Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2012

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.

Ian Fleming

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get up to FA status, but I think it still needs a bit of work before it gets there. If anyone could help point the way it would be much appreciated.

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have only had time to look at the first few sections. It's a pretty engrossing article, but I think it needs a thorough copyedit if it is to meet FAC prose standards. I have made a few small alterations, and you will find further prose issues mentioned in the list of comments below:_

  • Reconsider your use of display quote boxes. One or two might be OK, but repeated use tends to break up the text unnecessarily. Some of the content, e.g. the "Enigma" memo, should be within the main text. Insofar as boxes are used, they would be better embedded in the text, as with images
    • I've whittled them down to three—and two of those are now embedded. Funnily enough, the Enigma one is the one I'd struggle putting into the main text because of its formatting. I'd prefer to leave it as it is, but if you can suggest a better way of keeping the formatting within the article text, I'd happily follow it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar vein, what is the point of the separated Paul Johnson quote? The same words appear in the text.
    • They marked a turning point away from the broadly luke-warm reviews he had received up to that point, into something far more nasty: the pull-out quote just highlights that. Either way, I've removed it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to know why Valentine Fleming's name appears on the Glenelg War Memorial. No connection is apparent. Which of the many Glenelgs is this?
  • The first paragraph of the "Birth and family" section is organised oddly, with the information about Fleming's banker grandfather tacked on to the end after you have dealt with his parents. It also might be worth explaining, in the second paragraph, that Evelyn Fleming became Augustus John's mistress after her husband's death; the present wording rather implies they had a one-night stand.
  • "The school was near to the estate of the Bond family..." I question the wording "the Bond family", which implies the one and only. I suggest something like "a family surnamed Bond"
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns, e.g. "His mother sent him...". On this issue, when did she "send" him? Wasn't he rather old to be sent places by his mother? I'd also like to know what the purpose was in sending him to this Austrian school.
  • Was it purely coincidence that in quick succession Fleming encountered Phyllis Bottome and Monique Panchaud de Bottomes
  • Again I'm surprised to find a 24-year-old man breaking off his engagement on the insistence of his mother.
    • So was I, but the major sources all agree that this is what happened. cf. Macintyre: F was "...engaged, briefly, to a young Swiss woman named MPdB, until his mother intervened." - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of meandering sentence needs serious attention: "He applied for entry to the Foreign Office, but failed the examinations and his mother intervened in his affairs to lobby Sir Roderick Jones, head of Reuters News Agency, and in October 1931 he was eventually given a position as a sub-editor and journalist for the Reuters news service."
  • "Whilst" tends not to be used these days: "While" is much preferred.
    • Nothing wrong with "whilst" per se (as the word still appears with great regularity in the British media), but I've changed them anyway.
  • Who were Cull & Co.?
  • "On 24 May 1939 Fleming had lunch with Rear Admiral John Godfrey, Director of Naval Intelligence of the Royal Navy, at the Grill of the Carlton Hotel on Haymarket..." Unnecessary detail. We only need to know that he was recruited by Godfrey.
  • Why "lieutenant" (no capital) but "Commander" (with capital)
  • Very short sections, e.g. "Operation Golden Eye" should be avoided.
  • Repetitions, such as in "In 1942 Fleming formed a specialist unit of commandos, known as No. 30 Commando, or 30 Assault Unit (30AU), a group of specialist intelligence commandos" should be avoided
  • Explain the term "trout memo" - don't force readers to use links

I hope to be back soon again with more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for doing this—I'll address all your points mostly with edits on the page, but occassionally with a comment here, by way of justification. I've done the straightforward ones, but I'll work on the others shortly too. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments to the beginning of "Writing career":-

  • Re the "Enigma" plot, it is far from clear how the plan as specified in the blue box would obtain details of the Enigma codes used by the German Navy. Rather than using this somewhat ill-written and muddled verbatim text, wouldn't it be better to paraphrase and make the plan clearer? Note also that we don't usually employ wikilinks in quotes – and some of these links, e.g. "German Air Force" look unnecessary anyway.
  • Convoluted: "Fleming's niece, Lucy Fleming, stated that the reason given was that..."
  • "Again Fleming liaised with Donovan over American involvement in ensuring the Germans did not dominate the seaways." I don't see the point of "Again", and the sentence needs to be slightly recast to avoid the impression that German domination of the seaways was thwarted merely by Fleming's liaison with Donovan.
  • "Prior to the Normandy landings, most of the operations were in the Mediterranean". Clarify "the operations" (presumably those of 30AU)
  • Why does the next sentence begin "However", which normally implies that a degree of contradiction is to follow? In the same sentence, naming the Marine Hotel is unnecesary overdetailing
  • Avoid close repetition of "located"
  • It might be worth indicating why Fleming was replaced. Was he sacked? If so, why? Was it coincidence that he was replaced on D-Day?
  • The section headed "1945–53" is a puzzle. The first paragraph disturbs the chronology of the article by suddenly revealing Fleming's book-collecting - what is the relevance of this information at this point? Surely, it belongs somewhere later in the article. Then, the second paragraph begins "In 1942..." which is again confusing. You need either to reposition some material or perhaps reconsider the section title. Personally, I think the most important thing is to keep the chronology going.
  • What did Fleming do between 6 June 1944 and his demob date in May 1945?
  • The two paragraphs beginning "Fleming married Anne Charteris..." need a complete redraft. At the moment it's difficult to follow the sequence of events. Why start this part of the story with the 1952 marriage, which actually is the last in a sequence of events dating back to the affair with Fleming in the 1930s. And we need to know how she finally came to marry Fleming. Was she divorced from Rothermere, did he die or what?
    • The "1945–53" section was originally titled "Personal life and death". It came after the "Writing" section and included the "Death" part of what is now the "Death and legacy" section. (It looked like this at the time) before the current structure was created as part of the GA process. It's a bit of an awkward one as parts of it don't sit nicely within the chronology (thus the statement about the marriage, followed by the "backstory") and the book collecting. If it sits purely chronologically, we'd have to write about the Fleming-Charteris affair that started in the 1930s, which takes it outside the 1945-3 timeframe. Would re-titling the section again make sense? (Something like "Personal life", or similar?) If not, then would moving the book collection para down to the legacy section work? I've never been too happy with that section either, as there is too much that spills out from the confines of the section title and it's all a bit scrappy! As to the Charteris / Rothermere marriage – it's already in the last para: he divorced her because of her affair with Fleming. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these. I'll address them all over the next 24 hours or so. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments

Writing career
Death and legacy
  • I would have expected some minimal detail of the circumstances of Fleming's final heart attack. Where was he, etc - details must be in his biographies
  • The deaths of Caspar and Anne Fleming should be noted at the end of the section, as incidental information. The present positioning is inappropriate.
  • "During his lifetime, Fleming sold thirty million books and double that amount in the two years following his death." Needs attention, along the lines: "During his lifetime Fleming sold thirty million books; double that number were sold in the two years following his death".
  • The information about Saltzman and Broccoli's production of Dr No doesn't belong in "Death and legacy" and has already been given in the previous section.
  • You should delete all the guff about who played Bond in the various films, and the many millions these films made for Eon Productions, in the decades after Fleming's death. This article is about Fleming; it is not a history of the Bond films.
    • I've removed the actor names and reduced it all dramatically. However, I've left in the overall series income and the fact that there have been 24 films to date. This section is about Fleming's legacy and the Eon series is part of that legacy. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2011, Fleming became the first English-language writer to have an international airport named in their honour." You need to recast this sentence, to avoid the clash of "Fleming" and "their".
References

The bibliography is long and impressive, but you need to list separately (as "further reading") those books that are not cited in the article.

Overall: It's an interesting subject, but at present I think the article has been put together rather loosely. There is a lot of material of no direct relevance that needs to be removed. Some of the prose falls short of the best standard. A full copyedit from a previously uninvolved editor would be helpful, if one can be found (regrettably I am unable to volunteer. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for this—your efforts are very much appreciated and I'll address all your points presently. Can you think how I might address what is currently called the "1945–53" section? It's the bit that I am least happy with (I always have been) as it feels like it's just a dumping ground for "other stuff" at the moment. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivium (band)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this this article good. It would boost my mainspace activity greatly.

Thanks, MrLittleIrish (talk) 申 09:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a few quick things.

  • Okay, WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this size should probably have at least two, if not three paragraphs which summarise the whole article.
  • " in February of 2012" no need for "of".
  • You link the discog but only by albums. I would suggest a reword, like "The band's discography consists of...."
  • 2 dab links, Machine Head and Cronos, need to be fixed.
  • Check your dashes. For year ranges, WP:DASH normally suggests an unspaced en-dash, not em-dash.
  • "The pair went over to drummer" -> "The pair went to drummer .."
  • "they accepted him into the band known as Trivium" which they called Trivium.
  • "The band entered a studio to record its debut album" reads a little odd, would say "The band recorded its first studio album" or something. Perhaps you could have a look into WP:LOCE for a really thorough copyedit.
  • Avoid using # to mean "number" per MOS:HASH.
  • "To this day..." see WP:ASOF.
  • Avoid re-using the band members' first names once you've introduced them.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Awake)

[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 prepare for FA status. --Tate Brandley Stockwell 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tate Brandley Stockwell 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen van Dijk

[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 tried to improve the article a lot. Besides changes in text I made a few choises. I inserted all the results of National, European and World championships in two tables. I removed the results in these championships out of the list of major achievements, and I made criterea for the list of major achievements. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51 comments -- Thank you for work on this article; at present this is a short one. I suggest before you nominate this for WP:GAC, it must be expanded so I recommend you take the time to look for more information.

