry. Ditto for details such as the fact that Bunning had seven children and threw his perfect game on Father's Day; that is interesting but seems to have nothing to do with the rivalry. It seems to me that Bunning's perfect game is relevant to the extent that it annoyed the Mets but that most of the material in the Bunning section is irrelevant. Another section that seems largely unnecessary is "1995–2000", which says almost nothing about the rivalry. Would it be useful to reduce this section to a couple of sentences and combine it with the one above it under the revised head, "1991–2000"?

My main suggestions are to trim unnecessary detail, alter the article's structure to emphasize the rivalry, and then re-write the lead. Here are a few more suggestions.

• Time: In the lead is a phrase, "which remains the only perfect game in Phillies history to this date". Using phrases like "to this date" (also things like "current streak" in the infobox) poses problems in an encyclopedia article since "now", "current", "today", and similar words describe no specific time. It's generally better to use language that doesn't have to be frequently updated to be accurate. Something like "through 2009" would be better than "to this date". Ditto for "in recent years" later in the lead.

• Layout: Images generally should not bump into or displace third-level heads or overlap two sections. See, for example, Jim Bunning and Mike Schmidt; both displace subheads. John Franco displaces an edit button and overlaps two sections. Some of the other images in the article violate one or the other of these guidelines. WP:MOS#Images has details.
  • Neither WP:MOS#Images nor WP:LAYOUT#Images say anything about these requirements. I have never heard this in any of the other featured content that I have written. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about Tug McGraw, racism, regional proximity, or William Shea, for example. The lead should not include important information that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead includes things like the curse of Billy Penn that don't appear in the main text.

References

• The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent, either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not a mixture of the two.

Bibliography

• The books need the place of publication.

Images

• The image of Tug McGraw is a bit odd in a couple of ways. It's unflattering; it's undated; it's awfully small (23 kb) for a self-made image; it's author, whose account on the Commons has apparently expired, might have incorrectly licensed the image as "public domain". I'd suggest looking for a replacement for this one.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 well-written, with a lot of detail regarding its conception and its various lyrical interpretations. In preparation of nominating it as a Good Article, I'd first like some fresh eyes to take a look at it and help revise it. I think that overall, there is no specific section to focus on, but rather, it needs a good amount of copy-editing as a whole (e.g. editing for concision and clarity).

Thanks, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is very good, interesting from beginning to end, and I enjoyed it. I don't think you'll have much trouble making GA. Here are my suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks very much for doing a review! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead should be a fair stand-alone summary of the whole article. I like to ask myself whether a lead I've written would suffice if the rest of the article were deleted. The existing lead is a bit shorter than normal for an article of this size. I think you'd be wise to expand to about three paragraphs that include more of the salient details. It's possible to go too far into detail; moderate expansion is what I have in mind.

I personally like light leads for shortish (this is less than 3,000 words) cultural articles, because to fully summarize about everything the article says will make it feel repetitive to actually read the article. (On long, 10,000 political BLPs I favor four long paragaphs in the lead, because there I think the situation is reversed.) I may be in the minority on this, though, so we'll see what others say. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotation marks. In the case of the two lines of lyrics, ordinary quotation marks would be preferred. I think you could simply say, "The lyric "I see seven towers / But I only see one way out" to start the sentence after the colon (which would then become a terminal period).

I've switched it from {{cquote}} to {{cquotetxt}}, which is supposed to provide 'ordinary' quote marks, as I understand it. But it's big formatted because it's the central quote of the article and the one that has caused all the mainstream press and book commentary on the song. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording

• "Bono heard a real story about a couple living in the Ballymun towers, with both the man and the woman being heroin addicts." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and sentences like this are often better if re-cast. Suggestion: "Bono heard a real story about a pair of heroin addicts, a man and a woman, who lived in the Ballymun towers."

So changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "in a room together without overdubs" - Wikilink overdub?

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

• "This compositional technique relies upon delayed gratification and is heard in a few other popular songs, such as The Cure's "Just Like Heaven" and George Michael's "One More Try"." - This may be true, but without a source it sounds like original research.

I had the cite at the time, but couldn't find it, but now I have and I've put it in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

• The first paragraph here appears to be original research (original thought in the sense described by WP:OR); that is, you seem to be treating the books and newspaper articles as primary sources in which you identify patterns. This differs from finding a secondary source containing the original thought.

I respectfully disagree. The linkage of "running to stand still" to Through the Looking-Glass is done by a secondary source, the Drake book. The NYT and Google counts and 'dates to' ranges aren't research, original or otherwise, but just data counts of the kind I've seen in a half-dozen WP articles that are showing when words or phrases have been in use. No claims to etymological certitude are made or intended; the purpose is just to give the reader a sense of the usage of this phrase. The recent use of the phrase in drug-related contexts is directly related to the subject of the article; the reader is left to decide if the song's impact has led to this use. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "By mid-2000s, the Ballymun towers were in the process of being torn down... " - Tighten by deleting "in the process of"?

The teardown has happened over six years and in fact one is still standing. That's why I think "in the process of" is warranted, even though it's a few extra words. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "whose 2006 memoir The Mun: Growing Up in Ballymun detailed her raising there in the... " - Maybe "life" rather than "raising"?

