Wikipedia:Peer review/July 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.

Hatem Ben Arfa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is capable of becoming a good article. I prefer an experience editor to give his/her opinion on the article before I proceed to recommend it for GA status.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick check for the major things and the notable bits that stick out are:

  • The lead doesn't cover the entire article.
  • There are a lot of points in the International career section that need citations.
  • Reference #1's details need expanding, access date, website etc.

All the best for the article! Miyagawa (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good except for problem of the incomplete lead and the problem of sourcing in the "International career" section. The images look fine, and the licenses look fine. The article is stable, neutral, fairly broad, generally well-written, and has no dabs or dead urls at the moment. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • I agree with User:Miyagawa that the lead is not a true summary of the entire article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. If you can imagine a reader who can only read the lead, you'll have a good idea of how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.
  • "A graduate of the famous Clairefontaine academy... ". - I would delete the word "famous" because that is an editorial judgment rather than something supported by a reliable source.

Olympique Lyonnais

  • "He scored a brace in each match with both results being in favor of Lyon." - Does "brace" mean two? It's not commonly used in the U.S. Would the sentence be slightly better and more clear as "He scored twice in each match, and Lyon won both"?

Olympique Marseilles

  • "However, Ben Arfa confirmed to the local La Provence newspaper" - If La Provence is the name of a newspaper, it should appear in italics. Ditto for Le Progrès a bit further down.

International career

  • This entire section is largely unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph.

Other

  • Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take terminal periods.
  • You might look at some of the sports biographies listed at WP:FA#Sport and recreation to see how other editors have handled similar writing projects.
  • Possibilities for expansion might include something about Ben Arfa's playing style and something about his life outside of football.
  • The images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

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) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. Took care of the issues pertaining to your responses and will nominate it for a good article today. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Barcelona records and statistics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've gone through all sources and they should be there now. Prose might need a fix but i doubt its much. All comments welcome!

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I already made some peer review comments on FC Barcelona honours and am glad to see that this has been edited in line with some of those comments already. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the lead needs to do a better job of summarizing the article - currently it is very short, and mostly about the founding and the early history of the club, plus never having relegated. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
    • agreed. Will try to.
  • The lead should also have an image if at all possible - perhaps one of the record-holding players?
    • Done
  • The introduction to the Honours section is Barcelonas first domestic trophy was the Copa del Rey which they first won in 1910. They won their first league trophy in the inaugural 1928–1929 season. From 1900 to 1941 Barcelona competed in the championship of the Catalonia region, the winners of which qualified for the Copa del Rey along with the other regional championsships.[2] The first sentence could be tightened a bit and the third sentence is also about the Copa del Rey, so I would put the current first and third sentences together. Perhaps something like to something like From 1900 to 1941 Barcelona competed in the championship of the Catalonia region, the winners of which qualified for the Copa del Rey along with the other regional championships.[2] Barcelona's first domestic trophy was the 1910 Copa del Rey. Note I fixed the lack of apostrophe and corrected a spelling error - I would also link Copa del Rey at the first instance. The sentence They won their first league trophy in the inaugural 1928–1929 season. should make it clearer that this is La Liga.
    • Done
  • This needs a copyedit. The text in Players could be something like As of April 2010, the club's founder, Joan Gamper, holds the record for most goals in one match, with nine scored on DATE [why not include the date?].[12] Paulino Alcántara joined Barcelona in 1912, 13 years after it was founded, and became one of the club's legends, with a record 357 goals in 357 matches. As of April 2010, Alcántara also holds the record for most goals scored for Barcelona in all competitions.[13] Barcelona has seven FIFA World Player and Ballon d'Or winners among its previous and current players, which makes it the club with most FIFA World Player awards ["received by players." - is this needed? who else can receive the award?]. WHy isn't Joan Gamper wikilinked?
    • wl.
  • Be careful of WP:PEACOCK language - I removed "has enjoyed several of the world's greatest players" above - if you include things like that I would have a very solid ref and would prefer it be a direct quotation. Otherwise it seems to violate WP:NPOV
    • reworded
  • Why is the explanatory text under "All-time most appearances" in italics? Please see WP:ITALIC
    • rmvd
  • Is it "Goalscorers" or "Goal scorers"? Both are used on the internet and I prefer the two word version, but am not a football expert
    • using the first
  • References need to be consistent - Overall scorers has "Source" follwed by an external link; Goalscorers has no obvious reference(s) at all, All-time most appearances has refs in the table for each item, and at the bottom of the Honours section, there is "See also" followed by an external link. To pass FLC things need to be done consistently. My strong suspiscion is that external links are discouraged - covert these to references instead.
    • Done.
  • Dab finder tool in the PR finds two disambiguation links.
    • no dabs.
  • I still find it odd that there appear to be no book references used here whatsoever - just seems like there would be many books on such a successful team
    • there are book refs, but they get outdated quickly.
  • I also worry about FC Barcelona honours being a content fork of this, but will trust your explanation. I would ask one of the people who got afootball "records and statistics" article to FL or perhaps some of the reviewers of those to look at both this article and the FC Barcelona honours article and see what they 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 ><>°° 04:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona honours

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished adding all sources, so only prose is missing now an overhaul now. :) Sandman888 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some notes about the sourcing part...

  • 1st lead paragraph is un-sourced. Since it's the introduction, insert in inline citations that'll verify the statements made.
  • In the 4th paragraph, the sentences "When Barcelona won the Club World Cup in December 2009, having failed to do so on two previous occasions, it was their first international trophy. For the rest of the 2009-10 season, Barcelona wore the Club World Cup trophy insignia on their shirts." need a reference.
  • The "Regional titles", "National titles", "European titles", and "International title" section is completely without source(s).

BejinhanTalk 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a page with a simple explanation about verifiability and reliability. BejinhanTalk 14:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please add alt text to the images. Please see WP:ALT for help. The list of images without alt text is located here. BejinhanTalk 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, have you thought of having the article name as List of FC Barcelona honours? BejinhanTalk 14:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help to format the lists into a proper table, like the one shown here. BejinhanTalk 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments
  • When I made my other comments here, I thought it was odd that there were no football FLs on "Team X honours" or "List of Team X honours". I just looked at all of the football FLs at Wikipedia:FOOTY#Featured_content and found that there are 5 that are "List of Team X records and statistics" and 3 "Team X records and statistics", but no "(List of) Team X honours" FLs. I also just looked at List of FC Barcelona records and statistics for its peer review and was surprised to see much of the content from this article repeated there (or vice versa). My concern now is that this article does not meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, in particular 3b Comprehensiveness. In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. I could be wrong as I am not very knowledgable on football, but how is this not a content fork of List of FC Barcelona records and statistics? Why couldn't this material all be included there (as much of it already is)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This goes into far greater detail. Such detail wd put too much emphasis on the honours part to reasonable be a part of the records&stats page w/o removing info. Also, FCB has played in loads of friendly tournaments, which makes the list far too long, but of which I cannot find references, but this way it is easy to amend information if other finds it. Sandman888 (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at all 8 Football records and statistics FLs. List of Luton Town F.C. statistics and records is the most recent FL I think (2009), so may be the bets model in terms of MOS and other issues. The others were promoted to FL in 2008.
  • Only List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics uses bold face in any way approaching this article, and I do not think it meets WP:MOSBOLD either. This article is included under the no List of name in the FL table, so my stats are off above.
  • I am also concerned that there is only one General ref and that is from the team itself. As successful as FC Barcelona are, there must be many books on them that could be used as general refs here. OK, I am done, hope this helps, will comment in the next 24 hours on the other Barcelone list PR, which has some of the same issues as this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can easily find other references, will do that as FCB is not trustworthy. I just thought it easier to use one site. Thanks for all comments, appreciated! Added references for all honours Sandman888 (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review before, and it helped me fix all the dead links and helped me in a few ways, but I am still determined to get this article to FA status. Feel free to leave any comments about the article.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the last FAC (last before yours I mean). The main issues are the "Structure and genre" and "themes" sections. Basically, this article is in need of some lit crit - not crit as in "these books are crap/great!" We have enough of that. Crit as in "what are these books about?". Type "Harry Potter" into Google Scholar and see what comes up. I'd say find and cite 30-40 scholarly accredited lit crit sources and this article might be in good enough shape for an FAC. Serendipodous 05:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at improving it for a GAN later this year.

Thanks, mono 22:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a full review. I'll provide a few overarching thoughts that you can take or leave as you see fit.

  1. I count at least 7 non-free images. This I think is excessive. You should consider replacing with suitable images from Commons or removing some of the images altogether.
  2. It's a fairly long article at 111,000kb. The 100,000kb threshold is a bit arbitrary but it's a good goal to shoot for. Without doing a full readthrough I couldn't tell if there is unnecessarily detailed information in the article. So instead I'll just encourage you to look critically at the content, decide if it is need to know or nice to know. Always keep the need to know information and decide what nice to know information should alse be included. Suggestion would be to break off some of the more detailed information into main articles with a summary in the iPhone article. Keep summary style in mind when editing.
  3. Watch out for a lot of technical jargon. Most readers are not going to be uber-knowledgeable about IT phrases and acronyms. Since this is an article about a piece of technology that is owned by millions of people it will be very imporant to keep the information as easy to read and understand by a computer novice as possible. Also don't just rely on wikilinking to do the explanations for you. If a reader has to continually break away from the article to look up technical words the article loses a lot of readability. There's a balance here of course, you can't dumb everything down, but where you can and still keep the article flow moving along, you should.
  4. Try to avoide one and two sentence paragraphs. Combine these or expand them. It's generally poor form to have a lot of stub paragraphs in an article.
  5. The infobox in the lead seems very long, is all the information necessary? Do articles on other phones have all that detail?
  6. There appear to be several dead links in the references/external links sections. See [1] here for more details.
  7. Refs 27, 28, 66 aren't formatted correctly, refs 5, 89, 96, 98, 99, has no title, publisher or accessdate. Several refs either don't have accessdate or publisher.
  8. As far as credible references go, it's best to steer clear of blogs. They are almost always opinion-based with no pressure to be you know, accurate. So in the pantheon of sources, blogs will be at the lowest end of the credibility scale.

I hope that helps give some thoughts for you to work on. Unfortunately I don't have time to read the article and do a full review. I wish I did because I love my iPhone and I'd like to learn more about it. Best of luck to you, getting it to GA quality is absolutely attainable and a worthy goal. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I agree with everything User:H1nkles says above, and I have just a couple of other thoughts.

  • The quality of the prose is high, and the article is certainly broad in coverage and possibly comprehensive.
  • You'll need to address the concerns expressed by the "split" tag and the smaller tag in the "SIM unlocking" section.
  • Although the article seems well-sourced, I did not check the individual sources. I did notice that even though many sources are cited, a few paragraphs are unsourced. It's good to provide a source for each paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned.
  • There's some overlinking. For example, one sentence in the lead says, "These apps have diverse functionalities, including games, reference, GPS navigation, social networking, and advertising for television shows, films, and celebrities." I would not link anything in this sentence except GPS navigation. Most readers of English will already know the meaning of the other words, whether they are computer-literate or phone-literate or not. Further down, I would not link "glass" or "fingerprint", and so on. In addition, I'd reduce the number of times particular words are linked. For example, I would not link Internet more than once or Wi-Fi again and again. Each link requires judgment, so it's hard to give a general formula. I would just suggest eliminating distracting links of little value.
  • Images should fit entirely inside the section they relate to and should not overlap section boundaries or displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons, or create text sandwiches between two images. I see quite a few violations of these guidelines in this article. WP:MOS#Images has details.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Bourgeois

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

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

Thanks, Scott Bywater (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I read the long Guardian obituary a few days ago, which was more or less my introduction to this remarkable artist. I would love to see her as the subject of a top-class Wikipedia article, but at present there is a long way to go. The article has been put together by a number of editors (not including the PR nominator) and lacks cohesivenes. In my view I would say that it is flattered by a C-rating; I would not rate it above Start-class at present.

The rules of PR stipulate that the process is for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work. I think that much more work needs to done before this article is ready for review, and would highlight the following as key areas for action:-

  • The article needs expanding, to become a much more comprehensive account of a long and productive life.
  • An essential source (if there is a serious intention to develop a featured-quality article) is this book, a 2003 biography of Louise Bourgeois. The Guardian obit previously referred to is available here, and is another worthwhile source not used at the moment.
  • There are far too many verbatim quotations in the article. The "Legacy" section is entirely composed of lengthy quotes. All these need to be removed and replaced with paraphrases illustrated with short quotations of key phrases. Incidentally, the use of decorative quotation marks is frowned upon, and should be avoided.
  • In general, avoid presenting information in list form, especially in the middle of the article. The bibliography may be justifiable at the end of the article, but the other information should be presented within the text.
  • Citations should give details of sources; it is not necessary that they should contain long quotations from these sources as well.
  • There are other issues relating to the formatting of citations and references, but at the moment these are secondary to the requirement to work on the text.

My advice is that this article should be re-presented at PR when a significant part of the work indicated has been done. At that stage I will be very pleased to help with a full-scale detailed review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enugu

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a peer review so it can be bettered which then allows it to progress to become a Good Article. I would also like another 'set of eyes' on this article as I have been the only significant contributor from the time it has been significantly expanded.

Thanks, Ukabia (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I enjoyed reading this article, partly because it is the first article about Nigeria that I've seen come through peer review. I encourage you to keep adding to the encyclopedia. The article is broad in coverage, neutral, stable, reasonably well-illustrated, and generally follows Wikipedia style guidelines, and I think it is pretty close to GA. The prose needs polishing here and there, and I made quite a few small proofing and copy-editing changes as I went along. For example, I added metric-imperial conversions and changed hyphens to en dashes in page ranges and date ranges. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Early history

  • "The first settlement in the Enugu area was the small Nike village of Ogui." - Would it be possible to give a date for settlement or dates for the slave trade? Otherwise, readers simply have to guess what "early" means.
  • "The Nike people were allies to the Aro people during the slave trade (an Igbo group) who controlled the trade in slaves in the Enugu area, while horses, used for rituals by the Igbo, were dealt by the Hausa traders." - Awkward because "slave trade" isn't an Igbo group. Suggestion: "The Nike people were allied with the Aro people, an Igbo group that controlled slave trading in the Enugu area. The Hausa provided horses, used for rituals by the Igbo."

Independence and war era to present

  • Something like "After Independence and the war" would be better. Words like "present", "today", and "now" make readers wonder what specific date the writer had in mind.

Climate

  • "Met with heavy showers, the rainy season lasts... " - Perhaps "replete" rather than "met"?
  • "Other weather conditions affecting the city include Harmattan, a dusty trade wind that lasts a few weeks in the month of December and ends a few weeks into January." - Technically, a single month doesn't have as many as "a few" weeks. Perhaps re-phrasing this to say, "a dusty trade wind lasting a few weeks in the months of December and January" would be better.

Economy

  • "With the creation of the railway... " - It would be good to include the name of the railway.

Agriculture

  • "tumbled after the civil war and the immediate oil boom years" - "Subsequent" rather than "immediate"?
  • "groundnut oil, rubber, cassava, cotton and cotton seed" - Wikilink cassava?

Transport

  • "It is estimated that the project will cost ₦4.13bn." - Could this be expressed in U.S. dollars as well? Most readers will not have any idea what ₦4.13bn means in terms of their own economies.

References

  • The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Either yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y is fine but not a mixture.
  • Citation 72 needs a publication date. If you can also add a page number, that would be good.

Other

  • Two fair-use logos probably can't be defended as necessary. The sports logo in particular seems to have been added only for decorative purposes, which is not enough to meet the guidelines of WP:FAIR.
  • A possibility for expansion is to include a bit more about the geology of the region. How old are the underlying rocks, and how did they get there? What kind of coal is this, how old, how extensive?
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find three links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets and one dead url in the citations. Also, it's always good to add alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images, to the image information. The alt-text tool is helpful in showing which images have alt text and what it says.

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) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak comments

I also enjoyed reading the article and hope to see it develop further. I just had a few thoughts:

  • Have you looked at the "automated tips" in the box above? One thing mentioned there is that there is a mix of British and American spellings. These should be consistent. Does Nigerian English use British spellings? If so, the article should reflect that.
  • In the lead, it's not generally necessary to have too many citations. Opinions do vary among Wikipedia editors, but in general, things don't need to be cited that are cited further down the article (bearing in mind that everything in the lead will also be mentioned elsewhere). Unfortunately many readers don't read past the table of contents, and text is a little easier to read with out citations. Anything controversial or likely to be challenged should be cited though, even if in the lead.
  • File:Enugu 100 logo.png is not a free image so it needs a rationale to explain why it can be used under Fair Use.
  • Watch out for overlinking. Make sure that you only have wikilinks that would improve the understanding of the reader. Mostly, the article is fine for this, but in the lead, I wonder if you really need a link like capital city.
  • I notice you use the word "locality" a few times. Is this a generic term, or a specific Nigerian term similar to district? If it's generic, I'm worried that it's a little vague. For example you say "a locality in the city" - I have trouble picturing what that means. That could be a very small area, like a park, or a larger administrative division.
  • Try not to rely to much on tertiary sources like Encyclopædia Britannica; secondary sources are best. (By the way, Encyclopædia Britannica should be in italics in the references)
  • Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases uses Wikipedia as a source, so isn't reliable. If you look at the end of their entries, [WP] means it's come from Wikipedia.

Hope these suggestions help. --BelovedFreak 21:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you all for your comments. Ukabia...tark 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andalusian horse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FAC in the (relatively) near future, and would like further suggestions for what to improve. Since the main people working on this article are all experienced horse-folk, input on any places where the article is jargon-heavy would be especially appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems almost ready for FAC, and I enjoyed reading it. I know little about horses, so experts in the field might see things that I've missed. On the other hand, I had next to no trouble with the jargon. I have only two concerns that I consider significant: one has to do with the logical arrangement of the "Early development" subsection, and the other has to do with the legal complications arising from the Pure Spanish Horse court case. Otherwise my concerns are of the nitpicky sort and should be easy to deal with.

Lead

  • "There are currently fewer than 20,000 Andalusians worldwide, including around 4,500 in the United States." - I'd delete "currently" as redundant and no more specific than "are".
  • "There are several competing registries that keep records on the Andalusian/PRE. - I think "or" would be better than the front slash.
    • Maybe if the slash is the problem, the term "and" would be best because both terms describe the breed. The deal is that the PRE people are sort of the hardcore bloodline purists and don't play nicely with everyone else, but yet, really, the PRE IS the Andalusian, it's a political correctness issue, but one that matters A LOT to those who care. Does this modify your thinking? Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Follow up: I did a bit of rephrasing that killed the slash but I think kept the nuance. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were originally used for classical dressage... " - Maybe "These horses" rather than "they" since otherwise "they" seems to refer to the singular word "breed" in the preceding sentence in the text.
Fixed. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today, Andalusians are used for many equestrian activities... ". - Maybe "In the 21st century" rather than "today"?
rephrased. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breed characteristics

  • "They are both elegant and strongly built." - Delete "both" as redundant?
  • "The breed tends to have clean legs with no propensity for malformation, and energetic gaits." - Slightly awkward since it might be misread to say "no propensity for energetic gaits". Maybe "The breed tends to have clean legs, capable of energetic gaits, with no propensity for malformation."
  • "A cobra of Andalusians – a group of mares shown by a single handler" - I've never seen "cobra" used in that way. Does it literally mean "a group of mares shown by a single handler"? If not, would it be possible to add a very brief definition or to link to one?
  • "Today, around 80% of all Andalusians are gray." - The Manual of Style recommends "percent" rather than the % symbol in simple cases like this. Ditto for other instances of % in the article.

Early development

  • The chronology in this subsection is not linear and seems a bit hodge-podge-y. The sentences are individually interesting and well-supported, but it's not clear why the Cavendish quote, for example, precedes the mention of Henry VIII or the sentence that says, "By 1576, Spanish horses made up one third of British royal studs at Malmesbury and Tutbury." Would it be better to arrange the material chronologically?

19th century to present

  • "This was partially due to increasing mechanization and changing needs within the military that called for both horses with more speed in cavalry charges and horses with more bulk for pulling gun carriages." - Delete "both" as redundant?

Pure Spanish horse

  • "charging that the Ministry of Spain’s transfer of the PRE Libro de Origen to ANCCE is illegal, and in early 2009, the courts decided on behalf of UCCE" - Since two ministries seem to be at odds with one another, I found this sentence confusing. Should this say "Spanish Ministry of Agriculture"? Yet a subsequent sentence says, "By giving ANCCE sole control of the stud book, Spain’s Ministry of Defense was acting in a discriminatory manner, according to the court." Further confusion. Would it be possible to re-write this section to clarify the relationships among the two ministries, the Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse or PRE Mundial, the Cria Caballar, and the UCCE?
    • Worth a look, good catch. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC). Follow up': I did some rewording. Basically, the Cria Caballar was the original government agency in charge of the PRE studbook until the Spanish Government turned it over to the ANCCE, which pissed off everyone else and they sued. We are going to have to clarify what the UCCE is, also, but that will take going back into our research, I don't have it off the top of my head. (Dana?). Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • I see a couple of m-d-y dates in the citations that should be changed to yyyy-mm-dd to conform to the others. Citation 65 seems to have one; citation 50 has one; I'm not sure I caught them all.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. And feel free to comment further! Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debtors Anonymous

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this article to GA or FA status.

Thanks, Scarpy (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but not yet ready for GAN. It suffers from heavy use of the pronoun "one", which is a third-person substitute for the first-person pronoun, "I". Each of the many sentences using "one" in this way will need to be rewritten to meet Manual of Style guidelines. WP:MOS#First-person pronouns has details. In addition, you'll need to combine or expand the many extremely short sections in the article and to add at least a few more specific examples and more statistics if you can find reliable sources. Another problem is that the article is a bit too U.S.-centric as it stands and therefore not broad enough in coverage for GA. Here are a few other suggestions:

General

  • If I were working on the article, I think about including specific examples to illustrate the abstractions. Even though the members are anonymous, it would probably be possible to find illustrative stories or examples of some of the categories of behavior. I would not go overboard with this, but I'd try to use examples that were illustrative and engaging.
  • I'd try to work in more examples of DA activities in other countries. The current article is heavily U.S.-centric. You mention seven countries. Why only seven? How many countries have AA programs? Is AA more widespread than DA? If so, why?
  • Has anyone published success rates for DA? If so, how are they measured?
  • Any chance of more images? How about a photo of a DA meeting place?

Lead

  • "Debtors Anonymous (DA) is a twelve-step program active in seven countries worldwide, facilitating over 500 weekly meetings, for people with a desire to stop incurring unsecured debt." - Not quite grammatical and a bit wordy. A more punchy opening might be "Debtors Anonymous (DA) is a twelve-step program for people who want to stop incurring unsecured debt. Collectively they attend more than 500 weekly meetings in seven countries."
  • "DA encourages careful record keeping and monitoring of one's finances–including recording all purchases, income, and debt payments–to get a clear picture of one's spending habits. " - Wikipedia articles avoid using the pronoun "one" except in direct quotations. Instead, it's best to recast the sentences in which this kind of "one" appears. This sentence is easy to fix as follows: "DA encourages careful record keeping and monitoring of finances—including purchases, income, and debt payments—to get a clear picture of spending habits." Ditto for any similar uses of "one" in the article. A large number of sentences in this article use "one" in this way and will need to be re-written.
  • "Although many DA members only partially accept the ideology of the organization." - This is not a complete sentence.

Membership

  • "If one spends money to one's detriment, one... " - Another batch of "one" pronouns. I will stop pointing these out, but I see lots more elsewhere in the article.

Concepts

  • The Manual of Style advises against extremely short sections and subsections. I would suggest combining some of these to reduce the number of tiny sections. This guideline also applies to the rest of the article.

Help-seeking

  • "The third kind, tailored acceptance reflects more of an investment in a personal identity rather than a social identity, replacing a group-derived label with a more personalized one." - It's not clear from this explanation whether "tailored acceptance" involves self-awareness or profound self-awareness.

Other

  • The dab-checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two dabs.
  • Pairs of unspaced en dashes used in place of parentheses should be replaced by pairs of unspaced em dashes.
  • Generally, numbers larger than nine are written as digits in Wikipedia articles, although there are a fair number of exceptions. You might might make a case for using "twelve-step program" if that is how it is usually written, but something like "thirty eight stories written by DA members explaining how DA has affected their lives. This should be "38". Ditto for other large numbers in the article. WP:ORDINAL has details.

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) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to implement many of these suggestions. But I am having problems re-phrasing to not use "one" in many cases. Should I never use "one" or it is just overused in this article?
Never use it as a pronoun. Something like "one fish" is fine but not something like "One must try to get it right". Finetooth (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Often I'll use singular they in that context, sometimes I'll use "he or she." Are those bad as well? Should I try to avoid pronouns altogether? -- Scarpy (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need for examples. I also recognize the article is already over the 40k limit. Do you have suggestions to reconcile the two? -- Scarpy (talk)
I'm unaware of any 40k limit. FAs sometimes run to 100k. I don't believe there is any strict quantitative limit, but reader fatigue sets in as articles approach 100k, and extremely long articles sometimes cause software problems. You can expand without concern unless you more than double the size of the existing article. Finetooth (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in Wikipedia:SIZERULE. Looking at the guidelines again now, "limit" may be the wrong word to use. The guidelines mention that the likelihood an article should be split goes up with it's size. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently been working a lot on this article and I've cleaned up and rewritten much of its content. I'd appreciate any suggestions that would help the article move towards a GA and hopefully an FA sometime in the future.

Thanks, Casablanca2000in (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: A worthy effort, but if the article is to get near to GA or FA standard, much work is required.

  • There are many sections and subsections, but most of these are very short, and some are in obvious need of expansion. For example, the "History" section gives no information on anything between the foundation year, 1964, and 2003 when the institution was granted Deemed University status.
  • The prose looks reasonable, if somewhat unengaging – a recital of facts rather than an interesting account. I noticed the redundant words "in 1964" in the History section, and there may be other similar infelicities. A copyedit is desirable.
  • "Academics" is an odd section title; I'm not sure what it means. The section includes the follwing information: "In 2006-07, 99% of undergraduate students and 95% of graduate students who had registered for interviews were offered jobs. In 2008-09, these figures were 90% and 75% respectively." I would expect there to be information explaining the reasons for the considerable discrepancy. This is another instance of the article being short on detail.
  • Rankings: the table needs more extensive explanatory text. For instance, I have no way of interpreting the figures if I don't know how many institutions were ranked in each year; a ranking of 12 could be good, moderate or bad.
  • There are MOS violations, such as the numeric form for numbers under 10 (these should be written), use of hyphen rather than dash in date ranges, metric distances not converted to imperial, etc.
  • I am a little concerned to read, in the text, "As of 2008..." We are now in mid-2010, so the implication is that you are using out-of-date sources. Is it not possible to update this information?
  • Referencing is uneven. There is an outstanding "citation required" tag, and I saw other sentences that ought to be cited to a source.
  • The lead is inadequate for an article that aspire to GA or FA status, and needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD.

I hope these comments will help you to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I will work towards fixing the problems that you pointed out. Casablanca2000in (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2008

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that it is nearly up to the [[WP:FL?|featured list criteria, and want some critical feedback before I take it to FAC.

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: The numerical data is impressively detailed, but the article has virtually no text. A Featured list (if that is your aim) would be expected to have a lead providing a reaonable summary of the pre-election polling and the trends identified. In this case, the lead doesn't even give the date of the election, or the result – essential information, I would have thought. I notice also that the online citations are all incorrectly formatted. The correct format should in each case show: Author (if known), title (incorporating link), date (if known), publisher (or newspaper/journal title) and last retrieval date. For example, Ref 3 should be formatted thus:

Tiresome but necessary work to get all these in order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: the links in refs 88, 89 and 130 appear to be broken - possibly others too. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Final Fantasy media

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this former featured list was demoted almost 3 years ago but has improved dramatically since then (old FLR for easy reference). I've been working on it on and off and so have a few other editors and I think it's time to see if it's ready for FL again. Major concerns last time were about comprehensiveness (which I don't think is a problem anymore), questions about reliability of sources, and problems with the lead section. Also, I was wondering if anyone knows the policy/guideline on how comprehensive the referencing needs to be for release dates? Also, three sections (games, companion books, music) are written in summary style with their main lists on the linked pages and I was wondering if there were any objections to this arrangement.

Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, VGames at least was just way too long to be included; it's now a full long FL in its own right. I don't think I wrote that particular summary very well, though, and it needs references. --PresN 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Film and Television" uses a different template than the other sections, and I think they should all be consistent (either way, I don't much care). --PresN 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the video games section should give a very brief version of List of Final Fantasy video games. Perhaps just a table of the 14 main games? The music section could follow a similar format of just featuring the primary soundtracks to the main games. No need to give excess detail when other pages already appropriately do so. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I added bare bones tables of the main series games and their OSTs. In this case, do we still need the timeline? I could also probably trim the prose sections for VGs and music to just outline the fact that other games/soundtracks exist. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline can go in my opinion. I would assume that barely any prose is needed. So please trim away. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, trimmed VG section, will have to be more careful with the music section since it has references. Any opinion on the order of the sections? Right now the section order seems kind of arbitrary. Maybe alphabetical except with video games at the top? Or are there any more logical organization methods? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is better, but how about this:
  1. Video games
  2. Film and television
  3. Radio drama
  4. Soundtracks
  5. Companion books
  6. Novels and manga
Also, I think "Music and soundtracks" can be shortened to just "Soundtracks". Maybe that will help in trimming the music section's prose. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, all done. Any other glaring flaws to note? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three things:
  • I'd say that the companion books need to list out the books. Though I release that would be a long list in and of itself...
  • The video game entries seem rather sparse. Maybe include a bullet point for each one about the plot?
  • The headers for the soundtracks table looks weird. "Japan", "Length", and "Label" are all under "Original release date", but only Japan fits under that.
That's all that comes to mind. It's really starting to shape up. FL looks to be in reach again. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I returned the soundtrack table to its previous format. I was just testing to see what that looked like. I hesitate to add any more to the video game table because that's why we split out the video games in the first place. Looking at the KH media page, it looks like both lists feature similar types of content (ex, release platforms, presence of international versions, etc.). For the companion books entry, there are two options. We could either merge all of Ultimania into this page or we could leave it mostly like it is. I don't see an easy middle ground to take. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if List of Kingdom Hearts media is a good example to follow to the letter. It's been a while since it was promoted, and I think it needs some fine tuning and updating.
The problem with the subsection is that it's labeled "Companion books". Such a heading implies North American strategy guides as well as Ultimania books. This may sound silly, but what about List of Final Fantasy companion books? Don't know if it would pass notability standards though... (Guyinblack25 talk 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That's true, but since this is a list of FF media, it might be ok to just include those published by SE (ie, just Ultimania). As for a separate list, I don't know if that would fly... (see List of Prima Games guides, for ex). Axem Titanium (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a grey area to me. If the section will only be for Ultimania, then it should be renamed. Otherwise it should definitely include every companion book. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, Ultimania it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is wrong in saying "Starting with Final Fantasy III'. The guides for FFIII to VI were not Ultimania guides and were not published by Square but NTT Publishing (see an incomplete list here: [2]). They did serve the same function as the Ultimania though (invaluable canonical information, developer's interviews, stuff that were cut from the games, etc.). So should we list them? I don't know. :s I'm just saying my two cents. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's wrong to say that "Starting with Final Fantasy III, Square began publishing guide books" because I don't think the difference between Square directly publishing the guides and Square authorizing the guides to be published by NTT to be a useful distinction. I could make that more clear, but I don't think it's a relevant tidbit. Either way they shouldn't be listed since none of the Ultimanias are listed (at the moment), but the fact that guide books for III to VI exist should be mentioned, as the list does currently. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The novella section needs more refs. I'm not sure Musei Renu Haito, Tōbae wa Onore Mazu exists. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing for the more obscure Japanese only media is hard to come by. Regardless, primary sources can suffice for the existence of an item. Of course, more wouldn't hurt, but I think what's there is good for a non-contentious piece of information. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • I mean I'm literally not convinced it exists. I can't find any reference to it on Google. How do we know the person who inserted that in the article was not pulling a prank or vandalizing, Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The citation listed to Square's Ultimania site makes reference to "newly written novels [by] Benny Matsuyama [FFXII 』Gaiden" (according to Google Translate). If that's not good enough, I'll comment it out until a better source can be found (or translated? ^_^). Just don't go making trouble about comprehensiveness -_-. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other suggestions from anyone? I feel almost ready to take this to FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed this peer review to nominate for FLC here. Please direct any further concerns there. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France national football team

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is capable of becoming a good article and I need an outside source to verify that it is. The Representing multi-ethnic France section; I really haven't delve into yet and it has been questionable edited numerous times, so feel free to review that section once over.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso
  • There is one featured article about a national team, Scotland national football team. It may be of use for guidance on structure and layout.
  • Get rid of the section with results and fixtures, per WP:NOTNEWS
  • The list of coaching staff seems excessive. As a rule of thumb, individuals who are not notable enough to have their own articles should not be included in such as section.
  • Years should not generally be linked unless there is particular reason to do so.
  • Lots more referencing is required to reach GA. Generally speaking, any statement which might reasonably be challenged should have a reference. Looking at the Scotland article might help you get a feel for type of statement should be referenced.
  • Before nomination it would be worth getting a native speaker to run through the text to eliminate idiosyncrasies. To choose an example at random France have brandished the colors since their first official international match - brandishing implies menace, and is a word usually associated with things like guns or knives.
  • There are quite a few easter egg links. Space in the history section may be at a premium, but things like Battiston/Schumacher and the Zidane headbutt are iconic moments. They should not be hidden behind links that simply say "in controversial circumstances" without giving the reader any inkling of what happened.
  • It is jarring to have "UEFA Euro (year)" and "(year) FIFA World Cup" appearing so often in the text. This is a situation where link piping is useful. It reads more naturally to have them referred to as the 1986 World Cup or 1992 European Championships without rigidly conforming to the article title - its not like anyone will think World Cup means the Rugby World Cup in this context.
  • The amount of lists gets a bit overwhelming in the latter half of the article. A prose section about records would be better than a series of top ten lists. Those lists can be pointed to with hatnotes saying "for more details on this topic..."

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll make some immediate edits pertaining to your responses, but GA status will have to wait. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by H1nkles

  • All I'll say regarding this is that prior to nominating at WP:GAC you may want to add a bit about the French performance at this year's world cup. Given the international media attention that the team has garnered a summary of the events should be put in the article to satisfy the comprehensive criterian of the GA requirements. It may take a couple weeks for all of the dust to settle so to speak. I see a paragraph in the history section about it. I would wait to nominate at GAC until the situation plays itself out a little bit more. At least until the world cup is over and we hear more from the French regarding the status of players like Evra and Henry. That's just my opinion though. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get feedback on whether this article is:

  • "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"

or not. If not what than could be done to improve it on this matter.

Many thanks, Mootros (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:GeeJo

[edit]

First-pass comments:

  • The lead image *does* have alt text, but it's not really serving its intended purpose. See WP:ALT for guidelines on that.
 Done
  • The remaining images have no alt text at all. Again, consult WP:ALT for help.
 Done
  • A couple of very short sections. Might be worth looking at condensing those under more general headings
 Done

Second-pass comments:

  • Lede: trialed => tried
 Done
  • Lede: Might be worth changing the first appearance of "the assailant" to "Wiens". The clarification is probably unnecessary, but doesn't hurt after the previous two sentences introduce two people who might also be considered assailants.
 Done
  • Lede: "widespread international reactions" is tautological.
 Done
  • Lede: Might be worth stressing that the most vocal reactions were from predominantly Muslim nations. If they weren't, then the reactions sections below are focused too much on those countries.
 Done
  • Lede: "initial confrontation between the victim and perpetrator", again, use names where you can. No need to be roundabout.
  • Lede: "because she wore an Islamic headscarf that identified her religion." reads as slightly repetitious. There's a better way to phrase this.
 Done
  • Lede: "Following anti-German sentiments" sentiments aren't an action, they can't be followed.
 Done
  • Lede: "federal German government" federal is redundant.
 Done
  • Lede: "more than a week after the incident" is unnecessarily vague. "X days/weeks/etc" would be better.
 Done
  • Lede: Be consistent with Wiens's/Wiens', "Wiens's trial for murder" v. "Wiens' defence lawyer"
 Done
  • Lede: Occurred => took place. Though this is more personal taste than anything. Nothing wrong with occurred.
  • Marwa: This section reads more as a collection of factoids than as a narrative. Not sure how to help you there, really. Maybe try a slightly less formal tone, but don't take it too far.
  • Marwa: "was born in Alexandria, Egypt, as..." needs a date, or at least a year. I shouldn't have to read the infobox for that.
 Done
  • Marwa: "as daughter of chemists Ali El-Sherbini and Laila Shams" ungrammatical
 Done
  • Marwa: "In 1995 she graduated" needs a comma
 Done
  • Marwa: "also acted" => "had acted"
 Done
  • Marwa: "read pharmacy" is perfectly correct, but I'd personally use "study" over "read"
  • Marwa: "at Alexandria University and obtained" => "at Alexandria University, obtaining/receiving"
 Done
  • Marwa: "Egypt national handball team. [5]" remove the space between the full stop and the reference tag.
 Done
  • Marwa: "expecting her second child to be born in Germany." unnecessary qualifier.
This has consistently been brought up. Without the qualifier it was questioned whether the pregnancy became know through an autopsy or the likes...
  • Alex: do we have a birthdate for him?
 Done
  • Alex: "After leaving school, he" did he graduate, or just leave?
Very difficult point... He attended secondary eduction, but gained an "intermediated secondary eduction qualification" equivalent to the German Hauptschulabschluss. The source term is not known; nor is there an equivalent term in the target language English.
  • Alex: "he completed a vocational training programme as a warehouseman." It's correct, but the "as a warehouseman" bugs me for some reason. I don't know, might just be me.
It does bug me too; it's a translation of the German construct "Lagerfacharbeiter". In the German context of a vocational eduction it sounds fine, but yes it's odd in English, despite the fact I am not entirely sure about the Russian context of vocational eduction...
  • Alex: "In 1999 after a medical examination" either reverse the clauses or insert a comma after 1999. Alternatively, rephrase the whole sentence to something like this:
"After being diagnosed with (a?) severe and chronic psychosis during a medical examination in 1999, Wiens was exempted from compulsory service in the Russian armed forces"
I see. I've changed this slightly not to give the impression that he happened to go the doctors and got diagnosed. Although a medical examination for conscription may give some tentative diagnosis of a condition or may refer to previous diagnosis, it primarily states whether fit for service or not. It's not known where the "diagnosis" came from.
  • Alex: "Germany and gained German citizenship as a result of his German ethnic origin. In Germany" Wow, that's a dense batch of Germany.
 Done
  • Alex: How long had he been unemployed/receiving benefits?
It's not known.
  • Alex: "In November 2009, at the time of sentencing to life imprisonment," Jumping the gun. This is the first mention that he's serving a life sentence, and it really isn't the place for it.
 Done
  • Alex: "not married and had no children" => "unmarried with no children". Though given the opening to the next section, you may want to clarify about his niece.
 Done

Bleh. I had planned on going through the entire article in detail, but it's coming up on 1am here. I'll finish this tomorrow. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed comments so far. A great start! Mootros (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strip club

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in submitting it as a Featured Article candidate.

In particular, I would like feedback on:

  • (1b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
  • (1c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic.
  • (2b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • (4) Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

The recent focus has been to frame the article around specifics of the business while also acknowledging its social aspects (without diving too deep). At this point feedback from people not looking at it for hours on end would be a big help.