  • Instead of brackets for her nickname in the WP:LEAD, use quotation marks → Eleonora "Ellen" van Dijk
  • No need to put a citation in the lead, you can remove it.
  • The lead must provide a summary of the whole article. In this case, although the reader knows about her achievements, there is nothing about her early years.
  • For inspiration, take a look at other cycling profile articles, which are related to your topic. I would recommend Alberto Contador , Erik Gjems-Onstad or Ian Browne (cyclist).
  • Is there nothing you can find about van Dijk's reason for taking up cycling? Nor about her family? Is she married, or single?
  • Put 'Study' in a separate section, it does not need to be merged with her career.
  • Several references need an accessdate (the date you obtained the ref and put it onto the article).
  • There are two dablinks. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Need You (LeAnn Rimes 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 would like to get some input on how to make this article better. Please post any comments you can to help.

Thanks, Swifty*talk 00:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead says she's a " country pop artist" but the infobox says it's a "Christian" genre release. Needs resolving.
  • "it was released" is repeated three times in the first para of the lead. Boring.
  • "twenty-five weeks" -> 25 weeks.
  • Background para opening sentence is copy-and-paste of the lead. Boring.
  • In fact, the whole lead opening para is copied verbatim into the Background section. Not the best way ahead.
  • "LeAnn Rimes donated her ..." no need to repeat her first name.
  • "therapeutic rehabilitation wing - the " en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • " this song wasn’t available" avoid contractions.
  • Video section could use a copyedit and a few links.
  • Track listing section also needs WP:DASH treatment.
  • As does "Charts (2000-2001)".
  • Several entries in the Chart positions section are unreferenced.
  • DON'T SHOUT in the ref titles.
  • For non-English refs, use the {{lang}} template.
  • Make sure all suitable online links have access dates.
  • Make sure refs meet WP:DASH and have all available info like publisher, access date, publication date, author name etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Thomas

[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 the article to GA status.

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments quick ones from the lead...

  • Can't use that image, it doesn't have a fair use rationale for inclusion in this page.
  • "born: August 28" no need for colon.
  • Check date, year ranges etc use an en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • "an Grenadian American" do you mean "a Grenadian-American"?
  • "She is mostly known for her appearance " mostly? prove it.
  • At this point it's clear to me you need a copyedit from WP:LOCE.
  • Four dab links including "spin off", "plus size" x2 and "cosmetic".
  • "pop off" or "pop-off"?
  • "After years season two aired"... ouch. Really need a proper copyedit.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The One with All the Thanksgivings

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this to WP:FAC in the near future. Much of its work has been done in the last month or so and having passed WP:GAC, I would like to know what more can be added, if applicable. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Flashbacks"[2])" think I'd move that ref outside the ).
  • To avoid having back-to-back links, suggest you reword "eighth episode of Friends' fifth season" to "eighth episode of the fifth season of Friends"
  • Not convinced you need to link "United States".
  • " got a turkey stuck on his head" not keen on that phrasing.
  • A minor point, all stories are past tense until " Ross brings Chandler home for ..." any reason?
  • "It is the fifth Thanksgiving special in the Friends series." ref?
  • "Doing a flashback meant the ..." again, "doing" is really inelegant writing as far as I'm concerned. Can we rephrase?
  • "The comic tone of "The One with All the Thanksgivings" was bigger than usual," do "tones" become "bigger"?
  • Psycho should be Psycho.
  • Not sure there's a real necessity for small text in the refs.
  • Is Amazon.com the best ref we can find?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosecroft Raceway

[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 needs to be done to bring this article to GA-class. For years, I've been trying to keep this place open; it means a lot to me, my family, several of my friends, and many other people in Maryland. Any comments/help are greatly appreciate!

Thanks,
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Peripitus

Just a few thoughts on this article

  • The lead has the quote "first class in every aspect" that is not referenced and I cannot find it later in the article. This quote also needs to be attributed.
  • A photo of the course with trotting in action would be good, perhaps also a picture of the grandstands and a layout map of the whole site (like this)
  • There is too little, for my taste, in the article on the actual racing that has occurred.
  • There are unnecessary duplicated references - see the change I've made to sentence 2 in "History". If two consecutive sentences use the same reference, it only is needed at the end of the second. excess [x] marks make the article harder to read. (see issue with ref [10] and [12])
  • The track has a grandstand - how large, when built, what is it made of ?
  • Why is it known as the Raceway by the Beltway ? (I had to open another article to find this out)
  • I can see an article in the Mid-Atlantic country: Volume 8; Volume 8 (1986) via google books that there was dining for up to 1,100 people. Seems like a dining facility that large should have mention of its size, construction covered in reliable sources....and so could be covered in the article.
  • I'd like to see coverage of the festivals, fund raisers and flea markets held there (me paraphrasing from the book Fort Washington which I see you've used as a reference). In short I can see that there is more material out there that would help broaden the information in the article.
    • Okay. I'll re-read it and see what I can add.
  • The lead should be longer but I think this will come by summarising after a bit of broader information is added.
  • There is some problematic text in the article. (just picked a couple)
  • "also hoping" is really the same as just hoping.
  • "the financial resources to do so for at least two years" - two years of what ? I know what you mean but it's a bit wordy and unclear.
  • "that it plans" in reference to an event in the past -> "that it planned"

I like the article; it's an interesting subject and well referenced. It does need more information to flesh it out and editing into a more prose-like state. Look out for words that are often unneeded like "also", "located". - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Peripitus, for reviewing this article. I will be using your comments to help better the article!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Redding

[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 see it on the main page.

Thanks, GoPTCN 07:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. --Noleander (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Begin Comments from Noleander
  • These notes are written based on the stated goal that FA status is your primary goal.
  • Step #1: Read the entire article to yourself, OUT LOUD, slowly. Fix any wording that doesn't seem smooth and professional.
  • Add the four sources from the FAC review to a new "Further Reading" section at the bottom of the article:
  1. Geoff Brown. Otis Redding: Try a Little Tenderness. Canongate. 2003. 176pp.
  2. Scott Freeman. Otis! The Otis Redding Story. New York: St. Martin's Press. 2001.
  3. Jane Schiesel. The Otis Redding Story. Doubleday. 1973. 143pp.
  4. Delehant, Jim ( 2004) "The Blues Changes from Day to Day" "Otis Redding Interview" In D. Brackett (Ed.) The Pop, Rock, and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates [Note that an older edition seems to have had a chaper titled "Southern Soul and Otis Redding"] Oxford University Press.
  • Get a copy of the above four source and read them. If they are not useful for the article, leave the sources in "Further Reading"; if they are useful, move them into the Bibliography section.
  • Wording - Watch for WP:PEACOCK wording: "Because of his immense influence on ..." - consider removing "immense"; the rest of the sentence tells the story.
  • Peacock: "...and one of the greatest singers in popular music. " - Consider replacing that entire phrase with statements about industry recognition (Hall of Fame, sales records, recognition from peers, quotes from notables, etc). Specifics are always better than generalities.
  • Grammer: "..small house in Bellevue, but when it burned.." - "but" can only be used if the thing following it is the opposite of the thing before it. Reword this sentence: probably by breaking it into two sentences. Did the house burning contribute to the fact that they moved?
  • Outline:
    • Break-up the section "Stage presence, personal life and wealth"
    • Create a new section "Personal life": in that include the Personal Life and Wealth material
    • Create a new section "Stage presence" or "Style": in that put the "stage presence" and "Another characteristic was his raw voice ..." material out of the "Legacy" section
    • Move the "Legacy" section so it is a top-level section. In that keep the original Legacy material; and add add "Awards and honors" as a subsection within Legacy.
  • Outline: Consider moving the wealth & personal life information into the main chronological portion of the article, rather than separating. Some articles separate; some don't, there is no one right way.
  • Wording: "and was often hospitalized, leaving his mother as the primary financial provider for the family, while Redding worked as a well digger, ..." - rewrite sentence: commas are wrong. Maybe break into 2 sentences.
  • Wording: "He earned a good wage at about $25 per gig," - "good" needs to be replaced; it is either too subjective or too slang. Say "He was well-paid ..." or similar.
  • In above sentence: "gig" will not be known to many readers. Must link it at first occurrence. Also, check with other FA music articles to see if "gig" is too slangy, or should be replaced with a more formal word like "job" or "performance" etc.
  • Ambiguity: "... music contest at the Roxy Theatre, then at the Douglass Theatre." - Reword to clarify: did "The Teenage Party" move from one place to another?
  • Clarify: " wrote his first songs including "She's Allright", "Tuff Enuff", "I'm Gettin' Hip" and "Gamma Lamma", the first later released as a single." - The latter phrase is confusing: was only "Shes alright" released as a single? but not the others? why not? If the release of "Shes alright" was a big deal, perhaps it should be omitted here and mentioned later in the article in the chronological position.
  • Yes, the other three were not singles. No sources state why the other three were not singles (but at least they were cut), but I guess they were just too bad (eg "Shout Bamalama" was a flop)--GoPTCN 15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walden text: "Around this time, Redding met Phil Walden, the .." - Walden and Smith are intertwined here. Walden is introduced, then Smith discussed; then Walden reappears. Recommend one paragraph on Walden, and another on Smith.
  • Link/Define: ".. released on the Volt sister label ..." - Many readers (esp for whom English is a second language) wont know what "Sister label" is. Define explicitly; or link to sister label; or eliminate and re-word. Also: Sister label of what other label? Dont make reader guess that it is Stax.
  • Specify: "and some other songs from the 1962–1963 sessions were included on Redding's debut album, " - The word "some" is generally not okay for top-quality articles; Either specify a number; or list the songs; or if they are unknown, re-word sentence to avoid the word "some".
  • "...sparked some copyright issues, ..." - What was the resolution? Was their a lawsuit?
  • Clarify: "... accompanied former boxer Sylvester Huckaby to the Apollo Theater in New York to record a live album ..." - Did the boxer record the album? or Redding? Why is Huckaby mentioned? Did he perform also?
  • Clarify: "Redding began touring Europe six months later. In the winter of 1966, booking agent Bill Graham proposed that Redding play at the Fillmore Theatre. " - (1) Readers may think the Fillmore is in Europe: clarify that he has returned to the US. (2) "winter of 1966" is ambiguous: it could mean late 1966 or early 1965: reword to clarify.
  • Reword: " ... as the crew thought he would act superior." - Reword - not sure what you are trying to say there.
  • Explain "His controversial decision to take his protege Arthur Conley ... received negative responses." - Why was it controversial? Be specific? Who responded negatively? What did they say?
  • Reword : " Redding had performed mainly for black audiences, other than the shows at the Whisky a Go Go. " - Awkward. The "mainly" should be enuf to omit "other than .."; consider moving "other than .." into a footnote.
  • Timeline: ", included his own song "Respect" ..." - The recording by A. Franklin (?is that right) is more famous ... so should tell reader if she recorded it before or after the Monterey performance of Redding.
  • Well, it is a point of view to call it more famous. It is correct that she later covered this song. I think that would be off-topic if I mention her.--GoPTCN 15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword: "According to Sweet Soul Music, Brian Jones had tears in the eyes; Jimi Hendrix was stoned and showed deep respect; Robert Christgau wrote in Esquire, "The Love Crowd screamed one's mind to the heavens." - Need to break up into smaller sentences. Did Jones write about Christgau? "stoned" is a bit slangy, and should only be in the article if quoting Jones directly; otherwise rephrase.
  • Specify: "..The result was "Sweet Soul Music" " - Is that an album or single? Readers shouldn't have to study italics/quotes to be informed.
  • Clarify: "He was hospitalized in September 1967 at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York to undergo surgery." - Was the surgery for the larynx problem? What was the outcome of the surgery?
  • Well, usually the illness is belign and this kind of operation nothing special, and if it would have been something dramatic I would mention it before. Well, the outcome is that he was cured according to the next sentences.--GoPTCN 15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "In the winter of 1967, Redding again recorded at Stax. ..." - How long did he stop singing to recover from surgery? "Winter 1967" could mean Dec 1967 or Jan 1967 - be specific.
  • Background: "By 1967 the band had taken to traveling on Redding's Beechcraft H18 to gigs. ..." - Buying a jet is a big deal: that should be mentioned earlier in the article. Major milestones such as increasing affluence need to be interwoven with the musical progress/events; not just stuck at the end of the article.
  • Clarify: "Redding whistled at the end, either forgetting Cropper's ending rap, or meaning it as an intentional interpretation." - Who is saying this? Some sources are guessing? Or Redding? Need to say who is guessing. Also, " intentional interpretation" needs to be reworded: I do not know what that means.
  • City? - "Four miles from their destination at Truax Field, the pilot radioed.." - Remind reader here what city/state they are in when the crash happens.
  • Wording: "were James Alexander and Carl Sims, demoted to a commercial flight ..." - "Demoted" doesnt seem very encylcopedic, but I know what you mean. Reword.
  • Instant death? "... and the accident's only survivor. .... Redding died just three days after recording Dock of the Bay, .." - Need to explicitly say if he died instantly or was taken to a hospital and died later. The "three days after" makes the reader think perhaps he did not die instantly.
  • He died long before he was rescued. Note that it was a foggy day and a cold winter. Without the help of one witness the only surviver would have not been survived in this cold water for long. The single was released after his death.--GoPTCN 15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword: "An allegedly scheduled gig .." - "allegedly" is a strong word, usually reserved for crimes and torts. Use another word, or omit if there is no doubt.
  • Context? - Paragraph: "Plans were made by Carla Thomas to record another duet album in December the same year .... Another suggestion was to record an album entirely consisting of country standards.[78]" - What is this paragraph doing? Is it trying to say what Reddings plans were at the time of death? Explain.
  • Legacy: as explained above: need to split Legacy into two sections: Style/Performance and Legacy/Influence.
  • That is all for now. The article is well formatted, and meets all the technical requirements of FA. Only the prose has to be polished. I recommend the following steps:
  1. Read the four "new" sources named in prior FAC, if you have not already
  2. Implement suggestions from this Peer Review
  3. Take this article to WP:GAN and get it to GA status
  4. Do a second PR (if in a hurry, ask someone from Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#Arts to do the PR)
  5. Then go to FAC
  • Good luck!