Well, she left there in her earlyish 20s, so most of the time there was while she was growing up. But we can see what others say. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent, either yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y but not a mixture of the two.

They were all d-m-y when I wrote it, but another editor changed half of them (and did a lot of other citation formatting churn that meant nothing to readers). I didn't want to get in a dispute so I let it be. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make the dates consistent, but I wasn't sure which format to use. Most dates are in yyyy-mm-dd format, but given this is an article about a song by a UK artist, shouldn't the dates be in dd Mmmm yyyy format? — John Cardinal (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor's changes were only explained as "fixing up the refs", so it's hard to know what the goal was. I suspect it was to make them more like other U2 articles, but I don't know. A lot of editors hate the yyyy-mm-dd format and would never change an article that consistently used written-out day month year to that. This is why I think editors should focus on content improvement and not cite churn. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, your bite hurts. Given our other discussion, I can only assume that you think I should focus on content and not "cite churn." I was only trying to help: the reviewer says the dates in the citations should be consistent, that's a common critique during article reviews, and it is usually heeded. One can't make the dates consistent and please editors who prefer different date formats, and one can't make the article consistent without editing the dates. In your view, that's churn, but I see no reason why date formatting in the article (for example) is important but date formatting in the citations is churn. I suspect it stems from a point of view that citations aren't important because they aren't part of the content. I think citations are as important as the content and high-quality articles should have high-quality citations. In any case, I'll slink off now, and you can do what you will. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the original version of this article, all the cite dates were consistent, in day month year form. Per WP:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, there is a lot of disagreement about whether YYYY-MM-DD should be used in footnotes. The result of that discussion was that they are allowed, but to replace most but not all consistent d m y formatting with YYYY-MM-DD seems like churn to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was me who made all of those alterations (as I admit it could have been as I did a lot of reference formatting around that time) then I apologize since it wasn't my intent to create any hard feelings over the type of date formatting used. If it was another editor who did it then I guess I should butt out of it since the above doesn't have any impact on what I have said; but instead of bickering, wouldn't our time be better spent in changing one to the other and leaving it at that? This is a relatively simple issue that takes minutes to solve at the most. Does it really matter if we use 2009-11-18 or 18 November 2009 in the citations? It's the consistency that's important, not the form. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you. I'm of the school that thinks original authors should get some deference in matters of style, but like I said in the beginning, I'm going to let this one be. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Wasted Time had it right. WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says, "Dates in article body text should all have the same format" and "Dates in article references should all have the same format." However, the formatting of the body text and the formatting of the references do not have to be the same. UK-centric articles should use d-m-y format in the main text, and yyyy-mm-dd is never used in the main text. This leaves two possibilities for the citation date formatting for this article. It can either be yyyy-mm-dd, or it can be d-m-y. Because this is all a little crazy-making, when I write U.S.-centric articles, I use m-d-y (not the same as UK-centric formatting) throughout, and I don't use yyyy-mm-dd for anything. In this article, d-m-y throughout is fine. Finetooth (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean when you say "Wasted Time had it right." Had what right? The dates in the citation section are not consistent with each other: most use yyyy-mm-dd, but some use dd Mmmm yyyy. That's not consistent even according to your separation of prose from citations. Personally, I think date formats should be consistent across both the body prose and the citations, but I don't know what the policy/guideline is and I wouldn't make a stink about it for any particular article if the two sections were consistent within themselves.

All the worry about churn in citations is enervating. Should we accept a non-standard infobox because fixing it would be "churn"? Should we accept a track listing that is inconsistent from track to track? Citations should be given the same care as other parts of the content: without citations, WP is no better than a user-contributed forum. Change for change sake is churn; fixing a consistency issue is not. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Time said above, "They were all d-m-y when I wrote it... ". That followed the guidelines and was perfectly acceptable. Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... so? The reviewer said the citation dates were not consistent as of 4 January 2010 (or if you prefer, 2010-01-04 ! <g>), and they still aren't now. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

• The "Edge on piano" image needs alt text.

Now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target.

Both now fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 pursue a FAC for it, and would like to see if there are any prose problems or any other possible FAC concerns. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• Lead
  • "Almost the entire episode took place" → "...takes place"
  • "The episode was seen by 7.08 million households in its original broadcast, which was among the lowest-rated network shows from that evening." This is an oddly downbeat sentence, coming in the middle of various encomiums. I would reposition it, so that the paragraph reads:-

"Tucker was played by theater and film actor Moses Gunn, marking his final performance before his death in late 1993. "Three Men and Adena" was seen by 7.08 million households in its original broadcast, which was among the lowest-rated network shows from that evening. However, the episode received generally positive reviews; it is considered one of the classic Homicide episodes, and is ranked number 74 in an Entertainment Weekly list of the 100 greatest television moments. Tom Fontana won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series for the episode's script." (note that I have tweaked the text slightly)