Thanks, Wallanon (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response to all by Wallanon

Thank you - You've all been a big help. -Wallanon (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by David Fuchs
  • Well, kudos for attempting to get something like this to a respectable quality, that's a mental task I could never accomplish :P Since you listed stuff in an order, I'll try to hew to it:
    • 1b: I think that a little more context could be used. The problem with wikilinking is that it often serves as a crutch, and we (without thinking too much about it) just link stuff rather than explaining. Take, for example, the lead. "A strip club is a nightclub or bar where striptease is regularly performed by strippers, possibly offering related services such as lap dancing." Explaining some of the terms (what a stripper is and what a striptease is) makes it clear from the opening what the article's about without having to link away (if I were a total ignoramus, I wouldn't have any inkling what risque business is going on here :P). Because of web habits, if someone has to click on a link to find out what it means, they are often not going to return to the main page, and since not everyone has popups (or in a print version linking is useless) it's best to explain. Also, spelling out what these terms are has the side benefit of reducing the number of times you see "strip" in the same sentence.
 Wallanon is doing... Done descriptions for context (strippers, striptease, etc) earlier in the article. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The better appointed a club, the more likely it is to encounter cover charges and fees for premium features." — what's "better appointed" mean? What about "VIP" and "champagne lounge"? Things like this.
 Wallanon is doing... Done added quick def (or link) for appointments and other specific terms. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1c/1d: I think in terms of presenting complaints about clubs, etc., the article is good. The giant problem with the article, however, is its scope. The world view is present in some parts, but not in others. Things like layout and staff seem to only necessarily apply to US businesses, and most areas like marketing only have US figures. This is a huge issue; unless you can find good high-quality sources that suggest the strip club is an American form of entertainment, the article needs to be recast with a more global perspective. I know that's certainly hard, and perhaps parts of the article can be spun off into a US-centric article, but I think this is the main issue with the article.
I plan to respond to each of the items, but whether or not to spin out some of the content into a US-focused article is something I've been weighing so I'll lead with that. I have a couple of sources that imply it is an American form of entertainment (in its current form), but am on the fence about whether or not the article would benefit from it. Europe and Australia clearly have published material that line up with the descriptions, but Asia and Africa are much tougher for sourcing and Latin and South America are thorny just splitting out strippers from hookers. In many countries around the world the two are synonymous. The challenge has been to try and describe what can be a legitimate business (and is in many cases) from the inevitable close association with more controversial topics. Some strippers are prostitutes, but many of them are not. Some of them are also sex slaves performing against their will, but many of them elected to go into the business and view it like any other job. And for this article, it is really is the management and operations that are the focus and how they could be possibly connected to all of these other things. As I'm sitting here now, I'm leaning towards a split if I can't pull in more global source material in the next day or two. It would take some doing, though. As always, anybody who might be reading this and wants to take a crack at improving the article is welcome. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm taking another look over the comments, and something that came to mind is where to center the article. I opted on the rewrite to center it on the structure and management of the clubs (the business view). I suppose there are alternatives more focused on the strippers or on striptease itself inside the clubs. Does anyone think the three should have equal weight in the strip club article? My thought would be it would distract, but multiple comments have shown an interest in having more of the article focused on the activity in the club. - Wallanon (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: Not sure why I didn't think about this sooner - Japanese Wikipedia, etc.. It's a little disappointing the article had exactly zero inline references, but it's a starting point, right? - Wallanon (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added financial figure for global strip club industry - Wallanon (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Wallanon is doing... Done content additions for global scope is more areas of the article. Making it more clear where content is global already since the Western (U.S.) style of striptease is presented globally. Opting to do this by describing subtle distinctions throughout. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not flawless, but the article is more balanced now between the U.S. and the rest of the world. American influence on global strip club industry established and cited inline. -Wallanon (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • 2b: The lead might be improved with some reorganizing. Since you've got bolded terms, I think explaining what the clubs are (see my 1b comments) and then following it up with other nomenclature, and then the prevalence of such locations, would make more sense than jumping to the legislation bit. Some details seem a little too specific for the lead (like the part around the VIP, etc.) and overall it could be shortened a bit.
 Wallanon is doing... Done revision of the article lead. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In some places the subsections seem a tad too detailed; generally, I try to avoid creating single-paragraph subsections. Merging together "Premium access zones", "Performers", "Top clubs", and some of "General admission zones" might be advisable (esp. "Top clubs", as its predicated on one single source, which seems a bit iffy and undue weight.)
Top Clubs actually had three sources, but only one list was included as an example since the other two referenced are dynamic lists. The intended point to my leaving it there after the rewrite was to show U.S. style strip clubs were globally accepted. The whole pop culture section needs to get built out, but since it will be the easiest to write I haven't given it much time. Was holding out hope someone else would do it. - Wallanon (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Did restructure some of the sections and moved content around. Left the premium sections split out so they had section anchors. Will probably expand but would like to find more photos first to enhance content. -Wallanon (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4. Length is good for now, but as world content needs to be added, some sections might be best if streamlined.
 Wallanon is doing... Done revising content of sections for flow and ordering. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the "See also" terms can be removed, as they are linked in the body.
 Wallanon is doing... Done revising and expanding see also. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every once in a while I saw glaring typo/grammar issues ("which in includes strip clubs"), which suggests that a closer look and copyedit by uninvolved editors would be warranted to get to a professional standard.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Wallanon is doing... Done will request a copy edit once the major revisions sugeested in the peer review are completed. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with David's comments above. For most of its length the article might as well be titled Contemporary American strip club. Any world perspective only appears in sections, and there is no history section at all, when in fact the industry as described has only appeared in the last ?25 years - before that I think things were very different. In fact the history bit would I expect be the easiest to source from books; as it is the sourcing is rather reliant on a diverse collection of newspaper articles. Main stage is not the "main article" for that section, & really should not be linked at all, as it is about something very different. Theatre in the round could be dropped too. The article doesn't really describe the central performances very well, relying on links to striptease, stripper etc. You have to read several screens down, for example, before it is implied that music is played during performances, unless I missed that. A clear description of what happens inside should be added. I'm not sure the accounting material really belongs in the lead. Sorry to be negative! Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I get to the rest of it, I agree that a little more description of the entertainment is warranted and I'll get to it ASAP. But the main response I want to make here is that strip club not an article about striptease (which has its own article referenced prominently at the top). It is about strip clubs and how they operate. More specifically, it is about how U.S.-style strip clubs operate around the world, since the variance from what is described here falls pretty quickly into prostitution. Brothels have their own articles, too. You are exactly right that the industry as described applies to the last 30 years because those are the businesses being described. I can put in material linking strip clubs to burlesque, which should connect things on the bigger timeline, but I have not found any references to go further than that (pre-1960's). Would welcome help if anyone can bring more to the article on its history. In the short term I plan to borrow liberally from the striptease article just to get coverage. Prostitution and human trafficking are being discussed as orthogonal topics. Unfortunately, because rigorous research is limited (with the seminal research from the 70's being very dated) and public disclosure of financials outside of the U.S. is even more limited, it makes the article appear to be narrow. I am looking into references that make a well-referenced attempt to estimate the global market, but that is precisely all it will ever be. If you drop a U.S. style strip club in the middle of another country it is still a U.S.-style strip club. I've seen them in multiple countries, but have only included material I could source since I would really rather not have the specter of "original research" hanging over the article. Not discounting the perspective because I can understand it, but scope creep is something I have been trying to avoid and don't mind putting that out for discussion. I definitely see some things I'd like to revise from the comments, though, and appreciate the help. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added a history section with broad coverage - Wallanon (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✗ Not done Have left references to stage arrangements. Will ultimately put a little more time into main stage to modernize it so it fits better with the reference from strip club. Strip clubs are essentially theaters, and the connections to the theater encyclopedic content is valid. - Wallanon (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added more sourcing from books. News articles dominate sourcing for convenience and they better capture nuances of present day clubs and activities that books might not capture. - Wallanon (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Wallanon is doing... Done revision of the article lead. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Wallanon is doing... Done description of what happens in strip clubs closer to the article top. -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment by Ruhrfisch I noticed that the article has several photos of what are probably copyrighted images / art. For example File:Strip Club Advertising.jpg is almost certainly copyrighted by the advertiser and so would be a WP:FAIR USE image (even if the license says it is free, I think the license is incorrect). I am not as sure about the neon art, but artworks are also copyrighted and so these images may also need to be justified under fair use rules. Please see WP:NFCC too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the feedback. Will address it all in turn, but this one I wanted to respond to immediately since it should be quick. If it is a public billboard and shown in that context I cannot see how it would need to be justified as fair use. It was intended to be put on public display exactly as referenced (as a billboard). - Wallanon (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an image expert, but I do know that public sculpture like Cloud Gate is both meant for public display and also copyrighted, so that the article on the sculpture only has one real image of it under WP:NFCC. You might wasnt to ask one of the regular FAC image reviewers ahead of time or have a fair use rationale ready if the image(s) are questioned at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted works, even in public venues, are still copyrighted. "Freedom of panorama" exists in a US setting only for buildings. You can argue that a free image with copyrighted content is still free, but that depends on the objective and subject of the work—a person that happens to be wearing a Bart Simpson tshirt is different than photographing just the tshirt, for example. It's a grey area, but given the context I'd say that the image could be considered non-free; other's mileage may vary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Wallanon is doing...✗ Not done considering the billboard issue. Agree with the comments overall on the advert content, but the photo is of the billboard structure which happens to have the advert on it. Seems like overkill to mess with the license, but if it looks like a problem will address (or possibly remove from the article). -Wallanon (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will leave as-is for now. Should be straightforward to resolve if it becomes an issue down the line. -Wallanon (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Puro Dolor

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would a critique to know how the article would be eligible for a GA status. The article is being done on a collaboration between me and two other people.

Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

First off thank you for your work and your efforts to push the article to GA standing. It is a commendable goal.

Lead

  • Make sure every aspect of the article is in the lead. The lead should read like a skeletal version of the article, the article then fills in the gaps.

Release and reception

  • The grammar is a little rough in places here. For example:
"They also did a concert with the R&B trio Destiny's Child, and were presented in the 1st Latin Grammy Awards along with boy band N'Sync...."
They were "present at" the 1st Latin Grammy awards. Is that what you're trying to say? Even better would be to reword, "and performed with N'Sync at the 1st Latin Grammy Awards..."

Awards

  • You italicize Billboard earlier but here it's not italicized.
  • I fixed a few grammatical issues here otherwise it's ok.

Music video

  • The writing here is very poor. This section will need to be cleaned up before nominating at WP:GAC. Here are some suggestions:
Start by removing unnecessary words like "basically, and simply".
What is "acoustic kind"? The sentence I'm referring to is, "The video opens on a stage acoustic kind, in where shows Ángel singing his verses, while the others members of the group, follow up with the chorus." Accoustic kind is linked to accoustic. What is an accoustic stage? The term "in where" is used several times in this section. It is misused and should be removed in every instance. What are the other members of the group doing? What does it mean that they are following up with the chorus? Are they singing with the chorus? Are they playing instruments with the chorus? It's unclear. Since I haven't seen the videos I can't really make suggestions for how to fix this.
The English version isn't better. First the word "in" is misused several times throughout the article. In the second sentence of the the English version paragraph the video starts on a cloudy afternoon. Another "in where" to remove. The group "is" situated not "it is" situated. How do we know it's cloudy if they're in a white room?
"...when later starts to drain water over the ladder." Rewrite, "...when water starts to drain over the ladder." Noun before verb.
  • I would suggest either removing this section or doing a total rewrite.

Chart performance

  • Much better writing in this section though there are several small grammatical errors. For example:
"The song exposure led to the parent album to receive a Gold certification in both the United States and México."
"The song exposure led the parent album to a Gold certification in both the United States and Mexico."
"This chart run led the song being named in 2009 the best-performing Latin single of the decade."
"This chart run earned the song the title of best-performing Latin single of the decade."
  • Trim out unnecessary wording that is implied in the context, is duplicative, or isn't important details.

Cover versions

  • I don't think a list of every group or individual who has covered the song is necessary. Perhaps a couple of notable covers are all that is needed.

References

  • Be sure to be consistent in italicizing. Is Billboard italics or not? With journals, trade magazines, newspapers the title of the publication is italicized. So I would say it should be.
  • No publisher for ref. 11.
  • Is ref 15 formatted properly, there are three parentheses ((()))? Seems a bit odd.
  • No accessdates for refs. 19-21.

Overall

  • The article is well on it's way. It is obviously a very important song and deserves a place as a GA. Keep up the good work.
  • The grammar and prose are the weakest points of this article. Consider asking for a copy edit one of the projects associated with this article if you do not feel confident doing a copy edit yourself.
  • I count four non-free images, this is usually excessive. Non-free images or copyrighted images are to be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. See WP:IMAGE for thoughts on this. Consider looking in Commons for free-use images that might be used in place of some of the images in the article. It's ok to have the album cover and even the English version image since these are very common in song articles. But the other two in the music video section I would replace with free images or remove in order to be in compliance with the Manual of Style.
  • This concludes my review if you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch the review pages. Thanks and happy editing. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to send this over to WP:FAC at some point in the not-too-distant future. I know that it's far too reliant on a single source (Franklin Foster's biography of Brownlee) at the moment, and I intend to do what I can to fix that before nominating it. The reality is, though, that Foster has covered this subject in far greater depth than any other academic, and the substance of the article is unlikely to change substantially as I incorporate other sources. Accordingly, I would like thoughts on how this article measures up to the featured article criteria (along with any other suggestions for improvement). Steve Smith (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is professionally written, interesting, and may be comprehensive (though I'm not the best judge of that). I enjoyed it, and I am becoming less of an ignoramus about Alberta each time I read one of your fascinating articles. The single-source dependency looks like a problem, but you doubtless have a solution in mind. The image licenses in four cases might need some tweaking, as noted below. My other comments are about minor prose and style issues. Nice job.

Lead

  • "he also became the government's de facto leader" - Italics for de facto"?

Entry into cabinet and the legislature

  • Maybe delete "the" in the head so that it reads, "Entry into cabinet and legislature"?
  • "Brownlee demurred, reluctant to take the resulting cut in income, not eager to leave his family in Calgary to work in Edmonton... ". - Maybe wikilink Edmonton and add, "the provincial capital" for foreigners who might not know it.
  • "Percival Baker, the UFA member elected for Ponoka, had died election day from injuries sustained earlier... ". - Maybe "had died on election day"?
  • "a more reasonable candidate for that rugged northern riding" - Wikilink riding? Also, although I find the phrase poetic, in what sense(s) was (is) the riding rugged? The word might mean geographically rugged, or it might mean politically or socially rugged.

Advisor to the government

  • "Brownlee had the greatest debating experience of the UFA members... ". - Maybe "most" or "broadest" or "widest" instead of "greatest" because the latter might be misunderstood at first to mean "most enjoyable"?
  • The Manual of Style suggests using blockquotes for quotes of four lines or more. This one fills only two lines on my computer screen. I'd probably just use an ordinary quote embedded in the text.

Railways and natural resources

  • "These expenditures were the result of syndicates responsible for four small railroads collapsing, leaving the government supporting their construction." - Tighten? Suggestion: "These expenditures resulted from the collapse of four small-railroad syndicates, which left the government to finance the rail construction."
  • "Alberta sought control over the resources, both because it believed that this would yield higher revenues than the grant did and out of sheer pride." - Tighten by one word by deleting "did"? Or maybe recast as "Alberta sought control over the resources not only because it believed that this would yield higher revenues than the grant, but out of sheer pride."

Images

  • File:Herbert Greenfield 1921.jpg should be moved so that it fits entirely within a single section and does not overlap two sections.
  • File:JohnEBrownlee.jpg is licensed as PD in Canada and in the U.S. The other four images are licensed PD in Canada. Are they also PD in the U.S.? If so, do the license pages need to be updated to include this information?

Hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article from the backlog at WP:PR. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! My girlfriend was looking over my shoulder as I was reading it, and commented "he's a good reviewer"; I assured her that your username was indeed apt. I've made all the changes that you recommended except for italicizing "de facto" (when I've italicized it previously, reviewers have objected on the basis that it is now an English phrase taken from Latin, rather than a Latin phrase used in English) and specifying rugged (all uses apply: rocky, heavily forested terrain, men being men and sheep being nervous, etc.). Steve Smith (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Wyoming. Finetooth (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona in Europe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just finished adding sources for every item in list. Wd like some input on prose (and perhaps a copy-edit).

Thanks in advance to all the reviewers, Sandman888 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinhan's comments

  • Article is well written, especially in the list details.
  • The following sentences in the lead paragraph has got to be cited per WP:Lead.
The club was created in 1899, and have participated in regional and domestic competitions since 1901, and in international competitions since the Pyrenees Cup in 1910. They have won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League 3 times. They have won the now defunct, European Cup Winners' Cup 4 times, and the old Inter-Cities Fairs Cup 3 times, which is more than any other club, for both trophies.
    • Done
  • In the 'Finals' section, under the Year heading, some boxes are in yellow color while others are in gray. Please add a note stating what the different colors represent.
    • removed colours.
  • The sections Inter Cities Fairs Cup (1955–1971)/ UEFA Cup (1971–2009)/ UEFA Europa League (post 2009), Finals, Semi-finals, and Succession Boxes are not reffed/sourced.
    • finals, succession boxes and cities cup sourced
  • Can you find references from other sources other than from UEFA?
  • Can you source the paragraphs below?
FC Barcelona was among the first participants in European football, and in 1904 the club began to play friendly games against teams from the neighbouring regions in France. Club president Arthur Witty organised the club's first trip abroad, which resulted in their first game against a non-Spanish team. On May 1, 1904, FC Barcelona defeated Stade Olympien des Étudiants Toulousains. The same opponents were then invited back to Barcelona to play the inaugural game at the Carrer Muntaner, one of the club's early homes. FC Barcelona won this game 4–0, with two goals from Joan Gamper.
In 1949, the football federations of Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal, came together and launched their own club competition. European clubs could not afford hefty travel costs so the Copa Latina was staged at the end of every season in a single host country.
  • I made some very minor tweaks. It should look fine after you've worked on them further based on those suggestions.
    • Done

If you have any questions/comments, please leave a message for me on my talk page as I'm not watchlisting this page. Also, please feel free to make a peer review on any requests in WP:Peer review. BejinhanTalk 10:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Merrick

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Joseph Merrick, aka The Elephant Man. I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a lot of content to it recently and it's just had a copyedit. I'd really like to get it to GA, and ultimately FA, so any comments or suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Esuzu - Hello! I'm Esuzu and will try to help you with this article. Please respond directly below each of my comments so I/we can easily see what has been done and what hasn't. I will strike them when they are done. If you can try to comment on other Peer Reviews while you have yours listed here. Cheers, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (sorry for currently being kind of slow to respond. I will continue this review as soon as possible. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I'm thinking this is going to be kind of a long-term project for me anyway! Appreciate the comments so far.--BelovedFreak 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First look
  • The lead is way to long. It should no be no more than four paragraphs long. It will need to be shorter.
    • Yep, it's very long. This is the longest article that I've tried to summarise in a lead before. As per WP:LEAD, the whole article should be summarised with appropriate weight. I feel that it is (although if you disagree, please say), but obviously this needs to be balanced with the need to have a manageable lead. I'm reluctant to chop bits out that are relevant, just to shorten it, but I will have a look. If you could make any specific recommendations, they would be appreciated.
  • There is no need to put the same reference in consecutive sentences. Just add it at the end of the sentence block instead.
    • I do have a tendency to overcite, but if you don't mind, I'd rather wait until I'm a bit more comfortable with the overall structure before I remove too many citations. I don't want to start moving things round, if that's suggested, and find that I've lost where certain bits have come from.
Looks better now.
  • Is the Michael Jackson quote in the end really necessary? A picture of something connected to the legacy could probably be better.
  • I don't know, to be honest, possibly not. The quote was left over (I think) from before I started editing it, and I just left it in. I'm not totally happy with the source for that either, so I wouldn't mind losing it. I don't know what picture would be appropriate. Any of the film would be fair use and difficult to justify for this article I think.
Pictures of the film would be hard but perhaps you could find one of Bowie, Anglim or Lynch?
  • Most of the article is built upon the Howell & Ford book. Is there no other reliable references you could use to "mix it up" a bit?
    • From what I can gather, (and I've only been working on this a relatively short time, so I'm open to being corrected!), the Howell & Ford book is by far the most reliable source on Merrick. Most of the other biographical work is based on Frederick Treves' memoirs which have been shown to have errors. Several works mentioning Merrick, for example, call him "John", as they took this directly form Treves. I have used the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, and could add a few more cites to that if you think it would help. That was based partly on Howell & Ford's book, partly on Treves, and a bit on primary sources I think, so it is good as an alternative, but is not very in-depth. I would like to get hold of Ashley Montagu's book, for comprehensiveness, although I wouldn't like to use it for any of the facts about his life, as it also has been found to be somewhat unreliable. Do you have any other suggestions? thanks for your comments so far.--BelovedFreak 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
llywrch writes

Following up on Esuzu's comment about the lead paragraphs, I'd like to point out that what is needed here is to simply present the essential points about Merrick & his significance to us. These are: he suffered from a disfiguring disease which led to his ostracism; confirmation that he had a career as a side-show freak; his relationship with Frederick Treves, which led to him living at London Hospital for the rest of his life; common errors about him (such as his name frequently being incorrectly given); & his effect on contemporary popular culture. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I know you're both right. I'm going to have a look at it and try and hack some bits out.--BelovedFreak 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've cut it down from 939 words to 584. Please let me know if you think I should cut it further, or if I've now left anything important out.--BelovedFreak 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I would not complain at a GA or FA at least. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on another of Esuzu's comments -- which nagged at me as I fell asleep last night -- is the heavy reliance on Howell & Ford here. I suspect if you look more closely at their work, you will find that they made use of earlier research -- which you should then examine & see if the findings/conclusions there take priority -- or differ -- from what Howell & Ford write. Another approach to take is to look at the reviews of Howell & Ford's book: academic reviewers are always eager to point out mistakes in books like these -- even if the "mistake" is nothing more than an opinion or interpretation they disagree with. I also would be surprised if the local history society in Leicester/Leicestershire hasn't published something on their famous onetime resident. If nothing else, pointing to the sources used in Howell & Ford would help -- as you have begun to do with the autobiographical pamphlet & the 1930 Illustrated Leicester Chronicle article. (Adding the date & page of its publication would help regardless.) I know that additional information exists out there; if the government archives of the local government in Leicester are comparable to the rest of England, they should have numerous mentions of Merrick during his life in Leicester. This would include his birth (from the parish records), his schooling, any encounters he had with the law, & the workhouse & Poor Law records. However, approaching these primary sources directly yourself would only be a last resort, & not just because of the rules involving original research: "John Merrick" & "Joseph Merrick" are very common names, & it would be very easy for a non-expert to either misidentify -- or fail to identify -- Merrick in the official records. Still, it would be quite rewarding to have a link to the primary sources which mention him -- or his family -- before his later fame/notoriety, such as a policeman's report of Merrick being at the center of a disturbance due to his appearance or a newspaper write-up of one of the medical presentations at London Hospital. (This is something an intelligent reader would truly appreciate, because it would allow her/him to continue to research beyond Wikipedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great suggestions. I definitely agree that the article will need a wider variety of sources before it gets anywhere close to FA. The ODNB and Howell & Ford both use primary sources, so I can try to incorporate those findings more in the article. I'm sure that Howell & Ford mention census returns and workhouse records, for example, so I can mention those. I must admit I hadn't thought of the Local History society, but that's a great idea, I will definitely look into that. I will also get hold of Ashley Montagu's book at some point to try and incorporate that.--BelovedFreak 10:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what could be improved on. The lead and prose probably need to be looked over... But all comments/suggestions are welcome since I'm hoping to bring it back up to GA status. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Tezero:
    • Intro:
      • It's the Sony PlayStation 2, not just Sony PlayStation 2. Although the console had mass appeal, it's not a mass noun.
      • Xbox and PC should be linked, just as the PS2 is.
      • Third paragraph... "Gameplay" is one word.
    • Gameplay
      • The first mention of James in this section is "when James' flashlight is on." Work his name somewhere into the text before that to give some context; for example, you might change "the player character" to "James Sunderland, the player character".
      • Again... "gameplay" is one word. I reference the first sentence of the second paragraph.
      • Consider the following: "six weapons available: three melee weapons and three firearms, with another two unlocked during replays"... Two of what are unlocked during replays? Melee weapons? Firearms? Vacuum cleaners? (trust me, those can be deadly.) All we have to go by is "weapons", on which you should elaborate a bit.
    • Characters
    • Releases
      • Again, the thing about the PS2, and the thing about the Xbox and PC.
    • Reception
      • In the paragraph that begins with GameSpot, the second sentence should be changed from "which GameSpot called" to "which it called"... it just seems like it says GameSpot too much. No huge deal.
      • When it says "twentieth greatest PlayStation game of all time"... isn't this game for the PS2? Tezero (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review and catch the typos. :) I fixed the problems you found. The unlockable weapons are a chainsaw and some sort of spray, not a vacuum cleaner. This time. :) I'm still looking for a reliable source for that, however, since the current source only states that there are two unlockable weapons. Kaguya-chan (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you own the game, you can use its instruction booklet. Also, if the game says something like "You unlocked a chainsaw" or "1 chainsaw found" you could cite that as a quote. Not everything needs to be third-party sources. Tezero (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Afghan detainee issue

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I need some serious feedback about this article's general direction, as I may be pushing it towards a GA nomination sometime soon. But as I update some of the content on actual allegations, I want to make sure it does not have POV issues (since most of the material has been contributed by myself and another editor), has good form to meet GA criteria #3 (especially in respect to the document section), and has no other issues barring it from a chance in being nominated for GA status.

Thanks a bunch in advance. --Natural RX 03:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks really good to me, although I must confess it is not a topic I was familiar with before reading the article, so I am not a great judge on its comprehensiveness or neutrality (though it reads to me like it is both comprehensive and neutral). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The disambig links tool in the toolbox here find a few dabs that need to be fixed.
  • Similarly the external link checker finds two dead links and some others that may have issues
  • The lead is decent but does not mention two of the sections of the article (prorogation and public opinion), which I think it should as a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD
  • I think it might help to make it clearer that this is the Canadian Liberal government (since the previous sentences were about Afghanistan): The Liberal government at the time, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, chose to have the Canadian Forces hand over its prisoners...
  • Again it might help to clarify things a bit here: After NATO took command in [Afghanistan in] 2003, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse at the hands of the United States armed forces [in Iraq] came to the attention of the public, ...
  • Shouldn't it be "and" (not "or") in ...started transferring detainees to Afghan security forces, which comprised the Afghan National Army (ANA) or the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS).[4] since the ANA and the NDS made up the Afgahn security forces
  • I would briefly identify O'Connor in Members of the opposition requested [Minister of Defence] Gordon O'Connor to renegotiate the prisoner transfer agreement, ... also would it read better to say "...requested that [MoD] Gordon O'Connor renegotiate..."?
  • A bit unclear: While maintaining otherwise until March 2007, O'Connor apologized to the Canadian House of Commons for previously misleading them on the Red Cross issue.[9] Per
  • I would explicitly add something like "by Canadian forces" at the end of In April 2007, The Globe and Mail published interviews with 30 men who claimed they were "beaten, starved, frozen and choked after they were handed over to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security".[12] just to make it very clear
  • Is it Access to information or freedom of information in Canada? Is there a difference between the two? If not why use both phrases?
  • The header "Surfacing of allegations" seems a bit clunky - would "Allegations surface" work?
  • Make sure all abbreviations are spelled out on first use, so "Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had" for example
  • Numbers less than 10 are generally spelled out per WP:MOSNUM so fix things like Details of the torture on 7 detainees, labelled 'Prisoner A' through 'G'...
  • Seems to be missing something Opposition MPs in the House of Commons have called for all documents the government had regarding the detainee issue, including reports to the government by Richard Colvin[, to be made public].
  • Remove "last Wednesday" and make sure there are no inadvertent copy and paste sections in the article - see "There's a mandatory obligation on public officials to ensure that when information is released that it is in compliance with the Canada Evidence Act," MacKay said last Wednesday.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Peter Mackay is linked twice in the section "Dispute over documents and parliamentary committees" for example
  • I think I would just list names of people there are no free images of - the camera no image icon is a bit odd looking repeated three times
  • Prorogation is something many readers will not be familiar with - although it is linked, I still think it would help to give a brief explanation of it (a phrase or sentence) - see WP:PCR
  • Per WP:See also, the See also section is generally for links not already in the article
  • One potential problem with this article is that it seems to be an ongoing issue and has not been resolved (so that may present difficulties - is the article really complete?)

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 ><>°° 04:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thetford

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because it has reached GA, and it is stable. I now wish to prepare the article as a Featured article candidate (FAC).

History of the article:

Thanks, Senra (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - looks like a lovely place! I have looked this over and think it would have trouble passing FAC in its current state. With an eye to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is supposed to be a summary o the whole article, but there are some odd things in there now, like the cost of a railway journey. I think this is too specfic for the lead (OK for the article) and would instead mention the history of the railway line in the lead.
  • The lead is also a bit disorganized - the Ouse is mentioned twice, for example. WHy not combine these in the lead in something like The Old English name, lȳtel Thiutforda (c. 972), suggests there was once a ford across the River Great Ouse, which today forms most of the village's eastern boudnary.
  • The third paragraph of the lead jumps from the ROmas, to modern day, to 1866, then back to today. Could it be made a bit more chronological?
Agreed Lead issues noted. Will work on this last --Senra (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Senra (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system of references used is confusing as there are both plain numbers and nb followed by a number. Usually the nb notes are comments or asides that are not for the general text, and the numbers are cites to sources used, but I can't really figure out the differences between them and their use in this article. I think almost any single system of refs is OK at FAC as long as it is used consistently - this appears to be two systems used in a fashion I could not decipher.
Agreed. However, I will struggle to fix this. Originally I had all notes and references in one section. I then split them following the first review.
Footnotes currently consists of
  • asides such as Inflated due to local fair at time of census and
  • specific book or website page detail linked to 'Notes such as
  • Pugh (ed) VCH (1953) p. 152 col. 2[18] --> Pugh, R B, ed. (1953), The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Cambridge and the isle of Ely, 4, Oxford University Press, pp. 151–159
  • Driver, I., CHER:Bronze Age rapier, Little Thetford (1953) --> "Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record (CHER)". Heritage Gateway. 2006. url removed for clarity Retrieved 4 July 2010.
Notes currently consists of linked references from notes to biographical or website sources; books; websites.
I need help. I examined other FA-class articles, Navenby, Stretford, Blyth, Northumberland, and Dorset. They all use different terms within a references section. Of the ones I looked at, I favour modelling Little Thetford on Dorset. I think references will end up with three sections as follows.
Section header for the section (references and notes; sources; notes and references?)
Sub-Section 1: for small asides. There will be about 9 of these. e.g.
  • No census 1941 due to WWII
  • a foot and a half long
Sub-Section 2: for all the detail. There will be about 107 of these. Printed sources such as books, journals will be summary cites with biographical detail in sub-section 3. For example
  • Pugh (ed) VCH (1953) p. 152 col. 2 in sub-section 2 and Pugh, R B, ed. (1953), The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Cambridge and the isle of Ely, 4, Oxford University Press, pp. 151–159 sub-section 3
  • A Vision of Britain Administrative unit:Grunty Fen ExP/CP:Parish level unit:Boundary map in sub-section 2 and A Vision of Britain (2004). "A vision of Britain between 1801 and 2001". University of Portsmouth and others. url removed for clarity Retrieved 4 June 2010 in sub-section 3
Sub-Section 3: Biographical detail. There will be about 20 of these such as
  • Smith, Lisa; Charlotte Davies (2008). "25, Broad Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Monitoring and Recording." (pdf). Archaeological Solutions Ltd.. pp. 34. url to pdf file removed for clarity Retrieved 26 June 2010.
  • Pevsner, Nikolaus (1970), Cambridgeshire (Pevsner Architectural Guides: Buildings of England) (2nd ed.), Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0300095869
  • Kirby, Tony; Susan Oosthuizen (2000). An Atlas of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire History. Centre for Regional Studies, Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge. ISBN 9780907262190
What to call the main section and each sub section? I have no idea, as the example FA classes I looked at all use different styles. What do you think? --Senra (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Senra (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has many refs and notes, but there are places that seem to still need refs - for example the last paragraph of Governance has no refs, or things like Village domestic heating is mainly oil. Some domestic properties may use wood for a fuel as a prime or supplemental form of heating or cooking. Natural gas is not mains supplied to anyone within the village. or A privately maintained microlight airfield is inside the boundaries of the village. or The club, formed in 1960, has a number of venues, including this one. Fish species caught, along the weed and reed-lined river at Little Thetford, include Roach, Bream, Rudd, Perch and Bleak. In addition, some Tench to 6 pounds (3 kg) and rarely Carp have been landed. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Please see WP:CITE and WP:V
Agreed Striking each one as I go --Senra (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Senra (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow for the reader - could these be combined with others or perhaps expanded?
Agreed working through them --Senra (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Boundaries and public services are still light. I may be able to fill boundaries a little more, but I will struggle with public services I feel. Perhaps I should remove the sub-sections within public services? Let me know, but for now done. --Senra (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Boundaries done. Public services will have to wait as this needs further research to expand --Senra (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd that History ends in 1941.
Agreed I am part-way through floods of 1919 and 1947 which may help a little here. The village population has nearly trebled since '50's due housing development. I could mention that. There was a fire which destroyed a c. 1300 house in Little Thetford in 1930? Also Dave Lee Travis and Pans People were present at the opening night of the Fish & Duck at Little Thetford in the '80's but I thought this useful for a trivia section; not history. --Senra (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added a news story about a fire in 1930. I cannot find anything useful for post 1941 except housing development. To be honest, fidning history in a 2 sq mi village has been a nightmare anyway! I am not ungrateful. Job done for now --Senra (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the Archeology sections seems like it could become part of History, perhaps.
stet for now. I would like a 2nd opinion here. The archaeology section as it stands discusses Little Thetford from an archaeology finds perspective. It would need considerable re-working to make it useful as a history paragraph or two. Plus it would need to be threaded through the history section. I am prepared to do this of course. As it is a lot of work, would another editor confirm please? --Senra (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with the comment by Ruhrfisch. All of the finds described in the archaeology section illustrate the long history of human occupation of the area & I would work them into history by the dates they illustrate ie late Neolithic, Romano-British, Iron age, Saxon etc rather than focusing on the dates when the finds were made.— Rod talk 14:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed will work on this --Senra (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Senra (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will work on these over the next couple of days. --Senra (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for now. I need further input on the references section before I can complete this. --Senra (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to have all the comment notes as "nb #" where # is a number like 1, 2, 3, etc. So any sort of comments like "There is no village of Great Thetford since the unfortunate alien invasion of 1899" would go there ;-) I would make anything that is a reference to a relaible source would be a numerical reference. I also think that some or perhaps all of the comments will need references. There are many different ways to do references - if you want to see a recent FA I was the main author on that has comment notes, references, and lists sources with page numbers separately, see Ganoga Lake as a possible model. I am sure there are many others - River Parrett is a recent English Geography FA that splits its references (but has no comments notes) - it may also be a good model. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Senra (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more - this looks better, but the history section still ends in 1941 with the air attack - nothing of note has happened in almost 70 years? I also am a bit confused about the reference for the air attack - the quote is attributed to someone in 2010, but the ref is to a 1941 mewspaper article. It is also not clear from the areticle - did the King and Quenn travel through the village on that day in 1941? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will work on this. I will add something about the 1947 floods which also affected the area. Frankly nothing else has happened. Anyway, I have closed the review. Thank you very much for your help. It is very much appreciated --Senra (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

École L'Odyssée

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
So this was a revamp I did beginning on the 15th - my third, but only significant one. I tried getting as much information as possible, but because it's a poorly-documented establishment (excluding newspaper articles and the provincial government's education archives which were of great help), I had little to work on. What I really want to get done is the following, and I'd like a little help with how to proceed doing it:

  • Remove the gallery at the bottom and integrate the images into the side of the article. I've tried, but I'm not the best with formatting.
  • Italicize the foreign terms per WP:Manual_of_Style#Foreign terms; however, there is very little information I was able to use. Guidelines from a professional would be very appreciated.
  • The lead sentence for the History section is uncited. There is absolutely no citation for it, but I can't think of a way to rephrase it / think of a better lead sentence.

If there's anything else you wish to add to benefit the article's progression, feel free to say what you think. Thanks.

EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that I'm trying to get this at least to GA. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

  • The gallery should be removed, with the images moved to Commons, and {{Commons category}} added in its place. I should also point out that the image licenses for the photographs of the artwork probably won't work. One of the few things I've learned about copyright here, is that you may have taken the photo but the creator of the artwork still holds the copyright.
 Done Removed all of the student's artwork (sort of useless, anyway), kept the scenic photos, sent them to Commons and added template. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

  • "...is a public francophone high school located in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, part of the province's District 01, offering education to students from grade nine to twelve."
Split sentence: "...is a public, francophone high school located in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. It is a part of the province's District 01 and offers education to students from grades nine to twelve."
 Done EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...alongside the neighboring middle school, École Le Mascaret."
If the buildings are connected, "adjoing" might better than neighboring.
 Done EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • École Beauséjour and École Vanier are mentioned only in the intro. Per WP:LEAD, anything in the intro should be mentioned in the article body as well.
 Done EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • The only way I can see in getting rid of the "citation needed" without actually adding a citation would be to remove the sentence and just start the paragraph off by mentioning that the overcrowding problems at École Mathieu-Martin caused the development of the plans that eventually created Écoles L'Odyssée and Le Mascaret.
 Done EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academics

  • What is a "'Volet' curricula"?
 Done Clarified with a short modification to the wording. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is an example schedule needed?
I believe it is notable to have it, yes, because it's a modified version of a scheduling system which has had a lot of backlash academically. It also happens to be quite complex and would be very, very hard to explain it in prose for ease of understanding (though if there would be an alternative to the tables, it would be appreciated). I could probably remove the "Second semester" example, however, since it seems a little redundant. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics

  • I'm curious about all the specific details for "Track and field", but none for the other sports.
I understand where you're coming from, but I was thinking this is where the school exceeds in athletics, and was worthy of a bit more attention. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni

  • No offense, but I question their notability.
 Done None taken. However, I'm leaving Genevieve Lalonde and the section title as comments, because she happens to have qualified for the 2010 World Junior Championships in Athletics just yesterday, and depending on her finish, might turn notable ;) That and she's apparently aiming for the 2012 Olympics, so if she makes it, I can just remove the comments. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A GA looks doable, try looking through Category:GA-Class school articles for a good model to follow. If these comments are useful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I'm still stumped with italicizing foreign words (Should I italicize proper nouns, even if it's the article title? Should I repeatedly italicize specific nouns?), and would like insight on that, as well as info on whether or not I should center tables. If you or anyone else can help with that or suggest anything else, feel free. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't italicize proper nouns, just the foreign words that a reader might know and are defined in the article (like "Preoccupation de l'Affectif et de l'Apprentissage de Qualité"). The tables that are almost the width of the article should be centered; I floated one of the smaller tables to remove the white space around it (is that alright?). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, and to be consistent I italicized the French term first, followed by the English term in parentheses. And yes, that looks quite fine to me. There are just a few more issues related to centering (has to do with what screen resolution you have, but I don't think that's something Wikipedia can solve, really)Centering is fixed, and I'll probably request a copy-edit before nominating it for GA; unless there's something else you want to add, of course. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Musial

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to continue this article's journey towards Featured Article status. Any comments or suggestions are welcome, particularly those related to prose.

Thanks, Monowi (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article about a truly unusual sports figure. I think the article is close to FA, and I have several suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "At the time of his retirement, Musial held or tied for seventeen major league records, 29 National League records, and nine All-Star Game records." - WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words suggests that these three numbers be either all figures or all words since they all relate to the same thing, records. Since you are (generally) using digits for numbers bigger than nine elsewhere in the article, the three numbers should be 17, 29, and 9 in this sentence.
Changed Monowi (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musial served as the Cardinals' General Manager in 1966 and 1967, in addition to overseeing various businesses both before and after his playing career, such as a restaurant." - I might flip this sentence to put the vague time before the specific time: "In addition to overseeing businesses such as a restaurant both before and after his playing career, Musial served as the Cardinals' General Manager in 1966 and 1967."
Great suggestion, thanks! Monowi (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "When Musial enrolled in school, his name was formally changed to "Stanley Frank." - I'd add the last name here too. Otherwise it might be misinterpreted to mean that he changed his last name from Musial to Frank.
Changed. Monowi (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the age of fifteen, Musial joined the Donora Zincs, a semi-professional team managed by Barbao. In his Zincs debut, Musial pitched six innings and struck out thirteen batters, all of them adults." - I'd change "fifteen" to 15 and "thirteen" to 13 for consistency. The guidelines are a bit confusing on the question of "six" in this sentence, but I'd probably change it to 6 to maintain consistency within the sentence.
Changed. Monowi (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musial's father initially resisted the idea of his son pursuing a baseball career... " - Any idea what his father wanted him to do instead?
One of Musial's biographers, James Giglio, argued that Musial's father wanted him to pursue the stable income of a coal-mining job. This contrasts drastically with what Musial and writer Bob Broeg relayed in Musial's offical bio, which was that his dad wanted him to focus more on college. I don't think Giglio has enough direct evidence to include his view in the body of the article, but I think it's clear his dad wasn't a proponent of college either. That's why I have the sentence phrased this way; it's the best compromise I could come up with. Monowi (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In what was then a common practice, the Cardinals did not file the contract with the Commissioner's office until June 1938." - It might be helpful here to readers not familiar with baseball to give the full title, Commissioner of Baseball (or whatever it was in 1938) and link it to an explanatory article if possible.
Added wikilink. Sentence now reads, "In what was then a common practice, the Cardinals did not file the contract with the Commissioner of Baseball's office until June 1938." Monowi (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career

  • Since foreign readers may not understand baseball jargon, it might be helpful to link or briefly explain "signs", and "pickoff attempts". I realize that trying to explain all of the game's intricacies might make the article unreadable, but a few explanations might fit into a "Notes" section, if necessary.
I decided to decrease use of extra baseball jargon here, since it really didn't serve the reader very well in terms of info. The new combined sentence reads, "Musial began gaining more in-depth knowledge about baseball strategy while posting a 6–6 record and a 4.66 ERA, to go along with a .258 batting average." Monowi (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1941–45

  • "Over the next three games at Yankee Stadium, Musial had three more hits as the Cardinals defeated the Yankees in the series four games to one, finishing the series with a .222 batting average and two runs scored." - I'd suggest splitting off the final clause and turning it into a separate sentence to avoid suggesting that the team batting average for the series was .222. Also, "series" appears in lowercase in this sentence but as "Series" elsewhere. You should decide which you want to use and then make them consistent throughout.
The text now reads, "Over the next three games at Yankee Stadium, Musial had three more hits as the Cardinals defeated the Yankees in the Series four games to one.[42] Musial's final batting statistics for the 1942 World Series included a .222 batting average and two runs scored." The only other instance I could find of the word "series" not being capitalized occurred in the sentence, "The Cardinals finished the season tied with the Brooklyn Dodgers,[64] prompting a three-game playoff for the pennant. Musial's Game 1 triple and Game 2 double contributed to the Cardinals' two-games-to-none series victory" from the 1946-1949 section. I have capitalized the word "Series" when in reference to the World Series, but since this instance referred to a playoff series that wasn't the World Series, I didn't capitalize it. Monowi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950–54

  • "To date Nate Colbert is the only player besides Musial to have hit five home runs in a doubleheader, doing so in 1972. As an eight-year-old, Colbert had been in attendance to witness Musial's feat.[citation needed]" - "To date" is one of those vague terms best replaced with a specific date; e.g. "as of 2010". Also, the "citation needed" tag will need to be addressed.
The world's biggest Nate Colbert fan keeps harassing the body of the text so that mention of Colbert is included. I'd prefer to keep the article focused on Musial, as it would avoid the need to annually update a sentence like, "As of {insert year here} Nate Colbert is the only player besides Musial to have hit five home runs in a doubleheader, with Colbert having achieved the feat in 1972." The other editor never did provide a reference for the other fact, so I'll delete that sentence yet again. Monowi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I've gone with the more simplistic, "Nate Colbert is the only player besides Musial to have hit five home runs in a doubleheader, with Colbert having achieved the feat in 1972." Monowi (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1955–59

  • "Instead, Lane dealt Musial's close friend Schoendienst to the New York Giants, ushering no immediate comment to the press from an upset Musial." - I don't think "ushering" is the right word. Perhaps "prompting"?
Good choices of wording there. Thanks. Monowi (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musial's consecutive games played streak ended at 895" - Either hyphenate the compound adjective or re-cast as "Musial's streak of playing in 895 consecutive games"?
I went with the first suggestion. Monowi (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Post-playing career

  • "Musial's longtime business partner Biggie Garagnani died in June 1967, promoting Musial to devote more time to managing his restaurant and other business interests." - I don't think "promoting" is quite right. Maybe "requiring"?
Wow...what a terrible choice of wording; it was definitely a spelling mistake on my part, as I wanted to use the word "prompting" all along. Monowi (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Obama since you linked Johnson?
Wikilink added. Monowi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • This is a pretty big list. I'd be inclined to cull any that are already linked in the main text.
None of these links are currently included in the body of the text. I experimented with incorporating them into the text, but contextually, I think a lot of them don't really fit into the body of the text well, even as wikilinks. I'd much rather delete a large portion of the listings since they all are links to lists anyway, but I'm sure someone would come along again shortly and simply re-add the links. I honestly don't know how to best address this issue, which is why I'm leaving it as is (for now). Monowi (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Each of the book refs should include place of publication as well as publisher. You can find these through WorldCat if you don't have the data in your notes; e.g. here is the first James book, published in New York by Free Press. You can add OCLC numbers for any books with no ISBN; WorldCat usually has them.
Wow, WorldCat is such a great resource; I wish I had known about it earlier! I've even gone ahead and added the OCLC numbers for other books. Monowi (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The link checker at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.
All dead links have been fixed. Monowi (talk) 23:20, 9 July 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) 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your outstanding peer review! I have already started to address these excellent suggestions, and look forward to implementing these suggestions over the next couple of days. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that after you implement Finetooth's suggestions, this can go to FAC. This is a really good article on one of the greats of the game. Since I did the GA review I don't have much to add, but I would like to see citation dates written out (i.e. August 1, 2007 instead of 2007-08-01). If it passes FAC and nominated for it soon, there's time to make it the TFA on his 90th birthday, which would be awesome. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per your excellent suggestion, I have modified the dates in the references to make things more clear. I hadn't even really considered trying to make it The Featured Article of the day for his birthday...but heck, let's go for it!! Monowi (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Valley Parkway

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because could use a third set of eyes to go over it and help take out some of the nuances. My grammar sucks, so anyone with strong grammar skills will have a field day.