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough review. I will try to obtain these books. It seems like I overrated this article, and now I understand this needs some more work to FA-status. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chikaraishi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see whether it might be worth submitting for GA in future. It is, however, quite short (there's only so much that can be written on what are, basically, just a bunch of rocks), so as well as reviewing what's there I'd like suggestions for possible expansion. For the record, I believe that the article's list of references contains just about every available source in English; there may, however, be more available in Japanese.

Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for an interesting article. This seems fairly close to GA to me, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead needs to be expanded to properly summarize the article 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, but "The term refers to both the rocks themselves and to the practice of lifting them." seems to only be in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. There is however no real history in the lead, no mention of their connection with Shinto temples, and no mention that this is a sport.
  • Wikilinking Japan in the lead may be seen as WP:OVERLINKing - most readers will know what Japan is.
  • At the same time, I would link Edo on first occurence.
  • Avoid vague time terms like "currently" in It is estimated that there are around 14,000 strength-stones currently located in shrines around Japan.[2]Many are inscribed ... I would use "as of 2005" as the ref is from 2005.
  • In the sentence quoted above, a space is needed between the ref and the start of the next sentence
  • Content seems fine - I am not familiar with the stones or the practice of lifting them, so do not know if there are major omissions. I think it would be OK to use Japanese sources assuming that they meet WP:RS and you (or someone) can read them. My guess is that there may be more material in Japanese than English on this topic
  • The Soja Festival reference needs to identify the language it is in (presumably Japanese)
  • Make sure the little things are consistent - in The Journal of Japanese studies, Volume 29. Society for Japanese Studies. 2003. p. 236. why is studies lower case in the name of the journal but upper case in the name of the publisher / society? Seems like they would be consistent and probably both upper case.
  • Articles in a journal almost always have a separate title and an identified author - this information should be included for the ref I just quoted.
  • I would give the Japanese name (Hojo undō) in addition to just "special stones"
  • Not a lot more to say as the article is pretty short and what is there is well written and appears to be well supported by the refs used (though I did not check refs to see if they met WP:RS)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this thorough and helpful review; I have edited the article to address the points raised. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sestina

[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 WP:FAC, but do not have much of an idea of where to progress from the current GA status. Particularly, I would like to know whether the article is comprehensive and understandable (since some of the contents are quite complex to both explain and understand).

Thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is there any reason in the lead sentence that "sestina" is in italics when the article itself isn't?
I've noticed this before; I think it's the way that because it's a foreign-language word, the first instance of it has to be italicised - don't know if there is a policy on this ...
  • Three paras seems a little lengthy for a lead per WP:LEAD.
I thought ledes should be appropriate to the length of the article: first paragraph for form, second for effect, third for background. What would you advise?
  • "39 line" -> "39-line"
Done.
  • You link Catalan but not Occitan in the opening sentence. Odd.
Hmm. I will try to work out how to link Occitan; it is inconsistent I agree.
  • "The unique structure of the sestina " unique?
It is a unique structure because of the pattern of repetition. Should this be explained or ...? Removed, probably unnecessary to the point being made. Not happy about this para anyway, so I will re-write soon.
  • "Graphical representation of the algorithm for ordering the end-words in a sestina." no need for a period.
Done.
I considered a caption to be unnecessary because the adjacent text explains the image; will try to work out a compromise.
  • Please check the table meets MOS:DTT for screen readers, with row and col scopes.
  • No over-capitalisation in the table please.
Do you mean of the individual letters (A, B, C) or the other table elements? I thought the letters would be more clear in upper- than lower-case.
Awful at MoS stuff like this, but I'm going to gradually go through this and change accordingly. Except glaringly obvious oversights ...
  • Ditto for "pp. 7-8" etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will try to resolve them in due course. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article on an intriguing form of verse. A few specific points:

  • I think the present structure is amiss; the "Background" section should be the first, not the last section. In that way the reader gets some understanding of the history and concept, before encountering the specifics.
Done.
  • You need to explain what "Occitan" is, as in "the Occitan followers of Daniel". Not all readers will be aware that it is a language, and they shouldn't have to use a link to find out.
Re-worded the entire section, with a sentence on Occitan language.
  • It would be good to have in this section, if possible, some indication of the symbolism behind this particularly rigid form of verse construction. Are any of the sources helpful here?
Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "symbolism" here, could you clarify? The troubadours were all about constructing elaborate forms and out-doing each other, so I believe any symbolism has only been applied retrospectively to what people have done with the form.
  • According to what I have read, the first sestina in English of the modern era was published in 1879 by Edmund Gosse. Here it is
This has been brought up by another user, but I appreciate the link.
  • You might also mention that the sestina was made fashionable in 17th century Germany, by Martin Opitz among others. I can't remember where I picked this info up, though. I'll try and source it.
Thank you, that would be helpful. I will try to give a brief oversight of the sestina as it appears in Germany, but I'm conscious that the section could become unwieldly if I try to be too broad.
  • Although most of the language in the article is accessible, some is difficult (maybe impenetrable) for the general reader. I would particularly draw your attention to wording such as "The pattern of the second stanza can be seen as combining both a triadic and a dyadic component" - there may be an easier way of expressing this.
I've attempted to clarify the points and simplify some language. It appears much clearer now, to me.
  • A couple of minor points: Ref 12 lacks a year (also check the page number); ref 24 refers to "Davison" whereas the bibliography lists "Davidson".
Done.