• Plot summary
  • I think the term "arabber", utterly unknown in the UK, should be explained briefly in the text, as well as linked
  • "Bayliss is convinced he murdered..." → "Bayliss is convinced Tucker murdered..."
  • "With four hours left..." Suggest "With four hours left before the deadline,..."
• Production
  • "Almost the entire episode takes place..." You need here to clarify which episode, therefore: "Almost the entire episode of "Three Men and Adena" takes place..." etc (It might be useful if you could establish a short title, e.g. "Three Men", to avoid having to spell out the whole title here and in other places in the article).
  • "Martin Campbell spent about three days of preparation..." - sounds a bit casual; do you need to say "about"?
  • "...including the presentation of false evidence in an attempt to get a confesion." It is not clear from the plot summary what false evidence was presented in the interrogation. Can you clarify?
  • What is the relevance of the last sentence of this section?
• Reviews
  • "Leonard particularly praised the tension, the setting and the writing, particularly..." Repetition - suggest delete the first one.
  • The section begins with a statement that the episode received "generally" favourable reviews. All of the reviews you then mention are favourable, many emphatically so. Have you found any critical reviews? If not, I suggest drop "generally", which is an unnecessary modifier.
• Awards and DVD release: The price of the box set is unnecessary detail, and should be dropped.
• General: there are no disambiguation links and all external links are working. The alt text to the lead image is not an adequate description of the image such as would help a non-sighted reader.

All in all, very informative. I've not seen the Homicide show (I expect it has been shown in the UK but I don't know where or when) but the article gave me a good feel for it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 this to FAC, and would appreciate comments on the prose, comprehensiveness, and how easy it is to understand for the non-medievalist. Any other concerns would of course be welcome!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

• Lead
  • "He was the nephew of Roger of Salisbury, the Bishop of Salisbury..." Is "the" necessary? Also, capitalisation of "Bishop" here but not elsewhere.
    • the "the" is there to separate the two links so they don't run to gether and get Tony mad at me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laon can be linked (assuming this is the right place). First mention of "diocese" could also be linked
  • Link "episcopate". Not everyone will be familiar with the term.
  • "He spent much of the late 1140s at Rome, attending the papal court, but died in England in early 1138." Hmm, clever chap - but I think 1138 is wrong!
  • Final lead sentence too long, rambling. Needs splitting, also fixing slightly dodgy grammar towards the end.
• Early life
  • "Alexander's mother's name is known, which was Ada,..." Clumsy, try "Alexander's mother's name, Ada, is known,...etc"
  • "...perhaps was Roger's son" - could be "...perhaps was his son" to avoid over-repetition of Roger's name.
  • "Chancellor" capitalised here but not in lead. We also have "Bishop" (capitalised) of London.
  • "Martin Brett feels that Alexander likely served as one [a royal chaplain] early in his career." Presumably Brett has reasons/evidence for thinking this. Would it not be better to reword, to make it seem less like some sort of vague hunch?
    • Weirdly, Brett does NOT say. Just a bald statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entered the administration" - explain what this means: "taken a job in the government" or some such?
    • Well, it's not really a "government" ... per se. Reworded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only attests" - we are not in the present tense here, so "attested"
• Bishop
  • "He owned his appointment..." - "owned" → "owed"?
  • Successive sentences begin "He also...", and the next begins "Alexander also..." Try to vary.
  • Third paragraph: the first sentence is a bit repetitive of what we've just read in "Early life", about his not holding a government position, unlike Nigel etc. I suggest you delete the first sentence of this para, then begin: "Although he held no government office..."
    • Oh, no, the contrast here is that even after his appointment as bishop, he never held office in the royal household/government like Nigel and Roger did while they were bishops. Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is known that he travelled to Rome shortly after the end of the council, as he travelled with the legate back to Rome." This seems unduly cumbersome; suggest: "it is known that he travelled back to Rome with the legate, shortly after the end of the council."
  • "to seek out King Henry to settle the dispute." Again, a bit unpolished. You could say "to seek King Henry's help in settling the dispute."
• Reign of Stephen
  • I have a few problems with the first two paragraphs. Although providing necessary background the first para is in my view perhaps twice as long as needs to be - we only need the gist. Secodly, I am perplexed by the second paragraph. You need to say why 17 bishops attending the Council of Westminster implies that Alexander was there; how many bishops were there in 1138? Secondly, the sentence: "In early 1139, Stephen possibly named William d'Aubigny as Earl of Lincoln, which may have been an attempt to limit Alexander's influence in Lincolnshire." Are the "possibly" and the "may have been" two separate uncertainties, e.g. Stephen may or may not have named William d'Aubigny as Earl of Lincoln and his motive may or may not have been to undermine Alexander? Or is it one uncertainty: Stephen named d'Aubigny as Earl of Lincoln and it's only his motive which is uncertain?
    • LOLOLOL... sorry. I'm getting raked over the coals for not enough background in my current FAC and you're saying here I have too much? Can I quote you on this if I cut it back and I get tasked to add more later? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, only 17 bishops in England, so if 17 went, everyone went. I've clarified by adding an explanatory note for the naming earl and then adding "which if it occurred..." before the "may have been an attempt".. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king ordered Roger to come to court and explain what happened as well as surrender custody of the bishop's castles, which Roger refused to do." Needs to be stated more clearly, e.g. "The king ordered Roger to come to court to explain what had happened, and also required him to surrender custody of his castles, all of which Roger refused to do."
  • "Stephen then ordered Roger and his two nephews to be arrested, which Roger and Alexander were, with Nigel managing to escape arrest." Not elegant, suggest: "Stephen then ordered the arrest of Roger and his two nephews; Roger and Alexander were detained, but Nigel evaded capture."
  • "Another possible reason was given..." The first reason given is "treason"; doesn't the second reason amount to the same?
    • No. Clarified that the first reason they were arrested is the refusal to surrender the castles, the second is something different. Don't worry if you're confused, the chronicler's were confused, which makes the whole episode ... confusing.Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so Stephen is accused..." Why sudden present tense?
    • No clue what happened there, I've clarified to "... so Stephen threatened to starve Alexnader and Roger until the castles surrendered..." which is correct. I wonder if a vandalism revert muddled something? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry of Blois, the Bishop of Winchester and Stephen's brother and one of the king's main supporters,..." This mkes one person sound like four. Suggest: "Stephen's brother Henry of Blois, who was bishop of Winchester and one of the king's main supporters,..."
  • Delete "just" from "just recently"
  • "...which were against canon law." → "...actions which were against canon law."
  • What is a "legatine council"?
  • "they'd" - non-encyclopedic contraction
  • "But when Matilda arrived in London..." Sentence does not need a "but" start.
• Patronage
  • Again we have "He also..." followed by "Alexander also..."
  • Master Guido: was he at all notable? Is so, a possible redlink. If not - why mention him?
  • "Alexander was nicknamed "the Magnificent",[45] for his ostentatious and luxurious lifestyle." This sentence merely replicates the wording in the lead. Why has there been no discussion of this aspect of his life in the article?
    • Mainly because none of my sources discuss it, except for that information. Smith says "Henry of Huntingdon records that Alexander was called by contemporaries ‘the Magnificent’ on account of his lavishness and luxury (such behaviour calling down upon the bishop of Lincoln the expected criticism from Bernard of Clairvaux), and although he later chides his former patron with having spent well beyond his means, yet Henry clearly retains for the bishop a fondness and appreciation of many aspects of his character." Getting Bernard to denounce you wasn't much at this time period, I think everyone who came to Bernard's attention got denounced, pretty much. There is no full length biography of Alexander, unlike his uncle Roger, so there are some aspects of his character that just are spottily treated in the secondary literature. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Death: no issues, but I have lightly copyedited the opening sentence to get rid of some repetition.
• Alt text is required for all images