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Natural RX

I have combed through the article briefly and made some changes. A few things I would like you to go over:

  • Intro: "The expressway was constructed partially on a new alignment through the valley, and partially along the former Don Roadway and Woodbine Avenue alignments." It makes it sound like alignment is a technical term, and I would prefer if you could simplify the sentence somehow to indicate it is partly new, partly built on old roads.
  • "Although the Parkway does not have exit numbers, Highway 404's exit numbers start at 17 (instead of 0) in order to account for the length of the Parkway and the Gardiner to Yonge Street." I understand accounting for the length of the Parkway, but I don't understand the end of the sentence.
  • I notice most of the reference template fields are stacked, but I prefer that they appear as such:
{{cite news | title = | first = | last = | publisher = | work = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}

I certainly see more articles that have it formatted as so, but this may be a styling difference, so I won't suggest which one to choose, unless another editor wants to chime in.

  • "In the 1930s, a speedway through the lower valley was promoted as possible depression relief." What kind of speedway? Depression relief? Please expand to explain, or wikilink to appropriate articles.
  • "The lack of a government to tie the region together is possibly the reason for the lack of serious consideration given to it." Is this from cited material or your original research? Please make an inline citation here if it is the former.
  • "In the area of the intersection of the Parkway and the Gardiner, two efforts are proceeding that intend to modify or remove the section around the Don River." Please rework this sentence, it doesn't sound very good.

Overall though, it seems like a very detailed article of a highway, beyond what I would have expected. Cheers. --Natural RX 02:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to go through the article and copyedit and review it :)
  • With regards to the intro, I suppose alignment is a technical term, but there isn't exactly a good layman translation for that... it was a new road that followed a path followed by no road before it.
  • The second sentence is essentially OR in full, and is mostly a remnant of the old article. There are no official explanations that I know of, the exit numbers just start at 17. I'll remove the sentence.
  • I very much prefer the vertical format. It's far easier to work with (Especially when you go through just the references) in the edit window, and it makes it easier to visually separate the references from the text. Despite what may be though elsewhere, I believe wholeheartedly this is better for editors, the encyclopedia and my sanity.
  • If I can wikilink to articles to explain these concepts (I will by the way), can the same not be done with 'alignment', above?
  • I'd say SYNTH at worst. Only one source discusses the speedway in depth and it doesn't explain why it never came to fruition. However, many other sources mention that the reason the DVP didn't happen earlier was because the formation of Metro and the funding it received allowed for the massive public works projects through the 1950s and 1960s. Any suggestions? Or should I just be-gone with it? I think I found a good way to make this part work.
  • Will do.
Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes made - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy Tomb

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking for a pre-FAC review of this article. Comments from experts in the field would also be welcome as this is far from my speciality.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments A longer lead is needed. I think for an FA short sections on the context of both Lycian culture & Archaic Greek sculpture are needed, with links to any comparable sculptures with articles. Not much is said about the tomb as a tomb - has the burial itself been excavated, was this type of monument common, etc? The sub-sections here don't seem needed. I'd move "Bringing to England" to the end, & rename it to something - not sure what. "Design details" might be better as "The reliefs" or something. All the notes, especially 2 & 3, would probably be better worked into the text. What is "^ Cat, p.59"? Furtwangler needs to go in the refs - i don't think you can "op cit" from citation to citation for an FA. The prose needs a polish - too many Capitals, & other things. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I'll wait to see if there are any more detailed comments before doing any work. I got the impression from Fellows that the tomb was empty when he found it (I assume this is what you mean by excavation) but it is hard to tell, he did not seem to be very interested in the contents. Curator input on this point would be helpful. Many of the short form citations in the "interpretations" section were contributed by another editor. I had already requested full cites from them, but I am not sure they are going to co-operate. I will try to locate them myself, it would be a shame to have to remove material because of this. SpinningSpark 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all or mostly abbreviations referring to works already cited, but it's not the way here. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references I put in myself are all found in the bibliography, however, the editor who expanded the "interpretations" section added only Pryce to the bibliography, but has added many references. SpinningSpark 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I suppose one can work out what they are with Google, but they need to be spelt out. Also one rather suspects the abbreviations are copied over from a single source, which one should not do - ie only works directly seen should be referenced as though they have been seen. Ian Jenkins (curator) should be linked, btw; a fruit of the BM day. Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • Some of the references precede punctuation, some follow. All should be positioned in the same style; my preference is that the reference immediately follow punctuation.
    • When there multiple footnotes in a row, their numbers should start low and end high, with none out of numerical order. There are two sentences which break this rule:
      • "All the parts, except the sculptured reliefs, are made from local grey-blue limestone.[4][5][6][7][3][2]" and
      • "The female faces have a sensuous look with full lips and large eyes that are typically Lycian.[12][4][5][13]"
  • "At the corners on the North and South sides are winged female creatures with bird bodies..." Why mention North and South sides? There are four corners, right?
  • I was simply going by text alone, thinking of non-sighted readers. Looking at the images, it is clear that no figures are at the corners. Instead, figures appear at the left section and the right section of the north and south sides. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opening is in front of this figure." What opening? It isn't clear from context.
"North" etc should not be capitalized here, as I hinted above. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything here is now dealt with with the exception of two items;

  • The notes have not been incorporated in the text body. I don't think doing this will improve the article, at least in most cases.
  • The references inserted in the "interpretations" section still need cleaning up. I have done this where I can but in many cases the full article title is missing and the editor responsible is refusing to provide the information. I do not have access to Pryce who seems to be the main source, but interestingly this test search only turns up Pryce, suggesting that the other cites have been copied from Pryce without reading. I can also find an earlier online version of the catalogue which again suggests the cites are copied. So the choice is to assume the information comes from Pryce and delete the cites (slightly reluctant to do this without having seen the source) or to delete the contribution altogether.
  • SpinningSpark 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, overall, I think it's pretty decent. I'm no prose wizard so I'm looking at in a more macroscopic way, although I noticed that a lot of sentences really cry out for commas based on their sentence construction (they run kinda' breathless). It certainly covers all the bases, and though I'm not that experienced in archaeology subject matter, the references appear, if not "high quality" (I can't determine), certainly reliable.
    • On images: Wouldn't it make sense to have a picture of the actual tomb the lead image instead of the reliefs in a museum?
    • I start getting lost with the second paragraph: "The tomb is in the Greek Archaic style and is the only late-archaic tomb to survive in Xanthos." → what is the Greek Archaic style? "However, there are indications of non-Greek influence in the carvings as well." → Like what? What does this mean? "The monument takes its name from the four carved female winged figures, resembling Harpies." → "the four carved" figures? They're aren't mentioned before. I think that while a fairly good attempt has been made to introduce readers to Lycian culture, it still presumes too much foreknowledge. Readers shouldn't have to link away from an article to get the basic gist.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentences generally are quite short in this article. You will need to specifically identify the problem ones.
  • Images. I don't agree that the lede image should necessarily be the tomb itself. The interest in this monument is largely the sculpture, this was the part that Fellows removed, and now in the British Museum. The pillar itself is a pretty boring plain square pillar and the replacement "carvings" on it are not very high quality cement casts.
  • Greek Archaic style You seem to be asking for everything to be put into the lede. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article and I cannot see that "Greek Archaic with other influences" does not adequately summarise what the article has to say on the style of the carvings. The article briefly describes the Archaic style and where it lies in context. Some of the specific non-Greek influences are highlighted in the text. To say all of this in the lede leaves the article proper with nothing to say but a repeat of the lede. Possibly some reorganisation of the material would be helpful, but I don't think putting all the detail in the lede can possibly be right.
  • "the four carved" figures? They're aren't mentioned before. Well of course not, this is from the lede. They have to be mentioned for the first time somewhere, what's your point?
  • Lycian culture...presumes too much foreknowledge. I don't think I can be presuming that, since I don't actually know any more than I have written in the article. Again, specific identification of the problem parts is needed.
  • SpinningSpark 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harel Skaat

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've considerably updated the article in the past 2 days and I want to see if it meets Wikipedia guidelines and if not, what needs to be done to bring it up to good article status. Thanks, Hjquazimoto (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Auto PR at: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Harel_Skaat T3h 1337 b0y 22:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few notes:

  • many citations are duplicates and should be combined
  • book citations need a page number
  • the Hebrew wikipedia is not a reliable source
  • what makes shiron.net, best-singers.co.il (and others) reliable sources?
  • Hebrew sources should be noted as such, in citation templates there is a language parameter

Hekerui (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (band)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure it meets the FA criteria.

Thanks, CrowzRSA 03:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I know a lot of work has gone into this, but I think it needs a fair amount more work to be ready for WP:FAC - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The first thing I did was check the tools in the Toolbox (upper right corner here). Unfortunately, there are about 9 dead links and 7 more that are suspicious and may be dead links. These will have to be fixed before FAC - note if it is to a print source (magazine or book) a dead link is not a problem (just remove the link). Another place to look is the Internet Archive or WebCite
  • Some of the refs need more complete information - ref 124 is just a url for example. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I would also make sure that all the sources used meet WP:RS I do not write music articles - are blabbermouth.net and opiumofthepeople.net reliable?
  • I also think the lead is not a good summary of the article - it seems too short. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. There are two sections on masks, but no mention of them in the lead, for example. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I was also surprised that there were so many pictures of the band and its members on Commons - yet there is no image of Paul Gray in the section on his death, nor are there images of the players in masks in the sections on masks.
  • Also, to be honest, I could not tell what was going on in File:Sid Wilson & Shawn Crahan 2005.jpg and am not sure what it adds to the article - File:Corey Taylor of Slipknot at Optimus Alive Festival 2009 2.jpg is a striking image, as is File:Corey Taylor at Allstate Arena 2009.jpg
  • I do not know much about the band, but the article seems comprehensive to me and does not seem to be missing anything as far as I can tell
  • The other major issue I see with this is Criterion 1a in WP:WIAFA, a professional level of English and some WP:MOS issues. I think this needs a copyedit before FAC. Some examples follow (not an exhaustive list):
    • There are some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs in the article - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow of the prose.
    • Some things are just awkward like this Early formations of a band were beginning to coalesce as early as 1992, when the core band members...
    • The last paragraph of Formation and early years (1995—1998) seems to be about their next album (the next section) - is there any reason why it should not be moved to the next section?
    • Watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - for example Mushroomhead is linked twice in one section as is Stone Suur, and the band members' names seem to be overlinked too.
    • At the same time, so things need to be linked or linked earlier (on first occurence). So I would link morphine and fentanyl, as well as linking Anders Colsefini in the lead at least, and probably at first use in the article body.
    • I think records are distributed to ... not distributed between... in With the production of this album, Sean McMahon began distributing it between record and management companies, which resulted in airplay on local radio and, in turn, won a spot at Dotfest.[14]
    • Problem sentences: In the early new year, guitarist Brainard decided to leave the band due to personal reasons.[25] His replacement, Jim Root, left the band with the line-up they retain.[23] I would say something like "Early the next year, guitarist Brainerd..." and the link to New Year does not really help either. The second sentence needs to be changed as the band's lineup has sadly been changed by the death of a member
    • Unclear who he is in the second sentence: In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing the band's second album Come What(ever) May.[62] He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007.[63]
    • Not clear what the reference is for The Album has gone on to sell 825,000 copies in the U.S., been awarded a Gold certification, and has spawned 5 singles with the third single Dead Memories charting at #1 on the Hot 100 Mainstream Rock tracks. Lots of statistics that need a cite

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taurus (constellation)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article about a constellation for peer review because I'd like to find out what else can be done to improve it.

Thank you, RJH (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting and I imagine it gets a lot of hits, but I think it needs some work before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is too short for the article and does not properly summarize it per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • 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 neighboring constellations seem to only be in the lead.
  • The dab finder in the toolbox finds two disambiguation links
  • The order of some of the material seems like it could be made to flow more smoothly - for example, Aldebaran is introduced in the second paragraph of Notable features with two sentences, then there is a two-sentence description of the V-shape of the constellation, and the Hyades, then it returns to Aldebaraan and its position as the eye of the bull. The article explains Aldebaran's name in the fourth and last sentence of the next paragraph.
  • Article seems to be well referenced, though I note some of the refs need to have abbreviations spelled out - IAU for example, or spell out Astrology in Noonan, George C. (2005). Classical Scientific Astrology. American Federation of Astr.
  • There is a navbox at the bottom for constellations listed by Ptolmey, but Ptolmey does not seem to be in the article that I can see
  • As far as expanding the article, I note that there seems to be no mention of Chinese or most other non-western cultures and how they view the stars in Taurus. It seems like in Chinese astronomy, most (all?) of Taurus is part of the Net, which seems like it should be included in some way (not everyone arranges these stars in Taurus)
  • Assuming other cultures have different asterisms involving these stars, and that reliable sources could be found for them, could they be mentioned here too?
  • Since the Pleiades are part of Taurus, some of the material in Pleiades in folklore and literature might be applicable here too.
  • Not that it should be made into a Trivia-laden list, but I think some of the items listed in Taurus might be worth including here
  • Perhaps some of those might have free images to add here too - like File:Taurus 3210 launching ROCSAT 2.jpg this one.

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 ><>°° 04:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback.—RJH (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Cristiolus's Church, Llangristiolus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it, and other articles in the series (in the "See also" section), to GA standard and I'd appreciate some outside eyes on what I'm doing. That way, I can make any necessary changes from your inspired comments now, rather than waiting until I've written about all 73 listed churches on Anglesey! Thanks for your time, BencherliteTalk 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty close to GA already, here are some suggestions for improvement and possible expansion, especially since this is the model article for a series on the churches on Anglesey. I realize some of the questions I ask below are probably just not answerable, but if the information is available, I think it would be good to include it in the article.

  • Source 8 says the village gets its name from the church - I think that is worth mentioning in the article
    • Added
  • Is anything more known about St Cristiolus as the namesake? Could even a sentence or two on legends about the founder / namesake be added?
    • All that the sources I've used for articles on other saints e.g. Elaeth say about Cristiolus is that he was around in the 7th century, founded the church, and was related to people that we don't have articles on... No legends that I can see, alas! I've added a little bit anyway.
  • I know the earliest date for ancient churches will often be known from the first mention of the church in written records - is there any more background like that here?
    • Not that I've spotted in the histories so far, but I'll keep my eyes peeled. Some of the Anglesey churches, for example, are said to have been recorded in the Norwich Taxation of 1254, so I expect this one was recorded as well, but I can't say for certain.
  • The article on the new vicar says that attendance is low there - is there any other information on the size of the parish (number of members, average attendance, etc)? For some American denominations this is available online, not sure about the Church in Wales. In general is there more information on usage of the church that could be added?
    • I don't think the CinW tends to publish the statistical data that it gets (too depressing, probably...) I've added about the pattern of services, which is about all there is.
  • Are there any notable former or current parishioners?
    • Added a couple of names of dead people linked to the church with their own articles; no idea, unfortunately, about notable current parishioners.
  • The external link of photos of the church shows the graveyard - can this be mentioned in the article? Is anyone notable buried there or inside?
    • I'll work something in; I took a photo of one gravestone because it's mentioned in one of my print sources as being of a noted preacher Richard Owen so I'll try and get a little article about him out of the material.
  • Could photos of the interior be obtained? At least for the Commons page? My guess is that the architectural plans are old enough that their copyright has expired (so it could on Commons too)
    • I stopped off last week on my way past but understandably the church was locked. There aren't any internal shots on Geograph or Flickr or the external link, alas. As for the architectural plans, they would be out of copyright but there's a very real question in UK copyright law as to whether photographs of out-of-copyright plans or pictures gain an independent copyright. I know that the situation in the US is that no new copyright is greated, but I also know that there was a huge fuss last year when the National Gallery in London complained about its photos appearing on Commons; I don't know what happened in the end, but I'm not too comfortable about copying and uploading them to Commons. There's no real space for them in the article, and they work quite nicely on the external link anyway.
  • I think the same six preceding general questions/points could probably be asked for most articles on historic churches on Anglesey (if this is a model)
    • Indeed, very helpful.
  • I also thing there may be some general information that could be added to the article:
    • Could a few sentences on Anglesey and its history be added? When did Christianity arrive there?
      • Good idea, I think one of my Anglesey history books will have something about that.
    • How about a navigation box at the bottom for all 73 listed churches on Anglesey?
      • I have one in my userspace at the moment (User:Bencherlite/Template:Anglesey churches), but with only a handful of blue links at the moment it looks a little "unready for mainspace", shall we say! It'll eventually replace the "See also" section, of course.
    • I realize the parish website is used as ref 2, but the church has a website too - see here. Should this be an External link? Should the frequency of services be mentioned?
      • Done. The website was already in the infobox, but is now also in the EL section for good measure.
    • Anything that can be said about the village? What is its population? Notable history?
      • I can't immediately find anything exciting, or even the current population figures: most Anglesey villages are just too small to appear by themselves in the census statistics, for example.

Not too much else I can think of. The writing is nice and flows reasonably well. 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 ><>°° 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your usual very helpful review. BencherliteTalk 10:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to go to me. Glad to help - I enjoyed the article and really like the phots - good luck on all 73! Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 International Bowl

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The 2009 International Bowl was the only contest in the 2008–09 bowl season to be held outside the United States. It featured two teams that had only moved to the highest level of college football within the last decade, two up-and-coming head coaches in Turner Gill and Randy Edsall, and the 2008 NCAA rushing leader in UConn's Donald Brown. It also marked an anniversary in the civil rights movement; fifty years before, the only previous Buffalo Bulls team to be invited to a bowl declined the bid when they were told the black players on the team would not be allowed to play.

This article was copyedited by User:SMasters of the Guild of Copyeditors and passed as a good article by User:Wizardman. I am listing it for peer review in advance of bringing it to WP:FAC, my first attempt to bring an article to featured status. Any comments or concerns directed at improving the article would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, –Grondemar 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. Obamafan70 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Grondemar 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – In response to a talk page request, I've come to offer some initial thoughts.

  • First, let me say that the reliability of the sources looks strong across the board. That's half the battle right there. Only picky thing I noticed was in reference 24, which gives the work as wpir.com when the original website address is wbir.com.
  • Looking at the lead, I can't help but wonder whether the 1958 Bulls story is overrepresented. It takes up half a paragraph, and the related section in the body isn't that large.
    • At the bottom of the article I linked a highlight video from ESPN: [3]. The entire opening on the segment is about the 1958 Bulls. The media (especially ESPN) loved the human-interest story with the 1958 Bulls and ran with it, almost to the exclusion of covering anything football-related. You could argue undue weight but the article is only reflecting the (possibly undue) weight the media gave prior to the game. I trimmed the lead section a little; I'm don't think I can remove anything else and still have the reader understand the 1958 Bulls' significance. –Grondemar 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Team selection: "sought to have local team South Florida play in their game in order to drive local attendance." In general, things like "in order to" are just wordy and don't need to be there; just having "to" is enough here.
  • Spell out FBS—this will help the non-football fan a bit.
    • I spelled out Football Bowl Subdivision in the lead and added more links to Note 1, which explains how the NCAA changed the name of the divisions in August 2006. In the article I tried to use "Division I-A" or "Division I-AA" when talking about events before 2006, such as the Bulls and the Huskies moving to I-A in 1999, and FBS and FCS when talking about modern events. I know this is confusing to have two names referring to the same thing, but hopefully Note 1 explains the situation clearly enough. I blame the NCAA. :-) –Grondemar 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buffalo: Don't know if the hyphen in "heavily-favored" is needed. Generally, hyphens after -ly elements are discouraged.
  • Hyphen needed in "74 yard".
  • "before they transitioned back to Division I-A." This is the first time it has been indicated that the Bulls were at that level before the 1990s. Was that the case, and can it be made a little clearer in the article?
    • I changed it to "while they were still played in Division I-AA" as that was my intent. Technically the Bulls had played at the highest level of Division I football before but that was before the NCAA split into Division I-A and I-AA in 1978; I'd rather not try to explain this in the article as it is rather tangential. –Grondemar 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disaster then stuck for Ball State". Typo in here; I'm also not sure how the other FAC reviewers will see phrasing like "Disaster then struck".
    • I fixed the typo. I really like this turn-of-phrase and consider it appropriate; giving up two touchdowns off fumbles just after you thought you were going to score is pretty disastrous (at least in a football sense) by anyone's standards. If you think of a better way to phrase this let me know. –Grondemar 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connecticut: Spell out AP in the poll-related part. It's always good practice to spell out abbreviations like this and the previous one at some point. I see another abbreviation in the coaching rumors section (NBA).

A lot of picky things, and overall I think this has a great chance of passing when it goes to FAC. The one factor I don't have much success in catching must be noted: that is jargon. I can't detect it for the life of me, since I follow sports like college football so much. For this, it would be beneficial to seek input from a non-college football fan. As for me, I'll try to come back in a few days for more comments. Haven't even gotten to the game recap itself yet. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration I have decided to close this peer review and proceed to FAC as I believe the article is substantially ready. Thanks again to User:Giants2008 for all his help! –Grondemar 22:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bache

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about one of the largely unsung heroes of classical music in the 19th century, one whose efforts had incalculable results yet whose story has only recently been retold. I've listed this article for peer review because, after substantially expanding and revamping it, I would appreciate additional input to bring it up to GA or FA quality, as befitting the subject matter.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley Unsung indeed! This is an interesting and most readable article. It certainly covers the musical side of things very thoroughly and clearly. My only general comment is that although there is a section headed "Personality", we get hardly any impression of what Bache was like as a person. Did he have a private life away from the keyboard? Did he have any friends as opposed to professional contacts? (I see that the Musical Times obit – April 1888, p. 229 – said, "His lovable character endeared and bound him to his many friends…") Did he inherit his father's religious views? Apart from that, I think this article is well-balanced, well-paced, and generally well-referenced: I noticed one or two statements that did not immediately appear to have a citation attached to them, e.g. "a performance of Mendelssohn's oratorio St. Paul, at which his organ playing was noted, and a solo piano recital which featured a few pieces by Liszt."

I have corrected a few typos, but there are two or three additional (possible) ones mentioned below. None of the following points are of any great moment.

  • Lead
    • Blue links for "English" and "Germany". I believe current Wikipedia guidance is not to link the names of countries, capital cities etc.
    • "on a regular basis" – perhaps just "regularly" would be easier to read
  • Early years
    • "born at Birmingham" is a very old-fashioned usage; modern usage is "born in Birmingham"
    • "studied piano" – is the blue link really needed here?
    • "acquaintanted" – presumably a typo, but as it's within a quote I didn't like to alter it.
    • "early in the morning some ways out of town so that he had to get up early" – some way (singular) perhaps? (Two "early"s, too)
  • Studies with Liszt
    • "on a regular basis" – again, perhaps just "regularly" would be crisper.
  • Promoting Liszt's music
    • "he relied on prominent theorists such as Carl Weitman and Friedrich Niecks, and Dannreuther and Ebenezer Proust also occasionally served as annotators" – I might be inclined to chop this long sentence in two after "Niecks"
    • "inperturbably" – another probable typo within a quote
    • "favored" – An English writer is quoted: did he use the American spelling?
    • "my visit to London would indeed not to be thought of" – this reads rather oddly, and I see that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Bache quotes the words as, "...were indeed not to be thought of" (my italics).
    • "and a public reception in Liszt's honour" – UK spelling in a generally U.S.-English article. (I'd be happy to give the whole article a U.S. -v- UK spell check if you would find that helpful before you nominate it for GA or FA)
  • Other achievements
    • "Bache became professor of piano…" I think it would be good to say when, and for how long he held the post. The ODNB article mentions that the RAM's Liszt scholarship was turned into the Liszt–Bache scholarship after Bache's death – might be worth adding.
  • Death
    • I find it helpful, in a biographical article, to add the subject's age at death at this point. It saves the reader having to jump back to the top and do a spot of mental arithmetic.
  • Personality
    • We learn here that Edward died of consumption. We encountered his memorial much earlier in the article. I wonder if it might help the flow if you were to move the reference to consumption to the earlier point: "…to raise finds for the erection of a memorial window to his brother Edward who had died of consumption on xxxx"
  • Technique and repertoire
    • "vigor" – in a quote from the Musical Standard: this was an English publication, so the spelling would, I imagine, be "vigour".
    • "benefitted" – should this be "benefited", or is that quirk of usage a solely British aberration?
    • "He also played various works by Mackenzie, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Raff, Silas, Tchaikovsky and Volkmann and more familiar pieces by Bach, Beethoven and Chopin" – this is the first mention of most of these composers – blue links needed, perhaps.
  • Works written for Bache and Books on Bache
    • These sections are so short that I'd be inclined to lose them and incorporate the information in the biography section.
  • References
    • "Ithica" – should this be Ithaca?
  • Notes
    • I'm not sure if there is a standard laid down for our guidance on this, but I think most articles have the Notes before the References.

All very minor stuff, but I hope it's of use. Final silly question: do we know how Bache's name is pronounced? Like Johann Sebastian's or rhyming with the letter H, or what? – Tim riley (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your excellent comments, which I will seek to incorporate in the article. Jonyungk (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief note: I always read Bache as rhyming with "hatch", but I can't ever remember hearing anyone say it. I have a few more comments which I will add shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Not finished yet, but something to be going on with:-

  • Early life: "overly-easy-going" ia a mouthful - one hyphen too many. I suggest "overly easy-going"
  • Studies with Liszt:
    • Who was Ramacciotti?
    • "Between 1863 and 1865 Bache received private lessons from Liszt, one of the few pupils privileged to do so". Something slightly wrong; Bache "received", he didn't do. I would prefer "Between 1863 and 1865 Bache received private lessons from Liszt, one of the few pupils thus privileged"
    • "a trip by Anton Rubinstein"? Should this be "trio"? Should the instrument details be given?
    • "Bache's studies with Liszt did not end when he left Italy." Apart from the brief mention earlier of "several public concerts in Rome", I wasn't aware that Bache had spent any significant time in Italy.
  • Promoting Liszt's music
    • Another slightly puzzling "when Bache returned from Rome"
    • "a lifelong crusade to winning popularity for Liszt's works" - should be "win" not "winning"
    • The second and third paragraphs give many details about what became the "Walter Bache Annual Concerts", but some information seems to be lacking. For example, where were these concerts held? Were they well-attended? Did they increase in popularity as time went on? What were the popular and critical responses?
    • "Also worth mentioning was the quality of program notes Bache provided for these concerts." Unnecessary POV sentence, suggest delete.
    • Who is Ebenezer Proust?
    • Repetition: we have near-successive sentences beginning "These notes", "These essays", "These notes"
    • Sentence needing attention: "Bülow conducted two concerts, Dannreuther also conducted two concerts, and August Manns, an admirer of Liszt's works who also conducted the popular Crystal Palace concerts, conducted four concerts." Repetitive prose; what were these "popular Crystal Palace concerts", and why is "Crystal Palace" linked here?

More later: Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continuing
  • Promoting Liszt (continued)
    • "They also almost invariably lost money." Slightly inelegant, and probably unnecessary, since the financial burden on Bache has already been mentioned
    • "50 pounds" is never written that way when describing money. Try £50.
    • "...a memorable reception at the Grosvenor Gallery." Whose description? But I wonder if this paragraph should be merged into the next section?
  • Other achievements: can you date Bache's RAM appointment?
  • Death: "Bache died in London at the age of 45 after a brief illness." Give date of death.
  • Technique and repertoire
    • There are rather too many verbatim quotes in the first paragraph, whch would read much more smoothly if more use was made of paraphrase.
    • "Bache also played a number of works by other composers in his recitals, but a number of the works he programmed are unfamiliar today." Clunky repetition, suggest: "Bache also played a number of works by other composers in his recitals, many of which are unfamiliar today."
    • "Grateful for Bülow's assistance in conducting two of his annual concerts, Bache programmed several of his piano works in his recitals." Needs rephrasing to clarify that "his" refers to Bulow. Thus, perhaps: "Grateful for Bülow's assistance in his annual concerts, Bache programmed several of the conductor's piano works in his recitals."
    • "Another work rarely heard today was the Danklied nach strum by Adolf Henselt, a piece which would have benefitted from Bache's delicate approach." Not sure what the last part means, or whose viewpoint this is.
  • Reception: again, I think this section is overreliant on direct quotations, and would benefit from paraphrase.
  • Finally: do the last two nuggets of information really deserve to be in sections of their own? I would have thought these facts could have been absorbed elsewhere in the text. Also, see ref 4 "Baache".
  • Overall comment: Fascinating account of an unsung hero, impressively researched. After polishing, will make a fine FAC. In this regard you may wish to trim the "Promoting..." section just a little; also, personal information is very slight for a biography. Does Constance give any details about his personal life that could be briefly mentioned.

I hope you find these comments helpful. I shall watch this article's development with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. They are indeed very useful. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me, but as requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I will make comments as I read through the article more carefully, but these are mostly nitpicks.

  • I wonder if the Moiré patterns in the scanned images can be fixed some way (I do not know how to do this). It may be that a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop might be fruitful
  • I think it would help to add the years or at least the first year of his three years with Liszt to He studied privately with Liszt for three years in Italy, one of the few students allowed to do so, and continued to attend Liszt's masterclasses in Weimar, Germany regularly for many years after that, even after embarking on a solo career. in the Lead
  • His sister Constance Bache has an article and should be wikilinked. I also find it helpful to mention all siblings initially, so would probably add her to the sentence Bache was born in Birmingham as the second-oldest son of a well-known Unitarian minister ... somehow, or at least mention her ealier in the article
  • either drop the "the" or the apostrophe s in the Mendelsohn's D minor piano trio,...
  • Is W1 useful to know in They began modestly, in Collard's Rooms, Grosvenor Street, W1.?
  • St James's Hall in Regents Square could be linked
  • Would it make sense to translate names that are not in English and are not linked? 'i.e. 'Soldatenlied = Soldier's song? Probably others
  • Other achievements - can a year be given for Bache became professor of piano at the Royal Academy of Music.? Can any more detail be given on his duties there? Any famous pupils? Seems like there should be more on this part of his life.
    • There hasn't been any details about Bache's time at the RAM in any of my sources, not even the date of his hiring. I have e-mailed the RAM library at least for the date but have received no reply. Jonyungk (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be a typo? "Another work rarely heard today was the Danklied nach strum by Adolf Henselt, ..."? If it were Danlied nach Sturm (Song of thanksgiving after a storm) that would make sense, but "strum" is not a German word I know.
  • Another possible typo? "through" for "throuth" in Those who do not appreciate Liszt through Mr. Bache's readings of his works will certainly never learn to appreciate them throuth any other interpreter."[69] or is it in the original this way?
  • "Backlashed negatively" just sounds odd to me (in Despite receiving positive reviews for his pianism, Bache's difficulties with the critics on behalf of Liszt's music backlashed negatively on his performing career.) would "had a negative backlash on his performing career" be better?
  • Why was there no annual concert in 1887? I know he died in 1888, so can understand not having one that year ;-) Did he decide his mission was complete after Liszt's LOndon appearance the year before?
    • My guess is that the costs of the 1886 celebrations were so high that Bache could not afford an orchestral concert that year; he did not attend Liszt's master class in Weimar, either. Constance might mention something to this effect; if so, should it be mentioned in the article? Also, while Bache did not have an orchestral, he gave a couple of solo recitals that year. Should this be mentioned also? Jonyungk (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I first read he gave the last of the series of concerts two years before he died, I assumed he was in poor helath the last two years of his life. I know sometimes there are just no sources or information in the existing sources (this or the RAM), but if there is material in his sister's biography, or information that there were no orchestral concerts that year but there were solo recitals, I would at least mention it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Please let me know when this is at FAC too. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bedfordshire

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has real potential for development, and is very important. It is rated as high importance by both WikiProject England and WikiProject UK geography, yet it is currently a lowly B-class. I would like to find out what improvements I could make to get this article to either GA or A.

Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim comments

  • To be honest, the article is still quite stubby.
  • Many sections aren't written, so they should be
  • Many sections are written very choppily, e.g. one-sentence paragraphs. I tweaked the Geography section a bit in that regard, but you need to work especially on the lead, as it's five choppy sentences (and five choppy paragraphs)
  • Many sections are missing citations.
  • Use existing FAs as a model for the article, e.g. Greater Manchester
  • To sum up my advice in a nutshell: the improvements to be made right now are the article's expansion and referencing. After that, you should submit again to peer review for more in-depth suggestions.

Maxim(talk) 01:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Foozie

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just created the entire article myself today and I would like to eventually get to featured status.

Thanks, Taric25 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I commented earlier at the RfF) Here are some automatic suggestions...
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]1
 Taric25 is doing... Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Taric25 (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]= 2007,= 2004,= 2009,= 2004,= 2005,= 2007,= 2009,= 2007,= 2002,= 2005,= 2003,= 2004,= 2007,= 2009; April,April,October,January,April,November,November,June,June,August,August,August,November,November
 Done Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
 Done Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, didn't, can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 Done Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
Not sure Is it fine the way it is, or do you have some suggestions? Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Taric25 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also reccommend more sources to prove the reliability of the info (not only personal experience) and to ensure her notability.
Not sure Are you talking about the Origins section? Most of that section comes author Terry Oldes in his memoir A Barrel Full of Monkeys – OR – More Baggage Than Ann Miller Brought On the Love Boat. Oldes is also widely known for Dancing with Tina, a memoir about his fight with crystal meth, very important to the Queer community, which he discussed on the Feast of Fools, and he posted information about the memoir that mentions Miss Foozie in the comments section of his appearance on the Feast of Fools. Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Taric25 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus this link - Chicago Public Radio Run Foozie Run! (info) [chicagopublicradio.org]" may or may not work and social network refs should not be used (ex. facebook, twitter).
 Done I removed the citation from Facebook, and I removed the Chicago Public Radio source as well as the calendar event from chicagopride.com. Those were the only two sources that stated her real name. She sent sent the following message to me.
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME), “When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.” Since I removed the only two sources that have both the subject’s real name and since there are no reliable, secondary sources other than news media that list the subject’s real name, I removed it, and I forwarded the message to OTRS. I replied to Miss Foozie and let her know that I removed it and why, and I asked her if she knows any reliable sources we could use with information about her, such as information about the times she has preformed with celebrities. Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good job though! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Talkback Me_· 05:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Do you think it's appropriate for you to remove {{New unreviewed article}} now, or do you want me to fix the other stuff first? Taric25 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Response

Good job!...

  • I don't think it really needs copyediting (that was just an automated suggestion), just expand any contractions. (ex. don't - do not)
  • Probably just generally more references/sources if you want to make sure nobody has a problem with it (since it's a living person), but it seems to have enough.

But very good work - I'll remove the template and reassess it to B-class and auto-fix it for any errors. It may be good-class, however, but you have to apply for that. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 04:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just seen the lead section, which reads (born April 1959 (age 51)). Brackets within brackets look complicated and messy. Whilst they are acceptable on occasions, I can't find any other biography on here that uses that style - I reccomend perhaps leaing out her age, and just having her DoB, as appears to be used on most biographies, for example here and here.
     Done Taric25 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article and I would like to see what could be done to take it to FA. I'm not sure it's detailed enough in places and I'm particularly interested in how good the prose is, and how easy it is for the non-cricketer.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copyedited the lead, will provide more comments soon. My chief problem is accepting that this mild kerfuffle over the appointment of a professional captain should be described as a "crisis", which suggests something rather more critical. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review:

First, I am concerned about the use of the word "crisis" in the title. A crisis is a major event; in cricketing terms the Bodyline affair of 1932-33 might be described as a crisis, as might the D'Oliviera affair, or Kerry Packer's World Series. All of these had impact across the whole game, and brought significant changes. The Yorkshire captaincy business was a trifle by comparison; I suggest you rename to "Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927".

There are numerous prose problems. I have resolved those in the lead by a heavy copyedit, but I really think the rest needs going over very carefully before there is any thought of nominating this as a FAC. Here are some examples from the "Backgoubd" section; I have not looked further:-

  • In the first line we have "county cricket" and "County Cricket"
  • "Amateurs in cricket were almost always from a privileged background and professionals were mainly from a working class background." **"almost always" is too strong. You could say "generally" or "usually".
    • You should also say "privileged backgrounds" rather than "a privileged background"
    • "while" is a better connector than "and", becaus a comparison is being made.
    • Likewise, "working class backgrounds", but to avoid repetition it might be better to say "from the working classes". Thus the sentence becomes: ""Amateurs in cricket were usually from privileged backgrounds, while professionals were mainly from the working classes."
  • "With the game being organised" → "As the game was organised..."
  • The wording "and was perceived as important" seems entirely unnecessary.
  • "As a result, county and Test captains were chosen from the privileged, amateur background" Avoid repetition of the "privileged background" phrase,and other verbosity, by running this sentence into the next, thus: "As a result, county and Test captains were chosen from the ranks of the amateurs,[3][4] in the belief that, free from worries about their livelihood, they made better captains."
  • The sentence "They were in the side simply to captain it" is not necessary; the point is clearly made by now.
  • Lord Hawke's remarks were made five years after the "crisis". It would be better to defer them until the "Aftermath" section, as a prelude to Sellars's appointment. So in this paragraph I would delete everything between "worth a place in the team" and "Much of Yorkshire's success in the 1920s"

There is more prose work necesary in this section and in the rest of the article, though I don't have time for it, Can I just highlight a few further points for your attention?

  • For aesthetic reasons it may be advisable to move the Hawke image to the lead.
  • You may have problems over the Sutcliffe image. I know the description says it was taken in 1921, but what is the evidence for this? Even if the date is right, unless you can demonstrate that it was published before 1923, you cannot use it. The present licencing is nonsense. "Yorkshire County Cricket Club" is not the author; the claim of author's life plus 70 years can't be made when we don't know who the photographer is, nor can we assume that this unknown person must have died before 1940.
  • Lupton was 46, not 48, when he became captain.

I'm sorry I can't offer more for the moment but hope my efforts have been helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Coolbrith

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Ina Coolbrith was California's first poet laureate, and a very interesting character in early San Francisco history. I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed a fairly sturdy good article review, and has since been improved, with all citations in cite template format. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting biographical article, and one that I enjoyed reading. I was tired when I started and planned to review it tomorrow, but I got caught up and read through to the end. I think the article is close to ready for FAC, but I can't be sure it's comprehensive. The images are by and large quite good, and the poetry samples in boxes work well. With a few exceptions as noted below, the writing is professional. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "she was the first California Poet Laureate and thus the first poet laureate of any American state" - The word "thus" strikes me as odd. Why would the first state poet laureate necessarily come from California? This needs to be explained, probably in the main text rather than in the lead. Did California lead the way?
  • "a prominent and beloved" - Almost everyone is beloved is some quarters and less so in others. Even though "beloved" is sourced, "prominent" is probably enough.

Poet laureate

  • The direct link from the caption to an external site, Google books, is a no-no. (WP:MOS#External links has details). However, you could turn it into an inline citation appearing in the "Notes" subsection of "References", or you could create an "External links" section and place it there.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE suggests using blockquotes for quotation of four lines or more. The second blockquote in this section is only two lines long on my computer screen. It would probably be better to change it to an ordinary quotation embedded in the text.