I hope these points will help you to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, thank you. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While Brianboulton plainly knows more about FAs than I, I can't agree to his suggestion about bringing the historical section forward (which, by the way, let's just call "History"!). A really significant part of the history of the sestina is how poets have subtly altered its form over centuries. As I argued on the talk page, I think these alterations will best be understood after the "standard" structure (which MOHOD and I have tentatively identified as "that used by Petrarch") is clearly described. Phil wink (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a manageable change if we can re-figure History so as to identify the standard form there, then elaborate upon it in the Form. If the current layout of History then Form is per guidelines, I suppose it should be adhered to. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I've encountered another problem, so Phil may be doubly correct. The first encounter with the sestina, as detailed in History, is as a double sestina; although certain characteristics might be assumed, the casual reader is going to have no idea what the double sestina is until they reach halfway through Form ... I believe it may have to be Form > Effect > History. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Indonesians

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this back to FAC (the main contributor has okayed it) and would like some external feedback and ideas for improvement.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, well, this article isn't going to peer review itself. This one might take me a while, but I'll try to do a full review.
Lead
  • "Chinese Indonesians or Indonesian Chinese are Indonesians of Chinese – particularly Han Chinese – descent, who emigrated to Indonesia or the former Dutch East Indies colony both directly and through Maritime Southeast Asia." You might think about splitting the last six words into their own sentence.
  • Done
  • "Although economic collapse from the 1997 Asian financial crisis severely disrupted their business activities, " Is "economic collapse from" needed here?
  • No. Trimmed
  • "The basis of development of local Chinese society and culture can be based upon three pillars:" "can be" or "is"? Also, this is pretty nitpicky of me but "basis... based" may be a bit too repetitive.
  • Changed.
  • "These flourished during the period of Chinese nationalism in the final years of China's Qing Dynasty and through the Second Sino-Japanese War; however, differences in the object of nationalist sentiments brought about a split in the population, with one group supporting political reforms in mainland China while others sought improved status in local politics." You might split the "with one group..." off into its own sentence. Also, is "supporting" the best word here? Maybe "focusing on"?
  • Changed
  • Changed
Identity
  • The only thing of note I see here is some statements that make me wonder "when?", "Current ethnographic literature" & "Such treatment also persisted".
  • How about something broader, like "Since the late 20th century, ethnographic literature..."?
  • Not in the source. Could be since the 1960s, since Suharto began using the melting pot model, could be 1998, after the beginning of reformation.
  • Ok, not a big deal.
Early interactions
  • "The first recorded movement of people from China into Maritime Southeast Asia was the arrival of Mongol forces" This is basically Ok, but you might want to clarify that KK's forces weren't just Mongolians or something.
  • As there is a Wikilink, I don't think it's necessary.
  • "Chinese Muslim traders from the eastern coast of China arrived at the coastal towns of Indonesia and Malaysia in the early 15th century. " I wasn't aware that there were Chinese muslims in eastern china back then, interesting. (no action required).
  • "Trade from the north was re-established when China legalized private trade in 1567 and began licensing 50 junks a year." Did the licensing occur in '67, as well?
  • Yes. Clarified
  • "Chinese traders boycotted Portuguese Malacca after it fell to the Portuguese in the 1511 Capture of Malacca, some Chinese in Java assisted in Muslim attempts to reconquer the city using ships." Comma splice here.
  • Fixed
Colonial attitudes (1600–1900)
  • "The Dutch contracted many of them..." Not sure "them" works here.
"these immigrants"?
Yeah, that would be good.
  • " Short-term and renewable leases were later introduced as a temporary measure, but many Chinese remained on these lands upon expiration of their contracts and became squatters." How much later? Any more specific date we could use?
  • I'll look for the article on Jstor.
  • "In western Borneo the Chinese established their first major mining settlement in 1760 and ousted Dutch settlers and the local Malay princes, including establishing their own republic in the Lanfang Republic." Might want to split this into two sentences.
  • Fixed
Divided nationalism (1900–1949)
  • "A second stream was later formed by wealthy ethnic Chinese who were Dutch-educated." Dutch-educated as in dutch schools in Indonesia? Or were they from the Netherlands? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The former, clarified.
Managing the "Chinese Problem" (1967–1998)
  • "Anti-Chinese sentiment gathered intensity through the 1990s and major riots broke out in Situbondo (October 1996), Tasikmalaya (December 1996), and Rengasdengklok (January 1997). President Suharto gathered the most powerful businessmen—mostly Chinese Indonesians—in a nationally televised 1990 meeting at his private ranch, calling on them to contribute 25 percent of their shares to cooperatives. Commentators described the spectacle as "good theatre", as it only served to reinforce resentment and suspicion of the ethnic Chinese among the indigenous population." This paragraph seems to be out of chronological order.
  • I see what Arsonal was doing here, but I think it is clearer the way I have it now.
  • Not a big deal, but I see "in order to" a few places. Some FAC people dislike that (preferring to stick with just "to"). I don't mind it though.
  • Trimmed anyways.
Literature
  • Any other notable books by Chinese Indonesians that could be listed here?
  • I'd much rather have that as a separate article. Note : "Claudine Salmon's 1981 book Literature in Malay by the Chinese of Indonesia: A Provisional Annotated Bibliography, lists over 3,000 works [by Chinese Indonesians]." Arsonal avoided giving specific names as it would be undue weight, and I agree.
  • Ok then, that's fine.
Media
  • "One exception was the showing of films from Hong Kong in Chinese—limited to ethnic Chinese districts and their surroundings—because of an agreement between importers and the film censor board." Was there a difference in how Cantonese and Mandarin were treated? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnically, no. Hong Kong just had the larger cinema and better marketing (note that the exception was only because of negotiations between Hong Kong(ese?) businessmen and Indonesian politicians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emigrant communities
  • "Although these migrants possess a Chinese heritage, they often were not identified as such." Can it be sourced when they generally began to be identified as such?
  • Still like that.
  • Ok, looks good.
Society
  • Don't think I've run into that yet. What do they generally prefer?
Language
  • "Though it is known that majority of Chinese living in East Java are able to speak local Javanese language fluently and as other Chinese speaking traditional all over Indonesia does" Not sure I follow here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuked. That looks like it was added by another person, later, and is probably not supported by the source. Besides, the Chinese living in Central and Yogyakarta are just as fluent in Javanese.
Demographics
  • "Estimates within the past decade" Might want to write out the decade here.
2000s.
  • "...ethnic Chinese were reported as foreign citizens" Might want to add "living in Indonesia" after "Chinese"
  • Agreed
  • "The Chinese district of Medan, North Sumatra, in 1925." Doesn't look like a complete sentence here.
  • How's this?
Gender and kinship
  • "In the 21st century the conceptual differences of the two groups are slowly becoming outdated" Might want to name the two groups again here.
  • Fixed.
Religion
  • "Majority of the Chinese Indonesian today are Christians with Buddhism coming to 2nd as mostly possessed religion." Please tell me you didn't write this sentence :)
  • No. Oh gosh, how did the GA review miss that. Nuked, as it seems to have been added by some SPA.
  • "The first wave of conversions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, in response to intolerance of Chinese culture," This is a bit vague, did they convert because they found Chinese culture to be intolerant, or were they not tolerant of Chinese culture? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of" - "against"
Cuisine & Architecture
  • Overall, these sections look good, my only question is about Cuisine. You mention that Pork is a staple of the Chinese diet. I would assume that most Muslim Indonesians wouldn't eat Pork (right?). So you might want to note that this is a distinctive difference in the two cuisines.
  • Done.
Economics
  • "The top five conglomerates in Indonesia prior to the 1997 Asian financial crisis—the Salim Group, Astra International, the Sinar Mas Group, Gudang Garam, and the Lippo Group—were all owned by ethnic Chinese, with annual sales totaling Rp112 trillion (US$47 billion)." Which year is the 114 t figure from?
  • It reads like that is from 1997. Can't think of a way to work it in elegantly.
Notes
  • Why are there two Notes sections?
  • Fixed
References
  • Ah, right.

Lettuce

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I originally rewrote this article as part of WP:The Core Contest, and have since taken it to GA (thanks in large part to User:Sasata!). I would like to take it to FAC, and so would specifically like comments on completeness, adherence to plant article standards (I've never written one before) and anything else that would potentially trip me up at FAC. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article, and I support it's submisison to FAC. Thanks, Ax1om77

Comments

  • "Generally grown as a hardy annual, it is easily cultivated..." I thought there was a general rule of thumb that a new para needed us to reintroduce the subject, so "..., lettuce is easily..."
  • Done. - DB
  • I'm not sure (and it's probably my ignorance) why you lump lettuce and chicory together in the lead.
  • Because lettuce and chicory are lumped together by the FAO, so I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't just straight-up lettuce, although the vast majority of it most likely is. - DB
  • "Lettuce is most often used for salads, although it is also seen in other kinds of food, while one type is grown for its stems which are eaten either raw or cooked." not sure why I'm not keen on this sentence, I think it's the run-on clause and the uber-general "it is also seen in other kinds of food" statement.
  • Qualified the general statement a bit and split into two sentences. - DB
  • Consider linking "leafy green" in the lead.
  • "Leafy green" redirects to "leaf vegetable", which is already linked at the beginning of the lead. Do you still think I should link it? - DB
  • "The Romans called the plant ... " again new para, perhaps "The Romans referred to lettuce as..."
  • Done. - DB
  • "Its native range..." same again, new para. If this isn't conventional, feel free to ignore all these types of comment.
  • I'm not sure if this is the convention or not, but it sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I've gone through the article and made several tweaks to add subjects to a few paragraphs - see what you think. - DB
  • " 3 to 4 mm" so far it's been Imperial measures all the way with a conversion, this is metric with no conversion.
  • During the GA review, User:Sasata said that conversions for measurements this small are basically useless and that he would suggest not adding a conversion. I'm not sure what the standard is on biology FAs? - DB
  • "Cutting lettuces are generally planted straight into " could use a link or something, as I assume you mean Cutting (plant)?
  • No, I mean lettuces that are grown to cut individual leaves from, like you see in salad mixes. I've reworded this a bit to hopefully make it more clear. What do you think now? Dana boomer (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit techy, but could you implement row and col scopes per MOS:DTT on the production table?
  • Not sure there's a real need to link tomato or orange.
  • Done - DB
  • Or, for that matter, salad.
  • Done - DB
  • " Salmonella bacteria, including the uncommon Salmonella braenderup type" both links there go to the same article.
  • Changed this into a redlink to S. braenderup - hopefully an article will be created on it some day! - DB

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, TRM! I believe I have addressed the majority of your comments. I haven't done the row and column scopes on the table yet, as I'm about to be late for work :), but should be able to get to those this evening. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! I believe I have now addressed the final issue, regarding the table. If you see anything else, please let me know, and thanks again for your eyes on this article! Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ra.One

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending this article to be promoted to the featured article status. There have been two unsuccessful FACs where it has been identified that work is needed on this article before another FAC. I would request an extremely thorough, FAC-level peer review, and I would be much obliged if FAC reviewers themselves also take up their reviews here.