Thats all folks Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian, I'll get to these in the next few days... (I've been being good and doing PRs on sourcing!). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and much appreciated that is, too. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 get feedback one the article's readiness for a featured article candidacy and suggestions on areas it may need improvement. It is currently a GA and underwent one Peer Review prior to that.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is good, but I think the prose falls a bit short of the 1a requirement at WP:FAC, and I think it also falls a bit short on 1b and 1c. I think you are approaching FA quality and should keep revising. Here are my suggestions.

• The article mentions Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Virginia but never makes clear where the action of the novel takes place. Would it be helpful to add a subsection called "Setting and characters" to the "Plot" section? This could include basic information about the setting (types of terrain as well as geographic locations), and it could briefly describe the main characters. I'm thinking of something short along the lines of the "Setting and characters" section of Raptor Red, a featured article similar to this article.

• Could the Reception section be expanded? Did all the critics like the novel? The two newspaper critiques, one from a small town in Pennsylvania and another from a small town in California, seem like unusual choices. Wasn't the book reviewed in any big-city papers? How about Library Journal? A broader mix of reviews would make this section more interesting and comprehensive.

• The convention for citation numbers is to arrange them in ascending order. The first paragraph of the "Development" seciton ends with "Trenton Cutoff using this method.[2][1][1]", and this should be [1][2]. (The extra [1] is probably a typo. Ditto for ascending order elsewhere in the article.

Plot

• "One of the hunters finds a single kit alive in the dead fox's den... ". - Would it be helpful to render this as "kit (young animal)" since "kit" may be unfamiliar to some readers, and there seems to be nothing good to link to?
• "As Tod grows older, he grows increasingly restless and comes to dislike his life as a house pet." - Replace the first "grows" with "matures" to avoid repetition? Or "ages" if "matures" seems stuffy?
• Should "vixen" be explained as "vixen (female fox)"? Like "kit", it may be unfamiliar to some readers.
• "During this time, he encounters farm dogs and begins learning various tricks for throwing a pursuing dog off his trail." - Tighten by deleting "various"?
• "One night, Tod comes upon the cabin where Copper's master lives." - Master before this begins with an uppercase M. If that is his name and he has no other, perhaps this should say, "where Master lives" or "where Copper and Master live".
• "including an English style mounted fox hunt" - Maybe "English-style mounted fox hunt"? Perhaps "English-style fox hunt using horses"?
• "The man turns to drinking alcohol excessively and must deal with disputes with others who want him to leave his home, stressing Copper." - It's not clear from this who is stressing Copper. Or does this mean that Copper is stressed because of the drinking or the disputes or the thought of moving?
• "Tod not only must avoid death at the man's hands, he must evade other hunters as well as natural predators including a rabies scare that causes him to temporarily flee his territory." - A rabies scare isn't a predator. Suggestion: ""Tod not only must avoid death at the man's hands, he must evade other hunters as well as natural predators; in addition, a rabies scare causes him to temporarily flee his territory."