Death

  • "A book of Coolbrith's later poetry was published in the year after her death, entitled Wings of Sunset." - Slightly misplaced modifier; Her death didn't have a title. Suggestion: Wings of Sunset, a book of Coolbrith's later poetry, was published in the year after her death."
  • "The University of California established the Ina Coolbrith Memorial Poetry Prize in 1933, given annually... ". - Another slightly misplaced modifier; 1933 wasn't given. Suggestion: "In 1933, the University of California established the Ina Coolbrith Memorial Poetry Prize, given annually... ".
  • Several extremely short paragraphs give this section a choppy feel. I'd recommend merging the poetry prize, writers club, and Separations paragraphs.
  • The Manual of Style advises against creating text sandwiches between two images. These should be re-located to avoid the text sandwich, and it might be that three images is too many for this short section. The 1936 mural is the least interesting of the three, and it might have licensing problems. U.S. copyright law has no "freedom of panorama" provision; in practice this means that sculptures are often protected by copyright in such a way that photographs of them cannot be published on Wikipedia. WP:Freedom of panorama has details.

Selected poems

  • All of the direct links to external sites should be converted to in-line citations or added to "External links".

References

  • Citation 50 has a typo or other small problem.

Bibliography

  • For books with no ISBN, it's often possible to add an OCLC number. Here is a link to the WorldCat page with at least some of the editions of the Dickson book. I don't see a 1947 edition. Could it be the 1957 edition?
  • I would add the place of publication as well as the publisher.

Images

Other

  • Coolbrith was to some extent popular during her lifetime. Has her work appeared in any collections or anthologies since 1950? Do late 20th or early 21st century critics ever discuss her work? If so, what have they said?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic feedback! I will act upon your suggestions as soon as possible. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love in Motion (Anika Moa album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it quick-failed GAN because "WP:MOS not applied to majority of the article. WP:RECENTISM applies for the whole article." I personally can't see any examples of this, and would like some pointers. What else needs to be done to get it up to GA-standard?

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

That's quite a brief GA review. In future, if you're unsure of where the problems are, it might be worth asking the reviewer to be a bit more specific. They're not obliged to give a detailed review, but if you ask, they may point out some more specific problems that you can work on. I'm not sure what they mean by WP:RECENTISM since this is an article released this year. I presume they may be worried about future stability and the fact that there might be many more sources available in a few months. That's worth bearing in mind. I'll go through the article by section and point out what I notice.

Lead

  • As mentioned in the previous review, per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to adequately summarise the whole of the article. Complying with WP:LEAD is a must to pass GA criterion 1b. I can tell at a glance that this isn't the case at the moment because of the three very short paragraphs. I would expect an article of this size to have at least one substantial paragraph (try not to make it look too "choppy" by spacing it out as much as you have so far) and possibly two substantial paragraphs. At the moment, "background & recording" and "composition" aren't covered by the lead.
  • Watch out for overlinking; only give links that will help a reader's understanding of the article. It's not too bad, but decide whether or not you really need to link studio album and singer-songwriter, for example. Will most readers know what they are? Will they want to click through to read those articles?
  • "Reviews for the album ranged from three stars to five stars." - I'm not too keen on this sentence. Try to summarise them in terms of whether they were positive or negative. Not all reviewers use star-rating systems, and we can't assume that all would be out of 5.
  • "a concert tour is expected in May and June" - this appears to be out of date now.
  • Citations in the lead are generally not needed as much as in the rest of the article. Opinions do vary, but generally only cite things in the lead that are controversial or likely to be challenged. Everything should be repeated/expanded on later anyway, where you can put a citation. I don't think that any of the citations currently used in the lead are for particularly controversial facts. (Similarly, no need to cite producer and single release date in the infobox as these are cited in the article body.)

Background and recording

  • If there is any more information on particular tracks about their relationship, include that. (a quick glance at this link suggests there may be room for expansion).
  • Link "civil union" to Civil unions in New Zealand, as this is more directly relevant (unless I'm mistaken and it happened outside of NZ)
  • "Moa claimed ..." - try to avoid the use of "claimed" - it's not very neutral and suggests that she might be lying or mistaken.
  • "this is the first album that I really thought about what I wanted....I wanted to keep them [the songs] simple in structure, concentrating on the layering of vocals and guitars." → this is the first album that I really thought about what I wanted ... I wanted to keep [the songs] simple in structure, concentrating on the layering of vocals and guitars.
  • Is there any information about where the album was recorded, or who produced it? (I realise this is in the credits, but is there anything that could be prose?)

Musical and lyrical composition

  • This is a very short section. If nothing can be found to expand, I would suggest combining it with the above section.
  • "Lyrically, Love in Motion has been called "honest"" - I think this belongs more in the reception section. Its just a reviewer's opinion of the album.

Promotion

  • At this point, I notice that you haven't actually mentioned the release of the album. Somewhere there needs to be release details - date, label, what countries it was released in. As the promotion section is short, this could be a combined "release and promotion" section.
  • Headings generally shouldn't contain the name of the article so, Tour rather than Love in Motion Tour
  • "A concert tour was held in May and June 2010." - please say which country (I know it's in the table, but it needs to be specified in the prose too.)
  • no need to link "concert tour"
  • use spaces on either side of elipses: Moa's risky decision ... to follow her own path ... was the right one.
  • When you talk about how many stars a reviewer gave, it would be helpful to specify how many possible stars that is out of. Not all reviewers use five stars. Some use ten, some three. You perhaps don't need to mention all of the star ratings either, try and concentrate on what they actually say.
  • "The album has been on the chart for eleven weeks" - this will date quickly, so needs an "as of" date

singles

  • no need to link "lead single"
  • Is there any reliable info about future singles?

files

  • I think you need to state in the fair use rationale for the audio file that it's being used in this article as well as the single article.
  • The fair use rationale for the concert image needs some work; "To illustrate the text of the article." isn't really good enough, and I'm not really sure you can justify it's use here. It does seem to be purely decorative.

References

  • Reference formatting needs some work. Include where possible, dates of publication, publishers, authors, access dates. Titles of print sources (books, magazines, newspapers) should be in italics and those of non-print sources (websites) should not be in italics. A few examples:
  2. Vodafone New Zealand shouldn't be in italics. I'm not sure how reliable this is for a genre.
  4. Is Libel Music a print source of a website? If the latter, not in italics.
  6. GayNZ.com shouldn't be in italics
  • I see some links are already archived. It might be worth archiving more of them to prevent link rot.

Hope these suggestions help. Do look at other album articles that are already GA or FA quality, look at lots of them to see what kind of information they contain and how they compare visually to this one, and that should help you too.--BelovedFreak 13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak - 2nd look
  • I've done a bit of a copyedit, so please check that the changes I've made are acceptable and change any you don't agree with.
  • I haven't removed en dashes & replaced with hyphens; they're still there but I replaced the html entity with an actual dash. I did this with a script and until now was under the impression that that was the preferred way to render dashes. I've just looked into it a little further and it seems that there is no hard and fast rule, and that some editors prefer using the html entities, so feel free to change back if you think it's a problem. The main arguments seem to be easier to read in the edit box (– vs. & ndash;) and making it more obvious to casual editors that it is something different from a hyphen so that they don't start adding hyphens. (They are definitely dashes though, not hyphens!) I also added non-breaking spaces in front of the en dashes as per WP:MOS.--BelovedFreak 09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moa described love as having "so many aspects to it."" - I'm not sure how necessary this statement is. It seems a little meaningless without more context. I don't know, think about that one.
  • It still says "The album has been on the chart for eleven weeks" - a statement that will easily get out of date (if not already).
  • I'd not seen that template before, so it may be ok. I guess you just need to make sure you update it until it leaves the charts! Otherwise, using "as of" at least gives the reader of when the info was accurate.--BelovedFreak 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference formatting needs some work still. Some refs are still missing publishers. Other examples:
    • You seem to have "stuff.co.nz" as a publisher for several newspaper refs; should be Fairfax New Zealand
    • the Waikato Times reference needs a publisher
    • Ref currently no. 19 ("Anika Moa - Love In Motion Tour") shouldn't say "eventfinder.co.nz". The work is The New Zealand Herald (in italics) and the publisher should be APN News & Media
    • Check print sources are in italics and non-print ones not. eg.iTunes Store should not be in italics

--BelovedFreak 16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's the lead now? Adabow (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, but I'll try to have another look and comment on the lead later on today.--BelovedFreak 09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead looks better. I'm still a little concerned about the amount of information in the article as a whole. Do you know if the album's going to be released outside New Zealand at all? If so, there will hopefully be more sources to use.
  • Had a quick look at the sources:
    • what makes Libel Music a reliable source? LadyFix is also questionable, but it's being used for an interview, so not so bad.
    • What is currently reference no. 10 (The Edge) doesn't seem to be working

--BelovedFreak 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tosca

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Tosca is one of the world's best-loved and most performed operas, and with around 1,000 page hits on most days, deserves a top quality Wikipedia article. That is what Wehwalt and I are attempting to provide, with plenty of helpful advice from others. We would value further comments on all aspects of the article: please hold nothing back. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley I have very few comments to offer. The article is top-notch – well balanced, well paced, well referenced and well written. Here are the only points that caught my eye. They are neither numerous nor grave.

  • Lead
    • "…and has inspired memorable performances from many of opera's leading singers." Very true, but your list of them at the end doesn't, to my mind, reflect that "many". More on that later.
    • "Musically, Tosca is structured as through-composed work." Should this be "… as a through-composed…"? (Also, there is an article on through-composed to which you might want to link.)
  • Securing the rights
    • " in which she would star throughout Europe" – does the subjunctive add anything here? Perhaps just "in which she starred throughout Europe"?
    • "the reception La Tosca had received in Italy–particularly in Milan". You need to be consistent with dashes. This is an en-dash, but elsewhere you use em-dashes.
    • According to Amanda Holden in the Penguin Opera Guide, the subject was suggested to Puccini by Ferdinando Fontana, the librettist of Le villi and Edgar. If this is correct you might perhaps consider giving him a nod.
  • Adaptation and writing
    • "Puccini had bells for the Roman dawn were cast to order" – one word too many here.
  • Historical context
    • "and their leader, von Melas" – German convention does not use the "von" when surnaming a person. Just "Melas" is correct (and is used in the WP article on the chap).
    • "and the city would spend the next fourteen years" – another subjunctive that might perhaps be simplified – "the city spent…"?
  • Act 1
    • "in the contrast between the blond beauty of his painting" – I rather hope it's a blonde rather than a blond, unless this is a very outré version of the opera.
    • "by the dreaded Royalist police chief" – if "republican "with lower case then "royalist" ditto, I suggest.
  • Act 2
    • "Cavaradossi will be freed: She is revolted…". Either colon and "she" or full stop and "She".
  • Early performances
    • "A contemporary indicator of its popularity is its ranking second among the ten most frequently performed operas in North America in 2008-2009." The reference to these modern years seems very out of place here, or should it read "1908–09"?
  • Notable performers
    • "Before Jeritza established her reputation in the title role, Emmy Destinn had sung it regularly, as part of her long-standing partnership with the tenor Enrico Caruso. However, opera enthusiasts tend to consider Maria Callas as the supreme interpreter of the role." – Hold on a mo! What about at least a mention of Margherita Grandi, Ljuba Welitsch, Renata Tebaldi and Zinka Milanov? I don't dispute (who would!) your conclusion in re Callas, but her distinguished predecessors shouldn't be airbrushed out completely.
    • "Of those who sang Scarpia, Antonio Scotti, who first played the role in the London premiere, would later make the role 'particularly his own', according to Budden. For a later generation, the definitive Scarpia was Tito Gobbi." There's the same elision of eras here, too, as in the previous para: at the very least you might mention Mariano Stabile. And the same goes for the tenors: let's hear it for Giovanni Martinelli, Aureliano Pertile, Ferrucio Tagliavini and Carlo Bergonzi.
      • I agree that at least some of these illustrious names deserve a mention, and will find a way of working in a few. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likewise, there have been many post-Callas performers of note missing. We've literally ignored the last 50 years of Tosca performers. Some names that come to mind are Leontyne Price, Montserrat Caballé, Mirella Freni, Renata Scotto, Eva Marton, Kiri Te Kanawa, and Angela Gheorghiu. Also a mention of the recent live Met broadcast into movie theatre's internationally with Karita Mattila might be of interest. I think that may be the first live performance of the opera that was broadcast all over the world. 4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you have got the balance right now, in this and the recordings section. The ghost of Martinelli may come and haunt you, but that apart this is now a good spread from 1900 to 2010. - Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • But I think 4meter4 is right; we should at least mention that there have been some post-Callas Toscas! I will give a little thought to this. My anxiety about this section is growing, however. Will it forever be a magnet to those who insist on adding their favourite singers? I have put a hidden note in the edit window asking them to desist, but that won't stop the less scrupulous for long. Of the names offered above, Price isn't really modern enough; te Kanawa hardly ever sang the role on stage; Gheorghiu is controversial in the role, to say the least - in London, anyway. But I will drum up a line from somewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Later: Following discussion, the "performers" section has been reduced and merged into "Subsequent productions". This follows the expressions my concerns, above, on the talkpage. I feel much less anxious now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception
    • "Gabriel Fauré was offended by 'disconcerting vulgarities'" – It is so unlikely that a composer of Fauré's exquisite sensibilities would take to Tosca that I wonder if this revelation counts as notable. I don't press the point; I simply mention it.
    • "In 1956 the musicologist Joseph Kerman called Tosca a 'shoddy little shocker' "– oh, no he didn't. He called it a "shabby little shocker" (my italics). See here. What Kerman wrote was "Tosca, that shabby little shocker, is no doubt admired nowadays mostly in the gallery. In the parterre it is agreed that Turandot is Puccini's finest work. But if Turandot is more suave than Tosca musically, dramatically it is a good deal more depraved, and the adjective is carefully chosen."
  • Act 1
    • "As the police chief grills the sacristan", perhaps rather too informal a verb for an encyclopaedia?
    • "… Scarpia's lustful reverie" – in your synopsis of the plot, above, I think you don't make it clear at this point that Scarpia lusts after Tosca.
    • "Jerome Kerman mocked the final music" – You mean Joseph Kerman, I think, as in the shabby little shocker, above.
  • Recordings
    • "had been The Gramophone Company's house conductor since 1904, he had made recordings" – stronger stop than a comma needed
    • "the orchestra and chorus of Teatro alla Scala" – "of the Teatro alla Scala", possibly?
    • Osborne's verdict on the Maazel set is, to put it mildly, not representative of the critical consensus, which is more favourably disposed to F-D's Scarpia and less favourably to Nilsson's Tosca. See Philip Hope-Wallace 1967, and Desmond Shawe-Taylor here
      • I feel we should lose the critical comments on this and other recordings in the section. It is not meant to be a critical review section; if that is needed, the discography article is the place for it. By having Osborne's implacable views, and no one else's, we are inviting endless additions to this section as people seek to counter Osborne or plug their own favourite recordings, etc. So I have boldly edited the section down, removing nearly all the review comment. If this is thought too drastic perhaps a little of the material might be added back, but please let us be cautious. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, this is not a place people come for recommendations for the best Tosca recordings. This article is fairly long, and I suspect we will be called upon to add more stuff to it before we're done. Additionally, as Brian suggests, it's asking for trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1976 he was joined by his son, Plácido Domingo Jr" – is this fact notable?
    • "Non-Italian recordings of Tosca are rare but not unknown" – recordings not sung in Italian, that is. There are a great many non-Italian recordings, e.g. the Nilsson/Fischer-Dieskau one.
  • Notes
    • "Tosca: Performance historty. Stanford University…." – typo which I didn't dare correct for fear of messing up your link.
  • References
    • "Gruber, Paul … Norton & Co.." – there are two full stops after Co, which I'm not quite sure how to prune.
    • "Roberts, David, ed" – not consistent with your usual form, viz, "Roberts, David (ed.)"

And that's all. A meagre gleaning, but what is one to do, faced with such a fine article? I had cause to look at an article on one of Verdi's major operas recently (no names, no pack-drill) and was underwhelmed: this one shows how it should be done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the easy ones, the various matters that are easily corrected by substituting a word or punctuation. I have also added a bit to the Act 1 synopsis to make Scarpia's dual aims clear. The others Brian and I will confer on, or if he feels comfortable just going ahead, that works too. Many thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank Tim very much for his perceptive and good-humoured comments, which I think are now all addressed except for the question of up-to-date Toscas as discussed. If he can tear himself away for a minute from his favourite Monteverdi recordings, perhaps he will confirm that this is so.Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have been bopping to today's cover artiste Gus Mahler (congratulations, en passant). Shall review tomorrow and report back. - Tim riley (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions – few and minor as they were – have been addressed. I look forward to FAC, where, I need hardly say, I shall be enthusiastically supporting. – Tim riley (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from elcobbola (talk · contribs)

  • File:Puccini6.jpg - The LoC's assertion of "No known restrictions on publication" is generally interpreted to mean public domain by en.wiki and commons. Obviously the known and the additional disclaimer of "Rights assessment is your responsibility" are problematic in "the real world", but I suspect it would take affirmative evidence that the work is copyrighted to get it deleted. If you're uncomfortable with it, there are dozens of verifiably free alternatives available.
    I am tagging on here to add my opinion on this photo. First off, good grief... trust the LoC to mess up somebody's name... it is Frank C. Bangs, not Bango! I was constantly wondering what kind of race or culture would come up with "Bango"...
    This is likely copyright number H 91721 or H 91722 (registered with dates: Mar 19 or Apr 24, 1907); see p. 333 of Catalog of copyright entries, Part 4, New Series, Volume 2 (1907). However, there is no hard proof, so those who look to maintain this photo here can help by contacting the LoC and confirm the copyright registration number on the photo (after all, they claim the photo is copyrighted by Bango—give me an eye-roll icon here...)
    What leads me to this idea is that the LoC states this photo of Caruso to be copyrighted by Bango again; 1907 of the same date as that of Bangs's Pucini especially when one sees the entry for a set of 3 Caruso photos (H 91718–91720) by Bangs on the same page in the Copyright Catalog pointed above. Good grief again, Bangs, not Bango, officers! Jappalang (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sarahlatosca.jpg - Use of the PD-UK-unknown tag requires "reasonable enquiry" to determine author (there's a substantial difference between "unknown" and "unknown to us"); what entities have been contacted? Better, perhaps, to upload this to en.wiki, where the work need only be PD in the US (which it is, per pre-1.1.1923 publication). Works on the Commons must be PD in the US and country of origin; I don't see support provided for the latter.
    I agree and must note this here for all the Sarah La Tosca pieces floating around: there is an author and he is visibly identified there. It is very unlikely for a Punch cartoonist not to sign his work... and the signature at the bottom right of this one. Several Punch cartoonists have not been dead for more than 70 years.[4]
    This caricature is from Punch, July 21, 1888, p. 28, vol 95, and the higher resolution version is here. The signature reads "EJW", or E J Wheeler, who joined Punch in 1880.[5] It only qualifies for 70 year pma if he dies before 1940 (thankfully, we need not concern ourselves with the URAA for pre-1923 publications). This is a grey case: he was young when he joined Punch, so it would be best to move his works to Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Scottiasscarpia.jpg - If you'd like to match the style of Cavaradossi and Tosca, this version is available; image is otherwise fine after this (never just paste the raw URL in these cases; if Google changes the URL, how would we know the source?) Эlcobbola talk 14:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not see a problem with File:Puccini6.jpg. I have now amended the description on the commons with a link that proves it was published in the US in 1906. Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. If it is considered good, I see no reason to vary this article from the others by using a different shot of Puccini. I will follow Elcobbola's suggestion and reupload the drawing to Commons. As Punch is out of business, I don't know who you would ask who sketched this in 1888 (probably it wasn't recorded then either).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Puccini6.jpg is not that frontispiece; the angle and lighting are all different. That frontispiece can be better seen here and a version (albeit inferior quality) of it is already up at File:GiacomoPuccini.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, I have temporarily put a better scan of the Punch Sarah B. cartoon here - scanned from the primary source this very day. - Tim riley (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you change the Puccini photo in the navigation template, you automatically change it for all the other articles in which it appears. If you get issues at FAC about the Puccini image (which would be ridiculous) it is possible to substitute this one File:Giacomo Puccini by Mario Nunes Vais.jpg, which I just uploaded now. The photographer is Italian and died in 1932, verified in the source. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've downloaded the Sarah sketch and will upload it to Wiki shortly, then will change the link and nom the old one for deletion. If I seem overcautious about images and copyrights, well, I think we all are anxious to go into FAC with all our ducks in a row in that department.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Voceditenore (talk · contribs)
According to an old Covent Garden programme (22 Sept 1995) I have dug out from my shelves, Ricordi insisted on Hohenstein's importation from La Scala, which was not well received at the Rome Opera House, and contributed to the pre-premiere atmosphere of alarm and despondency. En passant, this programme refers to him several times as "Federico Augusto Hohenstein" - Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line mentioning Vignuzzi and Hohenstein. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image comments from Jappalang (talk · contribs)

Comments on File:Sarahlatosca.jpg and File:Puccini6.jpg are inserted into Elcobbola's comment section.

  • File:Act1finaletosca.jpg and File:Executiontosca.jpg: Photo Boyer and Cliche (Cliché) Boyer mean the same thing: Photo by Boyer. This Boyer is very likely Paul Boyer of Paris,[7][8][9][10] who was still active in 1905.[11] It will be safer to move his pre-1923 works onto Wikipedia instead.
  • File:Killingofscarpia1.jpg: note that later versions of Victrola Book of the Opera may leave out the original credits they have in earlier versions; compare 1921, 1919, and 1912. This photo is taken from Le Theater, a French entertainment magazine. As can be seen on this ebay page, Le Theater credits practically all its images, so one cannot claim the reused shots are anonymous works. It will be best to move the Le Theater images to Wikipedia until the authorship can be determined (hint: someone get the magazine).

Tip: for those book scans on archive.org that are not taken from/digitized by Google, e.g. http://www.archive.org/stream/standardoperasth00upto#page/232/mode/2up/search/tosca, you can magnify the pages to 100%, then right-click and "save as" to save a page in full-size to edit to your preference. Jappalang (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Paul Boyer (1850-1937) [12] died more than 70 years ago. Regardless of when it was published, wouldn't the photo be out of copyright? Or is the problem that the credit says only "Boyer" and not "Paul Boyer"?Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note they seem to give only last name credit in that book. Dupont, for example. I think what I will do is change the creator lines in those images to "Paul Boyer (1850-1937)" Does that suit?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Can that be done if the source specifically says only "Boyer". Perhaps Jappalang can advise us here. I have a similar problem with this photo of Puccini (linked above by Jappalang) which I have now saved and cleaned up. The book credits it to "Bertieri" of Torino. From this documentation and the date of the book, it must be Oreste Bertieri (1870 - 1908). But I'm reluctant to upload any more images to Commons if this kind of documentation isn't considered good enough. Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am obviously inclined to think that the photos of important people were taken by the studio head, but I can't prove that it wasn't taken by his son in knee pants who (hypothetically) lived to a ripe old age before dying in 1992. Can you email me so I can send you a copy of the Puccini image taken by Herman Mishkin the Met sent me? There the issue is pre-1923 publication, the Met has the 1910 image but doesn't have info on publication..--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Learning his death date is good news for us on Boyer's works. Depending on circumstances, a photo may still be copyrighted in the US even if the copyright holder has died more than 70 years ago; the most common situation would be something first published in the period of 1923–77. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Items on Commons must be "free" in both US and its country of origin (country of first publication), so we have to consider two copyright regions. Storage on Wikipedia would only need to consider US copyrights.
The 70 year pma rule is primarily for works that were never published before 2003 (it can also be applied to those first published in 1978–2002 without compliance to copyright procedure). It is also to verify that foreign works are out of copyright in their country of origin.
What this means unfortunately for photos of foreign origin is that we have to investigate their authorship more carefully before uploading it to Commons; if it was published (not created) before 1923, we can upload to Wikipedia without issue. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum from Tim riley I'd be wary of referring to the de Sabata recording as "the Columbia" one, as "Columbia" in the 1950s meant different things in the UK and the U.S., viz, half of EMI in the UK; and CBS, now Sony, in America. Safer to call it the EMI recording, I think. - Tim riley (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Utah

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to eventually nominate this list for FL. I've used the List of counties in Utah and List of municipalities in Tennessee as inspirations.

Thanks, Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The table itself is superbly presented, but I have a couple of queries:-

  • The word "Eptymology", used as a column heading, is unknown to me (and to Collins English Dictionary). What does it mean? Should it be "Etymology" (study of the source and development of words and names)?
  • I assume all the entries in this column are cited to the Van Cott source, but could you check the name of the book? It is shown as Utah Place Name; is that right (not "names")?

On other matters:-

  • There is a disambiguation link that needs fixing. Use the toolbox on the upper right of this page to identify.
  • Some of the prose is awkwardly phrased, and other prose fixes are necessary:-
    • "Incorporated places in Utah are those that have a proposed municipal charter passed by a referendum vote of the affected population." Much clearerer to say: "Incorporation means that a municipal charter has been adopted by the affected population following a referendum"
    • "Cities and Towns..." Unnecessary capitlisation of "towns"
    • "On July 22, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers arrived into the Salt Lake Valley and made the first European settlement in Salt Lake City." You "arrive in" rather than "into". Rather than saying they "made the first European settlement in Salt Lake City", which sounds as though Salt Lake City was there before them, it would be better to say "...Salt Lake Valley, where they created Salt Lake City, the first European settlement."
    • "The largest city is the state's capital of Salt Lake City with a population of 181,698 and the former coal mining town of Scofield is the smallest with 26 people." I think you need to add the word "town" after "smallest", otherwise it reads as though Scofield is a city.

That's about all. We are very short of peer reviewers at the moment, and it would help us a lot if you could find time to review one of the backlog articles listed on the WP:Peer review page. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5th Avenue Theatre

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Interested in learning more about one of the most prestegious musical theatres outside of Broadway? Then click the link and start reviewing the 5th Avenue Theatre, Seattle's premiere theatre for Broadway musicals.

Thanks, SkotyWATC 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: My current commitments are such that I will have to review this in stages. Here are some comments on the lead and "Architecture" section:-

  • Lead
    • First paragraph. The first paragraph of the lead should largely confine itself to defining the subject and summarising why it is notable. Incidental information, e.g. "The building and land is owned by the University of Washington and was once part of the original campus" should not be in the first paragraph. I would like to see this opening paragraph slightly reordered, thus:-

"The 5th Avenue Theatre (often referred to as 5th Avenue or the 5th) is a landmark theater located in Seattle, Washington, USA. It has hosted a variety of theatre productions and motion pictures since it opened in 1926. It is operated by the non-profit 5th Avenue Theatre Association as a venue for nationally touring Broadway and original shows. The theatre, located at 1308 Fifth Avenue in the historic Skinner Building, has been listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places since 1978."

    • Second paragraph
      • "2138-seat" needs a hyphen
      • "the resident home of" would be more idiomatic
      • "non-profit" is an adjective, needs a noun, e.g. "non-profit organization"
    • Third paragraph
      • To when does "currently" refer? Better to be time-specific, e.g. "As of 2010..."
      • Delete the first "and" from this opening sentence.
      • "testing ground" is a sufficiently well-used expression not to require quotes.
      • Final sentence is somewhat clumsily phrased. Does 61,000 (a rather strange number) refer just to students or to everybody? The grouping of "students, professional performers, and audiences" is puzzling. Suggest rephrase for greater clarity.
  • Architecture
    • I'm not sure how a building can "range from five to eight stories". I presume this means that a part of the building extends to five stories; I would word thus: "...an historic office block of up to eight stories..."
    • "the theatre is surrounded on three sides" reads oddly. Having said that the theatre is within the office block, this phrase seems unnecessary; "the theatre's entry faces its namesake avenue" would be sufficient.
    • I have copyedited the second paragraph a little. The phrase "was modeled to reproduce" seems clumsy. Why not just "reproduced"?
    • "distinguishes itself" → "distinguishes it"
    • Some of the detail seems rather lightly cited. For example, the fourth paragraph has no citation after the first sentence. I imagine that these details are all sourced from ref 2, and if so the citation should appear at the end if the paragraph.
    • Three images may be one too many for this section; the lion image looks dispensible. Maybe two, one left and one right, would avoid the text appearing crowded?

I'll return soon with comments on the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bentworth, Hampshire

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been trying to nominate this article to GA Class but failed. I have been given advice to submit the page for a Peer Review to see if it helps and try again. Thank you.

Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (GMT)

Finetooth comments: Bentworth sounds like an interesting place, but this article has serious problems that make nomination for GA entirely premature.

  • The main problem with the article is that it lacks sources for most of its claims and therefore violates WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph. My suggestion would be to work on the sourcing problem first and to worry about other problems when the sourcing problem has been dealt with. Most of the information in the article is not common knowledge. Where does it come from? As you add sources, you might find the "cite" family of templates to be helpful. You can copy-and-paste them into your sandbox to see how they work and to practice using them or, if you'd rather not use templates, to see what kinds of data to include and in what order. You can find these templates at WP:CIT. The blanks in the templates can be filled with the appropriate information such as author's last name, author's first name, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. If you get stuck, please ping me on my talk page, and I'll try to help guide you through the process.
  • Please re-read the first GA review of this article. User:Belovedfreak took a good deal of time and trouble to point out problems with the article. The lead still includes important information not found in the main text and does not conform to the guidelines found in WP:LEAD. It still includes imperial units that have not been expressed in metric, and so on.
  • The Manual of Style generally advises against creating extremely short sections and subsections. The "Parish" section, for example, does not need seven subsections. I would suggest merging them all under the "Parish" head with no subheads.
  • Making bigger sections by expansion or merger will help solve the article's layout problems. Images should not overlap two sections or displace heads or edit buttons. If the sections are tiny, even images set to "thumb" size too big to fit.
  • WP:UKCITIES has helpful information about articles like this one.
  • It's often helpful to look at GA or FA articles on similar topics to see how other editors have solved similar problems. You can find polished articles about cities at WP:FA#Geography and places. See, for example, Blyth, Northumberland, Cheadle Hulme, or Shapinsay. Note how these editors have arranged their material, how they have provided sources for their claims, and how they have handled the layout.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page can be very useful. The dab tool, for example, finds three links in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just failed at FAC. I need to know what to do to improve this article to FA standards, so please take this into account when reviewing. Many thanks in advance. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sandman888 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It needs a ce, I'm not the one to ask, but go to the PR mainpage, there's a link to volunteers. Get an editor to ce it, and say so when nominating it for FA next time :)
  • I've gone through most of the FAC objections, those are not points I can help you with. I don't have any books on manu. But try to loan a copy of an established dictionary (like Britannica or Oxford or both) and reference everything that can possible be referenced to it. Will give sources more weight. Sorry I cannot help more. Sandman888 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I'm going to add/remove everything recommended at FAC then ask (very nicely!) someone to copyedit. Regards sources, the only ones that were in question were unitedkits, pride of machester and historicalkits. I appreciate why could be conceived as being unreliable but they really are the authoritative sources of kits on the internet. Nonetheless, would it help if I went down to the Manchester United museum, and confirmed everything (they have a year by year thing down there), and then add it into the notes that I've verified everything? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just add man u museum as a source, that'll work fine. It meets the requirements at wp:rs. Nowhere is it said a place can't be a source. Sandman888 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that though? Just add a reference (like <ref></ref>) where ever one of those sites was referenced, or add it in the 'Notes' section? And shall I replace all the current references, or use the museum as a supplementary source? Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not sure, how the format shd be. i wd say supplementary. Try ask at wt:rs :) Sandman888 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Oldelpaso

Just a small number of picky ones this time:

  • The team initially played games against other departments and rail companies, but in 1888 became a founding member of The Combination - makes it seem like a sudden change, when it was a gradual increase in reputation. Not quite sure how to convey this in a sufficiently concise manner. Maybe simply by changing "but in 1888" to "but by 1888".
Excellent point.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 26 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born - no one gave birth to a football club. More importantly though, there is dispute about the date. Now I don't have United-only books for obvious reasons, but here is an abridged passage from Gary James' Manchester: A Football History from 2008 which puts the date as 24 April: "Like so many other football clubs, myths have developed and inaccuracies overlooked... ...Every Manchester newspaper of the period has been reviewed for this book and it is clear the meeting was definitely held on 24th April... ...not on 28th April as United's own official histories claim, nor the 26th as the enormous United Opus records. The Manchester Evening Chronicle was the first to report the story with their 25th April edition, while the Manchester Evening News followed on 26th April."
Born can mean both "brought into life by birth" and "brought into existence; created", it says so in the dictionary. Regards date, what do you recommend then? I've got 2 books on Manchester United (the rest are in the loft), and they both say 26th. Shall we change it to the 24th, with your reference, and then add a footnote about the dispute?Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. The book details are in cite book format at User:Oldelpaso/Sources, its page 92. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get someone to audit use of the discretionary plural so that it is consistent. I would do it myself but I'm frankly terrible at it.
I thought that the whole point of the discretionary plural was that it was discretionary, as such it does not need to be consistent. But since this point is never going to lie, I guess it should be consistent to keep everyone happy.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but I thought I'd raise it because if I didn't, someone undoubtedly would do at FAC. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kit sources - there is a book called True Colours which covers colours for every team in the Premier League from about 1980 to 2005–06, which might help. Maybe your local library will have a copy. Actually, I see second hand copies are on Amazon priced at a penny. At that price I'm tempted to order it myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I've just ordered it.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Casliber

I buffed the lead a little with what I saw to be the most salient other points - Busby's Babes, Munich and the fact they went on to more success despite 1958. I am musing on whether mentioning Bobby Charlton and George Best in the lead was warranted. Not sure. Glad there is a section on Global brand and discusses the profile. I can add my voice to Malleus' that MU has a much higher profile than just any other English club - it was the club everyone had heard of in oz and lots support. My impression was that munich and the team's recovery from, as well as players like Charlton and later Best captured the public's imagination. Anyway. It's looking better. The Global brand does make me cringe a little the way its written but not sure whether some alternative springs to mind yet. I don't think it is too far off FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My feeling is that maybe the 'Busby years (1945–1969) section could be expanded a little as it was a glory period.
Thanks for your comments Casliber, and for spending the time to copy edit! Do you mean the title 'Global brand' or the entire section makes you cringe? Brianboulton has said the sources are fine, but I'm going to change the sources like unitedkits.co.uk to the book that I have ordered above.Tomlock01 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, para 2 of that section came across a bit like it was written by a couple of junior advertising executives, but I couldn't think of alternative words and the material is what it is. Not sure I feel too strongly about it. No-one else seems to have minded so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looked fine to me, and as I've already told Tom, I think this new section was exactly what the article was missing before. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I absolutely agree it is necessary - hard to convince some poms of just how remote the cancer support of United has grown (shudder) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it used to be a featured article, and was removed in 2009. I've read through the article and personally, cannot see any issues. There was one citation needed tag, which I added a source for. I personally feel the article is ready to be a featured article again, but obviously I need some more opinions!

Thanks, -- Jack?! 03:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

Governance

  • "...gained the council from NOC..."
    • Spell out "NOC"

 Done

  • "...during the 1980s administration under David Blunkett..."
    • What position did Blunkett hold?

 Done - Changed the sentence to make this clear.

Geography

  • I'd recommend using {{Panorama}} for the panorama of Sheffield.

 Done

  • "...across the city.[34][3]"
    • When more than one citation is used concurrently, make sure the are ordered from lowest to highest. ([3][34])

 Done

  • "and, according to Sheffield City Council, it is England's greenest city,[37] a claim that was reinforced when it won the 2005 Entente Florale competition."
    • Sentence fragment, also it might be good to move this claim up near the claim of being the European city with the most "trees per person".

 Done - moved up to the section suggested.

  • "...off NE England..."
    • Spell out NE; same goes for "SW England"

 Done

  • "5,798,361 tonnes"
    • Link the unit,  Done also, see about providing a conversion to tons. ✗ Not done
Not completely sure what is meant by the conversion, or how I would go about this.
In short, the equivalent of a "tonne" in the US is a "ton"; one "tonne" is equal to ~1.102 "tons". {{Convert}} is able to handle this easily. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - works much better

Economy

  • "60 MW"
    • Link and spell out "MW"

 Done

Transportation

  • "...city to London via the East Midlands,"
    • Is the emphasis on "via" needed?

 Done - no it wasn't.

  • Is their a better photo of the Sheffield railway station? Frankly, I'm not sure what, exactly, it shows.

 Doing... - I will take a new picture when possible (I have just invested in a new camera). It shows the station at night, which is clear to me, but, understandably, not to others.

If you are not able to get a better photo, there are a some interior and platform photos in the station's article that will work just as well. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and attractions

  • "...a 24hr service..."
    • Spell out "24h"

 Done

Twin towns and sister cities

  • Is their any particular reason why the flag of Kashmir is used as the identifier for Kotli, Pakistan, when the other twin towns and sister cities use a national flag?

 Done - I think this was because Kashmir has a strange political situation, but done, as it is part of Pakistan.

Understandable, I take it that this would be the same reason Kashmir is the only the political subdivision included in the list. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two roads in Sheffield have been named after sister cities. A section of the Sheffield Parkway in Norton is named Bochum Parkway, and a road in Hackenthorpe is named Donetsk Way."
    • Use a colon between the two sentences, instead of a full-stop.

 Done

Interesting and well-written article; I could see this becoming an FA. Consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Müller (footballer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've put quite a lot of work into this article, and I think it's comprehensive, well-written and well-referenced, so I'm keen to know what the next step is.

Thanks, ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start and generally easy to read. I can't help much with content or pretend to any football expertise, but I have a few suggestions about prose and style.

  • Readers who don't follow football may find some of the jargon puzzling. For example, the phrase "appearing in pre-season friendlies" might make such a reader ask, "What is a friendly"? Another one is "won the tie 12–1 on aggregate." Readers may not know what "on aggregate" means. Another is "playing in a central striking role due to the availability of wide players", which may be misunderstood to mean players who are literally wide (big from side to side). Another is "a prior fixture was cancelled due to the death"; readers may not know what a "fixture" is. You have carefully linked a lot of special terms, so I see that you are aware of the problem of jargon. These four are others that I think might give readers trouble.
    • Done - I've left all of these in, but with links and/or more context. I think there's a trade-off between avoiding jargon and making the page read naturally, for which you need to vary your language.
  • The Manual of Style advises against placing images on section boundaries or displacing heads or edit buttons with images. File:Germany-Argentina-2010.JPG should be moved up into the "International career" section.
    • Done
  • WP:MOSBOLD advises against using bold for emphasis except in special circumstances. I would suggest eliminating the extra bolding in the "Honours" section.
    • Done
  • The article and its sections are short because there isn't yet much to say. Generally, the Manual of Style prefers sections that are longer than "International goals" and "Honours". I assume you plan to expand them as new information becomes available year by year.
  • Correct
  • Sports biographies at WP:FA often include details about a player's life outside of the game. A possibility for expansion would be to add material about Müller's family (parents, siblings), his school(s), his academic interests, hobbies, any other interests, if any of that can be found in reliable sources.
  • Done well, I added what little I could find that seemed relevant.
  • Could anything be added about Müller's playing style? What makes him successful?
    • Done
  • What do the items under Honours mean? For example, is "Bundesliga (1): 2010" the name of a trophy? I think more detail is needed here for this to make sense to readers not already familiar with football.
    • Done - I've expanded it very slightly, but it's intended as a list summary of what's written above

Lead

  • "This earned him an international call-up, and the season culminated in him being named in Germany's squad for the 2010 FIFA World Cup." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "This earned him an international call-up, and at the end of the season he was named to Germany's squad for the 2010 FIFA World Cup."
    • Done

International career

  • "In October of the same year, Müller's regular appearances for Bayern's first team caused German national team coach Joachim Löw to publicly consider him for a call-up,[37][38] and the following month, he was named in the squad for a friendly against Côte d'Ivoire,[39] but a prior fixture was cancelled due to the death of national team goalkeeper Robert Enke,[5] and with the under-21 team facing crucial qualifiers for the 2011 European Championship it was felt by Löw and under-21 coach Rainer Adrion that Müller was needed at that level, and he was called back into the under-21s." - Too complex. I'd suggest re-writing this as two or three separate sentences.
    • Done - re-jigged it

I hope these few comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've addressed your points above. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Global

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to improve the article and consequently for the information to be of more value to interested readers.

Thanks, TropicalIceland

Finetooth comments: This is a brand-new article created earlier this month and not really ready for peer review. (Please see the PR instructions for details). Nevertheless, here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The main problem is that this article is an advertisement for Verne Global rather than an encyclopedia article. Its point-of-view is heavily pro-Verne Global, and it depends heavily on Verne Global web pages for information. In fact, the first sentence of the lead is simply copied verbatim from the Verne Global source cited. It's good to cite the source but not acceptable to copy the company's copyrighted and self-promoting material. Please see WP:COI for information about conflicts of interest.
  • To see how an article about a company can be done in a neutral way based mainly on non-company sources considered reliable per WP:RS, you might look at Oliver Typewriter Company, which is a featured article about a private company. What you would need to do to write an encyclopedic Verne Global article would be to find neutral sources such as newspapers, magazines, government publications, and books published by reputable firms that discuss Verne Global or support more general claims made in the article.
  • When citing sources, be sure to include information other than the bare url. For Internet sources, that means author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found. The "cite family" of templates at WP:CIT can be helpful in organizing the citation data. You can copy-and-paste the "cite web" template, for example, into your sandbox to see how it works. Even if you prefer not to use the templates, they can be good reminders of what data fields are required in a reference.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.hack (video game series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been a long time since I've gone for a FA push and I would appreciate a few extra pairs of eyes before I submit it. How is the referencing? How is the prose? If you're familiar with the subject at all, how is the comprehensiveness? Is it too short? Does it give proper weight to each feature and stay neutral?

Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, seems verifiable, neutral, and stable, and conveys the essence of the game, which I knew nothing about before reading the article. However, the article could use a copyedit to clean up awkward sentences and other style problems, especially in the early sections, and I doubt that you can justify four fair-use images. Here are some specifics:

Lead

  • "Split into four parts, players may transfer their character and save data to the subsequent game in the series upon completing a previous title." - Misplaced modifier since the players aren't split into four parts. Suggestion: "When players complete a game, they may transfer their characters and save data from one game to the next in the series."
  • Spell out and abbreviate OVA on first use, like this: original video animation (OVA)?
  • "which details events that occur concurrently with the games" - Does this mean events in real life; i.e., historical events? The word "events" is ambiguous without further explanation, perhaps just a word or two.

Gameplay

  • "While in The World, one directly controls the on-screen character, Kite" - Wikipedia avoids using "one" as a pronoun. Instead, sentences like this should be re-written without "one". Suggestion: "While in The World, the player directly controls the on-screen character, Kite". Ditto for all other uses of "one" as a pronoun.
  • Should "shoulder button" and "analog stick" be linked or briefly explained for readers unfamiliar with the terms?
  • "Within the fictional game, one explores both monster-infested fields and dungeons as well as "Root Towns" that are free of combat." - Another "one".
  • "where one can check in-game e-mail, news" - Another "one".
  • "After completing the game, a Data Flag appears on the save file" - Misplaced modifier. A Data Flag doesn't complete the game.
  • "As an action role-playing game, players attack monsters" - Misplaced modifier. Players are not an action role-playing game.
  • "The player character possesses a unique ability called "Data Drain" which allows him to transform monsters into rare items." - Are the players necessarily male?
  • "However, this power also increases the level of infection of his player character" - It's not clear who "his" refers to. Are the monsters male?
  • "In many towns, one may also raise a Grunty" - Another "one".

Setting

References

Images

  • Four fair-use images is a lot, and these seem mainly decorative. You may have to eliminate three of these to survive FAC unless you can show that the images convey necessary information that can't be replaced by text.
    • I ditched two of them. The other two are necessary: the cover art identifies the work in question and the gameplay image conveys what the actual game looks like far better than text ever could. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The alt-text tool in the toolbox at the top of this page shows that the images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. It might not be required at FAC at the moment, but it's a good idea to add it. WP:ALT has details.

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) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Please see FAC here. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a level 2 vital article, and I think it needs to be brought up to "Good article" status. Any advice on how to bring up the standard of the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, Qwam (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is well-written in terms of sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and I think at least some of it will be accessible to readers who are interested in mathematics but are not mathematicians. I'm not a mathematician, and I can't very well judge the content closely or say how the particulars could be explained any more clearly than you've explained them. Even so, I can see that the existing article has three problems that will prevent it from being promoted to GA unless they are dealt with.

  • The first problem is the one identified by the major tag at the top of the "Reference" section. The article is almost completely devoid of inline citations and therefore violates WP:V. This can be fixed by citing reliable sources per WP:RS for any claims that have been questioned or are apt to be questioned, any direct quotes, and any sets of statistics. It's also a good rule of thumb to provide at least one reliable source for each paragraph. If an entire paragraph is supported by a single source, that's fine, and the inline citation can be placed at the end of the paragraph. Looking at mathematics articles listed at WP:FA#Mathematics, I see that they do not always provide a source for every paragraph, but they come closer to that pattern than this article does.
  • A second problem is that the existing lead does not seem to summarize the whole article. The lead should be a summary or abstract such that a reader who can only read the lead will come away with a fair understanding of the main points of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead seems rather skimpy.
  • A third problem involves the form of the three existing inline citations. For Internet sources, a good rule of thumb is to include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these are known or can be found. It's helpful to many editors to use the "cite" family of citation templates found at WP:CIT. You can copy and paste the templates into your sandbox and fool around them to get the hang of it, or you can imitate the methods used in the mathematics FA articles such as Problem of Apollonius.

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: OK, thank you for the advice. I'll try and sort out the references section first then. Qwam (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USAir Flight 405

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status, but whilst it passed with flying colours, the reviewer didn't leave any comments for what could be improved, and so I'd like to know what more I need to do before I go for FA.

Thanks in advance, WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Music Sorter Overall I have found the cheatsheet from Ealdgyth to be very useful when writing for GA status.

General comments

  • Many of the sentences in each paragraph are a bit longer than would be considered simple grammar and should be shortened.
I think I've sorted this now. If anyone finds any more sentences that need shortening, please don't hesitate to mention them. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article covers an American airline company that crashed in an American city. The NTSB document highly sourced throughout the article uses the American English spelling of airplane vs the British English spelling of aeroplane. The WP:ENGVAR section of the style guide recommends that quotations should use the national language of the reference and the section MOS:TIES should use the language of the country in which the article is based.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All indented quotations should be using quotation marks at the beginning and end.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice use of images spread throughout the article.

Intro

  • Nice use of the Infobox; appears to be complete and detailed.
  • The first sentence is a bit longer than is typical. Consider breaking it into two sentences.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When entering a full date use a comma both before and after the year as in "On June 14, 1982, the plane went down."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the intro sentence is not completely rewritten the current passage "...flying the route crashed in poor weather..." needs a comma between route and crashed.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid beginning a sentence with a number unless you write it out as in "Twenty-seven of the 51 people..." Alternatively you can rewrite the sentence as in "Of the 51 people onboard, 27 of them, including the captain..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall there are a wonderful number of inline citations. The first paragraph lists five, but the next two paragraphs in the intro do not list any. Typically a GA (or at least an FA) will include a citation for each statistic, quotation, disputable note, or paragraph should have a citation. It is acceptable to include the citation(s) either in the middle of the sentence next to the statement being supported, or grouped together at the end of the paragraph. Although in the case of five citations you may want to consider moving them across the three paragraphs in the intro where appropriate. In general more than three lumped at the end of the paragraph becomes an eyesore.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at paragraph two and review the MOS:SERIAL entry on when to use commas before the and when using a serial list to help improve the readability. Also consider rewriting it to separate the two serial lists. In a single sentence it is a bit wordy and hard to follow.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph the word whilst is typically a British English word and in the US is very rare and sometimes considered pompus. If the article was about a British flight or crashed in a country speaking predominately British English you would be more inclined to use it. However the word while would be appropriate in both country's English.
 Done - Sorry for all the British words, only as I live and have always lived in Britain, British words are second nature. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of paragraph 2 includes a comment about runway 13, but in the summary that information does not seem to add any significance. It is better to just leave it only in the detailed coverage of the accident.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph is also a run-on sentence.
I've done my best to sort that out, but I know what you mean. I'm just not entirely sure how I would go about fixing it. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight history

  • Overall very well done. Nice use of citations for each paragraph.
  • The second paragraph uses captain twice in short succession. One way to avoid this would be to word it "The 44-year old commander was Captain Wallace J Majure II..."
 Done, although with 'pilot' rather than 'commander'. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "He was hired as an F28 first officer by Piedmont Airlines in 1985. After serving as a first officer and then a captain on a Boeing 737, he was reassigned during company cutbacks to an F28 pilot" is somewhat as to the timeline. Did you mean "He was hired as an F28 first officer by Piedmont Airlines in 1985. After serving as an F28 first officer and later as a captain on a Boeing 737, he was reassigned as an F28 captain due to company cutbacks."
 Done - I've attempted to clarify this, so I hope it reads better now. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph might be using a few redundant words in "...company records indicate that he had accumulated an approximate total of 4,507 flying hours..." Consider simplifying to "...company records indicate he had accumulated approximately 4,507 flying hours..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

  • Overall nice use of inline citations.
  • The following sentence uses a quote to continue to subject of the sentence, but the wording is awkward and needs to be reworded. "Trump Shuttle flight 1541, a Boeing 727 which had landed around the time flight 405 was taxiing had "picked up a lot of snow quickly during my post-landing walkaround, but by the finish it seemed to be more rain," the second officer said."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same sentence uses a quote but does not have a citation inside or at the end of the paragraph.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Just under five seconds later, the stick shaker activated and the crew received six stall warnings, before the jet began banking to the left, leaving the runway." the ending of the sentence should join the beginning as "Just under five seconds after leaving the runway, the stick shaker activated and the crew received six stall warnings, before the jet began banking to the left."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Passengers who sustained minor injuries and injuries that were not life threatening most likely drowned as a result of confusion, disorientation or entrapment." leads me to believe all passengers with minor injuries or non-life threatening injuries drowned with this wording. Do you mean to say "Confusion, disorientation, or entrapment most likely caused the drowning of passengers who otherwise sustained only sustained minor injuries and injuries that were not life threatening."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

  • The two paragraphs would work better as a single paragraph with sentence "The inquiry lasted just under one year." moved to the end of the new paragraph.
I haven't done exactly that, but I've re-worded it to make it clearer, by putting the section about the loss of lift in the section about the buildup of ice, two things which are linked very tightly together. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • While not required for GA level, there are a number of paragraph making specific quotations and comments that require a citation. I assume they came from one of the sources already used, but you just did not add the citation link.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dryden report allegations

  • "The crash was featured on National Geographic Channel in an episode..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USAir

  • This section does not specifically say the re-branding efforts were a direct result of the accident or not. If it was it should be stated (with appropriate source citation) or it should be a separate section not related to the "aftermath" of the event.
While I have added a sentence specifially stating that the rebranding effort was not a direct result of the accident, I don't think the section deserves its own level 2 section. I put that section there thinking it would swiftly be removed for being trivial, but I thought to the average reader it rounded off and concluded the article, if you know what I mean. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • All Web citations should include accessdate=
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to the NTSB report should use the Journal citation template to better match the other references cited. They need to include the title of the document and use the page= entry to show the page number (which is already nicely embedded into the link).
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

  • There was a huge effort by you last month to expand this article and it shows. Great work. I would say with the above changes it would more accurately reflect the GA status possibly prematurely passed onto this article.

I hope this helps you. If you have any comments back to me I may not see them here unless you post a comment on my talk page asking me to look here. Keep up the good work. § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up review Nicely executed changes. My congratulations on getting this done quickly and so completely. These additional comments follow from my deeper review after some of the sentences were shortened, and from a few things I may have overlooked. Most of the other comments might be considered FA criteria, so you are welcome to ignore them. However I believe you desire moving to an FA review at some point and I think these comments may help it in my opinion.

Intro

  • When entering a City-name, State-name, there should always be a comma after both the city and state names as in this sentence (except if it is the end of the sentence.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sentence "The airplane managed to leave the ground, however it failed to gain lift and managed to get several meters off the ground." consider rewording it because the first and last part of the sentence are somewhat redundant in idea.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference to paragraphs 2 and 3 here, I personally believe that the spirit of WP is to always cite references in every paragraph even if it is only at the end of the paragraph. Some FAs have appeared without a reference on at least the end of every paragraph, but IMHO I don't think that is appropriate except when the sentence or paragraphs are indisputable or somehow clearly referenced in some other way in the body of the paragraph. In your paragraphs this is the intro that summarizes the article below that are very well referenced, so it could be argued that they are referenced by the time the article is completely read.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the comma in the following sentence should be removed "The NTSB concluded that the flight crew were unaware of the amount of ice that had built up, after the jet was delayed by heavy traffic taxiing to the runway."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend that "While the jet encountered a delay of up to 35 minutes, they found that the deicing fluid that was being used at the airport, and across the United States by the majority of commercial airlines, was effective for only fifteen minutes." be modified as "While the jet encountered a delay of up to 35 minutes, they found that the deicing fluid that was being used at the airport, and the majority of commercial airlines across the United States, was effective for only fifteen minutes."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence can be further simplified as "The accident led to a number of studies into ice's effect on aircraft, and several recommendations into prevention techniques."
 Not done Whilst admittedly that would simplify it, I don't think an apostrophe looks particularly pleasing in that situation. To me, it almost looks like an "isn't" or a "wouldn't" in a Wikipedia article. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 10:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the point that it did not look pleasing you may be right. After I read it again it felt clumsy in that situation. On your comment related to the contractions isn't and wouldn't, those are different situations. Contractions are not typically used in formal writing. On the other hand, our use of ice's is possessive and is perfectly acceptable as stated here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand what you mean, but while "Mary's cat" implies that Mary owns the cat, I don't think that ice really owns the effect it has on an aircraft. Regards, WackyWace you talkin' to me? 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you an example of a possessive use with a noun like ice, check out this article with two references, (1) ice's effects, and (2) ice's thickness. "http://thedartmouth.com/2010/03/02/news/arctic". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help) But remember I don't think we should change it. § Music Sorter § (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight history

  • I believe the sentence "The Fokker 28 is a two-engine, medium-range jet..." should use "F28".
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The jet involved in the accident was registered in the United States as N458US." starts with the same words as the first sentence. Consider using "This particular jet was registered in the United States as N458US.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the and after the comma in "The 44-year old pilot was Captain Wallace J. Majure II, who was fully qualified to pilot the F28 and four other commercial aircraft, and had accumulated approximately 9,820 total flying hours, of which 2,200 hours were in the F28."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence is still out of order on the timeline "He was hired as an F28 first officer by Piedmont Airlines in 1985, before being reassigned as a first officer and later a captain on a Boeing 737, he was reassigned as an F28 captain due to company cutbacks." What about "He was originally hired as an F28 first officer by Piedmont Airlines in 1985. Sometime after that he was reassigned as a first officer and later a captain on a Boeing 737, but finally returned to an F28 captain due to company cutbacks."
 Done, but slightly differently to the way you suggested because I think saying "sometime after that" sounds a little vague. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation from the NYT in paragraph two is long and would be easier to follow as an indented quotation as you used later in the article.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

  • Note the comma usage in City, State, as mentioned in the Intro section.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph uses whilst verses while which I mentioned in the first review in American English would sound rare and sometimes pompus to some people, but it is not incorrectly used.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is too long "Following the completion of this process, one of the two deicing trucks delayed the pushback of the jet by around 20 minutes when it experienced mechanical problems in such a position that it prevented the aircraft from taxiing to the runway following the flight crew's return."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "After the deicing truck was repaired, the pilot requested a second deicing, though the flight crew did not perform a walkaround of their airplane, as USAir procedures did not require them to do so." the final thought "...as USAir procedures did not require them to do so." can be interpreted two ways. Did the pilots chose not to perform the walkaround BECAUSE the procedure did not require it, or did the pilots simply not perform a walkaround and you were noting that it was not required by USAir procedures?
Personally, I found it notable that in a snowstorm, USAir did not require a walkaround of an aircraft, and therefore I noted it in the article. Since the pilot was killed in the crash, we never will know whether he didn't perform the check because of the fact they were far behind schedule, or whether he simply didn't do it because procedure did not require him to do so. However, the final report does imply that the crew should have checked the wings before takeoff, and i thought that an average reader might be intruged at why USAir did not require a walkaround check in poor weather. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you can change the sentence to "...though the flight crew did not perform a walkaround of their airplane, as and USAir procedures did not require them to do so." This way you are not implying that you know why they did not do the walkaround when you used the word as in that sentence.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 06:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can simplify "Engine anti-ice was turned on for both of the two engines during taxi." to "Engine anti-ice was turned on for the two engines during taxi."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph you mentioned a few times that "The captain announced" some things. The items you listed I have never heard on a plane as a passenger, so I assume the "announcement" was to himself and the co-pilot. In that case I assume it was from the voice flight recorder. If the source makes that statement, or you believe it is clear the source meant that the flight recorder recorded the captain saying these things, then the sentence should reflect that differently such as "The flight recorder captured the captain stating the flaps would remain up during taxi..." and later "The recorder also captured the captain saying they would use standard USAir..."
The NYT article states that the captain did announce to "flap watchers" onboard that they should not be worried if they saw the flaps retracted during takeoff. I've put a reference in to verify this.
  • I see both "US Air" and "USAir" in the article. Confirm if the company uses a space between the words and make the article consistent.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weather reports for LaGuardia state..." might sound better as "Weather reports for LaGuardia showed..." since generally people make statements and reports show information. In the same sentence the word that is unnecessary.
 Done, but the sentence "weather reports for LaGuardia showed on the night of the accident, all taxiways were coated with a thin covering of snow" does not really make sense, so I've kept the than. WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is somewhat improper "Nor he or the pilot saw any evidence of contamination on the wing or on the black strip and therefore decided against a third deicing." Consider instead "Neither he nor the pilot..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 13:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence "The flight crew spent the time taxiing discussing deicing procedures." would flow better as "While taxiing, the flight discussed deicing procedures."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is a bit too unclear and I don't understand what it means "The first officer suggested to the pilot that they "this [aircraft], he might keep our wings clear for us." Was he trying to say the exhaust from a jet in front of him would keep their wings clear of ice? If so you can make that statement if the source was clear that was the intent of the quote, but you would put any unspoken words inside [here is where you explain or clarify missing words].
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can improve clarity of "The second officer of Trump Shuttle flight 1541, which had landed around the time flight 405 was taxiing said the Boeing 727..." with a comma after taxiing and replacing the Boeing 727 with their Boeing 727.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can increase clarity in "The weather had created heavy traffic at LaGuardia..." by adding ground as in "The weather had created heavy ground traffic at LaGuardia..." [italics not intended for the final article]
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally you spell out single digit numbers and use roman numerals for double or more digit numbers. Consider this change for "Investigators estimated that the plane took between twenty five and forty five minute..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider in "...vibration, rate of acceleration, ambient noise, and directional control."to replace and with or.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reverences at the end of "The aircraft struck two visual approach slope indicator posts, touched down again for approximatley 100 feet, before lifting off again and striking an ILS beacon and a water pump house." should be reordered so the one currently numbered 7 comes before the one numbered 22.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove redundant sustained in "Confusion, disorientation, or entrapment most likely caused the drowning of passengers who otherwise sustained only sustained minor injuries and injuries that were not life threatening."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue

  • Same comment on whilst.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider shortening or dividing the first sentence in each paragraph.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NTSB should be spelled out initially as National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and then you can use NTSB from there on.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

  • After defining NTSB in the prior section you can use NTSB on its own here.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing "They concluded that, unknown to the crew, ice had collected on the wings, disrupting airflow and reducing lift." to "...wings, which disrupted airflow and reduced lift."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That same paragraph really needs a source.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence that includes "...and the speed brakes were not deployed." may want to drop this comment since a more detailed description of this fact appears in the next few sentences.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment on whilst. Consider a global search if you decide to change all to while.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...very very..." should have a comma between the words.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "F-28" appears differently than in the rest of the article with "F28".
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • Commas required as entered in "Dryden, Ontario, after the crew..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have established a need to follow American English due to the sources and subject of the article, so the rest of the article should use American English for program rather than programme
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite long "The Honourable Virgil P. Moshansky, who investigated the crash in Dryden, appeared in the documentary, alleging that if the recommendations in his report, such as the use of Type II deicing fluid rather than Type I, deicing trucks near the runway rather than at the gate, and that the crew should inspect their wings not only from the cockpit, but also the cabin, had been followed at LaGuardia and other US airports, the accident on USAir flight 405 could have been prevented."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is this one "Following the crash of flight 405, along with American Eagle Flight 4184, an ATR 72 which suffered a catastrophic loss of control after the wings were contaminated with freezing rain in 1994, Air Florida Flight 90, when pilot error lead to ice buildup of the wings, causing the jet to crash into the Potomac river in 1982, and Air Ontario Flight 1363, the FAA began to research methods of improving deicing practices at airports to minimise the number of accidents caused by a buildup of ice."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas needed in "...May 28 and 29, 1992, in Reston, Virginia, for the..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing "At the conference, industry methods were discussed and agreed on actions that should be taken in the long term and short term." to "At the conference, industry methods were discussed and agreed upon for actions that should be taken in the long term and short term."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a comma before but in "They also found that the pilot in command was the ultimate authority for take off decisions, but that..."
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Developments in deicing have two paragraphs with no sources.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • There are a number of web entries which do not show the retrieved date.
  • Reference 63 has a typo and is displayed improperly.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • Specific external links are not usually used when the item is already included in the article as with the specific NTSB report on this accident.
 Done WackyWace you talkin' to me? 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion Overall excellent article and I would say with these changes it is ready for GA review with not a lot left before a FA status should be attempted. Great work WackyWace. § Music Sorter § (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent follow-up to my comments. Great work and thanks for the great improvement to Wikipedia. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover

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

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

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating, well-written, and well-illustrated. Adding a bit more context here and there for non-British readers would be helpful, and one of the images has problems with its license. Otherwise, my suggestions are about minor prose issues that will take little time to address.

Lead

  • "He was the fifth son and eighth child of George III who ruled over both the United Kingdom and Hanover." - Comma after III to avoid possible misinterpretation of this sentence to mean that George III had eight children who ruled over both kingdoms?

Military commander

  • "King George had feared that Ernest, like some of his older brothers, would display Whig tendencies." - Wikilink Whig?
  • "Although the post could have been a sinecure... ". - Link to sinecure or to its definition in Wiktionary?

Sellis incident and marriage

  • "The Prince of Wales (now Prince Regent) found the Cumberlands' presence in Britain embarrassing," - Link Prince Regent here rather than in the next paragraph?

Politician

  • "The Duke had not left his grounds at Kew on the day in question, and was able to ascertain that the rider was one of his equerries... ". - Wikilink equerries? Many readers will be unsure of its meaning.

Domestic affairs

  • Since this subsection has no content, should it be deleted?
It has content, I divided it into two smaller subsections as it was fairly long.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National development and trade

  • "Hanover was little affected by the revolutions of 1848 - a few small disturbances were put down by the cavalry without bloodshed." - The spaced hyphen should probably be an unspaced semicolon.

Constitutional controversy

  • "On 28 June 1837, King Ernest entered his new domain, passing under a triumphal arch." - Forgive me if I seem a little dim here, but this sentence surprised me because I did not see why Ernest would automatically become King of Hanover when William IV died. I had to look at William IV of the United Kingdom to learn that all of William's legitimate children had died. That ended half of my confusion. The other half has to do with the split between the monarchies of the United Kingdom and Hanover. I wondered why Victoria didn't become monarch of both until re-reading the lead and re-discovering the explanation there. The lead should contain nothing important that does not appear in the main text; thus, the explanation needs to be embedded in the main text. Or am I not seeing it?

Relations with Britain

  • "One decision the new King had was whether... " - Maybe "had to make" instead of plain "had"?
  • "Ernest remained heir presumptive to his niece. That status ended with the birth of the Queen's daughter, Victoria, in November 1840... " - This is another place that foreign readers might get confused. To them it might be puzzling to see the Queen's daughter called Victoria when it is the Queen they are likely to know as Victoria. Would it be helpful to change the first sentence to read, "Ernest remained heir presumptive to his niece, Queen Victoria. That status ended with the birth of the Queen's daughter, also named Victoria, in November 1840... "?
  • "Her ill-feeling towards the King increased when the King refused, and advised his two surviving brothers to similarly refuse, to give precedence to Prince Albert... ". - Wikilink precedence?
  • "The Act which naturalised Albert as a British subject left the question of his precedence unresolved." - I think "which" should be "that". I puzzled over this sentence because I did not know what "Act" referred to. What act? Why is "Act" capitalised here? Also, it would be helpful for foreign readers to have a little more background about Albert and his country of origin. Why, they may wonder, would he have to be naturalised?
  • "Shortly after the wedding, the King injured himself in a fall, with Albert writing to his brother, "Happily he fell over some stones in Kew and damaged some ribs." - Rather than using "with plus -ing", I'd re-cast this, perhaps as "Shortly after the wedding, when the King injured himself in a fall, Albert wrote to his brother, "Happily he fell over some stones in Kew and damaged some ribs."
  • "The monarchs engaged in one more battle - over jewels left by Queen Charlotte." - Another spaced hyphen. This one should probably be a spaced en dash.

Images

  • File:1771 Ernst August.JPG is tagged with a "factual accuracy" banner that needs to be addressed. An additional problem is that the source link is circular; it links merely to another copy of the image. Also, the image placement creates a text sandwich between itself and the infobox, and Ernst looks out of the page rather than in. If you can resolve the licensing issues and keep the image, it might be better to move it into the next section unless that seems to be too much of a content mismatch.
I have swapped for another image.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ernstthaler.jpg would look better if positioned on the left so that Ernst looks into the page. You'd have to move it down too to avoid a head-bump on the left.

Other

  • I'm not used to seeing so many capital letters on words like King, Queen, Throne, Duke, Act, and so on except when they part of a formal name such as Queen Victoria. Your use seems generally to be internally consistent, and so perhaps the caps are OK. They look a bit odd to a Yankee, is what I'm saying. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Obviously what I need to do is spell out the succession better. The other points you mention are relatively minor. All will be taken care of by the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DrKiernan

This is a highly readable, and I think well-balanced, account.

Lead

  • I would like "ruled over" to be changed to "reigned in", as I would argue that it is Parliament that rules rather than the King.
  • "Ernest succeeded as fifth son" is at first confusing because it looks as though the sentence is describing his succession to the post of Fifth Son rather than his succession as King. How about: "As a fifth son, initially Ernest seemed unlikely to succeed, but Salic Law, which debarred women from the succession, applied in Hanover and none of his older brothers had a legitimate son."
  • "disfiguring wounds to the face", perhaps "a disfiguring facial wound"?

Early life

  • "with the cavalry" or "in the cavalry"?

Sellis incident

  • "awakening him" stuck me as odd, perhaps because of the tense. Can we have "...by his written account, he was awakened by being struck on the head several times." or "..several times while asleep in bed. Awakened, he ran for the door..."
  • I think the sources of the Sellis rumours should be made more explicit earlier in the paragraph, i.e. "Public rumour blamed Ernest for...", or change "Some stories.." to actually name the nineteenth-century originator first recorded to have told the story. Also, I believe I'm right in saying, though I could be wrong and you should probably check this, that the foreman of the jury in the Sellis case was the social reformer Francis Place, who was totally opposed to Cumberland politically but still found in his favour at the inquest.
You are absolutely correct. Place went to some trouble to get on that jury, which he managed even though the did not live in the immediate vicinity and the coroner had selected 12 good men and true (at Place's request, the coroner expanded it to 17).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I think you should be more specific about who said the princess had poisoned her husband.
Two sources say this occurred, none give any details. Will keep looking online.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politician

  • Can you stipulate in the footnote no. 52 the original observer who wrote "disappointed fiend"? (There's no need to put it in the article body but I would like to see who said it somewhere.)

Van der Kiste doesn't say, but a little research finds it to be Lord Ellenborough. However, as he was talking about the bill being fixed for third reading, rather than passed at third reading, I've taken it out. The Duke looking upset at the vote is interesting, the Duke looking upset at the vote being set is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "fresh rumours were spread": but spread where? In the newspapers or privately between individuals in society? "it was said": but by whom? A potential origin of the rumours is discussed later in the paragraph, but we're not told where the rumours were recorded. Earlier in the paragraph, The Times newspaper features prominently, which tends to imply that the rumours also appeared in that newspaper. Did they?
  • "widely rumoured that the Duke...", I would like to see a couple of examples of who mentioned the rumours given in the accompanying footnote. (Something like "Victoria's dairy, quoted in Bird, p. 217", or whatever sources Bird is using.)

Constitutional controversy

  • "only one of the seven..." begs the question: who was he?

Dahlmann, I think. I will have to check.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Relations with Britain[reply]

  • "supposed" by whom?

Notes

Bibliography

  • You may wish to add ISBNs for FAC.

Images

  • The source of File:ErnstAugustK.jpg is wikipedia. I prefer to see artist and gallery details whenever possible.

Overall, it is absorbing and well-constructed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on these and post responses as I can. It is not always possible to say who started the rumours, but I can certainly mention what paper they were printed in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in at least some detail about each set of rumors. I think that's everything. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley I have only just noticed this article on the peer review list. I hope you will be keeping it open for a day or so, which would give me time to add my two-penn'orth. It's a splendid article and I should like to contribute if I can. Meanwhile, as a preliminary thought, you are inconsistent about capitalising job titles. In the military you have "as a colonel" followed by "promoted to Major-General". With royals you refer to "the prince" but "the King"; to "royal dukes" but "the Duke hurried…" Might be worth applying a consistent regime. More soonest. - Tim riley (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no hurry. I do not expect it to go to FAC for two to three weeks, as I presently have an article which will go before it. Thanks for helping out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR Sprint Cup Series champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is very up to date and I would like it to become a featured list.

Thanks, Nascar1996 (sign) 23:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: You certainly have a lot of information here, and it's arranged in a logical way. As an outsider to the sport, I wondered about a couple of things that might be addressed in the lead. Have all of the champions come from the U.S.? Are drivers from other countries allowed to compete? Are cars manufactured in other countries allowed to compete? How long are the races? How fast do the cars go? Where are the races held? How many cars compete in a typical race? How much money do these drivers make? Are women allowed to compete? How old do you have to be to compete? Can you be too old? Beyond basic questions like this, I have a few suggestions about prose, style, images, and layout.

Hello, and thanks for reviewing the list. Races are held at several different tracks so what do I do, and the money and length depends on the race; such as the Daytona 500 is a 500 mile race while the Food City 500 is a 250 mile race. I don't know what to do here.--Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 22:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could explain that in a general way and add it to the lead. I don't think you need to list every track, every distance, every purse, but you could might give max and mins, some idea of the geographic distribution of the tracks, mention a couple of famous ones. In other words, research, write, and support a brief overview of the sport. Keep in mind that these are just suggestions, not absolute rules. You might check the motor-racing articles at WP:FL#Sports and recreation to see what other editors have done. Finetooth (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 00:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images could use alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. They may not be required at the moment at FLC, but it's a good idea to add them anyway. WP:ALT has details. The alt-text tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page can be handy too.
  • All date ranges need an unspaced en dash rather than a hyphen or a spaced en dash. In the "Consecutive Drivers Championships" section, I see a variety of formats. There might be other non-conforming hyphens lurking here and there.
  • The image File:Dale Sr 1994.jpg should not have been uploaded to the Commons because it has a license with a "non-commercial" (NC) clause. That makes it unusable on Wikipedia. This is not your fault, but unless you can convince the Flikr source author to re-license as generic CC-by-SA 2.0 without the NC clause, this one won't survive FLC and should be removed before going there.
  • If you can figure out how, it's best to have directional images facing into the page rather than out. Cars should appear to be driving into the page, but flipping the photos with software is a no-no because it distorts reality. The layout options are to move images left or right to get them facing in.
    • The Manual of Style advises against double bolding. WP:MOSBOLD has details. For this reason, I'd suggest explaining "Poles" and "Points" in footnotes and using italics instead of double bolding for highlighting driver names and manufacturer names in the tables.

Lead

  • "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Drivers' Championship" - Rather than a possessive, I would view "Drivers" as an adjective and delete the apostrophe. Ditto for "Youngest Drivers' Champion" and so on. To avoid having editors who disagree change it back again, I'd probably hedge with "Youngest Driver Champion" and so on.
  • "Prior to 2004, drivers received points by how much money they had won... " - Maybe "based on" rather than "by"?
  • "It is called "Chase to the Sprint Cup", in which after twenty-six races the top twelve point positions will change based on wins. Each race victory adds ten extra points for the driver when the "Chase" starts." - The meaning here is unclear. Why after 26 races? Is that the total number of races each driver takes part in every year? Perhaps something like this would be more clear: "The new system, called "Chase to the Sprint Cup", awards 10 extra points per win to each of the drivers among the top 12 money-earners after 26 races, a complete season."

By season

  • I'd avoid linking the individual names in the tables more than once. For example, Richard Petty is wikilinked seven times in the "By season" table. "Chevrolet Monte Carlo" is linked 14 times in that table. The result is a sea of blue in which nothing stands out.

By manufacturer

References

  • Newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics.
  • The citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these are known or can be found. For example, citation 4 has an incorrect title; it is "Jimmie Johnson captures record fourth straight NASCAR championship with fifth-place finish in Miami". The author's name, Richard Biebrich, is missing from the citation. The date of publication is easy to find: November 22, 2009.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


La Tosca

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it would make an excellent candidate for GA or FA status.

Thanks, 4meter4 (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note I am the primary author of this expanded article. However, I will be travelling continuously from July 19th to mid-September, with very limited computer access and will not be able to respond to any comments here. I would much prefer that this review take place in late September when I can fully participate in a timely manner. Thanks, Voceditenore (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)V[reply]
At the request of Voceditenore (see her talk page) I am closing this review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dry county

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

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

I'm wondering if it would be helpful to turn this list into a table, and then maybe put in a template of other laws compared by state.

Thanks, Doc Quintana (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wallanon
  • I agree that the two state lists should be converted into table form. Did you want suggestions on column headers or do you already have something in mind? Were you thinking something like the table in List of alcohol laws of the United States by state?
  • If you want more comments on other parts of the article I can list those, too. One I am thinking of now (before I forget) is the question of whether towns themselves can declare themselves dry in a "wet" county? The See also link brought that to mind since it had a lot of information in common with your article. Another is "Some prohibit off-premises sale, some prohibit on-premises sale, and some prohibit both.". I wasn't not sure what that means just from reading it. I Googled it so now I know, but maybe the terms could defined on Wiktionary. On-premises sales made sense, off-premises sales not so much.

Interesting article. - Wallanon (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dave
  • I think would I would do is reformat the article to have an overview (already present) then have one table with an entry for each state, giving an overview with the situation for each state.
  • Once that is done I would strongly consider merging the related articles Dry state and List of dry communities by U.S. state. I say this as I like the idea of having a "one stop shop" for places with restricted alchohol laws, and this page is close to being it. Dave (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've recently rewrote the entire lead, added the tables, and cited all of the sources. I eventually want to nominate this article for as featured list, and I want to get feedback to make sure it meets all of the criteria.

Thanks, WereWolf (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The lists look basically OK. Here are a few points requiring attention:-

  • Prose issues in lead
    • "Since its inception, The Smashing Pumpkins have..." You can't have "its" and "have" together. Either "their" and "have", or "its" and "has".
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • with the only consistent member being Billy Corgan" → "with Billy Corgan the only consistent member."
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The band played their final concert on December 2, 2000 at the Cabaret Metro." Needs rewording, as this obviously wasn't the band's "final" concert.
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The band's website need only be described as "official" once.
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members list
    • Current: the note introducing this list begins "As of 2010, the current lineup..." You don't need to say "current".
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Former live members: this is a somewhat awkward heading. Why not change it to "Touring musicians"? With the accompanying note, that should be clear.
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former additional supporting live musicians: again, an unnecessarily awkward heading. Call them "Temporary musicians", and use the note to say what they were.
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General point: I notice some inconsistency in the formatting of retrieval dates in the references.
Done. WereWolf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. It will help us in turn if you can find time to review one or more articles from the peer review backlog - there is a shortage of reviewers, and your assistance would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Along with those on several other movies featuring the Care Bears (currently one of my on-and-off passions—I've moved on to other and better things), this is among the first articles I created early in my Wikipedia career. Reiterating from PR #1 back in December 2005...

This is no likely FA candidate, since it's a children's animated film and not that many people have recently seen it, not even on cable television. And the critics have been no nicer to it...

No one thought this page would see the light of day as a well-researched part of the Care Bears legacy. Not even Avriette (talk · contribs), my first WP contact. Well...not today, buddy!

This out-of-the-blue clipping from the Toronto Star (registration required for full article) prompted me to finally improve the article...and the sources just kept on coming from here. Even I had to "rent" the DVD from my library to fulfill this task. Funny how I spent all of Toy Story 3's opening day, and the evening after, getting the job done. (Mind you, the Care Bears are also toys that continue to appear in cartoons.) I've finally managed to tackle every single problem with it—what with an overlong plot and a ton of original research getting in the way. Back in size, back in better shape—and at this writing, over four years behind schedule. So worth the wait—and so unbelievable!

For the record: The Samuel Goldwyn Company set their sights on this follow-up from Toronto's Nelvana studio (like they successfully did with the first), but distribution rights soon ended up with Columbia Pictures after demands from the producers.

Looking forward in the coming months to my first proper GA—and later FA—with this one. Who else cares? As an editor, I do.

See you on the Main Page next March.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not seen this movie, though I am familiar with the idea of the Care Bears. I think this needs some work before it would be ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement - thanks for your work on the article.

  • Lead - mostly well done, but "its" does not have a clear antecedent, and "turned over" is just plain unclear in To the chagrin of its founder, the worldwide rights then turned over to Hollywood studio Columbia Pictures. Perhaps it owuld be better as something like To the chagrin of Goldwyn's founder, the worldwide rights were then acquired by Hollywood studio Columbia Pictures.
  • In the lead, the reviews seem more "mostly negative" to me than "mixed" - in the Reception section 8 of the 12 reviews seemed negative.
  • The Plot section has a lot of problems. One is that it is written mostly from an in-universe perspective, so someone not familiar with the Care Bears will have little or no idea what tummy symbols are, or who the Care Bear Cousins are (the rabbit? little bears?). See WP:IN-U
  • Another problem is that the writing in Plot needs a lot of work - sometimes it is not clear and in other places it could be tightened. A few examples follow (not a complete list - see if you can get a copyedit):
    • Some time later, True Heart Bear and stowaway Swift Heart Rabbit embark on the Bears' first Caring Mission. Landing at a summer camp, she meets a camper named Christy. This girl always loses against her lead competitor, the boastful Camp Champ, and only excels at marble-shooting. She and her friends, Dawn and John, attempt to run away but get lost in the woods. First sentence is about two characters. Second sentence says "she" (singular) meets a camper named Christy. Which character is meant by "she"? If Christy always loses, how does she also excel (and win?) at marbles? Since we do not know the gender of the Camp Champ, it is not 100% clear who "she and her friends" is referring to (assume Christy).
    • Back on Earth, Christy meets Dark Heart (as a human boy) for the first time. After Christy performs a cartwheel for him, she learns that she must do a favour to pay him back. Thanks to this deal, she shows off as the new Camp Champ. Thanks to the villain, True Heart and Noble Heart move the Bears to Care-a-Lot, and the Cousins to the Forest of Feelings. First off it is not clear they left Earth. Second, the whole cartwheel, favor, becoming the new Camp Champ sequence makes no sense to me. How does Christy performing a cartwheel lead to her debt to Dark Heart? What deal is struck? Thanks to the later references to Faust, I assume Dark Heart makes her the new Champ, but this is all very muddled.
    • Meanwhile, from a secret cave beneath the camp, Dark Heart is planning to capture them forever. His arrival in Care-a-lot causes the Caring Meter to go awry, while the Bears prepare a surprise party for True Heart and Noble Heart. They believe he is trying to have fun, but the Star and Heart Buddies are aware of his plan and drive him off. Unclear who "them" refers to in the first sentence - the Care Bears? the Campers? Sicne the reader already knows from the plot that the camp is on Earth and the Care Bears live somewhere else in the clouds, it seems more likely that Dark Heart is after the campers from his cave beneath them?? But then he (assume Dark Heart) arrives in Care-a-lot, so is he after the Bears? In They believe he is trying to have fun, but the Star and Heart Buddies... I am not sure who they are (the Bears? but if all them believe he is having fun, how do some know to drive him off? And who are the Star and Heart Buddies?
    • That night, the other campers wreck the site thanks to Dark Heart. What site - the camp? the Bears' place?
    • Feeling guilty of her deal, she finally admits what she has done. Despite paying him back (and saving him earlier on), her bargain with Dark Heart is over. I think people usually feel guilty about something (not "of" something). How has Christy paid Dark Heart back? How did she save him earlier?
  • Moving on... in Production I think the cards to plush toys to TV shows and first movie to this movie sequence could be made clearer.
  • I also think the amount of money the first film mode and the fact that it was a record amount for a non-Disney film would help make it clearer why the sequel was produced if it was in the Production section.
  • Any idea how much the production of this film cost? Assume it made some money or there would not have been the third movie? The reviews all make it sound as if it were inexpensively made...
  • I would combine the other countries section with Europe to avoid a one paragraph section
  • The article uses {{Cquote}} for block quotes, but that template's documantation says it is for pull quotes, not block quotes.
  • I think if this went to FAC now, the reviewers would not like the amount of quotations used - some are fine, but this seems excessive and some of the quotes could be paraphrased.
  • Make sure references use reliable sources = what makes dvdverdict.com a RS, for example?
  • One external link is dead, according the EL checker tool in the toolbox 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 ><>°° 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am... Sasha Fierce

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think it has everything to pass for GA. I just need to know what more i can do (if needed) to make it a Good Article. I mean I need a second opinion.

Thanks, Jivesh boodhun (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. While it is interesting and clearly a lot of work has gone into it, I think some more work is needed before it can become a GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think this needs a copyedit before it will pass GAN - here are just some of the problems in the lead (not a complete list):
    • A with remix album with videography was later released in Setember 2009. (drop first "with")  Done
    • Critics received the album with mixed to positive reviews citing that the idea of including two discs was universal. I am not sure what the phrase "citing that the idea of including two discs was universal." means and I can't even guess what it means
    • Beyonce is American so the article presumably should use American English. "Whilst" is very British in Disc one shifts themes from gender role-reversal to heartbreak whilst disc two focuses on ...  Done
    • Again "third term" just sounds odd (third quarter would be better) in ..as well as an EP titled I Am...Sasha Fierce - The Bonus Tracks were made available in the third term of 2009 in nearly every international market.  Done
  • One possible method to find spots where the prose needs polish is to print the article out and read it out loud slowly. You can also ask for help with a copyedit from another person.
  • The external link checker tool finds one dead link (to Rolling Stone) and several others that may be problematic
  • There are two fair use images in the Conception and production section of fashion designs. Neither one currently has a fair use rationale for this article and will at least need that per WP:FAIR USE. If you need a model fair use rationale see the one on File:IAmSashaFierce.jpg
  • I also am not sure either of the fair use fashion images is justified under WP:NFCC - what does seeing them add to the reader's understanding of the article that the images and words already present do not convey?
  • WP:MOSIMAGE also says not to sandwich text between two images, but the two fashion images sandwich the text on my computer.
  • Make sure the sources used as references meet WP:RS - I really doubt that current ref 153 ("I Am...Sasha Fierce Recording Locations". Ebay. http://product.half.ebay.com/I-Am-Sasha-Fierce-Deluxe-Edition_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ78615639. Retrieved 2010-06-12.) is a reliable source. It is also from Half.com, which is not the same as eBay  Done Removed and changed for the booklet reference. TbhotchTalk C. 15:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of detail here, but there are also places where the article seems to hint at a more interesting story - there are 15 recording locations listed in that section (sourced to "eBay") but no discussion of this in the Production section that I could see. Similarly, there are many producers listed in the infobox, but they are not mentioned in the production section (though they are in some cases in Music)
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are over 70 FAs on albums at Category:FA-Class Album articles which should include some good models.