Thanks, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comments

[edit]

Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "either of the players can only be killed in the third level using a special gun that holds a single bullet." Is this relevant to the rest of the plot? I don't see how it is. If it's not relevant, delete it.
Highly relevant to the plot. Its this basic fact that actually allows the film's climax to happen.
If it is highly relevant to the plot, then why is it not mentioned again in the plot summary? I don't see anything else about a special gun or a single bullet. I think this whole sentence could be scrapped without any risk of the reader missing something important. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the plot slightly to show the real significance of the presence of only one bullet.
  • "His character's appearance required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day" Was he applying makeup for eight hours per day, or was he wearing makeup for eight hours per day?
Applying is the correct word, Click on the wikilink; the article states "To apply facial prosthetics..."
You misunderstand my point. The current phrasing suggests that it took over eight hours to apply to the makeup. This cannot be correct. What you must surely mean is that after the makeup was applied, he had to wear it for eight hours. The correct phrasing for that is "His character's appearance required him to wear prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not familiar at all about what prosthetic makeup is. Let's just say it isn't your ordinary face powder-lipstick-mascara make-up. Prosthetics are complicated. It takes hours just to apply them. The phrase is perfectly correct. I can understand your trouble believing this, but I can assure you, the phrase is "applied", not "wore".
Does it take eight hours to apply them? Does the actor sit down on a chair, wait for eight hours as the makeup artist works, and then start filming? That is what the phrasing suggests, and it cannot be correct. I will readily concede that the source uses "don", which has essentially the same meaning as "apply" in this context, but the source was very clearly not written by someone with a native command of the English language. It does not, and cannot, take eight hours to apply prosthetic makeup for a single day of filming. Perhaps it took two hours to apply, and the actor would wear it for six. Perhaps the ratio was more extreme than that. In any case, it did not take eight hours to apply the makeup. The correct verb is "wear". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence on not accepting this is baffling. Tell me how you can be so assured that it did not take eight hours to apply them. Please remember that what you think or don't think, what you believe or don't believe, should have no bearing on your continuous refusal of this fact.
  • "Besides this, he also suffered considerable discomfort with his superhero suit. Subsequently, he lost ten kilos of weight by the end of filming" So wearing an uncomfortable suit causes one to lose weight? I was unaware of this.
You have not read the full sentence. They weren't wearing suits, they were wearing superhero suits. Yes, those do lead to loss of weight, and that's even more applicable for a mid-forties person :P.
Your explanation makes even less sense than the original issue. How on earth does the costume cause the wearer to lose weight? Whether or not it is a superhero suit is irrelevant. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the Costumes section. The suits were heavy, not made of heat-conducting material, hot weather. In short, lots of perspiration plus lower food consumption. Hence loss in weight.
The current phrasing does not suggest that perspiration or food consumption caused the weight loss. It suggests that "discomfort" caused the weight loss. ("Revolutionary weight-loss breakthrough: sleep on bricks!" Hee.) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the phrasing to "faced difficulties", and wikilinked it to the Costumes section so as to avoid repeating info.
  • "he was watching an advertisement on television dealing with kids controlling a human with a remote." This phrasing suggests that "kids controlling a human with a remote" is a real problem which the product being advertised can "deal with". Somehow I doubt that this was the case.
The statement is written from the source itself. That's how the director said it in the source, so I guess it will have to be that.
Where in the source? The next citation is to this article, in which the phrase "remote" is never mentioned. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proper reference added.
  • "Khan initially approached several directors to lead the project" This seems to contradict with the previously presented facts that Sinha was the director and that Sinha approached Khan. Why would Khan be looking for a director when he was already brought on board by the director?
The second time somebody asked me the same thing. Please read the statement carefully; Sinha approached Khan with the film's script. He may be a director, but that does not guarantee him being the director all the time. I had placed the bit about his previous film's box office failure to highlight this point as well.
When multiple editors point out the same issue, that's usually a pretty good indicator that the problem is not on the reader's end. The issue may be stemming from the phrasing at the very beginning of the section: "According to director Anubhav Sinha". The use of "director" here not only implies that Sinha is a director, but also the director. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, removed.
Okay, so here's what I understand (based almost entirely on what I've learned from this discussion, not from the article itself): Sinha came up with the idea and the script. Sinha shows the script to Khan, who decides to produce the film. Khan tries to find a director for the film, but they all turn him down. Khan eventually decides to have Sinha direct it. Is this correct? If so, the current problem lies in the fact that the italicized part of the chronology is never mentioned in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • "The film's next production phase was split into two schedules" Does "schedule" have some special meaning in the context of film production? Otherwise, it is not clear to me why anyone would ever want or need to know about these details.
Umm, a schedule - as in any other aspect of work - is a set period of time where particular work is done. In case of filming, a schedule is a set period of time where filming is done. I don't understand how that is unclear or unnecessary.
Unnecessary detail. It should be removed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Unnecessary detail? Far from it. Splitting the production phase was one of the main reasons why there was quite a bit of controversy regarding the presence of multiple directors for the film.
See my response to the suit mold issue below. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made significant cuts throughout the article, including the Critical Reception section. The post-production section has been phased out to the daughter article. Currently, I estimate the word count to be in the ballpark of 8000 (little less, hopefully) though more cuts are on the way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's cinematography involved the basic outline of a video game's perspective of vision" Does this refer to the HUD? If not, I have no idea what this could possibly mean.
Present in the main article. I had kept the reason out since I figured somebody would come and declare it "unnecessary detail".
Don't cut out details if doing so results in sentences whose meanings are unclear. Similarly, the summary of a daughter article should make sense on its own without the reader having to navigate to the daughter article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll add it.
The added detail about first- and third-person perspectives doesn't clarify what "basic outline" refers to. Does "basic outline" mean a set of fixed visual details which lie along the edges of the screen, as one would expect in a video game HUD? Or does "basic outline" mean the same thing as "general idea"? I suspect it's the latter, in which case I would suggest rephrasing as such: "The film's cinematography borrowed ideas from video gaming, such as rapid transitions between first-person and third-person perspectives." or something similar.
Alright, shall do so. -  Done
  • "To create the mold of the suit, Khan was required to enter into a small chamber wearing minimal clothing. A warm latex-like liquid was subsequently released into the chamber, reaching until his neck. The liquid was allowed to solidify, forming the mold, and was then peeled off Khan's body. The suit was joined by a concealed zipper and modified." This level of detail is not necessary. This article is about is a film, not a special effects technique.
This is not a "special effects technique" at all. In fact, till date, I have not heard of any superhero suit being made in this way. Hence the detail.
What you have or have not heard of before is not relevant, and neither is this detail. Passages like these are among the reasons why the article is so much larger than it should be. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to say but this "unnecessary detail" is most necessary for the article. Superhero suits, being one of the most talked-about aspects of the film, need to be covered well. And I don't know what you expect from the article's size, but in case you haven't noticed yet, I have cut down the article size significantly. If your aim is to cut it to some 1000 words, I doubt that will be possible.
I appreciate your efforts to trim down the article, and they have definitely helped, but the article is still far too long at ~10,000 words. The FAC will fail if we cannot find some way to cut it down further. It is obvious that you care deeply about this film and the article you've worked to build, and while it is heartwarming to see, what you must realize is that your own feelings will make it very difficult for you to accurately judge what material is superfluous. This is exactly why I'm trying to point out passages that don't seem necessary to an uninformed reader (myself). If you don't want to take my advice, fine, but you've got to find some material to cut out. The Critical reception section would be a good place to start, as would the Post-production section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A reported partnership deal is being finalised by the distributors, which will allow the film to be released in China with 1,000 prints" As of when? See WP:ASOF.
Added.

Note on striking. The talk page guidelines explicitly forbid striking other user's comments: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." This is the second time I've had to mention this. I'm not asking this time, I'm simply telling you: Stop striking my comments. If and when I have determined that a comment has been addressed, I will either strike it or archive it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Me (Katy Perry 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 plan on nominating the article for GA status and I need suggestions on improvements beforehand.