Development

• "At the end of the novel, Mannix includes an after note discussing this research." - Would postscript be better than "after note"?
• "He also defends his novel against expected charges of improbability regarding the actions Tod takes in eluding the hunters, detailing both his own experiences witnessing wild foxes performing such acts and stories others shared with him that he used as a basis for various events." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "In defending his novel against charges of improbability, he recounts his observations of wild foxes and discusses other people's stories about fox behavior."
• "Mannix felt it near impossible for any writer... " - "Nearly" rather than "near"?
• "at the way an animal's mind may work and what motivations they may have." - "Animal" is singular, but "they" is plural. Change "they" to "it"?
• "When discussing how he described the hunting, he explained he found it difficult to understand what scent might mean to an animal whose scenting ability is "greatly superior" to a human's, leaving one trying to interpret why a hound acts certain ways while tracking another animal." - "One", which is self-referential, is generally avoided in Wikipedia articles. Suggestion: "In explaining his descriptions of hunting, he said it was hard to decide why a hound, with non-human scenting ability, acted in certain ways while tracking another animal."

References

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Most are yyyy-mm-dd, but citation 5, for example, uses m-d-y.

Alt text

• "Photograph of the front cover of a book depicting a red fox running through a snowy at the bottom with brown dog chasing it; the novel's title is written in blue between the two animals." - Missing word, "field"? Also, an outsider who knew nothing else about the novel would not be able to verify the alt text by simply looking at the image. Suggestion: A book cover shows a brown dog chasing a red fox through a snowy field. Words on the cover say, "The Fox and the Hound by Daniel P. Mannix".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking so much time and giving the article such a through review! I will be making my way through the list to make the needed corrections. :-) To answer the question on the receiption, as of now, it would be nearly impossible to expand further as I have found no other reviews for it at all from when it was released, and it has been out of print a long time, despite the Disney adaptation (which usually would have spurred a reprinting). I continue hunting but with no further results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I did a quick Google search for reviews of the book and found nothing. How did you find the two newspaper reviews? Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the journal search at A&M :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I'm filing that thought away for future use. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the novel, I found it never says where it is set, so I opted to just expand the plot better to introduce the characters and hopefully give a better setting context. I think I've addressed everything else?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm considering nominating this article for a GA and it would be helpful if other editors could list problems with the article (format, grammar, spelling, etc) so I could bring this article up to GA status. Thanks. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No dab links or dead external links, which is very good this early in the article's life.
• Add some alt text for the images, in case they don't load or the GA reviewer can't see them.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some alts now, but they have problems:

• The infobox picture needs an alt too; use |alt=your text in the box tag to add it. (I'd prefer a more zoomed-out image of Seyfried there, but it's hard to get free pics so whatever.)
• Phrases such as "at a red-carpet event for the premiere of one of her films, Chloe (2009 film)" and "photographers at a red-carpet for a screening of one of her films, Jennifer's Body" are not verifiable by non-experts from seeing the image alone. Focus on the visual elements instead, and let the captions deal with stuff that require references or adjacent text explanation. (Once the infobox gets alt text, simply calling her "Amanda Seyfried" and mentioning differences in her appearance, clothes, and environment will be fine for the later ones.)

See WP:ALT#Portaits and Ashley Tisdale for examples and guidance. (Consider sitting down one day and reading the full guideline to understand alt usage and rationale. :) ) --an odd name 01:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've corrected the problem, I've modeled the alt text after Ashley Tisdale's: Display photo ("The face of a young smiling blonde female with blue eyes wearing gold eyeliner."), the first photo in '2006-present' section ("A young blonde female in a black short sleeve dress looking over her right shoulder smiling. ") and the second photo in the same section ("A young blonde female wearing her hair in a pony-tail and a silver low-cut dress waving and smiling."). Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 07:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 8, "Prior to appearing in Mean Girls, Seyfried hadn't been in any theatrical films; thus making Mean Girls her feature film debut.", is a non-source note. Try to find a source that actually says this. You can separate notes from references, then cite them with nested reference tags.

I fixed some tense, grammar, and formatting issues. Look for similar ones to make other copyeditors' lives easier. Good luck. --an odd name 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help and contributions to/for the article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are anymore problems with the page please let me know, if not I'm going to close the peer review so I can nominate the article for a GA. Thanks. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest leaving it open as long as possible, so that sharper eyes who haven't found more problems (and there will be more problems) get their chance. I only checked for and fixed a small set of issues. You should consider finding a copyeditor even after the review, especially before going to FA (but ideally even before GA so that it can sail through). There is no deadline for Wikipedia, or for its articles' quality, so prepare as much as possible. (See also debugging.)