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 ><>°° 04:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Hamilton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been a good article for just under a year now and has been through two FACs, numerous reviews and copyedits as well as 3 peer reviews in that time span. I think a final peer review (please be picky) could finally make this article a featured article.

Thanks, Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Monowi:

  • If you're aiming for a Featured Article, right off the bat I'd suggest looking at Nick Adenhart's article for a good comparison of what Hamilton's article would generally look like if it was Featured Article material.
  • Big gaps in Hamilton's early life need to filled in a bit. For example, maybe there's a reference out there somewhere that talks about how he played little league baseball, or if he played any other sports as a kid.
  • The current references are clearly utilized and well formatted, kudos on that.
  • With only three sentences currently in the “After baseball” section, that info needs to be merged with other text, and the section (temporarily) removed. If a solid two paragraphs of pertinent info can be established (like mention of a spouse and/or kids, and what he's done since 2005 (like become a coach, or change careers, etc.)), then I could see a dedicated “after baseball” section becoming justifiable.
  • Reading over the L.A. Times reference “Padres pick up a pitcher,” Hamilton says in the article that he played in the College World Series. This would be a great thing to mention in the article, especially if he had any notable playing time and any significant stats that could be included from the series.
  • Some of the sentences and paragraphs seem a bit too short and choppy. For example, why not combine the single sentence “He attended Statesboro High School.” with the next sentence, into something like. “He attended Statesboro High School before the Baltimore Orioles drafted him in the 1988 Major League Baseball Draft. Hamilton decided against signing with the Orioles,[2] opting instead to play college baseball for Georgia Southern University.[3]” Some of the info in the “After San Diego” section is just hanging there as well, like the sentence “For the first time during his tenure with Toronto, Hamilton started the season with the Blue Jays. He went 5–8 with a 5.89 ERA in 22 games and 1221⁄3 innings, before being released on August 3, 2001.[27] “ My suggestion would be to simply remove the paragraph spacing and combine it into a new larger paragraph with the sentences surrounding it.
  • For continuity, mention of his records in college need to be moved up in the text prior to mention of contract negotiations with the Padres.
  • Since there aren't currently any free use pictures available, a great way to draw the interest of the reader and engage their attention would be to include quote boxes Template:Quote box. You can either repeat some of the quotes already in the text, or even use a quote box or two to help elaborate on Hamilton's career (a quote box right before the third paragraph of the "Padres" section would be sweet). For an example of quote box use in a baseball-related article, check out Ozzie Smith.

Summation: This article still has a long way to go, but with hard work on prose, and maybe adding some additional info, this article would be on the right track towards FA status. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll make sure to work on addressing your concerns but I'm not sure if you've seen the previous PR's but there's not many sources out there for Hamilton. This could've changed since then but what's out there has pretty much been included in the article. However, I'll make sure to check for some earlier information about his childhood etc. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting there on its road to FAC. The foundation is definitely there, as it's a GA, but there are pieces and parts that can be built on yet. For example, you say he was drafted by Baltimore in 1988; which round? You have one sentence for each of his seasons in Toronto. what was his role on those teams, how many games did he play those seasons? Little things like that can be the difference maker; I'll do a more thorough review later on. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle main engine

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A long-time Wikipedia lurker, I've registered especially because I want to work to bring this article on one of the finest pieces of human engineering to GA-class, and maybe FA-class. I am looking for the following:

1) Since I've never worked on an article before with the goal of making it a good article, I'm looking for advice on format, referencing, layout, etc. 2) I'm also looking for expert advice on which information I should expand, which new sections I should add and what additional content would be appropriate.

Thanks everybody, --SinJuiceMonkey (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sdsds comments: The article coverage should be expanded to include information on when and where the engines were manufactured, how many have been manufactured, and how they are conveyed from the place of manufacture (presumably canoga park?) to the place of use (ksc). It should cover how the engine was designed, i.e. the goals for the design and what organization performed the design work (nasa or rocketdyne?) It should cover testing of the engines (at stennis?). It should indicate the disposition of engines no longer active in the shuttle program (i.e. retired engines on display anywhere?) Procurement cost and timeline issues also deserve coverage: was the program placed via competitive bid or was it a sole-source contract? When was the contract awarded? What did it cost to establish production? What is the per-unit price for additional production? Good luck with it!

  • I'd agree with sdsds: even a purely technical subject should have some human history behind it. Who were the people who set the strategy, who designed it, defended their ideas etc. East of Borschov 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

General

  • I agree with the above comments—something like the SSME didn't just magically come into existence. There is probably alot of information out there about how it was developed.
  • For consistenency, measurements should all be converted from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric.
  • Consider using {{Convert}} for measurement conversions. It allows for automatic formatting of and linking of units.
  • Formatting the citations is easier if a citation template is used.
  • More inline citations are needed. Generally, every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a citation.
  • The first paragraph in an article should be a concise summary of it, per WP:LEAD.
  • I think that the "Oxidizer system" section through the "Controller" section should be made sub-sections of larger section (maybe "Operational systems"). I'd also include a paragraph that would mention all the systems (how the engine operates and what each system contributes to its operation).
  • I'd try to get ride of the "Specifications" section by moving some specs into the infobox and working some into the prose. Lists like that usually aren't retained in a GA or FA.


Introduction

  • The "Introduction" section should be renamed ("Background" maybe) as the first paragraph in the article is considered the intro.
  • "...could be drained in 75 seconds - or 25 seconds for the sum of the three used for the space shuttle launch."
Tweaked; needs an emdash and a citation: "...could be drained in 75 seconds—or 25 seconds if three are used, as done in a space shuttle launch."

Combustion chamber and nozzle

  • "...an unusually large expansion ratio (about 77) for the chamber pressure."
Write out the ratio (either 77:1 or 77-to-1), also explain what an "expansion ratio" is and why 77:1 is unusual.

Interesting article, it could be possible to get it to FA, but its needs work first. It's a pity that I'll probably will never see one of these in action. If these comments useful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

  • Third para of the introduction needs work, I am an engineer and if I stumble over the intro then I suggest that it needs a rethink. Not sure what to suggest though... Perhaps a very simple explanation as suits an introduction. Keep it very simple this early in the article. AWHS (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added sdsds comment: SSMEs were not all created equal. SSME block 2 had different turbopumps to improve performance, which was motivated by the requirement to fly shuttle missions to orbital inclinations compatible with the Russian space program. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-16925487/liquid-launch-block-1.html

Rosetta Stone

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has undergone significant expansion and improvement over the past month primarily by User:Andrew Dalby and myself. I believe the article is thorough and reasonably complete. This nomination is related to WP:GLAM/BM. The plan is to take this to take this through the Feature Article review/nomination process once it has been properly Peer Reviewed. All comments to improve this article further are welcome!

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Interesting article, but in its current state I'd probably oppose at FAC. First off, note that dablinks and dead external links are among the first things checked at FAC, and you've got both.

I believed I have managed to fix both of these issues. Captmondo (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more extensive commentary below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use consistent spelling, for example with artefact vs artifact
Well spotted. Fixed. Also did a quick check to ensure that British spelling terms are used throughout (i.e. "honour", etc). Captmondo (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section headings shouldn't start with "the"; the first section heading is particularly problematic
Have adjusted Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to minimize the use of one- or two-sentence paragraphs
Done! Still a couple of examples, but they are (I believe) legitimate. Captmondo (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be below footnotes; however, I think you're using it as a bibliography? See WP:Layout
Have reorganised footnotes and references Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would highly recommend finding one or more people to copy-edit the article, or asking the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look (I'll take a brief run-through myself later today)
Will seek them out as you suggest! Captmondo (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years shouldn't be wikilinked
Year references duly de-wikilinked. Captmondo (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use consistent date formatting - 1 January vs January 1
Have chosen the latter form, which is now consistently applied throughout the article. Captmondo (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid wikilinking the same term more than once in article text
  • WP:W2W - beware of potential editorial bias
I take your point, but can you list an example or two for reference? Captmondo (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Believed to be authoritative yet in many ways misleading" is a good example, but I'm sure there are others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just saw that one and I think it's OK now -- the comment is revised and footnoted. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "19th Century visitors" -> "19th-century visitors"
In order to be consistent with the rest of the article, have simply made it "19th century visitors" (lower-case "C", no dash. This actually seems to be common usage on the rest of WP from what I can see, for example 19th century. Captmondo (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"19th century" is appropriate when using the term as a noun, as in "The 19th century was a turbulent time". However, when using as an adjective, as in "The 19th-century turmoils resulted in instability", the hyphen is necessary. See WP:MOSNUM. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP reference on style. You are quite right, and I have fixed it. Captmondo (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some categories overlap (i.e. you include parent and daughter categories)
Again, is there any WP guidance on this? I could say that "Ancient Egyptian steles" and "nouns" overlap (not a real example, obviously), but the former is arguably more useful. Captmondo (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on this point. You are correct in saying that the article should be in "Ancient Egyptian steles" instead of "Nouns". Per WP:CAT: "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." For example, the article is currently in Category:2nd-century BC steles and Category:2nd-century BC works. The former is a daughter category of the latter, and thus only the former should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, I'd already removed a couple but I didn't expect those two to be direct parent-child. I'll do it now. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in the use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD dating, and in whether you include periods in those abbreviations
Done. Standardized on "BCE", with first reference only wikilinked Captmondo (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... but you left the ADs! I have now changed those. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I rarely write history articles "above" the BCE period. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid having images compress section headings
I believe the expansion of the article has helped this to some degree. Given that users may be using any number of browser/display configurations, I am not sure that this is avoidable (especially for anyone using a handheld device). Is there any WP recommended guidance on this? Captmondo (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need citations for everything that could be challenged - for example, your statement that the BM / unnamed officials were "oblivious of these concerns". You must also cite all direct quotes, naming both the author and where you got the quote - for example, Hawass said "If the British want to be remembered, if they want to restore their reputation, they should volunteer to return the Rosetta Stone because it is the icon of our Egyptian identity", but where? When? Under what circumstances?
I have taken care of the first one (replaced it with a less-contentious cited anecdote, and moved the info about it going to Paris for a month further down in the article where it arguably belongs), and Andrew Dalby has taken care of the second by citing the quote as it appeared in the The Daily Telegraph. If there are more, please let us know! Captmondo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think many formerly unreferenced details are not footnoted. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Idiomatic use" could stand to be trimmed considerably
Have taken out unreferenced items. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you include retrieval dates for some GBooks links, you must include it for all
Left in only those that provide some text, and dated them all. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in using HarperCollins Publishers vs HarperCollins
Checked publisher names. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include location for all or none of the publishers
None. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent referencing style - for example, compare refs 3, 6 and 40. References need massive cleanup before FAC
I'm working on the notes and references now. I'm intending to follow the pattern of Royal Gold Cup, a recent FA on a comparable subject, with brief footnote references in "Notes" followed by an alphabetical section of "References" that gives details of all works cited in the notes. I see no point in Google Books links except where relevant text is available there, so I intend to remove most of the Google Books links (in my mind is that Google Books is an unreliable source on authorship, publication details etc., except when it makes the original title page and credits visible). That's what I'm thinking, but any further comments on this would be welcome. Andrew Dalby 09:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly done now. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done now I think. Thanks very much from me for these extremely useful comments. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Thank you for the detailed critique, and for answering our further queries! Captmondo (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced the single instance where crystalinks.com is referenced with a print citation that covers the same material. Captmondo (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bike Week

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback on improving the article, especially fresh views from anyone unfamiliar with motorcycle culture and bike rallies.

Thanks, Dbratland (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I was once in South Dakota during the Sturgis rally, but know little about motorcycle rallies. I think this article, while clearly the beneficiary of lots of work, needs some more work if it is to make WP:GA and even more for WP:FA. WIth those potential goals in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • 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 - however much of the current lead consists of material found only in the lead (like the Dayton Rally or attendance figures or many of the names) are only in the lead and should be in the body of the article too.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is little on the ban and nothing that I could see on the helmet law being struck down. While it is often useful to wait until the end and then (re)write the lead based on the final article, one thing that may help is to think about what you would want in the lead if it was the only thing someone could read about the article.
  • Bold text in the lead is reserved for alternate titles for the article's main subject. I am pretty sure that Harley-Davidson Week is not the same thing as Black Bike Week ;-)
  • It is always good to remember that an article is telling a story - usually stories flow best in chronological order. The origin section starts with the 1960s and 1970s, then goes back to the segregation era (before the 1970s), then goes ahead to 1980 and the founding of Black Bike Week, then in the last paragraph goes back to 1940. To someone not familiar with the story, this can be confusing.
  • It also helps to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR for example, it might help to describe the geography of the greater Myrtle Beach area early on, or even have a map.
  • I did not have a good idea of what goes on in the week, except from the brief mentions in the lead. Is it mostly organized activities or just a bunch of bikers having fun together?
  • A neutral point of view is important in all Wikipedia articles. While my sympathies lie with the bikers (sounds like they all got a raw deal), there is not much on the other side - why did Myrtle Beach decide to kick all bike rallies out - what were the official reasons given? Please see WP:NPOV
  • Refs look good as far as I can tell
  • Prose is decent, though organization is an issue in places (as noted above)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll start revising this soon. --Dbratland (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thetford flesh-hook

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article class. In addition, I wish to prepare the article for a WP:GAN. Any comments would be welcome.

Thanks, Senra (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nev1 (talk · contribs)
  • The use is going to be problematic. The lead explains the purpose of a flesh-hook, but it's not until the uses section that the reader finds out it might not be a flesh-hook at all. The reason for calling it such should be explained (probably the person who discovered it had a guess), but then it needs to be emphasised that its use simply isn't certain. That would also be a good time to mention any other theories.
  • Are there any similar artefacts from the Bronze Age? This could tie in with the uses section.
  • "This particular find is one of 32 other such archaeologically significant finds, scatters, and excavations within 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Little Thetford": later in the article you say 32, so better pick one.
Agreed I say
  • "This particular find is one of 32 other such archaeologically significant finds, scatters, and excavations within 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Little Thetford." and
  • "The artefact is in the British Museum. Within 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Little Thetford, there has been 33 finds of various kinds over the years, such as flints"
which is logically consistent, but confusing I agree. Also, I say
  • "From an analysis of 36 other Bronze-age flesh-hooks known to be in existence, ..."
which is a separate statment about something else but I agree can be confused with the other two statements. Will work on these.
  • What happened to the wooden bit? Did it degrade or was it lost? How is the object preserved?

Overall, I think it's lacking a bit of detail for GAN as it stands now. I think part of the problem is you could do with an article specifically on the flesh-hook. I'd recommend filing a request for help at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/One on one collaborations. I know Witty lama (talk · contribs) is now no longer Wikipedian in resident, but hopefully this project will have long term effects. He may still be able to help you get in contact with the British Museum. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All above noted. Will work through them one-by-one --Senra (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)
  • I'm not convinced that this article could ever be expanded enough for GAN – that's not to say I don't think it should exist, just that I don't think the material is there. What I'd consider is either including this flesh hook (and the others) into a flesh hook article, or writing an article about all of the 32 finds from Little Thetford, not just this one. Perhaps even both of those. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All points noted. Will work on this but recognise it is not GAN material. Fair enough --Senra (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate it for Good Article status and would like feedback/suggestions on how to get the article up to GA standard.

Thanks, BejinhanTalk 06:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this article - good to see work being done an such an imprtant topic. I think the article needs some work before it will be ready to pass GAN, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem I see with the article as it currently stands is a lack of references. For example the Natural resources section has six paragraphs, only one of which has any references that I could see. Or the Melaka section has five paragreaphs, only one of which has refs. Many places need more refs.
 Doing...
  • Some {{fact}} (citation needed) tags are present and need to be addressed too
  • 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
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded 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 - please see WP:LEAD
What do you mean by that?
Sorry to be unclear. Look at the Table of Contents - if somethings is a header, it is in the TOC. But there is no mention in the lead of Melaka or spaceflight (just to name two examples) that I can see. It does not have to be a whole sentence, it can be just a phrase or a word, but if it is important enough to have its own section (and header), it should be mentioned in the lead someway. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, text should not be sandwiched between images, but this is done in several places in the article.
 Done I found 1 image that has text sandwiched in between. Have corrected that.
  • The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that need to be either combined with others or perhaps expanded to imrove the flow of the article
  • Per WP:See also, the See also section is for links not otherwise included in the article
 Done
  • The dab finder in the Toolbox here finds one disambiguation link that should be fixed
 Done
  • Seems like it is pretty comprehensive to me, and the language is decent.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should be no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD - looksl ike it icurrently five.
 Done

David Fisher (Six Feet Under)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on it in the last couple of days but I need a fresh set of eyes, for grammar, fludity, and comprehensiveness. I've added a lot of references also. I would love for this to reach GA status.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I don't know this series, looks like I could have missed something. I enjoyed reading this, and made a few copyedits along the way. Here are my detailed comments.

  • A few dablinks need fixing. They can be identifying via the toolbox to the upper right of this page.
  • Lead
    • "What is meant by rectifies"? How, for example, did he "rectify" (i.e. put right) his homosexuality?
    • "The series finale and official HBO website indicate that Keith is murdered in a robbery in 2029 and David eventually finds companionship with a Raoul Martinez, whom he is with at the time of his death at 75 years old." Rather clumsy wording. Suggest: "The series finale and official HBO website indicate that Keith is murdered in a robbery in 2029, and that David eventually finds companionship with one Raoul Martinez with whom he remains until his death at the age of 75."
  • Character conception":
    • Quotes within quotes should be indicated by single quote marks.
    • In this first mention after the lead, Michael C. Hall should be properly introduced, not just as "Hall".
  • Show's outset:
    • First paragraph has tense inconsistency: "They are owner and operators...", "David abandoned...", "This causes him..." For consistency the "David abandoned" sentence could be reworded "David has abandoned his desire to become a lawyer, instead going to mortuary school and subsequently assisting his father with the business."
    • "...he spent "ten years" dating woman" - I imagine this should be "women"
  • Seasons
    • Avoid contractions such as "doesn't", can't, etc (not encyclopedic)
    • The citation after "risky sex" is almost unreadable - can it be clarified?
    • You should not rely on a link to explain what EMT means. Why should readers have to jump to another article? Keep the link by all means, but spell the term out.
    • "Keith kills someone on the job" could be better phrased, especially as "on the job" is a British euphemism for having sex. Perhaps "Keith kills someone in the course of duty"?
    • "Gradually, David moves into Keith's apartment." I know what you mean but it reads oddly. Perhaps "Over a period of time..."
    • "who Keith gets custody of" → "of whom Keith gets custody"
    • "When the couple travels..." The idiom would be "travel". Also the couple needs to be identified; the last "couple" mentioned is David and Jennifer.
    • "...David stays with his brother while avoiding Keith. After a fight about a telemarketer escalates into another battle..." So, not avoiding? There needs to be a link between these two sentences.
    • "the pop star Celeste." Assuming this is a character, would read better as "a pop star called Celeste".
    • Keith is "on tour"? How come?
    • PTSD needs an explanation, not just a link
    • "blowjob" should be linked. (There are innocents out there...)
    • "...his panic attacks return, along with visions of his assailant." Clarify if this refers to the carjacker from the previous series.
    • Caption: we need reinding that "Ruth" is David's mother
  • David's future
    • "David's obituary states that he has three grandchildren, one of whom is named Keith." This sentences is misplaced, since the next begins: "David later retires..." Also, you shouldn't have "later" and "in 2034" in the same sentence.
  • Legacy
    • "David Fisher is often referred to as the first realistic gay portrayed on television, and is often praised for the writing as well as his portrayal by Michael C. Hall." Doesn't make sense as stated. The character "David Fisher" is not "often praised" for the writing". Needs significant rephrasing.
    • Book titles: use the standard convention for capitalisation in book titles; I've fixed the first.

I hope these comments are helpful. Since we are very short of peer reviewers at the moment, it would help us if you would select an article from the backlog listing on the WP:PR page, and review it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kubla Khan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been hugely expanded, and needs assessment with a view to progressing to GA/FA.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley If there is a greater poem in the English language than Kubla Khan, no-one has told me about it. This is an important article, therefore, and a very substantial one too, so that I shall need to review it in stages, with suitable intervals for rest and refreshment. This tranche takes me as far as the end of section 3.

Let me say at once that this is an impressive article, with, in my opinion, the potential to reach FA status. My carpings below should be read in that light.

  • Lead
    • "Preface" – I see why you have put it in quotes, but it doesn't look well on the page: it looks as if you are using the quotes disdainfully. Later in the article the frequent repetition of "Preface" in quotes becomes rather obtrusive. I think the capital 'P' in Preface is plenty.
    • "Individual from Porlock" – odd choice of word: what's wrong with the original "person"?
    • "let it lay" – I think you mean "let it lie".
    • "Along side" – one word, not two
    • "began to openly admire "– some people still believe in the superstition that a split infinitive is wrong; they are foolish, but I find it saves grief if one humours them
 Done = Agree re. person, "Preface"; I rephrased re. lay, agree re. alongside, and I chose to leave the split inf. until/unless others grumble; it seems clear enough to me. Chzz  ►  05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • "Quantocks" – I'd add a few words to put this in geographical context: e.g. …the Quantocks in the South West of England.
I've had a go; I wanted to mention Coleridge Way, but it's not very elegant; please improve if you can. I think that the wikilink gives clarification, but if others thing "SW England" or something helps, go ahead; on the one hand, I can understand the term "Quantocks" being a curiousity for some people, on the other, I like such curiosities, which can lead users to further article exploration. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tinkered a bit. See what you think. - Tim riley (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with it. I did consider putting Q. Hills, but I lived in Taunton for a while, and I just know that that term would grate with the locals. It is definitively "The Quantocks", they'd never call it "The Quantock hills". But, that's a local problem; the term is quite valid, and it does make it more readable. Chzz  ►  18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with his fellow poet William Wordsworth and his sister Dorothy Wordsworth" – ambiguous: whose sister? (Of course everyone will know it's WW's sister, but the construction nevertheless leaves open the possibility that Dorothy was STC's sister, married to WW, and one should nail such ambiguities.)
I'm trying to think of an answer for that one; the surname kinda helps, but is not ideal. Suggestions appreciated. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If forced to choose I go for precision over elegance, so I'd write, "...his fellow poet William Wordsworth and Wordsworth's sister Dorothy." A bit lumpen but clear. - Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I thought of that, and felt the same as you. I asked a couple of other people, and we couldn't come up with a better solution, so...yep. I'll go with that. Chzz  ►  18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Italics or not? Kubla Khan is generally italicised but not in the fourth para of this section.
Fixed. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and there is little evidence to suggest" – is there any at all? If so you might mention it; if not, you could make this stronger – no evidence.
Not sure, right now; I will check sources. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this with you. We can leave it as is if need be. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "convinced Coleridge to publish Christabel" – this Americanism jars rather in an English article. Anglice, "persuaded C to publish.." or "convinced C that he should publish…"
Agree, changed to 'persuaded'. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A contract was formed" – an odd construction: perhaps "made" or "agreed".
I've used "contract was drawn up" - hope that is OK. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the poem being published" – an old fashioned pedant (e.g. me) would insist on a gerund here – "the poem's being published"
Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an opium induced dream" – I'd be inclined to hyphenate "opium-induced" when used attributively, as here.
Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style
    • "The rhythm of the poem, like its themes and images, are different from other poems" – should be "is different"
Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sound based techniques" – another one for a hyphen, me judice.
Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sound based technique"s: both "cognate variation" and "chiasmus" need either a blue link (if available) or a brief explanation. You really ought to do the same for the other specialist technical terms in this section, such as "assonance", "iambic octameter", and "odal hymn".
Added wikilinks; sadly, we lack an article on iambic octameter; I've made a redirect to iamb; also nothing yet for odal hymn, but there should be, so left as a redlink pour encourager les autres. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought fleetingly of cobbling together an article on "iambic octameter" until it occurred to me that "I am the very model of a modern Major-General" is also in iambic octameter, and it's beyond me to write an article that embraces both that and Kubla Khan. - Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later: looking at the opening of the poem on the page, isn't it in iambic tetrameter? - there are only eight syllables to each line. Or have I forgotten (if I ever knew) some technical rule of scansion that groups two lines into one? - 12:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know; I've just tried to understand, reading in a couple of books...but this really is where we have a bit of a problem. I assume the source provided backs up the octameter fact, but I don't have that reference at present. I might be able to obtain it, but I can forsee further similar problems in trying to develop it. I don't have an answer to that. Chzz  ►  18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rummaged on shelves and on the web: the huge preponderance is for "tetrameter". I propose to amend accordingly.
    • "the odal hymn as used by others have a stronger unity" – "has a stronger unity"
Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coleridge believed in writing poetry that was unified organically" – citation needed
Added a citation to cover this fact. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is possible that Coleridge was displeased by the lack of unity in the poem and added a note about the structure to the "Preface" to explain his thoughts" – citation needed
Added a citation to cover this fact. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preface
    • "including that Coleridge's claim to have a copy of Purchas with him, a very large folio book, would have to be carried with him". – this reads rather oddly. I take it you mean the book was too big to have been casually carried by STC.
Yes; and by the time I reached this point in your comments, I'd already re-worked that little bit. Hopefully it is now OK. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "interruption by a "person on business from Prolock": "At this moment he was unfortunately called out by a person on business from Porlock, and detained" – one too many persons from Porlock, I think. I'd omit the seven words before the colon.
Agreed, and removed. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The actual person from Porlock mentioned could be many people, including Wordsworth, Joseph Cottle, John Thelwall, Coleridge's wife, or merely a literary device. As a symbol within the preface, the person represents the obligations of the real world crashing down upon the creative world or other factors that kept Coleridge from finishing his poetry" – two highly speculative statements, for which proper citations are very necessary.
Again, at present, I can only speculate that the assertions are covered by a source which I do not, presently, have access to. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon a reference to Stevie Smith's poem on the Person from Porlock, together with a mention of commentators on that, should cover this point. I'll add in due course, unless you disapprove. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When the "Preface" is dropped, the poem seems to compare the act of poetry with the might of Kubla Khan instead of the loss of inspiration causing the work to have a more complex depiction of the poetic power." – I entirely agree, but without a citation this is pure POV.
Same trouble again. I don't think this is OR or POV, because I'm sure the reference at the end of the para would cover it - but that book is not available to me, unless I can order a copy. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is on my list for a trip to the British Library on Saturday. The books I have ordered are:

Barth, J. Robert. Romanticism and Transcendence. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2003; Beer, John. Coleridge the Visionary. New York: Collier, 1962; and Yarlott, Geoffrey. Coleridge and the Abyssinian Maid. London: Methuen & Co, 1967. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) More to come over the next few days. – Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of comments

  • Poem
    • Passim: when Kublai Khan is referred to by one name, I believe it should be "Kubla" rather than "Khan". (Cf the great Pakistani cricketer, Imran Khan, who is always referred to as "Imran", not "Khan".) This is Coleridge's own practice in the poem, and should, I am sure, be followed in the article.
    • "which signifies a difference" – even with a citation this is a bit strong: how about "may signify a difference"?
    • "his decadent use of creative powers related that ignores nature" – this doesn't appear to make sense – "related" seems to mess up the sense
    • " After the water of the fountain merge into the ocean" – either "waters" plural or "merges" singular.
  • Themes
    • "the two sections discuss two types of poems" – two types of poem; and "discuss" is a slightly odd term
    • "master over his creative powers or a slave to it" - either "power" singular or "them" plural.
    • "As a component to the idea" – "component of", perhaps
    • "a description of that world and a description of how the poet enters the world" – "enters it" would be crisper.
    • "Khan is connected to the use of the stream in Wordsworth's The Prelude" – citation needed
    • "harness tap into nature" – either "harness" or "tap into", presumably?
    • "both Osorio and Kubla Khans" – the plural is, I imagine, unintentional
  • Tartars and paradise
    • "They were seen as … outcasts" – citation needed
    • "There are also comparisons between Khan with Catherine the Great or Napoleon with their building and destroying nations" – citation needed
I don't have any high hopes of referencing this one, and I think we shall have to lose it. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Judaeo Christian" – the OED hyphenates this
    • "In the tradition Coleridge relies on … creating an enclosed garden" – citation needed
    • "on Sara Hutchinson who Coleridge wanted"– "whom"
    • "Heliodurus" – Wikipedia has him as Heliodorus (Heliodorus of Emesa)
    • "A Laurel crown'd her Head, an a Quiver in a Scarf hanged at her back" – is this a correct transcription of the quote? "…and a Quiver" seems more likely
On my list for checking at the British Library Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources
    • "women who Coleridge admired in some way" – "whom"
    • "The Abyssinian maid … unattainable to him" – there is only one citation in this paragraph, but four separate statements. Does the citation cover all four?
On my list for checking at the British Library Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical response
    • "critics, than actual content" - "critics, rather than actual content"?
    • "Coleridge's statements on the origin of the poem…" – the word "claimed" is used twice in this paragraph and in thirteen other places in the article: it's rather a loaded verb, and might be better replaced by a more neutral one, such as "said" or "wrote"
  • Later analysis
    • "…among the most valued on our possessions…" "on" or "of"?
    • "…a psychologial curiosity" – is this irregular spelling accurately transcribed from the quotation?
I think we can chance this and correct the spelling. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "…are the marvelous creations of his genius" – did Woodberry write "marvelous" or (more probably, I think) "marvellous"?
On my list for checking at the British Library Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. - Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Third and final batch of comments[reply]

  • Modern criticism
    • The quotations from Lowes are very extensive, and could, I think, be pruned a bit. He isn't saying anything controversial or startlingly new.
    • I am not sure about the Furst references: you quote her as saying that TSE's objection is "not unjustified" but you don't say what evidence she advances in support of that assertion. The references to This Lime-tree Bower my Prison and The Pains of Sleep seem irrelevant. (Nobody, surely, would deny that STC's poems are of widely varying quality.)
    • Humphry House – note spelling of his first name (actually his second – he was Arthur Humphry House, though the Arthur was never used).
    • The excerpts from Professor Schneider's book go on a bit: their purport could be conveyed just as well, I think, with a good few cuts to this paragraph.
    • At Virginia Radley's comparisons of this poem with Fears in Solitude and Frosts at Midnight, I think you might blue-link these two poems. I know links from within quotations are not generally encouraged, but I think they would be helpful here.
    • "Judging by the number and variety of critical effort to interpret their meaning" – this reads oddly: I wonder if the original words were "critical efforts" (plural)
  • General
    • I found the final section, Modern criticism, much too long. It unbalances the article, and should, in my view, be reduced to no more than half its present length. To illustrate this I have done a quick word count, and while mere arithmetic is no evidence of quality, it does rather show up how bulky the final section is: Lead: 407 words; Background: 1,121; Style: 606; Preface: 767; Poem: 880; Themes: 897; Tartars and paradise: 826; Abyssinian maid: 786; Sources: 477; Critical response: 1,090; Later analysis: 1,045; Modern criticism: 2,766.
    • Going through the article with a proof-reading eye I noticed that you have evidently been scrupulous about preserving the punctuation of critics etc when quoting them. This is right and proper, but there is room for flexibility when it comes to single-v-double quotes and also to titles. In particular, I think you might give serious consideration to altering references to this poem (and others) so that where the quoted authors (Lowes et al) render it thus: 'Kubla Khan', you silently alter it to Kubla Khan. As it stands one switches from one form to the other within the same para, which assaults the eye a bit.

This article is a judicious and thorough treatment of its subject, and in my judgment has the potential to be promoted after further revision. My comment on the length of the final section is a matter of opinion, with which others may disagree, but I think it is beyond dispute that there are some significant statements in the present article that lack a necessary citation. They need to be addressed before the article is nominated for elevation. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Sakho

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is capable of becoming a good article.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

drive-by, Sandman888 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sakho is known for his leadership credentials, his tireless engine, hard-working attitude, and his tackling ability. He has also been praised for his "physical and tactical qualities".[1]" - smacks of POV. Suggest delete
  • Far too many refs in French, for stuff that is available in english.
  • suggest you ask for a copy-edit
  • bereavement?
  • "became one of the club's most sought after prospects winning numerous MVP awards during his time in the youth academy" pov

Finetooth comments: This article seems to have most of the basic information about an unusually good and very young footballer. You are hampered, in a way, by his youth because much of his life has yet to unfold, and the article will need constant updating as time passes. Meanwhile, I'm guessing that you might be able to add something about his playing style and his personal life outside football that would make the article more broad in coverage. I have some other suggestions as well:

  • Proofreading. The phrase "his tireless engine" in the lead makes no sense; perhaps "his boundless energy"? Later in the lead, "Sakho earned a call up the senior team by manager Paul Le Guen" is missing a word, "to", and "call-up" needs a hyphen. In "Early life and career", "Following guidance from his parents and, particularly, under-13 Paris Saint-Germain coach Christian Mas, Sakho curved his bad behavior" probably means "cured" rather than "curved". These are not big errors, but they should be cleaned up.
  • Copyediting. A few bigger prose problems involve constructions like "The journalist, who preferred to remain anonymous, filed a complaint the following day with both he and the newspaper describing Sakho's attitude as 'unprofessional'." The "with plus -ing" construction is awkward and ungrammatical. Something like "The journalist, who preferred to remain anonymous, filed a complaint the following day. He and his editors described Sakho's attitude as 'unprofessional'." Or does "newspaper" mean an article in the newspaper rather than the editorial staff?
  • Jargon. Readers who don't know much about football may find some of the language baffling. For example, "having earned caps" should probably be linked or explained because "caps" is being used in a special way. Does it mean "hats", or does it mean "capital letters", or does it mean "tops"? An outsider to the sport will not know unless you make it clear. Another example of a mystery term in the lead is in the phrase "after wearing the armband". What armband? What is its significance? Other terms that might need explaining (with a link, a short explanation in the text, or a note) include "striker", "yellow card", and "senior side", and possibly "side" itself.
  • Abbreviations
  • "Ben Arfa scored two goals in a span of three minutes as PSG suffered a 3–2 defeat". Abbreviating Paris Saint-Germain as PSG is fine, but you need to write it as Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) the first time it is used in the article so that PSG makes sense by itself later in the article.
  • Possibilities for expansion
  • The lead mentions "his hard-working attitude, and his tackling ability. He has also been praised for his 'physical and tactical qualities'." However, these ideas are not expanded upon in the main text. It would be good to add a "Style of play" section to the article if you can find sufficient reliable sources. It's often helpful to look at FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. You can find other football articles at WP:FA#Sport and recreation. For example, see Duncan Edwards to see a "Style of play" section. The Duncan article also has an "Outside football" section with details about other interests. What does Sakho like to do when he is not playing football? What are his social relationships? Does he have a favorite charity? Does he play computer games? Does he drive a fancy car? That sort of thing.
  • Images
  • It's best to place directional images so that they face into the page rather than out. I would move File:MamadouSakho.jpg to the left side of the page.
  • Other
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show the the article has one disambiguation link and that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

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) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was delisted from GA status some time ago, and the to do list hasn't been edited since 2007. The articles last peer review was in 2006, shortly after becoming a GA.

Thanks, Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

General

  • More inline citations are needed. Generally, every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a citation.

Geography and environment

  • "The Ohio and Potomac rivers form parts of the boundaries."
Which boundaries in particular?
I reworded it to "The Ohio and Potomac rivers form parts of the state's border; mostly in the north and west. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may need to specify the difference between Dfa and Dfb Köppen climate classifications.
Could you tell me what this means? --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dfa means "hot summer" and Dfb means "warm summer". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "hardiness zone"
 Done --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{Convert}} for the temperature conversions
Use this where: I am confused. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Climate" section. 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

History

  • How does the fact that "native Americans were burning forests to clear land as early as 100 BCE" relate to West Virginia? Same goes for the paragraph directly following that one.
  • Can the "History" section be summarized a bit more? It is fairly long.

Demographics

  • Converting the lists, in the "Religion" section, into prose would a good idea.

Economy

  • The "Demographics" subsection should be merged into the larger section devoted to demographics.
  • The is a lot of info on taxes, but not a lot on what West Virginia actually produces. Are there any other big industries?

Transportation

  • The photo of the toll plaza and New River Gorge Bridge form a "text sandwich". One of the three photos in the section will probably need to go.
  • Is there any reason why "Interstate" can't be written out?

Important cities and towns

  • Too listy, needs to be converted to prose

Education

  • Ditto on the lists

Its needs some work for GA, but think this could also become an FA. Look at Virginia for what an U.S. state FA looks like. Your peer review got me to thinking about cleaning up Pennsylvania for a possible FA. If these comments were useful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

"British Isles" is an article that has been dogged by political rows for as long as it has existed. If the KBs of talk page archives were a measure of how good an article was then this one would be the touch stone of Featured Articles. Unfortunately, that is not how it works and while the article is not bad it could be a lot better.

Outside views on the article, looking at it as an article on geographic area, are needed to kick start long-required work. The regulars (myself included) can no longer see it as normal article. IMHO, an person not from the region would be best suited - a non-English speaker would be even better, just to be sure! - but anyone willing to comment on the article and offer areas of improvement would be VERY welcome.

One practical point (solely of my own opinion) is not to set too high a standard of what would follow your review. For example, practical reasons have dictated that the article doesn't have a History section (it couldn't be agreed on). Obviously that is not a long term solution, but for these kinds of reasons, I don't believe "British Isles" will ever be an extensive article. So maybe you should bear that in mind.

In any case, help is needed to tell us where to work and what an outside reader would expect.

Kind regards and many thanks in advance, --RA (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Your idea of sticking with the general category of "geography and places" is a good one and might help solve the organizational problems in this article. Proper sourcing is needed, and sticking to a purely descriptive "who, what, where, when" approach to the islands might help avoid editorial disagreements of a political nature. I don't live in the British Isles (Britain and Ireland) (Atlantic Archipelago), and I'm not directly involved in any of the islands' politics, although I find them interesting. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Organization

  • "Etymology" is well-placed.  Done
  • I'd move "Geology" up to just below "Etymology", either as a separate section or as the top part of the "Geography" section.  Done
  • "Geography" is well-placed, but I would not include "Demographics" and "Transport" as subsections of "Geography". Instead, I would make those into sections of their own, and I would move "Transport" to the bottom of the article, right after "Culture".  Done
  • I would change "Political co-operation" to "Government" and completely re-write this section as a skeletal description of the main governmental entities in the archipelago (essentially central, provincial, and local) without going into too much detail and without much discussion of the history behind the arrangements. Outsiders will not be much interested in details such as " ...bilateral agreements allow UK embassies to act as an Irish consulate when Ireland is not represented in a particular country and since the partition of Ireland an informal free-travel area has continued to exist across the entire region." They will, on the other hand, want to know something about the form of government (democratic with elections held every so often), and the top-down hierarchy of governments and sub-governments across what looks like a non-homogeneous set of islands with local variations.  Done
  • I'd consider greatly reducing the "Languages" section to a skeletal description of the languages spoken and, in a general way, where. I'm thinking of perhaps one paragraph, which could then become a paragraph in the "Demographics" section.  Done
  • I'd add a "Flora and fauna" section, an overview of the plants, land animals, and fish found on or near the islands.  Done
  • The article really does need a "History" section.  Doing...

Lead

  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. It ideally should neglect no major parts of the article, and it should not include important material that is not mentioned in the main text. About half of the existing lead is devoted to history, but the article has no history section. The lead does not mention "Etymology", "Transport", or "Culture". In short, it's not a summary of the article. WP:LEAD has details.

Transport

  • A citation seems to have gone awry in the first paragraph. See "Hardisty, Jack", etc.  Done
  • I'd think about adding a kind of summary of land transport to this section. It might include total highway mileage, total railway trackage, some mention of how goods are shipped internally, major shipping points, passenger rail, something about the system of canals, major seaports. It might not hurt to mention touristy or recreational modes of transport as well. I am thinking of networks of bicycle routes and footpaths.
  • I'd be inclined to move "Transport" to near the bottom of the article, below "Culture".  Done

Demographics

  • The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose rather than lists where feasible. I'd turn this list into one paragraph of straight prose. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.  Done

Sourcing

  • Many paragraphs in the existing article are unsourced and therefore violate WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for any claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, any direct quote, any sets of statistics, and every paragraph.

Models

  • It's often helpful to look at FA articles for ideas about how particular problems can be solved or materials organized. WP:FA#Geography and places is a good place to look for ideas that might be helpful here. For example, St Kilda, Scotland, is an FA article about an island archipelago; it happens to be a subset of the Atlantic Archipelago (British and Irish Isles).

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, Finetooth. They are all very helpful and very usable suggestions. I'll work on them all over the next few days. --RA (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copa América

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has GA potential. I am well aware that references needs a touch up but I want to know what else could be done.

Thanks, Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2010 (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." You can see these for the current version of the article at any time, just by clicking on "automated tips" in the Toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions – In addition to this semi-automatic peer review, I have some first-glance suggestions:

  • The appearances table is too wide considering the content is so thin.
  • Remove the flags from the host countries as done on the FIFA World Cup article.
  • Capitalize the n/a in the winners table.
  • The notes section underneath the winners table needs a clean up; something consistent.

Thanks, MicroX (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed the appearance table
  • Flags removed
  • N/A capitalized
  • Notes section fixed.
Anything else?Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual problem – Just a minor fix here because one of the sections looks messy.--MicroX (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems when I go to the page. What are you talking about? Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I put a 16:9 screen shot in case it differed from the 4:3 screens. The 16:9 screens have the map and tables sandwich the text in Format and participation. --MicroX (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put a clear template below the section to fix the display problem on 16:9 screens. --MicroX (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New info – Looking at some old regulations, I just learned that the runner-up of the Copa America receives a trophy called "Copa Bolivia". I found this in the 2004 Copa America regulations. I think this piece of information should be included. --MicroX (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Argentina receiving some BS trophy but I never knew that it was actually called something. I can't find a shred of information about it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Article 2, it says:


The regulations confirms the existence of this runner-up trophy but it is unclear how long it has existed. --MicroX (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I found that on the CA regulations site but the information about the cup is only one sentence long. I can't find images, links, nothing about this. Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Theresa of Austria

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like fellow editors to help me improve this article furthermore. It's currently at Good Article status and I don't think it's far from FA. I'd like to see comments about articles in general and specifically about Maria Theresa of Austria#War of the Austrian Succession section and Maria Theresa of Austria#Seven Years' War section. I would also appreciate advices on how to organize the article better, if that's possible; it's nearly impossible to organize the article in such way that events are mentioned purely chronologically. That might not even be an issue, as I see featured articles such as Elizabeth I of England which do not list events purely chronologically.

Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: You've done a lot of work on this interesting article about an unusual woman. I have quite a few suggestions for improvement. The main two would be to add more context for readers who know little about 18th-century European history and to add one or more maps. I read rather closely the lead and first few sections and less closely the later sections; I ran a script to change hyphens to en dashes in page ranges and date ranges, and I made some small proofing changes to the early sections. I did not check the image licenses, but the images do not look suspicious to me in that regard and are quite nice. The article is not ready for FAC in its present form, but I see no reason why it can't become ready. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

  • "She started her 40-year long reign... " - Tighten by deleting "long"?
  • "Maria Theresa promulgated financial and educational reforms, with the assistance of Count Friedrich Wilhelm von Haugwitz and Gottfried van Swieten, promoted commerce and the development of agriculture, and reorganised Austria's ramshackle military, all of which strengthened Austria's international standing, but refused to allow religious toleration." - Perhaps a bit too complex. Would two sentences be better? Maybe end the first one after "standing". The second could be "However, she refused to allow religious toleration, and contemporary travellers thought her regime was bigoted and superstitious."
  • "As a young monarch who had to fight two dynastic wars, she believed that her cause should be the cause of her subjects, but in her later years she came to understand that their cause must be hers." - This reads like a slogan, and I'd replace it. The phrase "came to understand" suggests that somehow this was the natural order of things. The phrase "had to fight" suggests that she had no choice.
    • I've changed the phrases "had to fight" and "came to understand" but the rest is how the source put it so I am not sure how I can rephrase it while keeping the original meaning. Any suggestions? Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and background

  • "Charles sought the other European powers' approval for disinheriting his nieces." - Would it be good to briefly explain why any European powers would oppose this? Most readers will not have any idea why it would matter to France or Spain or Prussia or other place whether one of Charles' nieces or one of his daughters took his place.
    • It's explained already; he had previously agreed that his niece would succeed him should he have no son and broke the contract he had signed along with his father and brother. He needed his neighbours to approve that so that they wouldn't depose his daughter on the basis of his niece's superior right. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my question is more basic than that? Why did the other powers give a hoot one way or the other? Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the goal of every 18th century European country was to expand, to conquer. The War of the Austrian Succession is exactly what Charles tried to avoid by asking his neighbours for approval. He was afraid that disinheriting Maria Josepha and Maria Amalia would be used as a pretext for a war against Maria Theresa. Surtsicna (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "The goal of every 18th century European country was to expand, to conquer on virtually any pretext" could be worked into the text or into a note, I think it would help clarify what might seem to be truly odd or inexplicable behavior to readers who know next to nothing about 18th century Europe. That phrase would be a nice pithy way of putting it, if you can find a reliable source that says the same thing, more-or-less. Finetooth (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

  • "The letters she sent to him shortly before their marriage expressed her pathetical eagerness to see him; his letters, on the other hand, were stereotyped and formal." - The word would be "pathetic" rather than "pathetical", but I'd be inclined to delete it even if one or two critics put it this way. "Pathetic" seems unnecessarily harsh. Would "expressed her eagerness" be better?
  • "She was very jealous of her husband and his infidelity was the greatest problem of their marriage,[45][46] with Maria Wilhelmina, Princess of Auersperg, as his best known mistress." - "With plus -ing" is often not the best construction. Suggestion: "She was jealous of her husband, and his infidelity was the greatest problem of their marriage. Maria Wilhelmina, Princess of Auersperg, was his best-known mistress."
  • "In the summer of 1738, Austria suffered defeats during the ongoing Russo-Turkish War. The Turks reversed Austrian gains in Serbia, Wallachia and Bosnia. The Viennese rioted at the cost of the war. Francis Stephen was popularly despised, as he was thought to be a cowardly French spy." - I find this sequence confusing because it seems to suggest that Francis Stephen was somehow responsible for the Russo-Turkish War or Austria's role in it. Was he? If so, could the connection be made more clear? This leads to the thought that more background, perhaps in the form of note about the Bourbon-Hapsburg conflict and various alliances, might be helpful. Most readers will not know much about 18th-century European history and may easily become lost.

Accession

  • "the treasury contained only 100,000 florins" - Could florins also be expressed in contemporary U.S. dollars? Otherwise, it is just a number attached to a unit with a meaning unknown to most readers. Ditto for "gulden" later in the article.
  • "She dismissed the possibility that other countries might try to seize her territories and immediately started ensuring the imperial dignity for herself;[57] since a woman could not be elected Holy Roman Empress... " - I'm not sure readers will know what "imperial dignity" refers to. Also, I think it would be helpful here or perhaps earlier to explain (in a note if it will not fit neatly into the main text), what the Holy Roman Empire consisted of and what lands lay within the Hapsburg Empire at the time of Maria Theresa's accession. The land swaps (by treaty or war) seem quite complicated. A map or maps showing how Europe was divided would be helpful. Most readers will have no idea where Silesia is, for example. A map could show where the places mentioned in the article are in relation to one another. Another map could show how Europe looked at the beginning of Maria Theresa's reign and how it looked 40 years later.
    • I will try to find a map of lands ruled by Maria Theresa but I am not sure that we need maps for every province that's mentioned in the article. A reader can simply click on Silesia to find out where Silesia is. As for "imperial dignity", I thought that the rest of the sentence made it clear that it refers to the title of empress. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that individual maps of every province would be too much; I was hoping that a single map might exist on the Commons that would show all of them at about the right time in history. If nobody has already made such a map, perhaps someone could. Finetooth (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Growth of Habsburg territories.jpg is one that might do except that its license information is incomplete; the original source is not identified. If the original source could be tracked down, and if the map is "free", the license could be fixed and the image used. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've found it. Here is the bibliographic data: "  Muir, Ramsay (1911). Philips' New Historical Atlas for Students. London: George Philip & Son, Ltd." I found this information here. It would be nice to have the page number, but I haven't found that so far. WorldCat gives the full title as Philip's new historical atlas for students : a series of 65 plates, containing 154 coloured maps and diagrams, with an introduction illustrated by 43 maps and plans in black and white. See OCLC 15623838. The map can be licensed as free in the U.S. because it is pre-1923. The page number could be tracked down by obtaining a copy of the book from a library. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad, but we should find one that's less confusing. This one shows lands ruled by the House of Habsburg and the House of Habsburg-Lorraine from 1282 until 1918. I'd make one myself but I don't know how to do it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, alas, I agree. I found the existing map somewhat confusing too, partly because it includes a lot of things that happened outside the reign of Maria Theresa and partly because it suffers from map clutter. I have made maps but none quite like this, and I'm not sure what could be used as a "free" base map. I could play around with the problem a bit just for fun, but it would be better, I think, if you requested a custom-made map from the people at Wikipedia's Graphic Lab and Map Workshop at WP:GL/MAP. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Austrian Succession

  • "Contrary to all expectations, a significant amount of support for the young Queen came from Hungary." - Why was that contrary to all expectations? Again, this seems to be a matter of context or background. Most readers will have no idea what the Hapsburg Empire consisted of, how Austria and Hungary were related, and why Hungarians might not support the Queen.

Seven Years' War

  • "Frederick's invasion of Saxony" - It wouldn't hurt to remind readers that this is Frederick of Prussia.

Family life

  • I'd consider moving this section to near the bottom, after "Late Reign" and before "Death and legacy.
    • I thought about it too, since it refers to her grandchildren and events in 1767. But the section starts with events that took place in 1737 so I am not sure what to do. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reforms

  • Since the subsections under this head are so short, I'd suggest merging them all and dropping the subheads. Ditto for one-sentence orphan paragraphs in this and other sections. I'd merge them with other paragraphs to prevent a choppy layout and to avoid over-emphasis on a single sentence.

Full title

  • I'd put this in a note in a "Notes" section rather than including it as part of the main text.

References

  • If you create a "Notes" section, the long notes in the reference section can go there as well as any new notes you care to add. There are multiple ways to create a "Notes" section. Voyage of the Karluk uses one that I happen to like.
  • The Manual of Style suggests using italics for emphasis rather than bolding except in special instances. WP:MOSBOLD has details.

Bibliography

  • " Browning, Reed: The War of the Austrian Succession Palgrave Macmillan 1995 ISBN 0312125615" - The punctuation in all of the listings looks odd to me because no punctuation separates the parts. I'm used to seeing "Browning, Reed (1995). The War of the Austrian Succession. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0312125615. Also, I'm not sure what "Palgrave" refers to, and the place of publication is missing. WorldCat is often helpful in finding and verifying bibliographic data. All of the books should include place of publication.

Other

  • The Manual of Style advises against creating text sandwiches between images or illustrations, against displacing heads or edit buttons with images, or in placing images that overlap two sections. There's a text sandwich in War of the Austrian Accession, another in Reforms, and another in Death and Legacy. Eliminating the subheads in the Reform section should help solve some of these problems; the others will require different solutions. Moving quotes in boxes into the main text, re-locating images, and shortening of captions are among the possibilities.
  • You might want to add alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The alt-text in the toolbox at the top of this page is handy in reviewing alt text. WP:ALT has details.
  • The dabfinder tool in the toolbox finds one dab in the article that should be fixed.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New England

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to do as much as possible to prepare it for an eventual WP:GA nomination. I should also note that I wrote a good portion of it several years ago under a different (and long-since deleted) account. That said, it could use a great deal of improvement.

On the positive side, it is well-referenced and rather detailed. On the negative side, it is unorganized, somewhat cluttered, and seems littered with errata and miscellanea. See here for its 2006 peer review nomination.

It's been a while since I've been back at Wikipedia. I suppose that my one question for you all is: what will it take to make this a good article?

Thanks, TimothyDexter (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:GrapedApe
  • Good SVG map at the top.
  • There are items in the lead that are cited. The lead is supposed to be a summarization of the general article, so anything in there ought to be in the main text of the article. Therefore, there really shouldn't be anything requiring a reference in the lead.
  • Love the flags.
  • On my screen the phrase "Banished from Massachusetts for heresy" overlaps with the picture of the shilling. I don't know what is causing that, but maybe moving it higher in the paragraph would be a good idea(?)
  • There are some paragraphs that only have 1 reference. If that reference supports more than 1 sentence in the paragraph, try noting that, with the <ref name=NAME /> thingy.
  • "Region of the United States" is mostly unreferenced.
  • "See also: List of place names in New England of aboriginal origin" doesn't really make sense where it is. Maybe cut it altogether
  • Large parts of geography is unreferenced, which is problematic because it has numbers
  • Expand the Geology section, (obviously)
  • For
  • File:Providence skyline2crop.jpg is low resolution. Is there a better version?
  • " Public health and safety" needs more context and less factoid-ness. Maybe just add a some intro sentences and make it more paragraph-like.
  • Exmpand "Government" section
  • Under "Colleges and universities" there are too many "See also" section, plus that shoudln't be at the bottom of a section
  • There is a wonky see also thing going on in " Private and independent secondary schools"
  • OK, lots of "see also" problems. They should be at the top.
  • Some bare URLS for refs. :(
  • way too many external links. Try trimming the list.

Ontario Highway 35

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for potentially becoming an FA and would like to know where the article is lacking, if the sources are consistent, grammar, comprehensiveness, etc.

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and thanks for your work on it. With an eye to WP:FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • One dab link found in the disambig links tool on this page
  • The two blue links in the external links tool on this page are to non-existent sites when I clicked on them and will need to be fixed.
  • Articles have to be comprehensive to pass FAC. The infobox says this is called the King's Highway 35, but the name is not mentioned in the article. It need not be a lot (A sentence or two), but I think this should be addressed in the article in some way
  • Similary alternate names are usually listed in the lead, as is the name of the article. So not only does it seem like King's HIghway should be in the lead, but the full name of the article (Ontario Highway 35) is not in the lead either.
  • I think the length and the general direction of the highway (north-south) should be in the lead too.
  • I think this needs a copyedit before FAC - Why is City capitalized in into the City of Kawartha Lakes? Or The terrain flattens as approaching Lindsay, which the highway bypasses.[3] is just not grammatically correct.
  • After passing Minden, the scenic highway begins diving into valleys and along cliffs overlooking several lakes.[9] I really do not want to drive on a highway that "begins diving ... along cliffs" - eek! ;-) Needs to be clearer - perhaps descends into valleys and follows the edges of cliffs?
  • Is there a date / year for the Fenelon Road in History?
  • Do the italics in History follow WP:ITALIC?
  • Does this route follow (one paragraph) or avoid (another paragraph) the Bobcaygeon Road? And should Bobcaygeon Road be italicized or not?
  • Spell out abbreviations like MTO
  • Not clear what refs are used for the table at the bottom.
  • Last ref (current 28) is a bare URL - needs to be full information (title, publisher, accessdate at least)
  • Any information on the amount of traffic this gets?

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 ><>°° 04:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road to the Multiverse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to eventually be able to get this article to FA status. I've attempted to expand the article as much as possible, but I'd hope a final polishing, and maybe a slight expansion (though I believe it's been greatly broadened in its coverage) would be able to get the article to featured status.

Thanks, Gage (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been a week since I started this review. Any feedback would be extremely helpful. Gage (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The show sounds interesting, and you've got good material here, but I got lost toward the end of the "Plot" section, and many of the minor characters such as Peter and Meg need a bit of fleshing out to be meaningful in the context of this article. I would suggest adding more background, perhaps even a "Characters" section. Here are other suggestions, many of them related to prose and style.

Lead

Plot

  • "Stewie bites the dog version of Peter" - It would be good to explain briefly who Peter is. The link is fine, but you don't want to send readers away from the article to find out the basics.
  • "Dog Brian, human Brian and dog Stewie" - Things get confusing here. Is Brian different from Human Brian? Is "Dog Stewie" different from "dog Stewie"? Is "human Brian" different from "Human Brian"? Since three characters—Brian, Stewie, and human Brian—escape together, it appears that at the least that Brian and "human Brian" are not the same. I am lost.
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you trying to point out capitalization? Brian, the one who regularly appears in the series, is a dog, not a human, so a distinction is necessary between the Human version of Brian in the Dog universe, and the Dog version of Brian from the regular universe. Gage (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was just a matter of capitals until I got to the sentence that said "As they are being transported, human Brian, dreaming of a better life in a world of intelligent humans, leaps into the inter-universe portal at the last moment and successfully makes it to the original universe with the other two." Since the other two are described as "Stewie and Brian", the character "human Brian" must not be the same as the character "Brian". Until I read that sentence, I thought they were the same. So, the capitals need to be consistent, but something about the logic needs fixing too. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the capitalization problems, and attempted to cut down on the use of the character's names, as well as the words dog and human. Gage (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. There are three, two human Brians and one Stewie. The second human Brian was the pet in the dog universe. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are four. One, human Stewie, was taken away to the pound already. So there are three that go to rescue him, one dog Brian (from regular universe), one human Brian (from dog universe), and one dog Stewie (from dog universe). Gage (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production and development

  • "parodying the science fiction television series Sliders.[8][2]" - When two or more citations numbers appear together, they should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [2][8] in this case. Ditto for similar sequences elsewhere in the article.
  • "David A. Goodman played a key role in the episode's original development, being a fan of science fiction and the series Sliders." - Misplaced modifier. Since "development" isn't a fan, perhaps this would be better: "David A. Goodman, a fan of science fiction and the series Sliders, played a key role in the episode's original development
  • "In addition to traditional animation, the episode also saw a parody of Robot Chicken," - Since episodes can't literally see, perhaps "In addition to traditional animation, the episode included a parody of Robot Chicken,"?
  • "instead animated by the Los Angeles animation company Screen Novelties who had previously worked" - Screen Novelties is a "which" rather than a "who".
  • "a mini-feature entitled Family Guy Karaoke. - Should the whole title be in italics? Or, if it's similar to a short story, should it be in quotes; i.e., "Family Guy Karaoke"?

Cultural references

  • "In this universe everything is seemingly years in advance of present day" - Using "the 21st century" instead of "present day" would be better because more specific. Also, Christians might question whether the end of their religion was an advance. The only example you give of an advance is an instant AIDS pill.
    • Done. I attempted to expand the sentence. The AIDS pill was simply the one example that was acknowledged through dialogue. The world around them was entirely futuristic as well. Gage (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they come upon Meg, who has become significantly more attractive" - Who is Meg? A brief explanation should be included here; this is similar to the problem with Peter mentioned above.
  • "Further playing on the nonexistence of Christianity" - No playing was mentioned before this, so "further" is perhaps not the right word.
  • "Peter and Lois are shown dressed in a manner" - Who is Lois?
  • "and Herbert appearing as the Queen" - Who is Herbert?
  • "Mort Goldman" - Who is Mort Goldman?
  • "Disparaged, Brian and Stewie transport themselves to a universe" - Do you mean "discouraged" rather than "disparaged"?
  • "resembling the Adult Swim series Robot Chicken[24]," - Comma should come before ref.
  • "who voices Chris Griffin" - Who is Chris Griffin?
  • "A sequence similar to the Zapruder film is shown... " - Linking is fine, but it would be good to briefly explain what the "Zapruder film" refers to so that readers don't have to navigate away to learn the basics.

Reception

  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations like the one in the last two sentences of this section should not contain wikilinks since they are not part of the original.
  • "Ramsey Isler, IGN" - Should IGN be spelled out as well as abbreviated here?
    • As IGN is never referred to as "Imagine Games Network", which, as a regular IGN user, even I had to look up what the abbreviation stood for, I don't think spelling it out would be considered necessary, unless you think otherwise.

Images

Each image must be licensed in a way that makes its copyright status verifiable by anyone who wants to check it. Someone will certainly check the image licenses at FAC, and this license will not pass because the link to the source document from which the image ostensibly came is dead. This is similar to the problem of a dead url in a citation. It's sometimes possible to find a replacement url; perhaps the host site simply moved things around. Since NASA is the cited source for the image, I think the chances are good that you can find the image somewhere on the NASA pages. The dead url is here. If you can find a working url for the image and verify that the image is "free", then the fix for the problem would be to replace the dead url with the new url. If you can't find a way to make the image license verifiable, then you shouldn't use the image, and if you do, it will not pass FAC. In fact, if the license is unverifiable, the image shouldn't be on the Commons. I'm assuming it was verifiable when it was uploaded, but who knows? Please ask again if I have still not made the problem clear. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my apologies, for some reason I confused your concerns about the Disney portrait with the Disney image in the infobox. I'll attempt to locate a replacement URL. I thought I was able to find the image on their site, so I'll look for it. Gage (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked at the link, and it still seems to work for me, so I'm not sure why it is appearing as a dead link for you. Regardless, I linked to the direct image instead. Gage (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new link takes me to the original, which is good. I don't know why the large version would be visible and the small one not visible on my computer. Finetooth (talk) 19:57, 9 July 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. You mentioned in your comments above that you had been waiting in line for a week. That's not unusual, and the reason is that while many contributors want reviews, a smaller number of contributors are willing to review, which is time-consuming and sometimes difficult. You could help shorten the line by reviewing articles from time to time. Finetooth (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dear Wikipedians,
I've listed this article for peer review because i feel the article has improved a lot on the quality of contents. Moreover i feel the article's current Quality Scale (Class-B) can be upgraded upwards to GA or A from B-Class. Pls review the article & provide your valuable Suggestions / feedback for improving the article.

Thanks, Raj6644 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinhan's comments BejinhanTalk 14:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are huge potions of the article without references. For example, see below. There are many other sections needing references too.

Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) was formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, one of the most environmentally compliant paper mills in the world in April 1979 as a Public Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956.

TNPL exports about 1/5th of its production to more than 30 countries. Manufacturing of quality paper for the past two and half decades from bagasse is an index of the company’s technological competence. A strong record in adopting minimum impact best process technology, responsible waste management, reduced pollution load and commitment to the corporate social responsibility make the company one of the most environmentally compliant paper mills in the world.

  • There seems to be a strong WP:COI tone in the article. Are you involved with the company? Many parts of the article has promotional sentences. They have to be cut out.
  • Frankly, the article does not even meet B-class article yet, and I would not encourage you to try GA or A-class at the moment.
  • Try to get an independent editor to edit the article.
Hi Bejinhan, Thanks for your suggestion. Right now the article is completely formatted & rewritten to meet the WP:standards. Still working on improving the contents of the article. Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 11:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! It's looks much better now. Good job! :) Bejinhan talks 14:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldermaston

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen substantial change since the last review, with a major section (focused on during the last PR) being removed and merged into a different article.

Regards, matt (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progress --Senra (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider reading wikipedia GA-class articles for places similar in size to your own such as Evanton, Cranham, Chew Magna, Little Thetford. There is a lack of references throughout. There should be a reference for every sentence or paragraph that may be challenged. See WP:CITE. Section headings are not per WP:CITIES. Use the automated toolbox that comes along with the review. There are recommendations there which should be carried out, such as non-break spacing (&nbsp;); abbreviations in conversions and other problems. Also there are some bad links in the references.
  • '''{{infobox UK place'''...}} Needs area so pop. dens. can be automatically calculated. Subjectively, I do not think the pair of images say anything. Consider using a better image here. Perhaps the watercolour by G. Shepherd (Shepherd, George Sidney (1784–1862) – ODNB)?
  • Lead Needs work as per WP:LEAD but leave till last as content may change
  • Toponymy should be part of History section as per WP:CITIES. Perhaps reference Domesday Book entry and or A Dictionary of British Place-Names. A. D. Mills. Oxford University Press, 2003?

  • World War I This is an orphaned sub-section heading. In general, a section should have some sub-sections or non at all. As it stands, this history section needs no sub-sections
  • Church Not as per WP:CITIES. Consider Church as part of Religious sites section or Architecture section
  • Governance Weak. What do parish councils do? Who governs the parish councils? Who governs them? What parliamentary ward is the village in?
  • Demographics This sub-section is well cited. The sub-sub-sections may be an overkill. Perhaps another editor can cast an eye on this. Are there any historical population figures for the village?
  • Geography Well cited
  • Geology Needs a reference
  • Economy and local industries "There have been numerous farms in Aldermaston parish." needs a reference. "Various sources cite ..." is woolly. Who are the various sources? Needs references. The lead of the economy section needs an historical context and needs restructuring. It first discusses 1919 then goes back to 1760's schooling. It is not clear what the main economy of the village is
  • Transport As a general rule, if sentences have references and then no reference for following sentences, the reader wonders if the information is accurate. Is there a reference for "...the station serves First Great Western services between Reading, Newbury and Bedwyn. The nearest stations to Aldermaston station are Midgham to the west and Theale to the east. Journey times approximate 17 minutes to either Reading or Newbury."?
  • Education Who established the 1830 school? State or guilds/feoffees?
  • Culture well referenced

  • Sport again, well referenced although I feel again, that The Cricket Club is the oldest sports club in the village so this section should lead with the cricket club then go on to mention RFC and AFC

Given the above; generally a good article. I enjoyed reading it. --Senra (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck done items. The version of your article before my comments was this one. I was using this version of your article to strike the above. From 78 to 120 references! Nice. Well done. Let me know on my talk page when you are finished and I will give it another look --Senra (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, using the toolbox, dablinks found 4 wikilinks going to disambiguation pages
  • David Kaufman
  • Henry I
  • Henry IV
  • Jacobean

:Checklinks found 7 problems - some dead links. Altviewer found no alt text whatsoever on any image in the article. These all need fixing ahead of WP:GAN. Nevertheless, nice progress. --Senra (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are still some dead references :) Other than that, most seems to have been done. I still think the economy section could be ordered by date, but it is better now than it was. I suspect the sub-sub-section heading "3.2.1 July 2007 floods" is really redundant. In any case, the auto-review in the toolbox is recommending that contents list is too long, probably due this extra deep sub-sub-section. Consider also reviewing WP:Lead. Well done on the continued improvements --Senra (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Edith (1963)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on how the article looks and what I can do to improve it as I have cleared up a few issues brought to my attention by another editor.

Thanks, Bobby122 Contact Me 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is alright, but there are some things it is missing. First and foremost, I recommend you look at another hurricane featured article, say Hurricane Dog (1950) or Tropical Storm Brenda (1960), something contemporaneous. That way, you can compare your article to another one that has passed the highest quality standards on Wikipedia. Specifically, my biggest concerns are the referencing and the way the information is presented.

  • Referencing - I notice in the meteorological history how you have a large chunk of info cited to one source, but much of that info can't be found in that source. Other parts of the article don't have any references, which is a problem. Every last statement in the article body (excluding the lede) should have a source that follows it (that contained the information). Also, you might want to reconsidering sourcing "Storm Plus", since the website in question cites Wikipedia.
  • Meteorological history - this section is a little awkward, in my opinion. Right now, it reads as if it was written when the storm was active. Compare that with either of the other articles I mentioned. The section should be more on what the tropical cyclone actually did, than what various weather officers said the storm did. For example, instead of saying that ships reported the formation of the depression, just say that the depression formed on X date, based on ship observations. The MH also shouldn't have any watch/warning stuff, since that's more preparation material.
  • The impact section is rather poorly written, no offense. There are many examples of redundant wording, or just awkward phrasing. Try and get a wider variety of sources, other than the NHC storm folder. Also, you should cut down on the Puerto Rico section, since it gets rather long and boring. There are four lines on what happened at a single yacht club. Look at other articles, how they handle lots of info and present it in an interesting manner.

There's lots of good stuff on the storm, just keep at it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (M.I.A. album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be PR'ed by mid-August to preserve an existing FT. All comments welcome :-)

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I would change the track listing to one like this: Template:Track listing and add writers & producers. The samples could be added underneath the track listing. ;-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed to that but then someone changed it back. I'm not fuseed either way...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit15d review

[edit]

Composition and recording

  • "M.I.A. (Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam)" -- why spell out her full name?
    • This is something that, for some reason, people felt quite strongly about at the FAC for one of her two previous albums, I just kept it in for this one. I don't think it hurts to give the artist's real name...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had released her" -- take out "had"
  • "British-Sri Lankan musician M.I.A. (Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam) had released her second album Kala in 2007, which achieved widespread critical acclaim and was certified Gold in the United States and Silver in the United Kingdom.[1][2] She toured in support of the album under the People Vs. Money Tour banner,[3] during which she composed and recorded some music with her Korg Kaossilator atop the pyramids of Mexico.[4]" -- can really be consolidated in to one sentence since it has little to nothing to do with the topic of the article. For all I can see, it's just a leaping off point to say that she began working on her third album while touring in support of her second album, which is what you should say.
  • "Tourmate Egyptian Lover stated he was ready to collaborate on her third album.[5] " -- Again, unrelated to the article
  • Really, that whole first paragraph can be ditched since it has nothing to do with the article topic.
  • "She collaborated with writer/producer Blaqstarr because "he simply makes good music"." -- according to whom?
  • "from thirty-hour jam sessions" -- this wording currently suggests that she had more than one jam session that last 30 hours each. Do you mean "30 hour-long jam sessions"? or "30 hours worth of jam sessions"?
  • "best artist he'd ever" -- do not use contractions and, in this case, it should read "best artist he has ever"
  • "stating "She's been" -- there should be a comma after stating

Music and lyrics

  • "She summed up the album's main theme as being information politics." -- remove "being"
  • "she spoke of the effects the merger of news corporations and the power of the internet search engine Google have on news and data content and collection" -- poorly worded, and Google really doesn't require explanation for your typical wikipedia reader (just link it, in case) "she spoke of the combined effects that news coorporations and Google have on news and data collection"
  • "she felt her son's generation would need in ascertaining the truth" -- better worded "that she felt her son's generation would need in order to ascertain truth."
  • quotes with in quotes should use single quotes (')
  • " sing, as opposed to rap on" -- comma after rap
  • "M.I.A. opted to sing, as opposed to rap on several tracks on the album, telling Rolling Stone in early 2010 that she departed from "more emphasis on production, making beats and singing less" on her previous album." -- this almost doesn't make any sense, and, particularly the last half, requires a re-write
  • "Samples used on the album range from the electronic duo Suicide to gospel choir the Alabama Sacred Harp Singers" -- better worded "Samples on the album were taken from artists as diverse as electronic duo Suicied to gospel choir Alabama Sacred Harp Singers.

Don't have time to do more for now, but I will try to come back later.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, all addressed I think........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Street

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have done a lot of work on this article over the past couple of months. The street has an extraordinary history. This is an article about a very specific place.

Very interested to hear some constructive comments.AWHS (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn comments: User:Mattinbgn suggested to edit out the words "notable".  Done. AWHS (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the edits.

Ykraps comments: Enjoyed the article but it needs proof reading: The first line reads, "Jeffrey Street or Jeffrey Street" (no difference) and there is inappropriate use of capitals (Infection, Surgeon).  Done. I have fixed all the inappropriate capitals I could find.
Also, when you talk about allivial, do you mean alluvial?  Done. fixed.
The article could do with a few more links: Alluvial, Greenock and Lincolnshire are all in Wikipedia.  Done. Added quite a lot.
I am not so sure that the fireworks are 'world famous'. The views most certainly are though!  Done. Rewritten and edited out.
Good, interesting work though, worthy of an article. I can't imagine why it was nominated for deletion!--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the great feedback.AWHS (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - thanks for your work on it. I agree with the comments made above - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example North Shore (Sydney) is linked five times just in the lead. Generally one link in the lead, and one at the first use in the article body are enough (with other links possible in cpations or tables or references).  Done. fixed, deleted a large number, I have kept just enough so that the book functions works
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be four paragraphs max, but this lead is five paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.  Done. I have reedited the lead along these lines back to 4 paras and tried to touch on all the main points.
  • The article may need fewer sections / header too.
  • I do not think the article follows WP:ITALIC in its use of italics.  Done. I have edited the italics out throughout from Jeffrey Street and most other instances. Needs review, the rules are a bit complex for a beginner.
  • The article uses a lot of WP:PEACOCK words like famous, etc. These are generally to be avoided - give the facts and let the reader decide. This is also potentially a WP:NPOV issue.
    • If a reliable source uses Peacock words, it is fine to quote it directly
  • Make sure that references used are WP:Reliable sources - for example current refs 6, 7, and 8 are to the web pages for a wedding planner, a harpist, and a car rental service - what makes these reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (like a newspaper or government source)?  Done. I have deleted these refs.
  • There are also quite a few places in the article that need references - for example this whole section The construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was a significant event in Australian history, numerous books have been written on the subject. Jeffrey Street, being immediately adjacent to the bridge approaches featured prominently in photographs of the event. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Not all refs are complete in information provided. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V  Done. Or at least underway.
  • Avoid bullet lists - these should generally be converted to prose to improve flow of the article.  Done. fixed.
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even short sections - these also interfere with the flow of the article and should be combined with others or expanded in most cases.
  • The article should focus more on the street itself, for example the Thomas Jeffrey section does not mention the street at all until the end, when it says Thomas Jeffrey was a leading local citizen at the time, and it is almost certain that Jeffrey Street was originally named in his honour. If there is no reference for this (and none is given, so one is needed) then this is Original Research and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
    • Note that there seem to be enough reliable sources on Thomas Jeffrey to write an article on him. Then his name in this article could be linked to the article on him, and the material on him here could be cut down - see WP:Summary style

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 ><>°° 04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great feedback - it is going to take a while to work through this but this all makes sense to me.AWHS
A bit more
  • I added two more comments above and also note that the article is great at finding all sorts of references to the street - I would work these into the history section, and not list them as bullet points as is done in the Early mentions in the Sydney Morning Herald section now
  • The tool box in the peer review finds one disambiguation link.  Done. Fixed.
  • Make sure external links are described (not just bare links) and that they meet WP:EL - why is http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ included, for example?  Done. All have been edited and described by title.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several WP:FAs on roads at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport that may be useful models. There are also several articles on bridges in the same section that might be possible models.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - still working through all this.AWHS (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Lily Allen

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to work on it for FL. What I need to know is what awards are notable, which are disposable and what should I write in the lead. Thanks, 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - the first obvious thing that strikes me is the lack of references. The first place I'd start if I were you, is getting some references and external links to prove that she actually got these awards. -- Jack?! 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I plan to do, but after someone tells me which of these awards are actually notable/legitimate. I'm sure some of them have to go. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have a quick read through WP:N and WP:BIO, they will give a you an idea maybe. -- Jack?! 16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with the above comments, here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • I think what would be very helpful here is to have some model articles - there are many Featured Lists on awards and nominations by musical artists. Search for "Awards won by artists" in WP:FL - for example List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse is a FL and seems like it would be useful for ideas and examples to follow. List of awards and nominations received by Alicia Keys is another.
  • There should be an introductory sentence or two for each award to provide context for the reader.
  • I would say that if the award or organization givining it is notable enough to have an article here, it is notable enough to be included in this list. Again, the model lists might also help with this.
  • The lead should introduce the reader to who Lily Allen is, as well as give some idea of the awards she has been nominated for and received. See WP:LEAD
  • I think similar awards could be grouped together - for example there are multiple MTV awards in this article, why not put them all under a MTV header, with subheaders as needed?
  • Article could use some images - the Lily Allen article has many nice, free images
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure refs used meet WP:RS - of the two refs used in the article now, I am not sure that http://www.metrolyrics.com/lily-allen-awards-featured.html is a reliable source

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psych

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the article so that I can nominate it for GA, and then eventually FAC.

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a go. It might be best for you to wait until I say I'm ready, in case I have second thoughts about some of my comments. --Philcha (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might look at the GA criteria. --Philcha (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with some of my comments, please say so - I'm as fallible as the next person. --Philcha (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

Structure

[edit]

Backstory

[edit]
  • (aka "Overview") I think this needs one or more inline citations, as required by WP:V. There are tools that making much easier to formatting citations and act as checklists of the information required, e.g. the "Cite" button that appears at the right-side end of the bar at the top of the edit box. --Philcha (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Shawn originally becomes known as a psychic when, after calling in a tip on a crime covered on the news, the police become suspicious of his knowledge" misleads the reader into thinking for much of the sentence that Shawn is calling in a tip. I suggest ""Shawn originally becomes known as a psychic when the police, after calling in a tip on a crime covered on the news, become suspicious of his knowledge". --Philcha (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters

[edit]
  • Part of the GA criteria is "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". IMO the "Recurring characters" are almost all unnecessary detail - IMO Mr. Yang is the most important. --Philcha (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The surviving cast and characters need citations.
  • In "it is really his exceptional observational skills and eidetic memory that makes him such a good detective", "exceptional" looks almost like an advert for Shawn. If you want to use that, you'll need to create a citation from a source that includes a direct quote. --Philcha (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • I've found a few issues in "Backstory" alone. Please check the whole article for other points where the prose needs to be improved. IMO the best way to improve your skill is by doing it - I think mine has improved in the last year :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

[edit]
  • The prose and table provide the same information. As the prose is just a list of sentences that are identical except for number and dates, I'd prefer the table. I've also added a title for the table, as IIRC this is recommended for accessibilty. --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the main text looks stable

[edit]

Check my User:Philcha#Tools - they save me a lot of work. :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally do the lead

[edit]

Hi, Iankap99, Now it's your return. --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaria (video game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC like a previous indie game article I wrote, Flower (video game). It's already GA, but i went through and revamped it a bit for FAC, and I'd like some fresh eyes to look at it. I generally need a bit of help on the copy-editing front, so if anyone could look at that I'd be especially grateful. Thanks! --PresN 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not really qualified to review the article. Here are a few comments that may help.
  • Lead
  • "... Bit Blot, composed of Alec Holowka and Derek Yu.", designed by?
  • Mmm, Bit Blot the company is composed of the two designers.
  • Windows is spelled out and wikilinked but Mac is not
  • Fixed.
  • When was the Linux version released?
  • Fixed.
  • Gameplay
  • The lead says "Aquaria is a 2D sidescrolling computer game" but the first sentence of the gameplay begins "Aquaria is an action-adventure game, ..."?
  • Fixed.
  • Part of the first paragraph seems to conflict with the second thus "... many of which Naija can interact with." and "... Naija cannot interact directly with objects in the world."?
  • Fixed.
  • I think you could say a little more about Li in the gameplay section (Li is mentioned once there) and we do not find out who Li is until later (Plot)
  • Fixed.
  • In general, I found the un-quantified words such as "several", "many", "some", "in general", "series", "different", "others". "various" distracting. I found myself wanting more concrete information. As I said, I am not qualified to review, so I do not know if, in this context, quantifying things is classed as a spoiler.
  • Tried to clean up a bit; the concern is not spoilers but useless specification which would overemphasize trivial details.
  • Plot
  • We seem to refer alternatively to "the player" and "Naija" but they are the same person? This is not clear.
  • Naija is the character, you are the player. The plot happens to her, but the actions are taken by the player.
  • Balance. One paragraph on the game as a whole and two paragraphs on the end-game?
  • True, I'll work on that. Most of the plot is condensed in the end of the game, as there's no set order to drive the narrative until then.
  • Again, are we in danger of a spoiler here or do we need a spoiler warning?
  • Spoiler warnings are not used in Wikipedia, and have not been for years.
  • Development
  • "... on other freeware games." implies Aquaria is freeware? It is or it is not. If it is, this should be mentioned in the lead too.
  • That was a reference to the freeware games he worked on before Aquaria, but it was confusing.
  • How the game is controlled by the user should be introduced earlier. For example, you say in development "The game was developed to be able to be controlled by the player with only the mouse, after it was suggested by Yu's father. The developers felt that this control scheme forced them to make the gameplay fluid and easy to grasp, though they also added the option to control the game with a keyboard or Xbox 360 controller.". This is the first time we are aware how the game is controlled.
  • Fixed.
  • Reception
  • This section seems well researched and is an easy read
  • Thanks!
  • Generally
  • Is there online support for the game in any way, such as help, cheats, user-groups?
  • Mmm, there's the official forums, I guess, but you get there off of the official site, linked to in the external links section.
  • I have not checked the images, nor the references
--Senra (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I've made follow-up comments in-line with yours as I address the points. --PresN 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you had made changes. I enjoyed the article. I am sorry I cannot be of much more help. I did not remove the article from the backlog list, so I hope a more qualified reviewer turns up. In the meantime, good luck --Senra (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I still think the article would benefit from a community section where such things as walkthroughs, cheats, and hints can be mentioned. Not as a list, or in any detail, but as prose comparing the Aquaria community with other similar games. Just my opinion. Have fun --Senra (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Senra's comments above and think s/he has done a fine peer review. Thanks for your work on this article, here are some more suggestions for improvement. It sounds like a very interesting game.

  • I think the first sentence is still confusing - would it be clearer as something like Aquaria is a 2D sidescrolling action-adventure computer game designed by Alec Holowka and Derek Yu, who together form the independent game company Bit Blot, which developed and originally published the game.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on video and computer games. One thing I would look at is how they handle references to the player - I found the phrases "the player ... they/them" distracting as player is singular and they/them is plural - for example in During the course of the game, the player learns songs that allow them to transform Naija into different forms.
  • The article should be consistent on how it refers to forms Naija transforms into - most are in quotes, but not in this In nature form, Naija is not harmed by thorns on any plants.
  • Problem sentence Most of the dishes can be cooked only from two ingredients, which can be done anywhere, but some more complicated dishes that require three ingredients need to be cooked in a kitchen, found only in specific areas. I understand what it means, but the prose is a bit awkward, and it needs a ref.
  • Direct quote needs a ref at the end of the sentence As the game opens, Naija has lost almost all her memories, and is unaware of the world outside of her home as she "lives as a feral creature".
  • I think this needs a copy edit - one way to do this is to print out the article, not look at it for a few days, and then read it out loud slowly. As an example of what needs polish, this is awkward and I am not really sure what it means The player is told this in voice-over narrations purportedly by Naija herself from the perspective of after the events of the game are over. or this sentence has three create words in it which is a bit much - The Creator, after creating Aquaria, created a series of civilizations, making a new one in turn when each one was destroyed.
  • The plot is told mostly from an in-universe perspective. Please read WP:IN-U and try to make it more from an out-of-universe perspective. For example in plot, at what point does the gameplay begin and what is told as a little movie before this (I am not a gamer, forget what this little movie to give needed information is called).
  • Avoid vague time terms like "to date" or current(ly) - it is better to use specific years like "As of 2010" or "since YEAR' - see for example Aquaria is the studio's only game to date.[1] - thinks like this can get out of date quickly, so saying as of 2010 is clearer (still true even if they release a new game next year).

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 ><>°° 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lucas Bend

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel we could get a GA out of it if I have a helping hand or two. At the moment it just needs some expansion from a couple more sources (I am on the look out) and attention from someone with knowledge of the context - both historical context of the conflict in 1862 and geographic context to assist me in working out which river and town is which. I'm not from the area. I have already requested this on the talk page and at WT:MILHIST and an IP has kindly made some of the changes.