You should only close if there's a flood of other edits that's keeping the article unstable. In that case, keep it far from the GAN list (see criterion 5). --an odd name 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there's more glaring problems:

• There might be too many dashes, like in the ref title "Mean Girls (2004) –" and "Seyfried plays Sarah – Bill and Barb's first daughter who is struggling with her father's polygamous faith". (I changed them from spaced hyphens using a script.) Try commas or other ways once in a while.

 Done I removed multiple ";" and "–" and changed them to comas and separated the sentences.

• CHANGE ALL CAPS REF TITLES LIKE "THE 100 MOST BEAUTIFUL FACES OF 2008" TO "START CASE" TO AVOID SCREAMING AT READERS AND SCARING THEM AWAY LIKE I AM DOING RIGHT NOW.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her musical performance in Mamma Mia! is available on the film's soundtrack, entitled Mamma Mia! The Movie Soundtrack; she recorded a total of five songs that appeared on the soundtrack." can become "Her musical performance in Mamma Mia! is available on the film's soundtrack, for which she recorded five songs." There's lots of overlong sentences; look for redundancies and trim them throughout the article.

 Done I also fixed multiple redundancies throughout the article, if I missed any please let me know. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Before my last few edits, that part said "Also in 2008, Seyfried co-starred alongside Meryl Streep, as Sophie Sheridan, in the romantic comedy film that's a film adaptation of the 1999 West End musical of the same name, Mamma Mia!.[2] In the film, Seyfried portrays Sophie, who is Donna's daughter and Sky's fiancée"—repetition is a problem.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seyfried was set to co-star alongside Vannessa Hudgens and Jena Malone; though, within the same month, she had to drop out of the film due to scheduling conflicts with Big Love;[22][1] Emily Browning was later cast in the role."—awkward and overlong sentences like this should be split and fixed.

 Done I removed the ";" between "with Big Love;[22][1] Emily Browning was later cast in the role." and made it into two separate sentences. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite not receiving the role she had originally auditioned for, she won the role of title character's murdered best friend Lilly Kane.[4] Despite her character only ..."—there's a missing "the" before "title character", and overuse of "Despite".

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I noticed those, I urge you to keep the review going, and to seek a full copyedit from a PR volunteer or the Guild before GAN. I worry this doesn't even meet GA point 1(a). The GA criteria are looser, but still exist. --an odd name 01:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected all the problems you've listed above, if there are anymore please let me know, thanks. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 07:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to see if it is written well and has all the possible criteria for a GA nomination.

Thanks, Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Sorry. This is not close to being ready for GAN. The main problem is the error-ridden prose. You have the beginning of a decent article here. However, errors like the oft-repeated misspelling of "groupie" as "grupie" is puzzling, particularly when the album cover spells it correctly.  Done I've fix that. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article badly needs copyediting. For example, in the first paragraph of the lead, you write, "The song was also added at the "Roller Boogie" soundtrack in 1979." I think you must mean "to" rather than "at". The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead says "calling that a roller-disco anthem" when you mean "calling it a roller-disco album". The next sentence repeats "promotional", "promote". The following sentence says, "Cher, after the released of the promotional film began making music videos" when you mean "release". I see small errors like this throughout the article. You might be able to find a copyeditor in the list at WP:PRV who would be willing to help you improve the prose, spelling, and grammar.

• Four fair-use images and sound tracks may be too many. Are they all necessary for a reader to understand the material? The lead image is fine, and you might make a case for the sound clip, but the other two images don't add anything essential that the first image lacks. They can easily be replaced by words.  Done Kekkomereq4 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of the Music video section is interesting but unsourced. Who says that the video for Hell on Wheels was tough for Cher to shoot?

I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i am planning to forward it for FA nomination, i want to further improve it, it must be able to pass at least GA nomination. So suggestions plz.......

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting and fairly well done - though it obviously has had a lot of work put into it, I think it needs some additional work to be promoted at WP:GAN or especially at WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Looking at the infobox, there is some WP:OVERLINKing and also some links that are not the correct ones. For example, Emesa is linked twice in one line "Emesa, Syria. Buried in Khalid ibn al-Walid Mosque, Emesa." and Commander in "Commander of Mobile guard (634–638)"
• The first sentence has some problems: Khālid ibn al-Walīd (Arabic: خالد بن الوليد‎; 592-642) also known as Sayfu l-Lāhi l-Maslūl (or Sayfullah, the "Drawn Sword of God", "God's Drawn Sword" or simply "Sword of God"), was [a?] Sahabi, a companion of Islamic prophet Muhammad, and one of the most successful commanders in history.[1] First there seems to be a missing article ("a") before Sahabi, second in the lead I would only list one version of "Sword of God" here (the different versions can be given in the body of the article).
• There are places where the article seems to be in danger of violating WP:NPOV - for example in the lead "tactical marvel" seems to be POV in He is also remembered for his decisive victories at Yamamah, Walaja, Ullais and his tactical marvel, the Yarmouk. Note that if it is a direct quote and cited, it would be OK and for what noted historian X has called "his tactical marvel", the Yarmouk
• There are several places that need references - for example the "In popular culture" section has no refs at all. There are also some citation needed tags in there that need to be fixed.
• The article uses {{bquote}} in multiple places, but most of these are less than one line long. WP:MOSQUOTE says A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation... Most of these should be moved back into the text (not used a block quotes)
• The writing is uneven and needs a copyedit - there are places where articles (a, an, the) are missing, and others where it is just ungrammatical This was Heraclius' last attempt to achieve a came back on Syrian front. - should be "a come back" and it should be "on [the] Syrian front". Or this needs a lot of work - I am not even sure what it means exactly: Claiming him Caliph Abu Bakr's lieutenant who help him suppressing supporters of Ali's who demanded right of Ali to politically succeed Prophet Mohammad.[119]
• The article has to be consistent about all of the little things - one example is "Prophet Mohammad", "Prophet Muhammad", "Islamic prophet Muhammad", "Muhammad" - I would pick one and use that consistently.
• The maps are nice, but they are almost impossible to read - can the text be made any larger?
• Article does not follow WP:ITALIC in places - quotations are not italicized (except for foreign words), names that are not the main person in the article are not generally bolded.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, all suggestions except for the one related to campaign maps, if i make their text larger, then it will look ugly so i left it as it was, any reader who will be interested in maps will click on them to take a zoomed in look.

and as for citations in the section popular culture, i am not sure whether they need citations or not, because it largely focus on tanks and submarines named after khalid, which is obvious from there name (for instance Al-Khalid main battle tank !). Do they still need a reference ?

any ways Thanks for ur suggestions they really help. Any other suggestions ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 descriptions of its status no longer fit the contents. Starting as a list, the text is now a fully-referenced article that incorporates the latest reports (June and September 2009) by established and respected bodies on the subject.

No previous entries, comments etc have been deleted but all were checked and integrated into the new article

Thanks, Voronov (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

• "The dangers to journalists in Russia have been well known since the early 1990s" - is that really true? I'm slightly concerned that such a statement is cited by research prompted only by Politkovskaya's murder in 2006 and thus may suffer somewhat from WP:RECENTISM. I don't know if such a statement would be accepted by many readers.
• "While international monitors spoke of several dozen deaths, some sources within Russia talked of over two hundred fatalities" since when? Who are these international monitors?
• "The evidence has since been examined and documented in two reports, published in Russian and English, by international organisations." which evidence is this and who are these organisations?
• "In its September 2009 report the Committee to Protect Journalists repeated its conclusion that Russia was one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists and added that it remains among the worst at solving their murders." another controversial statement that needs qualifying and putting into context.
• "They died or were killed, the CPJ is convinced, because of the work they were doing and in only one case, it notes, has there been a partially successful prosecution." another controversial statement - this needs a citation.
• "А wide-ranging investigation" by what quantification are we guaging it as "wide-ranging"?
• Much of the lead appears to be weighted towards the recent death in 2006 and the investigations into that, but then applies such trends to long periods before that date - as if the article itself is a response to the sudden soaring interest as opposed to a neutral account. There also appears to be a somewhat unexplained and uncited slant towards the idea that these people have been killed because of what they were investigating, which may be a slight case of well-intended The Truth without further citation.
• There is a slant towards what the International Federation of Journalists has found. Remember that this party has an agenda of its own when it comes to speaking about their own. It would be ideal to nuance the article with reference to other sources and counter-points. How, for example, do we distinguish between a murder victim who is a journalist and a journalist killed because they were a journalist?
• "and the persistent failure to prosecute or convict those responsible for murders linked to the work of journalists." also needs a citation.
• The vast majority of this article is not a list of journalists killed in Russia. The list is the 7th item in the article. Perhaps it would be better to have the first 6 in a seperate article about journalism deaths in Russia, or rename this article to that. I see that this has already been attempted on the talk page but there was no consensus. I suggest a retry.
• "The first set of yearly figures in the table above records the incomplete Wiki totals (see end sections of this article)" what does this mean? Are you referencing another Wiki article or another part of this one? It is inadvisable to cite a wiki article with another one, but it's not clear what is being done here.
• The Yeltsin years, some are bullet pointed, some are numbered, there is no reason to capitalise surnames. Perhaps it would be better to have this in a table?
• The Chechnya section is much better, and can be used as a reference for fixing the other parts of the list.
• External links should be after the footnote section.

Overall, the article is, I feel, overly slanted to the opinions and research of the IFJ, which have an agenda to push journalism deaths in order to criticise Media freedom in Russia and this article reflects that sentiment somewhat. It also appears to hang a little too much on recent events in the lead. This isn't a comment on your writing, it is the result of the sources you have available. With greater research, I expect the topic can be tailored to a more NPOV standpoint. At the moment, however, I suspect it may suffer from too much POV/Undue weight to progress up the assessment ladder. My two cents

Regards, SGGH ^ping! 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldDuck

• Some journalists, like Roddy Scott, are listed twice. First in general section by year, second in separate section about Chechnya. There are good reasons to describe deaths in Chechnya in separate section, because it was de facto independent/area of military conflict, but then deaths in Chechnya (and probably, Ingushetia and Dagestan) should be removed from general list.