But is has potential, some sources are out there and the image reservoir is good for such a topic. Needs a copy edit and prose check.

Thanks, S.G.(GH) ping! 20:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finetooth. Would you be able to comment on the geography in particular? A bit away from me. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start and contains interesting information and a nice image of Essex. I have only superficial knowledge of the intricacies of naval battles of the U.S. Civil War, but that gives me a kind of advantage in that most readers will not know much about these details either. I agree that the geography in the article needs to be made more clear. I've made a few specific suggestions below, and I think that a map showing the four rivers and places such as Lucas Bend, Cairo, and Columbus would be especially helpful. It would also be helpful if you could give directions (principally upriver and downriver) when describing the ship movements. It at first appears that the ships of both sides went up and down these rivers past each others' ships and shore batteries routinely without getting sunk. I think it would be helpful to the general reader if the article included background material about the limitations of shore batteries, naval defenses, mine fields, and so on. How could the two sides infiltrate one another's positions so easily? Fog? Extremely wide rivers? Islands? Decoys? Or is Lucas Bend, as I am beginning to suspect, on the Mississippi River? If so, please say this in the first sentence of the lead. That would prevent a lot of confusion and make the other rivers much less important to an understanding of the battle. It would also be helpful to include the distances between key places. You can use road atlases, Google maps, and topo maps to sort all of this out. I find the USGS topo maps published by TopoQuest to be especially handy since the topo maps often have river miles (RM) marked on them. For example, here is the Arlington, Kentucky, quadrant showing that Columbus, Kentucky, is at roughly RM 937 on the Mississippi River.

  • Metric conversions: Generally, imperial measures are also given in metric per WP:MOSNUM#Which units to use. I'd be inclined to give metric numbers for at least some of the imperial measures such as "11-inch Dahlgren smooth bores". I like to use the {{convert}} template, though you can also do the calculations by hand and enter them; e.g., 11-inch (280 mm). Ironclad warship, a featured article, has examples of similar conversions. I see that some imperial measures have been converted to metric in this article, but others have not.
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The Battle of Lucas Bend took place on January 11, 1862, during the American Civil War." - Which river? Exactly where is Lucas Bend? The geography is confusing because you mention four rivers (Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, and Cumberland). The Cumberland and Tennessee are tributaries of the Ohio, and the Ohio is a tributary of the Mississippi.
I'm not sure but am trying to clarify - no one seems able to tell me!
  • Columbus, Kentucky, appears to be on the Mississippi River south of Cairo. If that's so, then the Confederate ships fell back by going downriver on the Tennessee River (I think), then the Ohio River, then the Mississippi River. It's puzzling to me that the Union ships would have been coming downriver on the Tennessee River rather than going upriver from Cairo. Also, didn't the Union forces have shore batteries at Cairo that would have made it difficult for the Confederate ships to slip by?

Prelude

  • "The complex river network provided routes for the Union gunboats into the heart of the Confederate's forces, however often the water levels – particularly in the Tennessee river – were not sufficient for gunboats to pass." - Would it be slightly better to move the word "often" to later in the sentence, perhaps to "often were not sufficient" or "were often not sufficient"?
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lastly, the General Polk was a former site-wheel river steamer... " - Should that be "side-wheel" rather than "site-wheel"? Should it perhaps be linked to Paddle steamer#Types of paddle steamer?
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Constructed in 1852, the Confederacy purchased it in 1861." - Misplaced modifier. Since the Confederacy wasn't constructed in 1852, perhaps: "It was built in 1852, and the Confederacy bought it in 1861."
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Union vessels arrived in October 1861, venturing up the Cumberland river on October 30." - I would mention here that the Cumberland River is a tributary of the Ohio River.
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over several weeks between December and January, the Union ships had regularly sailed towards the Confederates in both the Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee Rivers... " - "Both" means "two", but you name three. Maybe "Confederates on the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers" would be better.
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be frustrated by blank-cartridge shots from the latter's cannons which prompted the Union commander to telegram his opposing number to issue a challenge" - I'm not quite sure what this means. Does this mean that the Confederates fired blanks in order to scare the Union forces with noise, that this tactic succeeded, and that the Union commander, annoyed, sent a telegram to the Confederate commander that essentially called him a coward? If that's what it means, could this be made more explicit? Could the telegram be quoted, for example? (I see that you add this later, but perhaps you should add it here.)
This is left over from a previous re-write, the challenge was in fact after the battle. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved off from their landings" - Where were the landings? Which place on which river? Which way did they move off, upriver or down?
I can't tell, lack of source and geographic info S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and by Porter moving off-route to investigate to suspicious, but later revealed to be legitimate, boats moored on the riverside" - Two problems here. (1) Porter is identified in the lead but should be fully identified here too on first mention in the main text. (2) Delete the second "to" in "to investigate to suspicious", or should this be "two"?
Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sighting and engagement

  • "Having sighted the Confederate vessels early in the morning of January 11 in the Tennessee tributary" - Which Tennessee tributary?
Mistake from previous revision S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The citations have one dead url, and the images lack alt text, according to the tools in the toolbox at the top of this page. WP:ALT has info about alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.
Will fix S.G.(GH) ping! 17:08, 12 July 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) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finetooth, I shall get into this tomorrow after work. And I'll get to another article on the PR backlog. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Liberty

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intended to nominate it for FA and feedback would be good to have.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Run River (Oregon)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it at FAC in the near future. I believe it meets all the criteria, but it always helps to have fresh eyes looking over what I've done. This article is the fifth sixth in a planned series of five six about the major-minor streams of Portland, Oregon. All suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks very good - thanks for your work on it. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement, pretty much nitpicks.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should not be more than four paragraphs, but this is five. I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs could possibly be combined.
  • Course - I really like the Mount Hood picture, but it looks like it is very slightly rotated about 1 degree clockwise. I can try to fix it if you want.
  • I think I would make it clearer if Bull Run Lake is a natural lake, or man-made - I know that some natural lakes then have dams added to control the water. I thought it was natural, then the note mentioned the dam, so I was not sure - I see this is later clarified in Geology, but something earlier would help.
  • This is a bit unclear (the two roads on the left part) Below Reservoir 2, Forest Road 10 (Waterworks Road) is on the river's right bank, and Forest Road 14 and further downstream, Forest Road 183, is on the left.
  • Would this Southeast Camp Namanu Road runs roughly parallel to the river and to its right from here to the mouth. be clearer as something like Southeast Camp Namanu Road runs roughly parallel to the river along its right bank from here to the mouth.
  • Why is December spelled out, but Oct. abbreviated in The maximum flow at this station was 24,800 cubic feet per second ...?
  • Discharge I would link acre feet as it is an unusual unit
  • First peoples would it be clearer to add "native" here for clarity In the 19th century, this trail network linked the [native] trading center at Wascopam...
  • Calling it a night - more soon

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 ><>°° 04:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I'm calling it a night too, but I'll begin using your suggestions to improve the article later this weekend. Thanks for the offer to fix the tilt; I can do that, but I don't always see the tilt with my naked eye, and I forgot to check the image against a grid. Finetooth (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. The image is lovely and is only very slightly tilted - for some reason tilt is one of those things I usually see right away. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More
  • Hydroelectric projects I had to read the diversion dam on the Little Sandy River secntence multiple times before I was clear on what was going on. I think part of it was being tired, but I also am used to a stream named "Little X" being a tributary of stream "X", so I kept thinking that water was somehow being diverted from the Sandy River or its trib back up to the power plant. I wonder if some sort of addition to the sentence might help (or if I am just hopelessly dense). Perhaps something like The project included a powerhouse on the Bull Run River at RM 1.5 (RK 2.4), and a diversion dam on [one of its largest tributaries,] the Little Sandy River, ...
  • I also wondered if the location of the powerhouse should be included on the watershed map? Not sure on this one.
  • Need to add PGE after first use, of Portland General Electric, so In 1913, the PRL&P, (the predecessor of Portland General Electric, or PGE), ...
  • Logging Would it be clearer to list the closed roads first in By autumn 2008, they were dismantling 63 miles (101 km) of roads, had closed another 78 miles (126 km), and were removing 245 culverts.[40] so something like By autumn 2008, they had closed 78 miles (126 km) of roads, were dismantling another 63 miles (101 km), and were removing 245 culverts.[40]
  • Watershed Is "its" clear here? Would "watershed" work better? The confluence of the Bull Run and Sandy rivers at Dodge Park, about 20 miles (32 km) east of downtown Portland,[16] marks its western (downstream) end, while on the east it borders Hood River County, ...
  • I understand giving miles, but shouldn't there also be a metric conversion in Elevations within the watershed range from 4,750 feet (0.90 mi) at Buck Peak ...
  • River mile (RM) was already explained in the Course section, so probably not needed here
  • I would make it clearer that the small streams are tribs of the Columbia, not the Bull Run, in Small streams, each with a subwatershed bordering the Bull Run watershed, flow north from the ridge between the Bull Run and Columbia rivers.
  • Flora and fauna I think I would make it clearer that the headworks dam is now Dam 2 Native fish species include Chinook and Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Cutthroat Trout, Pacific Lamprey, and Rainbow Trout,[59] but since 1922 the headworks dam has blocked anadromous fish passage to the upper river and its tributaries.[29]

Looks very good - please let me know when this is at FAC and I will gladly support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all of these suggestions and for your kind words. I will work on these over the next few days. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think. I tilted the lake photo one degree counterclockwise and added the community of Bull Run to the watershed map; that's where the power plant is (was). You are right about the Sandy and Little Sandy confusion; I tweaked the prose as you suggested to make this more clear. All of your other suggestions were good ones, and I've changed the text accordingly. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Higgins discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for WP:FL at some point and would like to know what else needs to be done to improve it to that standard.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here a few things you might consider:

  • In the intro "dicography" and "Missy Higgins" need not be in bold text. I don't think any of the FL discographies use it (check out the David Bowie discography)
  • For the details of the albums and EPs you list "Formats" (plural); I would change it to "Format" (singular) since only one format is listed.
  • Section: "Live albums" Shouldn't this be "Live album" since only one is listed?
  • Live & Acoustic [iTunes Exclusive] Are the words within the brackets ([]) actually part of the title? If not they should be in presented in plain text with no bold and no italics.
  • All for Believing The release date indicates that its a US release. What about the rest of the records? Where were they released? Australia? Perhaps you could attach a note somewhere stating something like "Except where noted all records were released in Australia"
  • DVDs Why aren't they presented in a chart? I would do so to make that section uniform with the rest.

Hope this helps. — Jimknut (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I missed this somehow on my watchlist, but thanks for your comments, I will work on your suggestions. As far as I know, the Live album title is as given, but I only have one source for it.--BelovedFreak 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the film recently started production, and thus warranted its own article. For it to be included in the POTC Good Topic, it needs a peer review. I'm willing to hear all comments and suggestions.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 01:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until the film is released (so a reception and box office data can be included) before nominating it for a good topic or good article -- so the article will feel more "complete". The article will go through many changes once the film is release, good or bad.


Comments by User:MikeAllen

[edit]
  • There are a few dablinks that need disambiguated. See here.
  • Check links all look good. [13]

Film Infobox

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • There could be a paragraph included dedicated to the production of the film.
  • Adding references to the lead should be avoided that are uncontroversial.[2] The release date is already linked, or should be in the "Release" section (see "Production" below).

Plot

[edit]
  • This summary is a direct copy and paste of this. It should either be in quotations, or better yet, summarized into your own words.[3]

Cast

[edit]
  • There should a cite next to each entry (even using the same citation from the casting section for each entry will suffice) since it's likely to be challenged. The cast list tends to invite newer editors and IPs to add unsourced or rumored cast (usually copied from IMDb and they have disclaimer that reads, "Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely.")[4]. Or you could just eliminate the cast list altogether and just rely on the prose in the "Casting" section.[5] ;-)

Production

[edit]
  • This whole section would look better as level 2 header: "Production", followed by level 3 headers: "Development", "Writing", "Casting", "Filming". I was listing what could go where, but found it much easier to do it myself in my sandbox and show it to you already done. See here. The way it was laid out in the article is rather confusing and inconsistent.

Marketing

[edit]
  • This is unsourced and should be removed[6] or have the {{fact}} tag next to it.[7] It would also fit better under the "Release" section.

References

[edit]
  • All the refs look like reliable and valid sources. Yes, even the Twitter one, IMO. It's from his official feed and it's relevant. Though if a newer, more "reliable" source can be found, use that.[8] Also, you better WebCite [archive] it (see below) now since it can easily be removed. The citations should have publishing information [work=Los Angeles Times | publisher=(Tribune Company), etc]. The dates should all be consistent.[9] I personally use the "July 12, 2010" format, by that's just me. The title for the reference should not be in all caps, even if that's how they are originally written. On articles I heavily work on and aim for GA, I archive (using WebCite) every single reference and add it in the reference hidden (until the site goes offline) like <!--|archivelink=the webcite archive link|archivedate=date archived-->. This saves a lot of work and heart ache when a good source is removed from the web and you must search for a cached version or another article. Or worst you lose the source for good.[10]

Notes

  1. ^ Per WP:OVERLINK and the Infobox film documentation
  2. ^ Per WP:LEADCITE
  3. ^ Per WP:COPYPASTE
  4. ^ IMDb page under Production notes
  5. ^ See WP:CASTLIST
  6. ^ Per WP:V
  7. ^ Per WP:NOCITE
  8. ^ See WP:TWITTER
  9. ^ See WP:CITE#HOW
  10. ^ More information at WP:DEADREF

This is my first peer review. I have nominated an article for a peer review and thought it was only fair that I review an article. I hope you found this helpful. :) Mike Allen 05:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Henderson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while it has reached good article status and has had an FAC, I still feel like it's a way from another FAC, and would like to get this ready for one. I've done a citation overhaul and gotten rid of all the unreliable sources, and made some prose and section modifications. I would like some guidance on the prose of the article; namely, where to expand, where to cut. While at 29kb of prose right now, this will grow before another FAC, maybe to 40kb should what's needed call for it.

This is a large article that will only get larger as I wrap things up, but with some good criticism perhaps we can get an FA on baseball's greatest leadoff hitter.

Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Canada Hky Early Years Great read about Henderson. Here's a few things I noticed.

"When he was two years old, his father left home (subsequently dying in an automobile accident ten years later), and his family moved to Oakland, California when he was seven."
That's a lot jammed into one sentence (about 10 years), and it isn't really clear. Did he leave and stay in contact? Did he abandon his family? Also, 'subsequently' seems out of place. I would just pull the part about his father dying into a standalone sentence - fitting it chronologically into the paragraph around when Rickey was 12.
"As a kid"
"child" is more encyclopedic
"acquired the ability"
From the sound of the following sentences, perhaps 'developed' would be better?

Oakland Athletics

"In 1982, Henderson broke Lou Brock's modern major league record by stealing 130 bases, a total which has not been approached since."
Suggest adding 'single season' or some other clarifying statement.
His 100 steals set a new American League record,
After the first mention of 'American League', add the abbreviation (AL)

Coaching

..."and to teach basestealing"...
The section uses basestealing and base stealing - should probably stick to one.

Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes

The name for this section is a little strange. Possibly, simplify it to 'Personality' or something along those lines. It seems like a section where all the quirks and stories that couldn't be worked in somewhere else are added, and edges close to being a trivia section.

That's a start, I hope this was helpful. I enjoyed the article. Canada Hky (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I fixed the issues, though I don't have the source on the father so I'll have to do some more research to add in any specifics. The anecdotes section I changed the name on; I do feel it's relevant, but I probably need to give more examples from earlier on, right now it just seems rather thrown in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would take the picture of Henderson sliding into third wearing a Yankees uniform out of the A's section. I am assuming that there are no pics of him in an A's uniform available. Dincher (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded File:Rickey Henderson and Eddie Murray, 1983.jpg picture of Henderson from flickr. Dincher (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Replaced, thanks for finding that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! Dincher (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article on an important piece of medieval Irish literature, which I started about a month ago. I've listed it for peer review because I'd like any opinions on what more needs to be done to bring it to FA.

Thanks, Grimhelm (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we don't do "support" or "oppose" here; this is Peer Review, in which articles are subject to positive critical comments from editors, as a stage in the journey towards GA or FA. Perhaps you would care to review the whole article in this way? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops!, my mistake, seems dumb, but I thought the nominator had gone to FAC. I reviewed it at GAN and found no unrectified faults there. 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article and one that I enjoyed reading. My main concern is that it relies so heavily on three sources, particularly Chadwick. It may be that no other reliable sources exist, but I have doubts. Why only three sources? Why no scholarly articles published in journals? Have no serious disagreements about interpretation of the tale arisen among scholars?

Sources and composition

"The scene of the story, and its familiarity with the area of modern County Kildare," - Since the story can't be familiar with geography (though the author can), perhaps "The scene of the story, and details about the area of modern County Kildare,"
"though it appears that the south-west of Ireland was also not unknown to the author" - Maybe "was also known to the author" rather than the double negative?

Plot

"an animal which had been nourished by 60 milch cows for seven years and which had 40 oxen spread across it for its enormous size" - I'm not sure how to interpret "had 40 oxen spread across it for its enormous size"? Does this mean that the pig was as wide as 40 oxen side-by-side? Or as long as 40 oxen end-to-end? Or is this a volume comparison? Would something like "and which was as big as 40 oxen" be more clear?
"The pig immediately attracts the attention of the Ulaid and Connachta, who must decide over how it is to be divided up" - Tighten to "The pig attracts the attention of the Ulaid and Connachta, who must decide how to divide it"?
"It is agreed that the warriors shall challenge each other to boast their past exploits in battle." - How about "The warriors agree to a boasting contest about their past exploits in battle"?
"Cet answered 'One moment Cet, that I may speak with you'. - Should that be "One moment Lóegure... "?

Dindsenchas

Since this section is so short, I'd either merge it with the "Plot" section or expand it by including other examples of dindsenchas and more fully explain where in Ireland this valley lies (the southeast), and where the river empties into the sea. A short explanation of the term, dindsenchas, would also be helpful. Readers will need to know what it means, and, although the link is fine, they shouldn't have to navigate elsewhere for this essential bit of information.

Narrative style

This subsection depends solely on a single source, apparently. It would be stronger if you could find other sources who either agree or disagree with Chadwick on at least some points and who discuss the style from different points of view. Is Chadwick the only critic who has published anything about the narrative style of this tale?
"In spite of the literary finish of the surviving written versions... " - Tighten by using "Despite" instead of "in spite of"?

Theme and antiquity

This subsection relies heavily on Chadwick and summarizes her interpretation; is hers the only reliable interpretation per WP:RS?
"yet never once mentions Cúchulainn" - I think this is the first mention of Cúchulainn in the article. If so, it should probably be linked. Also, has any critic suggested any reason other than the timeline that Cúchulainn might have been omitted?

Associated traditions

"Clearly the tradition predates our oldest surviving copy, that of the Book of Leinster." - If it's clear, there's no need to say "clearly". Also, the Manual of Style advises against using the first-person "our" except in direct quotes because it appears to be self-referential (Wikipedia as "we"). These two errors may stem from mirroring Chadwick's language too closely.
"The explanation in prose and verse of "the plain of Léna" is as imaginative as could be expected from medieval etymologies" - This covers so much ground, it's almost certainly one critic's opinion; the sentence is sourced to Thurneysen, but the citation might only cover the second half of the sentence, "in reality, mag léna simply means "plain of meadows". In any case, a claim like this seems too sweeping for an encyclopedia unless it's more directly attributed to someone. Something like "In Turneysen's opinion, the explanation in prose and verse is as imaginative as could be expected from medieval etymologies" would make it more clear that Wikipedia is not presenting Thurneysen's interpretation as indisputable fact.

I hope these comments 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) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch, Dorset

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a considerable amount of work has been done to the article since it was awarded its current status. I welcome any feedback or ideas for improving the article. I have more information to add but I am wary of putting too much in. Is that possible? Thanks, --Ykraps (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot review the article as I have been involved in feedback to it, here and here. In my opinion, this article as it is now has made considerable progress, since I first saw it, which deserves rewarding --Senra (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thank you for your work on this article - sounds like a very interesting place. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • One of the biggest issues with the article as it currently exists is a lack of references. For example the whole Notable Residents section has no refs, and much of the Town Centre and Outskirts sections lack refs, as do many other places in the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Many of the refs lack needed information - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interrupt its flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible. There are also some very short sections that could be combined with others - Ethnicity is one sentence and could part of another Demographics section.
  • The disambiguation links finder (in the toolbox in the upper right corner here) finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
  • Article needs to follow WP:HEAD better - for example capitalization
  • Watch images - for example WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between images, but the first two images in Industrial history form a sandwich on my monitor, as do two images in Town centre.
  • There are also several places without images, so perhaps some of the images from the gallery could be moved to these - for example the Town Hall image could be in the Governance section.
  • I would also avoid having two images of the same thing in the article - the image of the castle in the article is striking, so why is another one needed in the gallery?
  • You could use the "pipe trick" on links like There was a Saxon mint (coin) in "Twynam" until just before the Norman Conquest. so type [[mint (coin)|]] and this will show up as mint in the article.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on cities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places which may be useful models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I have already made a start and will get around to the rest soon. Do I need to copy and paste this elsewhere or will your suggestions remain here? I have already reviewed one article here (Jeffrey Street) but will get around to doing another later. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I received your feedback a couple of days ago but forgot to acknowledge it, sorry.

Barefoot

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been trying to get this article up to WP:GA or WP:FA standards, and have recently given it a significant overhaul, adding numerous citations (both books and media publications). A recent GA review by a fairly inexperienced editor produced several interesting areas to add that I seemingly overlooked, such as barefoot dancing and asian/pacific islands cultural info. While I think some info on the "sexualization of the barefoot" or foot fetishes could be included, there's already an article on foot fetish, and for the most part, people simply don't go barefoot for sexual desires. One suggestion was to add info on "barefoot torture" or the "torture of the bare foot", which I really have no idea how that incorporates into the article. Google searches for those terms reveal nothing more than BDSM, bondage, and sex sites, which are pretty much useless for improving the article. So if anyone has any ideas on how to make this article better, I'd appreciate it! Thanks, WTF? (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm happy to see you are seeking other opinions on your work... (discussion about GAN process transferred to article talk page)

OK, I'll have a go. Please don't respond immediately to my comments, in case I have second thoughts about some. Now I'll quickly read the article to get my bearings, then I'll start real work. --Philcha (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally use a standard procedure:
  • Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
  • Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
  • (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
  • Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
  • Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in tha main text.
A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service. --Philcha (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

I think that we're looking at the wrong article, and that Footwear should be the focus:

Somalia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Basically, I think this article has some strong points but suffers a real focus problem, particularly for a country article. Some of "the regulars" on this page disagree, they dispute that there is any problem with it. I think I have given some pretty concrete ways I think the article could improve on the talk page, but have encountered resistance on every point. I'd just like some outside opinions on the matter. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This my my opinion the Somalia article is very well written article focusing all important and interesting facts of Somalia and that why there is no problem with it. There no need to change because its a quality article. Wikiplayer13 (talk)
  • Is this a request to look at the article beyond the points raised on the talk page about corruption in Somalia? If so, I have some long-standing concerns about the space devoted to the history of the country being out of proportion -- especially the more recent history. (Based on the precept that it is harder to write on a topic succinctly, than at length.) I'm willing to discuss how to tighten up those sections. Otherwise, I'm not about to venture an opinion on a topic I know very little about & don't have the time to inform myself well enough to discuss intelligently. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, this is a review on the article in general. I'm sure any input you provide will be great. TastyCakes (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Although I have no special knowledge of Somalia, I can suggest several ways to improve the article.

  • At 132 kilobytes, the article is probably too long for comfort. No rule says it can't be that long, but reader fatigue becomes a significant factor at or about 100 kb. If the History re-write recommended by User:Llywrch made that part of the article more succinct, that would be good.
  • The Manual of Style advises against creating text sandwiches between two images. against displacing heads, subheads, or edit buttons with images, and against placing images in such a way that they overlap two or more sections. I see examples of all three of these layout problems in the article. One possible solution is to move the images to different positions or, if that is not possible, to remove some of them to give the text some breathing room.
  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. Ideally it should mention each of the main text sections in some way, and it should include nothing important that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead mentions important geographic details, for example, that don't appear in the Geography section. The existing lead says nothing about climate, health, the military, culture, and many of the other sections. It is not a summary. WP:LEAD has details.
  • Although the article includes many citations, significant parts of the article lack sources. For example, the "Geography and climate" section lists only one source, which seems to cover the climate chart and the temperature paragraph. What reliable sources support the claims in the other paragraphs? A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph.
  • All of the metric measures, such as 637,540 square kilometers in the first sentence of the "Geography and climate" section should also be given in imperial units; i.e., 637,540 square kilometres (246,160 sq mi). I like using the {{convert}} template for these, but you can also do them by hand.
  • WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests rendering lists as straight prose when feasible. Most of the lists in this article would work fine as prose. The "Law" section is particularly list-y, and the list of four hospitals in the Health section would be better as a single sentence.
  • The Manual of Style suggests merging or expanding extremely short sections or subsections. I would consider combining some of the short subsections in "Culture", for example. Music and literature could become one instead of two.
  • I would not include anything in the "See also" section that is already linked in the main text. In fact, I would consider reducing the "See also" section to a single link: Index of Somalia-related articles.
  • The Reference section contains many refs that are incomplete or malformed. For example, citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found.
  • I see a lot of overlinking. Common English words like "commerce", "merchant", "spice", "building", and "general" should not be linked. The important links lose value when so many words are linked.

These are just a few suggestions, not a complete line-by-line review by any means. Even so, I hope they are helpful. If you find them so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one in the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Matty Johns Show

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a new pair of eyes to look over this article, on which I and others have done extensive work. Please comment on the use of references, the use of images, whether we need another screenshot, and whether there is any substance missing from the article that should be there.

Thanks, Richard Cavell (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak comments

Ok, I've had a read through the article, which was interesting and on a topic I know nothing about! I'll make comments section-by-section.

Infobox

  • I would not link English language per WP:OVERLINK. The film infobox instructions specifies that you shouldn't link the English language. I just checked the TV infobox. They don't say you shouldn't, only that you should link to English language rather than to English. On balance, without a good reason to link it, I would leave it unlinked. Readers will not need to click through to that article.

Lead

  • Ok. References. Too many. I have a feeling you are aware of this but yeah, definitely too many. You don't really need references in the lead at all, unless there is anything particularly controversial or likely to be challenged. Per WP:LEAD, everything in the lead will be mentioned again or expanded on later on, with necessary references. (Infobox also shouldn't need references that are repeated later on). Don't take this as gospel, because some editors like to use refs in the lead, but I (and other editors) like to keep them to a minimum in the lead, to make it easier to read. Bear in mind that the casual Wikipedia reader will likely not make it past the table of contents and will not really care about references. They may however be put off by seeing 11 citations in the first sentence, four of which are repeated, for a straightforward, uncontroversial statement that is presumably easily verifiable (ie. that it is Australian, it is about rugby league etc.)
  • Following on from refs in the lead, you really do not need seven citations in a row like that. Multiple references in one place are only necessary if they are backing up something that is seriously controversial, something that really needs to be cited to multiple sources. For simple statements and facts, if your source is reliable, then one is enough. The fact that you've used several different sources is good, but pick one for one fact, one for another, don't layer them all together. By the way, this advice is coming from someone with a tendency to overcite, so I can understand the compulsion to make sure that everything is verifiable, by adding as many sources as possible! Just try to step back and look at it as a reader. Does it look nice and easy to read with all those little numbers?
  • Now, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a nice summary of the article. It's not an introduction, as such, although the beginning of the lead acts as one. It needs to cover the main points of the article. The other sections are not really summarised by the lead.
  • Equally, the lead should not introduce new material that is not covered/expanded on later on. At the moment, there's a lot of info in the lead not mentioned later on.
  • A structural / MoS point to bear in mind is that the lead should be no more than four paragraphs. This doesn't mean that your lead should be shorter than it is, but the paragraphs you have are quite short and "choppy". They could be combined into larger ones. I'd not worry about that until you have sorted the other lead issues though.
  • Be careful of overlinking. Only link to other articles for words that need further explanation not appropriate in the article, or for articles that will help the reader to understand the context of this article. Try and put yourself in the reader's shoes and think, if I was reading this, would I want to click through to that article? An example is television show. I think your readers will know what one is, and I doubt that many would be interested in clicking through.
  • What exactly do you mean by family friendly? Is it aimed at the whole family? Or
  • In the first sentence, you have "...based on the NRL rugby league competition." - as a casual reader (not a fan of the show) I have no idea what the NRL is. From the words that follow, I gather that it's to do with rugby league, but I think it'd be better to spell the word out. Then, you would need to lose the following "rugby league" to avoid repetition. It would be like this: Australian television show based on the National Rugby League competition.
  • "...but is also broadcast in other states." - is it broadcast in all Australian states? If so, you could say that ("nationwide" or something). If not, it would be helpful to name which states it is broadcast in, although this need not be so detailed in the lead, you could cover it further down.
  • "Chloe Maxwell also appears as a presenter." - I can't quite put my finger on it, but this sentence sounds a little awkward to me. Maybe it's the appears. It's not clear to me whether she's presenting the show every week, or just sometimes, and what part she plays in the show.
  • I think it would be helpful to spell out Australian Football League as well; not all of your readers will know what that means.
  • "ratings juggernaut" - sounds a little informal, not quite encyclopedic in tone
  • It might be worth, further down in the article, explaining a bit more about how the show is family-friendly and how that contrasts with other similar shows. Are sports shows in Australia generally known for not being family friendly?
  • "It has been suggested that the earlier timeslot ..." - try to avoid unattributed comments like this. Who has suggested?
  • "The house band is ASTON, a group of six early-twenties music student..." - something doesn't sound quite right, I don't think "early-twenties" should be used as an adjective
  • "Their debut album will be published by Warner Music in 2010" - is there a more specific date available for this? It already is 2010. it might make readers think it's out of date or that it hasn't been updated.

History

  • Ok, so bearing in mind my earlier comments about the lead section, this first "proper" section of the article should start at the beginning, not follow on logically from the lead. Introduce Johns with his first name as well as surname and don't assume that we already know what you're talking about.
  • "Johns featured on The Footy Show..." - what exactly do you mean by "featured on"? Was he a regular? Did he present? Was he a guest once? It might be better to explain here what The Footy Show is, too.
  • "...before being sacked over a 2002 NRL group sex scandal." - this is amply sourced (of course!) but I'm still left thinking, "WTF?" It needs a slight explanation. Don't go into too much detail, presumably readers can click on his article to get the full story, but it's a bit vague as to his part in the scandal or why he was sacked exactly. Also, can you think of a non-colloquial way to say "sacked"? Also, "poached" may be a little informal.
  • Might be helpful to say which network sacked him (when you mention the incident, not further down when you're comparing the viewer numbers of the two shows.)
  • For this section, is there any information available about the development of the show? Who created it or was involved in making it?
  • "TV screens" should probably be "television screens"
  • program or programme? You have both, this should be consistent through the article.

Segments

  • This section is a little disjointed, it could do with a bit more explanatory prose about the structure of the show, instead of just listing the segments. You also need some more citations, otherwise details about the segments looks like original research.
  • "a segment in which Matty and Shane" - call them by their surnames
  • "They are usually joined by guests." - what kind of guests? Rugby league players? Other sportspeople? Celebrities? Pundits?
  • "The segment is a continuation of a segment originated..." - try to avoid that repetition of "segment"
  • "It is similar to Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" - is that sourced somewhere or just your observation? If so (no matter how true) it's original research.
  • "Jason Stevens sometimes interviews touring celebrities." - who's Jason Stevens? (I'd rather know without clicking through to his article. this sentence is floating a bit on its own.

Characters

  • Try not to have such shot paragraphs, made up of one or two sentences.
  • "...in a style that has drawn comparisons with comic Paul Hogan" - shouldn't this be "comparisons to"?
  • "Don Kirk is an obvious parody of Australian gardening expert Don Burke." - I presume this fact is sourced, "obvious" is unnecessary
  • Who's Alby Mangels?
  • This section could do with citations towards the end

General

  • I don't think you need any more screenshots. There might even be an issue with using the one you have as it appears to be mainly decorative. It might not be a problem at GA, but at WP:FAC, this will cause a problem. Non-free images used in articles tend to be supported by some kind of critical commentary in the text. You might be better using free images of the hosts.
  • You have links to two disambiguation pages: The Footy Show and The Sunday Mail
  • Is there any information on how the show has been received?
  • Have a look at Category:FA-Class television articles and Category:GA-Class television articles to compare to other TV show articles. I couldn't find a good equivalent as most of those are for fiction tv shows, but you can get a general idea.

Hope these suggestions help. There are quite a lot, but hopefully it'll give you something to work with. I probably won't notice if you comment here, so if you want to ask me anything or want me to comment further, please let me know at my talkpage, good luck with further developing the article.--BelovedFreak 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A second look from Belovedfreak

Reception

  • Ok, starting with this new section you added; it looks good. As well as stating that "Initial reviews of the show were positive", I would summarise a few of the reviews, saying "Reviewer X praised the show and said that it ..., while Reviewer Y of A Newspaper said that ... Review Z of Another Newspaper was less impressed and thought that the show was "the biggest mistake of Johns' career"" (ok, I'm sure that's not true, but you get the picture!) Also, as well as reviews for the initial programme, try and get some as the series progressed, if available. Look at the reception section for Glee (TV series). It's not directly comparable because it's a different kind of show, but it's one that's recent. Of course, Glee is huge, and I don't expect there to be anywhere near as much coverage for this show, but it gives you an idea of what to aim for. Looking at this review [14], it might be worth mentioning the fan response to the show mentioned in the review. I wouldn't state it as fact though, say that an AAP reporter said so. Also in this section, where you have the sentence beginning "It has been suggested that the earlier timeslot gives..." it's better to attribute that to someone; say who suggested it.

History

  • It's nice to see some background of Johns. I have an idea of who he is now, without having to click on his article straight away. I am a little worried though that you may have said a little too much. Given that this article is quite short overall (understandably given the age of the show), we have to be careful not to place undue weight on any one aspect, and I think it may be a little skewed towards Johns now.
    • I suggest saying that he was a successful professional (?) rugby league player, but not necessarily mentioning his teams as that doesn't directly impact on the show (I presume).
    • I would cut the second paragraph to something like: After his retirement in 2002, he became a regular performer on The NRL Footy Show before being sacked by the Nine Network in 2009 over a sex scandal.
  • I'm still not hugely keen on saying that the seven network "poached" him. As well as informal/colloquial, it's not technically true if he'd already been sacked, is it? Perhaps say that they approached him with the idea of developing a new show?
  • Minor point, but I'd consider moving the citation for the quote to the end of the quote rather than before it
  • "Johns returned to Australia's television screens..." - although this makes sense, it's kind of about him rather than the show, and as a reader, there's a tiny doubt in my mind as to whether this return is on the aforementioned show, or something else in the mean time. I would say something like The first episode of The Matty Johns Show aired on 25 March...

Format

  • "In other states (in which the Australian Football League predominates)..." - this is an improvement, but I don't know anything about the AFL, or in which states it predominates, so could you name them? I'm still not even sure if you're talking about all of the other states or not. (If so, just say that rather than naming them all, perhaps. Even just: In the other Australian states...)

General

  • Big improvement on the overciting — well done. There are still a couple of places where you may not need as many. For example, six citations after the sex scandal. I realise that there's a potential WP:BLP concern, but I gather that the scandal was widely reported and easily verifiable. I think one citation to a reliable source would suffice. (Unless you're using one for him being popular on the show, and one more for him being sacked following the scandal.) Another example would be two citations supporting "However, it has recorded one episode in South Bank Parklands, Brisbane." - that's a fairly innocuous sentence. Look at each place that you have more than one and just check that it is necessary to have more.
  • I haven't looked in detail at the 'segments" and "characters" sections. I think perhaps they could be combined into one, I don't know. Also, make sure that each segment or character is cited to a secondary source. If they can't be, then don't include them.
  • Some of your paragraphs are very short. When you've finished cutting bits or moving them around, try to combine some of them so that you don't have so many that go over just 1, 2 or 3 lines.
  • At some point, the lead will need a little bit of expansion to make sure it's summarising the main points.
  • In your references section, only print sources (books, newspapers, magazines) should be in italics. Sources that are online-only websites should not be.

Good work though, it's come a long way.--BelovedFreak 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would eventually like it for GA nomination and i would like to know what to improve upon or if there are any outstanding issues with the article :)

Thanks, (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 06:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This article seems fairly comprehensive - thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I htink there are some places where the article could provide more context to the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, Pebe is not a common name and I was unclear at first if Pebe was her mother or father, so the second sentence could be something like "Pebe, a single mother, ..."
  • Is anything known about Kesha's father?
  • Language is decnt but there are places that need polish - for example Pebe would often look after then infant Kesha onstage while performing.[11] could be something like While Kesha was still an infant, Pebe would often look after her while performing onstage. (not great but you get the idea). One way to do this is to not read the article for a few days, then print it out and read it out loud slowly.
  • Another sentence which is a bit awkward is She had wanted Prince to produce her music, so she located and trespassed into his home.
  • More context could be provided at the first sentence of the Career beginnings: 2005–08 section. What year was this? Or what year was she in the video with Katy Perry?
  • I am not really sure I understand this sentence Second single, "Blah Blah Blah" debuted in the top ten in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand before being announced as the next single due to strong digital sales following the release of the album.[34] I think it means something like Her song "Blah Blah Blah" debuted in the top ten in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand before it was officially announced as the second single... but I am not really sure what ... due to strong digital sales following the release of the album.[34] has to do with it - the album has lots of songs, why this one?
  • If this goes for FA, the references should be in numberical order. Probably not a problem for GAN.
  • There is a nice image of her in concert in the Kesha discography article that could be used here.
  • Otherwise this looks pretty good - I would copy edit it or get someone else to before GAN though. I have pointed out a few rough spots, but I am sure there are more.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more
  • The sentence on trespassing in Prince's home is still awkward.
  • I would add the year she signed with DAS - this ref from the article says it was in 2006
  • Try to avoid passive voice - Kesha was then suggested for the part by Luke. could be Luke then suggested Kesha for the part.
  • Many articles on performers have a personal life section - not sure if there is anything like that to add here (for example, who is she dating?)

I copyedited some minor things, hope this helps. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am helping another article improving it. In general, this is a good article and it looks like a upcoming GA, so I need some ideas of what can be what can be removed or added, if it has typos and that kind of things. Thanks, TbhotchTalk C. 05:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Esprit15d

[edit]

The article is extremely thorough and well-referenced. Kudos for that!

Lead

  • Professionally, Beyoncé goes by Beyoncé, so I think we should refer to her as such in this article (instead of Knowles). It would be like referring to Usher as Raymond.
  • "Lyrically, the song describe a relationship" -- should be "describes"
  • ""Sweet Dreams" gained popularity for its electro-pop sound, which is in contrast to her earlier R&B, urban, and funk-tinged releases." -- this sentence makes it sound like it had more success than her earlier stuff, which is not true. Also, its worded poorly grammatically.
  • "The single topped the chart of New Zealand." -- which chart?
  • " in Australia, Czech Republic" -- " in Australia, the Czech Republic"

Background

  • "The song was one of the first composed for I Am… Sasha Fierce,[2] and leaked in March 2008, many months before the release of the album, under the title "Beautiful Nightmare".[3] It is the first song Knowles has ever had that leaked before its official release on the album. It appeared on the internet the day after the song was recorded.[4]" -- very wordily written. Better: "Sweet Dreams" (one of the first songs composed for I Am...Sasha Fierce) was leaked in March 2008--the day after it was recorded and eight months prior to the album's release. It was the first time a Beyoncé single had been leaked.
  • "Knowles took to her official website to comment: "Yesterday, 'Beautiful Nightmare' a demo I’ve been working on for possible inclusion on my next album, leaked on some websites. I want to thank all my fans for the positive response to the song, but I want to tell you that this is just a work in progress".[3]" too much information. Simply say: Beyoncé responded to the leak on her official website, saying, "I want to thank all my fans for the positive response to the song, but I want to tell you that this is just a work in progress."
  • "Rico Love said to MTV News" -- clarify (in parenthesis) who Rico Love is.
  • Love'a quote is entirely too long. It borders on copyright violation, and much of it is not relevant to the article. I would only include "I was more concerned that she would feel that we did it. A lot of times producers or songwriters leak records because they feel if you put the song out there it would go."
  • "With the release of the album, the song's structure was altered, with the phrase "turn the lights on" repeated throughout the chorus, and a third refrain added after the climax, and the name was changed to its current title "Sweet Dreams".[2]" -- should be moved to the composition section. Also, it should read, "By the album's release, the song's structure had been altered: the phrase "turn the lights on" had been repeated throughout the chorus, a third refrain had been added after the climax, and the name had been changed to its current title, "Sweet Dreams".[2]"
  • "This is the third such-titled song to reach the Top 10 of the Hot 100, following hits by Air Supply in 1982 and Eurythmics in 1983.[7] An unofficial remix featuring Lil Wayne and Nicki Minaj leaked on some websites on March 9, 2010, and was included on Wayne's mixtape No Ceilings.[8][9]"-- should be moved to the end of the chart performance section
  • Start a new paragraph at ""Broken-Hearted Girl" was initially earmarked..."

Critical reception

  • The critical reception section does not read well, which is not surprising, since paragraphs with a lot of quotes are very difficult to make fluid. However here are some general suggestions to make it better: (1) someone should read it out loud and then modify any odd phrasing, redundant phrases or anything that doesn't sound fluid or grammatically sound; (2) shorten the reviews to only the most pertinent phrases that really sum up how the reviewer felt; sometimes only four or five (or less) from a quote is sufficient; (3) read the Critical reception section the Gwen Stefani song "Rich Girl". It is excellent and will give you an idea on how one should read.

Best wishes!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thsnk you for review it. TbhotchTalk C. 06:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]