DonaldDuck (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the main contributor to the revision of this article, and a newcomer to Wikipedia, I shall endeavour to study some of the principles invoked by SGGH before, perhaps, offering a more detailed response.

It does seem to me that the comments were made as he/she was reading, and not as a result of considering the article as a whole. There was a considerable contrast between the state of the article before it was updated, expanded and revised, and the way it reads now, but that's perhaps irrelevant (I also have in mind a comparison with the Wikipedia article on Anna Politkovskaya which already had a high, even exemplary, Wiki rating before a considerable number of innacuracies were removed and, for instance, the latest trial and appeal results were added - that article remains bitty and uneven by most normal standards, so it does seem that different standards are being applied here).

All I can say in reply to a number of points by SSGH is that the situation in Russia HAS long been known. It has been documented since the early 1990s, for example, by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the most widely-cited and trusted source (outside Russia) on this subject. If SSGH and other readers venture beyond the "eye-catching" first paragraph and look at the sources they will see that the CPJ has claimed up to 50 deaths. The big question mark arose after Anna Politkovskaya's murder when it became clear that since 1993 Russian monitors had recorded over two hundred deaths. It was to establish the reasons for this divergence that the IFJ worked with the Russian monitors and the Russian Union of Journalists for the last few years, producing a report and creating a unique database that attempts to resolve the crucial but far from always clear question as to whether these deaths were linked to the journalists publications and investigations or not.

In April 2009 the Prosecutor General's Office gave a response to the IFJ partners on the progress of investigations into over 60 of these killings and assaults. In autumn 2009 the v important Investigations Committee met with the CPJ to discuss particular cases and concerns. Official Russian bodies, in other words, seem to take the two reports (IFJ with RUJ, and CPJ) seriously and do not dismiss them as "agenda-driven" and biased.

The bland request for (yet) "more research" (!!) suggests that the reader has not looked at the extensive annotations to the article - surely part of any serious peer review? - and has therefore missed the significance of the intensive and ongoing work of the past 2-3 years, by media monitors inside and outside Russia. On the other hand, we could just wait until it's been publicised ("verified", "approved") in the major Western media, I suppose. That will happen over the next year or so and then we can "safely" quote those sources. Is that really better?

I'm still bemused by the accusation of bias. These are recorded deaths. In all but 30 cases no one disputes that it was a violent death, and of the 160 homicides in this list RECORDED BY RUSSIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT (sorry for the caps, but that seems to need emphasis) some forty cases have now come to court. The biggest problems with this subject has been the dispute about the figures (now clarified in the IFJ-sponsored database); about the certain, probable or possible motives for the killings (assessment provided by IFJ database); and the constant, uncritical, second-hand quoting of newspaper and other sources that, in the end, all come back to the evaluation made by reputable Russian media monitors who have been in operation since the early 1990s, either as organisations or as individuals.

The slant towards the IFJ is, in fact, a slant towards the fullest sources of information on the subject, i.e. the Russian media monitors who follow the Russian media, do their own investigations and have experts in most parts of the world's largest country. The IFJ report merely acknowledged, publicised and summarised their work, in both Russian and English, for the first time. All international media monitors have relied on their Russian colleagues - they have until recently been less ready to admit their crucial role in gathering and assessing information, thereby obscuring the sources of information and evaluation.

The work of the CPJ is also acknowledged in the article (though they too "have an agenda"), so is the work of Reporters Sans Frontieres and the relative newcomer the International News Safety Institute. Are these all biased sources? Again I'm puzzled by SSGH's approach on this. What would qualify as trustworthy alternative sources? There is a section in the article, for instance, on Other Voices and Legal Issues that lets alternative viewpoints be stated, enabling readers to make up their own minds and not force conclusions on them. This article already has more detailed annotation, particularly to Russian articles in good English translation, than many (most?) I have seen on Wikipedia. Or do people want to be told what to think, without examining readily available, carefully hyper-linked sources for themselves?

There aren't many useful quotations from former President (currently Prime Minister) Putin on the issue, if that's one of the things at the back of SSGH's mind. President Medvedev has made a couple of remarks since his inauguration and these can certainly be added in and referenced somewhere. For the record, in June 2008 a month after his inauguration he told a group of German businesspeople and politicians that attacks on journalists in Russia "should be thoroughly investigated and brought to court NO MATTER WHEN THEY OCCURRED [my emphasis]" (i.e. waiving the Statute of Limitation for the various offences concerned).

Voronov (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases the article leaves the reader in the dark - was the murder directly linked to the journalists' activities, or was it - have to say this - another day on the streets? Some cases are clearly not related to the victims' business. Consider the most recent case when a violent drunk locked in a cell was raped to death by a cop. It matches the title, but the connection to journalism is quite weak. On a side note, since the article inevitably crosses into crime in general, I'd recommend augmenting the timeline with overall crime statistics and discuss the relevance and reliability of any stats.

Ultimately you must decide if it's an article or a list. Right now the content is split here and there without apparent logic (Vladimir Sukhomlinov is mentioned in the text but not in the list, others vice versa). NVO (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---