Thanks, teman13 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this is already a good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Assuming you want to go for FA eventually, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it needs a fair amount of work before it would do well at FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are quite a few FAs on songs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music which should give some model FA song articles
  • Two dead external links here
  • I do not think the lead does a very good job of summarizing the article - I would say in the first sentence that it was the lead single (not just that it is "... taken from the re-release of her second studio album, Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection (2012).")
  • I would also make it clear in the first poaragraph of the lead when the song was written (2010), and that despite this it was not included in the original version of the album Teenage Dream
  • I owuld put all of the assumed inspirations together in the lead. I would also mention Russell Brand by name - he is already mentioned 11 times in the article (but not by name in the lead). McCoy is mentioned only once in the body of the article, and in the lead.
  • Avoid vague time terms like current or so far - see It has so far been certified Platinum in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. I would use "As of June 2012" or something similar instead, as "so far" is too vague and likely to become outdated.
  • The most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This has a lot of places where the prose could be tightened or improved and would need a copyedit before any try at FAC. A few examples follow. See WP:WIAFA
    • The song received mixed to generally positive reviews from contemporary critics, who praised the song's production, while some criticizing Perry's vocals. (should be "while some criticized...")
    • Avoid passive voice wherever possible, and it is "participated in" The artwork for the single was photographed by Mary Ellen Matthews as part of a photographic essay for the television program Saturday Night Live, where Perry participated of episode 710 of season 37.
  • This needs a ref "Part of Me" reached number one elsewhere in Europe such as Croatia, Poland, Hungary and the Netherlands. The song also peaked at number 1 in Venezuela and peaked at number 2 in South Africa.
  • Not all refs are complete - current ref 91 is just "Media Guide". Retrieved 16 April 2012." and needs title and the fact that this is an archived url. See ref 97 for an example of how to do this better "Pop Rock General". Record Report. 2012-04-28. Archived from the original on 2012-04-27." Though that needs to say the ref is in Spanish.
  • Make sure sources used are relaible - see WP:RS
  • Spell out abbreviations before first use (so USMC, MARPAT, etc.)
  • Make sure links are on first use - MARPAT is mentioned once before it is linked on its second use
  • The Critical reception section is a bit of a "quote farm" - I think more could be paraphrased and save short direct quotes for the best items
  • I was surprised that there was not more on the decision a) not to include the song on the original version of the album, and b) why there was a re-relase of the album (and not a whole new album)
  • I also looked at this ref and it points out how the lyrics were changed between the initial and final versions to make it seem as if the song were more about divorce and not just a breakup. I was surprised this is not mentioned in the article that I saw
  • I am not sure the Propaganda needs its own section - why not just make it part of the reception section? (Rename it "Reception and propaganda allegations")?
  • There seems to be a lot more coverage of the video comapred to material on the song itself.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dan Mine

[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 planning to bring this article to FA class. I started expanding and copyediting this article in Feburary and researched the topic as much as I could.

Thanks, Volcanoguy 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't really know much about geology, but in some ways, that may be beneficial to you in terms of making the article more accessible to the masses. Here are my comments.

General:

  • My main issue with this article is its organization. It jumps around a lot, both in terms of topic and chronology. The lede also exhibits this jumping around. I would rewrite it something like this:
Big Dan Mine is an abandoned underground mine in Northeastern Ontario, Canada. It is located about 1 km (0.62 mi) southwest of Net Lake and just west of the Ontario Northland Railway in east-central Strathy Township. It is named after Dan O'Connor, a Canadian prospector and businessman who first claimed the site in the 1890s. Mining operations began at the site in the early 1900s, making Big Dan one of the oldest mines in Temagami. Gold and silver were the mine's primary commodities, while arsenic was a secondary commodity. A forest fire destroyed much of the mining infrastructure on the site in 1907. Active mining operations on the site ceased following the fire, but mineral exploration has occurred there periodically since.
The mine consists of two shafts, an open cut and an adit. It is surrounded by a large boreal forest that covers much of the Temagami region. Basalt is the primary rock type at Big Dan, forming part of the Arsenic Lake Formation, the site's major geologic feature. A small zone of deformation intersects the local basaltic bedrock, which probably formed when the area was volcanically active about 2.7 billion years ago.

Done. Insted of "which probably formed when the area was volcanically active about 2.7 billion years ago" I changed it to "which is the location of several minerials" because the former refers to the Big Dan Shear Zone, which has been removed from the article. Volcanoguy 06:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be mentioned twice that Dan O'Connor was a prospector and businessman? This rewritten introduction mentions that was a prospector and businessman but is also mentioned in the Background section. Just seems redundant. Volcanoguy 11:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the lead is so short, it does seem that these appear pretty close together, but you will almost necessarily have to have some redundancy between the lead and body because the lead summarizes the body. If there were an article on Dan O'Connor, it probably wouldn't be as necessary, but as it is, I'd keep it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about Dan O'Connor here. Volcanoguy 15:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that. Too much time on the beach for me last week, I guess. In that case, you could probably shorten "It is named after Dan O'Connor, a Canadian prospector and businessman who first claimed the site in the 1890s." in the lead to "It is named after Dan O'Connor, who first claimed the site in the 1890s." Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be alright for the first paragraph to be split into two smaller paragraphs? It just seems like the later half talks about mining and mineral exploration at Big Dan while the former refers to the mine's location. Volcanoguy 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I assume you are talking about breaking the paragraph after Strathy Township. That would make the opening paragraph just two sentences long. I've done that before, but only in a lead section that was much longer than this one. I can't say it would be wrong – a one-sentence paragraph clearly would be – but a later reviewer might flag it. What if you inserted the current second paragraph immediately following Strathy Township and made the rest a new second paragraph? That would have all of the geography and geology stuff together and all the history stuff together. I know geography and geology aren't the same thing, but they are at least related. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking about breaking it at "Gold and silver...". Volcanoguy 17:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the sentence before that (the one that talks about when mining began there) goes more with the mining paragraph than the first paragraph. It might not be so bad if you broke it after the sentence talking about the mine's namesake, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just split it after the namesake sentence. I'm going to see if I can expand the first paragraph a little bit. Volcanoguy 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a lot of discipline-specific terminology. Not sure how much of that is unavoidable, but look for every opportunity to provide explanatory phrases or pipe wikilinks.
Well, this is an article about mining/geology so it is going to use mining/geologic terminology of course. The terminology present is necessary. Volcanoguy 22:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this because I have no basis upon which to say the terminology is or is no necessary. I know sometimes there is no avoiding the jargon in my discipline either. Just wanted to encourage you to include an in-line explanatory note any time it is possible without compromising the text; it is appreciated by the non-technical reader like myself. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background section:

  • The first paragraph basically lost me throughout. The designations for these claims may be standard notation for people in the discipline, but they mean nothing to the average reader. Information about who owned these claims (if available) would be more helpful than these meaningless numbers.
I deleted most of the claim numbers but kept WD271 because it is a major claim in the area that still exists. Volcanoguy 07:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I'll take your word for it on WD271 (like I have a basis not to!). A few curious questions that may not even make sense, since I'm way out of my depth on this topic. What makes it a "major claim"? If it's a "claim", I assume somebody owns the claim; who is it? Did the companies who have done exploration in the mine since its closure have to get permission from this claim owner to do their exploration? If so, what were the terms under which the permission was given? I'm asking not only because I don't know, but because if these are even relevant questions, they might or might not give you some more relevant material for the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ment "major claim" as in being a big claim. There are several smaller ones that surround WD271. See the article's talk page about WD271. If you click on the Sudbury Mining Division in the map here then search Strathy as the township you will see WD271 does not show up in the list. But I did find it on the map here and it is obviously a "disposition" whatever what means. So me calling WD271 a claim is most likely a mistake. If WD271 is not a claim and Big Dan is not in a claim then it is obviously not owned by anyone. Volcanoguy 04:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So can it be a "local claim block" without actually being claimed? If so, I'm willing to strike this, but it might be interesting to follow up and see what a "disposition" is in this context. Could lead to some more information about who, if anyone, owns it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it can't be a claim if nobody owns it. The claim bit has to be replaced with something else. Volcanoguy 16:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll have to rely on you to supply an appropriate alternative. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It originally contained a large vein of arsenopyrite, which was the principal ore of arsenic at Big Dan." This seems to belong in the geology section or in the second paragraph of the "Production and exploration" section.
Deleted. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You note the size of the site in 1949 and 1965, but the reader has no idea why these dates are important. Moreover, from the lede, we gather that these dates are well after mining operations have ceased. It is not until later that we learn of the companies that began surveys there around these time periods, and then we are forced to make the connection ourselves, as there is no reference between the two. We also don't know why the site shrank by 50 hectacres between 1949 and 1965. This information should probably be brought together, preferably late in the History section somewhere.
Check text now. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer now because you've associated the sizes and dates with specific events, which helps tremendously. I'm still curious as to why the size of the mine shrank by two claims between the two dates. Or does this just refer to the area explored at those dates? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's just because of the different owners during those dates. Every owner had different claims as shown by the different claim numbers. Volcanoguy 04:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably the best we can do, then. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who constructed the connection to Highway 11? The Canadian government? The company that was exploring the possiblity of mining the site? Also, the article notes that the road was so "automobiles" could access the site, but I would imagine that if mining had begun, it would be more necessary for heavy equipment to use the road.
There was no mining after the mine closed in the early 1900s just mineral exploration. Nevertheless, the source states automobiles. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the source says automobiles, then so be it. Still curious about why the road was built and who built it, but the sources may not give that information either. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See text now. Volcanoguy 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence (and probably the third) of the second paragraph should come first, as it discusses sporadic mining that occurred before the formal opening of a mine in 1906.
Check text now. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good to go. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Big Dan is one of the two mines in Temagami that opened in 1906, the other being Net Lake Mine which ceased operations in 1918." Irrelevant.
I disagree. Big Dan and Net Lake mines have relations with each other since they both opened in 1906, both are in the same community, both mined gold and silver and both are adjacent to Net Lake. Might as well mention when Net Lake Mine closed. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just struck me as veering off topic to say when the related mine closed, but hey, it's a peer review. You are free to disagree with/ignore anything you don't find helpful. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be better to replace that with how far away Net Lake Mine is from Big Dan Mine? For example, "Big Dan is one of the two mines in Temagami that opened in 1906, the other being Net Lake Mine 3 km (1.9 mi) to the north-northwest". Volcanoguy 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem more relevant than when Net Lake Mine closed, yes. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph is more like what I would expect as the first paragraph of a history section. It talks about the mine's namesake and the exploration that apparently predated any mining activity on the site.
Done. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Big Dan Mine is one of the few Temagami mines named after Dan O'Connor" The few or a few? To me, "the few" implies that there should be more, but for some reason, there aren't. A few just means there are more than one but fewer than several. ;)
It means exactly what it means, more than one but fewer than several. The following sentence states "Others include the Little Dan and O'Connor mines, which were also active in the early 1900s". Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was just expecting "a few" as opposed to "the few", but it's not horribly important either way. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things more obvious and less vague, I have changed it to "Big Dan Mine is one of the three Temagami mines named after Dan O'Connor". Volcanoguy 05:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that sounds much better. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider red links for: Little Dan Mine, Iron Lake, Vermillion Lake, Kokoko Lake, Ontario Northland Railway
Is there supposed to be red links in articles with FA status? The Ontario Northland Railway is already linked in the introduction. Volcanoguy 06:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks in FAs are not problematic. Per WP:REDLINK, "[P]lease do create red links to ... topics which should obviously have articles." If Little Dan Mine is now part of Leckie Mine, that one might just need to be a redirect, but presumably those lakes are notable enough that they could have their own articles, even if they presently don't. I was actually encouraged to add some redlinks to William Goebel during its FAC. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I just don't usually see red links in FA articles. Volcanoguy 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 06:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production and exploration section:

  • The last sentence in the last section and the first sentence of this one flow pretty nicely. They should probably be part of the same section, if not the same paragraph. Not sure the section break is needed at all. You could just have one History section of several paragraphs.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. There dosen't seem to be anything in the style guide that says there can't be small subsections. In fact, I find it better having subsections because then it is easier to find specific information and it gives the article more structure. The subsections would also be smaller because it is a smaller article. Volcanoguy 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was basically saying that, when I read those two paragraphs together (the last one in the Background section and the first one in this section, they sound like they could naturally form one paragraph or at least could belong in the same section. I'm not necessarily saying anything about the section length being a problem, just that the subject matter doesn't really seem all that different and could easily just make up one big section. It's not a problem, per se, just an observation. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the last paragraph in the "Background" section and the first paragraph in the "Production and exploration" section is that the former is mostly about an "off and on" gold mining spree in the Temagami area of which Big Dan was part of. It began in the early 1900s and continued throughout the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s from other mines in the area, well after Big Dan ceased operation. Kanichee Mine, Copperfields Mine, Beanland Mine, Leckie Mine, Hermiston-McCauley Mine and Net Lake Mine were all part of the gold mining spree. Some mined gold as a primary product (e.g. Beanland, Leckie, Hermiston-McCauley, Big Dan) and others mined it as a secondary product (e.g. Kanichee, Net Lake, Copperfields). In contrast, the later paragraph refers to Big Dan's production. It would seem kind of odd merging those two paragraphs together or moving the former paragraph into the "Production and exploration" section because they are distinct but related topics. Volcanoguy 07:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the difference. Subtle but important. You might consider adding a little more about this "spree", if you can do so without going off topic. Even including the word "spree" or something similar might draw the distinction a little better. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an easier way to describe this in the article? Volcanoguy 12:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could lead with an appropriate variant of this sentence, which appears later in the article: "They both correlate with the beginning of sporadic gold mining in the Temagami area, which continued from a number of other mines until the 1970s." I might reword it as "Sporadic gold mining began in the Temagami region of Canada in the late 19th century and continued until the 1970s." Then talk about what triggered the sporadic gold mining in the area. Was there a major find there? Can we get some sense of how many folks headed to the area to attempt mining or how quickly they came and left? Stuff like that. I realize a lot of it might not be available. I'm just brainstorming right now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ore was being shipped" why not "Ore was shipped"?
Done. Volcanoguy 06:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shipped ore averaged 0.358 oz (10.1 g) of gold per ton." This may be an unfair question, but is this good? It needs context. I don't know if that's a lot of gold or a little gold compared to other mines. This issue also affects the next sentence.
I'm not sure if that is good or not. If it wasn't any good I would assmue they wouldn't have mined it in the first place. All mines produce different amounts of material. Volcanoguy 06:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And if it were really good, they probably would have rebuilt the infrastructure that was burned in the fire. I still feel like this needs something. Do we have the same data for the other similar mines you've already mentioned (i.e. Little Dan and Net Lake) just so we can compare them? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is production information for both Little Dan and Net Lake, but its about how much material was mined throughout their productive history insted of how much ore was shipped per ton. Volcanoguy 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm striking this because I don't know what else to suggest, but if you can think of anything that would help give this a sense of perspective for a novice reader, the article really needs it, imo. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concentrating gold and silver ore" The non-specialist (i.e. me) doesn't know what this means.
I am not 100% sure what that means either, but it might be the same as "refining gold and silver ore".
Hmm. Is there any way to find out? I think it could be important to either explain the term or use a better-understood synonym. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After looking up "concentrating" in the dictionary to see what it means in mining, I found this: "to separate (metal or ore) from rock, sand, etc., so as to improve the quality of the valuable portion". It is probably best to replace it with a better-understood synonym. Would "refining" be a better word? Volcanoguy 03:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this definition for "refine": "Remove impurities or unwanted elements from (a substance), typically as part of an industrial process." That sounds pretty close to me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plant was destroyed by a forest fire" This is a little removed from the initial mention of the "mining and milling plant" and directly follows mention of a "small tonnage mill operation". Are those one in the same? If not, were they owned by the same company? Were they both destroyed in the fire?
Yes, it was apparently one whole plant. If it wern't I would assume it would be "mining and milling plants". Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I might consider something like "All of the mining infrastructure was destroyed by a forest fire" to remove the potential ambiguity, but that's just me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 05:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although ore was shipped from the mine during its years of operation, there is no data available on how much the mine produced." It's already pretty clear that the mine produced and shipped some ore. It doesn't have to be explicitly restated here.
Deleted. Volcanoguy 08:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the closure of Big Dan, the adit and mine shafts have been flooded." Naturally, or by man? Do we know when they were flooded exactly?
There is no data available when the shafts and adits were flooded or if it's natural or manmade. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't know, you don't know. I certainly have run into that in articles I've expanded before. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think natural because there are swamps at the mine site. But this is something not really important because it is a minor subject. Volcanoguy 07:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It won't stand in the way of GA or FA. Just thought it would be a nice addition if we knew. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, you might explicitly explain that these operations are precursors to beginning mining operations. (At least, I gather that they must be.)
There was no mining at Big Dan after 1907. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. I'm just saying that not everyone knows what a "resistivity survey", "diamond drilling", "line cutting", "geologic mapping", and "magnetometer surveying and sampling" are. I don't know what they are, to be honest, but I gather that they must be tests to determine whether or not reopening the mine would have been worth it. I'm just saying you could explicitly state that so that the reader doesn't have to infer it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what would be a good explanation to add in the article? Volcanoguy 03:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like, "The company carried out a resistivity survey and 806 m (2,644 ft) of diamond drilling in 11 holes to assess the mine's production potential, but results were not encouraging." I'm making assumptions that those tests are to measure production potential, but something like that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they were most likely tests to determine whether or not Big Dan could be reopened because mining companies explore mine sites for ore to mine. Added it into the article. Volcanoguy 07:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regional terrain:

  • Again, I'm not sure the Geology section needs subheadings. It isn't all that long. I also think it should come first, as the geologic features formed before mining operations began (obviously!)
I would think the mining history would come first since mining is the most important subject in the article. Volcanoguy 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree on that one. I'm used to writing historical biographies, so chronological order usually makes the most sense to me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably combine the first two sentences.
I assume you mean the first two paragraphs. Volcanoguy 22:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I thought the first two sentences could go together, something like "Big Dan is situated in the Temagami greenstone belt, a 2,736 million-year-old sequence of metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rocks that forms part of the much larger Superior craton." The first sentence was kind of short, and using "This is" to open the second sentence seemed a little clunky to me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I thought the first paragraph only had two sentences but I looked again and there were three. I guess I was thinking the first two sentences already formed a single sentence. Volcanoguy 00:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it might be an isolated southern exposure of the Abitibi Subprovince" Says who? Not trying to be a smart aleck, but if there is doubt about this, we should know who asserts that it is or might be the case so we know how to weight that opinion.
Changed to: "The belt is exposed through the Huronian Supergroup and represents an isolated southern exposure of the Abitibi Subprovince." Volcanoguy 09:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spanned from 2,736 to 2,687 million years ago" Compare to the reference to "2.7 billion years" earlier. Why the change from billion to million?
All changed to 2,736 million years ago. Volcanoguy 07:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final two paragraphs are all Greek to me, which is to be expected since I don't know much about geology. Still, explanatory text for the novice reader could be helpful/appreciated when appropriate.
Everything is well wikilinked, so uncommon terms can be understood as required. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that it's well-linked. As a reader, I appreciate just a little context so I don't have to click every term, but there's not really anything in the style guide that says you have to. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably be better to do this once everything else is organized. Volcanoguy 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dan Shear Zone:

  • Considering we have an article dedicated just to the Big Dan Shear Zone, much of this information might be more useful there. As it is, very little of it seems connected to the mine, at least from a layman's perspective. If it is more connected than I'm seeing, the connections need to be made explicit.
After thinking about it I agree it would probably be better in the Big Dan Shear Zone article. I just thought it would be appropiate to include in the Big Dan Mine article because at least most of the shear zone appears to be in the mine site and the mined mineralization was situated in the shear zone, hence it would be an important feature of the mine site's geology. Volcanoguy 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of it may be. I (and probably most readers) don't know which parts are most relevant to the mining operation. If you can draw explicit connections between the geologic features of the Shear Zone and how they could potentially affect mining (making it easier or harder, aiding or impeding the formation of desireable materials, etc.) it would help. At least copy the information from here to the Big Dan Shear Zone article, though. It's just a one-line stub and could benefit from this information as well. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Big Dan Shear Zone article. Volcanoguy 06:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mineralization:

  • "However, the gossan capping of the Big Dan Shear Zone distorts its mineralization potental." Again, since I'm not familiar with "gossan capping", I don't know why or how badly it distorts the site's mineralization potential. A short bit of elaboration could help here.
No data available. The given source does not say why or how much the gossan distorts the mineralization potential. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I still don't know why gossan capping affects the mineralization potential, and the "gossan" wiki-article doesn't explain it either. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know too much about gossans myself but according to the gossan article they are intensely oxidized, weathered or decomposed rock, usually the upper and exposed part of an ore deposit or mineral vein. I wonder if the gossan effects the mineralization potential because it is only the surface exposure of an ore deposit. There could be mineralization hidding under the gossan that nobody knowns about. Volcanoguy 05:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is just a suggestion for a way to get more material in the article, if you can find it. It's not vital, but it could be helpful if it is available. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted the sentence. It isn't something important. Volcanoguy 03:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have your sights set on FA status, but unless there is much more here than meets the eye, I think it's going to top out at GA. The mine was really only active for something less than a decade, and it seems as if heavy infrastructure was only present for a couple of years. That's not to impugn the subject, but sometimes, there just isn't much to say. I had the same issue with James Fisher Robinson and George Madison, neither of which have a prayer of going higher than GA, in my opinion. I hope these comments help, even if I'm a little out of my depth. I'll try to watch for your responses in for a few days. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not big on bringing this article to FA status so GA status would be alright with me as well. However, I don't think the amount of information present really matters. The topic just needs to be covered comprehensively and stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. I have seen smaller articles than this one that are FA status, but I can't recall which ones they are. Despite its name, Big Dan is a small mine and it is quite normal for a small mine to have less information than a big mine. I will comment on your other comments later. Volcanoguy 08:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about length vs. comprehensiveness. I just wonder how much of the information will be unavailable. To use one of my articles for an example, George Madison spent the bulk of his career as state auditor. Auditors don't typically make a lot of headlines. So, we know he was an elected official for 20 years without knowing much about what he did for those 20 years. That creates a hole in the coverage that, in my mind, makes it impossible to take the article to FA, even though its unlikely that sources are now or ever will be extant to fill that hole. That said, I hope this article will eventually be an FA, if for no other reason than it has a cool name! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is something interesting that could come in use. I found it while searching for "line cutting", which describes it as "straight clearings through the bush to permit sightings for geophysical and other surveys". Volcanoguy 11:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in why you think this article is unlikely to reach FA. Is it just because you wonder how much of the information will be unavailable? If so, what information are you refering to? Volcanoguy 23:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My perception is that readers expect a certain volume of information in an FA, even when it isn't reasonable to expect that much to be available. I think many reviewers consider GA to be the domain of short articles, even comprehensive short articles. Consider the feedback I got on my initial GA nom of James Fisher Robinson, as seen on the article's talk page. It was failed because it was short and primarily cited only a few sources. Based on this, the reviewer concluded that it wasn't broad enough even for GA. I had to take it to GAR to get the fail overturned. For that reason, I don't bother with short articles like that at FA. I'd say it's likely that an FA reviewer will say "Are you sure that's all the information out there about this topic?" How are you supposed to answer that? You aren't omniscient, so you can't say "Yes, I am absolutely sure that no other online, offline, or foreign language sources exist on this topic," but nothing short of that may placate the reviewer. All that said, I'd love to be wrong about this article, which is interesting and likely approaching the extent of broadness that the available sources allow. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you stated above that there is not lots of information for the James Fisher Robinson article. Also worthy to note is there are more sources in the Big Dan Mine article than in the James Fisher Robinson article and the two articles are about totally different things. Volcanoguy 02:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the two articles it seems like there is more information about Big Dan than James Fisher Robinson. Volcanoguy 04:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Won't argue with any of the above, and I'm not making a case that this article cannot be an FA. I certainly wouldn't !vote against it on these grounds; in fact, I don't !vote on FACs anyway. You just asked why I didn't think it would make FA, and I gave you my perception of the process, using Governor Robinson as an example of an article that had shaped that view. I wouldn't expect you to take my comments as the be-all-and-end-all on the matter. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some information that can be added in the article: "In 1973, the Teme-Augama Anishnabai applied the Temagami Land Caution, which prohibited all types of mineral exploration in the area. This land claim dispute was in full effect until 1991 when Strathy Township was opened and exploration work could be performed again. Because the Temagami Land Caution existed throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, Big Dan Mine recieved little attention during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades. It was not until 1993 when Big Dan was explored by Falconbridge Limited. The company performed 10.75 km (6.68 mi) of line cutting and geologic mapping in the area.". Just wondering if you can see something that can be added in the text. Volcanoguy 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this absolutely belongs in the article. In fact, it probably doesn't qualify as "broad" or "comprehensive" (the respective standards for GA and FA) without it. As presented, I'd say the text needs some in-line explanation of who the Teme-Augama Anishnabai are, since I had to follow the wiki-link to determine whether it was a people, a council of some kind, a government agency, or what. Also, it is unclear what the Temagami Land Caution is. Is it some kind of legal mechanism given to this group of people to protect their lands or what? I see the effect (prohibition of mineral exploration), but not a solid definition of what it is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Township" as used above, but I would think a township is "formed", "created", or "established" rather than "opened". Unless you are saying it was "opened" for exploration. In that case, specifically say what it was opened for. In either case, state who opened it. Did the tribe with the very long name rescind the Land Caution or did a court rule against them (since you curiously refer to a "land claim dispute" without detailing what the dispute was over)? Last, I assume that Falconbridge's exploration did not yield promising results, since we have no mention of further activity. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised text: "In 1973, the Temagami Land Caution was applied by the Aboriginal community of Teme-Augama Anishnabai to protest against development on Crown land in the Temagami area. This prohibited all types of mineral exploration at Big Dan and other mines in Strathy Township. The land caution was in full effect until 1991 when it was ruled out in the Supreme Court of Canada. Because the Temagami Land Caution existed throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, Big Dan Mine recieved little attention during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades. It was not until 1993 when Big Dan was explored by Falconbridge Limited. The company performed sampling and 10.75 km (6.68 mi) of line cutting and geologic mapping in the area, but no further work was done." How is that? Volcanoguy 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly perfect. Would like to know upon what basis the Supreme Court invalidated the Caution, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was because the Temagami Indians did not have aboriginal title to the land they claimed. Volcanoguy 00:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The land caution was in full effect until 1991 when the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the land dispute because the Anishnabai community did not have aboriginal title to the land they claimed"? Volcanoguy 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest "The Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the land caution 1991 when it was discovered that the Anishnabai community did not have aboriginal title to the land they claimed." Just a little less wordy. This is going to make a great addition to the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is much better. I think there should be an article for the Temagami Land Caution. Volcanoguy 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. It will really help this article, and it sounds like it was an interesting affair. Sometimes, when you write about one thing, you find another article that really needs to be written so you can get the full picture. That's what happened to me with Old Court-New Court controversy. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew more about the land caution because I am not sure if the revised text is accurate. Here it states that the peripheral lands were reopened in 1991 but the caution was not lifted in Strathy, Cassels and Best townships until 1992. Volcanoguy 17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here it states that the land caution was still present in 1997. Volcanoguy 17:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More here. Volcanoguy 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd plug what we have now into this article, then go back and change it if necessary. Sounds like you're going to be developing an article – and a right interesting one, at that – on the Temagami Land Claim pretty soon. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work out: "In 1973, the Temagami Land Caution was applied by the Aboriginal community of Teme-Augama Anishnabai to protest against development on Crown land in the Temagami area. It existed throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, prohibiting all types of mineral exploration at Big Dan and other mines in Strathy Township. As a result, the area recieved little attention during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades. In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Anishnabai community no longer had aboriginal title to the land they claimed. This allowed mineral exploration in Strathy Township once again. However, Big Dan was not explored until 1993 when Falconbridge Limited performed sampling and 10.75 km (6.68 mi) of line cutting and geologic mapping in the area. The Temagami Land Caution was not entirely lifted until 1995 as a result of a court order."? Just trying to clear it up more. Volcanoguy 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds great. The only part I even hesitated a little at was "during a gold exploration boom that occurred during the following decades". It might be that the reader is a little unclear about what the decades follow, but I realize you are trying to avoid repeating "the 1970s and 1980s", which is fine. I wouldn't oppose you adding it as-is. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing "following" with "same"? Volcanoguy 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That, or perhaps substituting "those" for "the following". Good suggestion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added "Mineral exploration at Big Dan remained idle from the early 1970s to the early 1990s as a result of a land claim dispute applied by Temagami Indians" in introduction. Volcanoguy 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a good idea. In the U.S., we are encouraged to avoid the word "Indian" when talking about the native people of the Americas, since it is technically a misnomer. Many times, that isn't possible. If this is also the case in Canada, you may want to see if you can substitute another accurate word. If not, believe me, I understand. Sometimes, there just isn't anything else that will work. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to change it as "Temagami First Nations" because First Nations appears to be a commonly used term for these people. Volcanoguy 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there ya go! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added this in the article: "The mined ore was hoisted from the open cut by a skip then dumped into a Blake jaw crusher. It was then dried, passed through rolls and elevated to trommels for sizing. The oversized ore passed down through a fine roll. After the reduced ore fragments passed through rolls, it was then put through three Kriem air separators in the mill. The ore concentrates from these separators were drawn off and bagged for shipping." Volcanoguy 11:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely clears up the "concentrated" vs. "refined" issue. Again, there is a lot of jargon here, much of which may be unavoidable. Is Skip (container) the proper link for "skip" in this context? I'm also a little unclear as to how "roll" is used here, and there doesn't seem to be a relevant wiki-link. I looked at the article on air separation, but it didn't really help me understand the purpose of passing ore through a "three Kriem air separators". Do we know what these devices did? Is air separation a relevant link anyway? Like I said, I get that there may be no way to simplify this for the non-expert reader, but where we can, we should. It makes the subject more accessible. BTW, this is looking more like a GA to me all the time. Your additional research and responsiveness to comments have benefited the article tremendously. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was reading the source I was thinking maybe "roll" refers to roll crushers. From reading the source and my text it seems like the jaw crusher was used to crush the ore into rough pieces. As far as I am aware of, roll crushers are used to crush moderately hard material into a finer material. "It was then dried, passed through roll crushers and elevated to trommels for sizing" seems to make more sense. And yes Skip (container) is probably the proper link. The other terms likely need articles. Volcanoguy 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Roll crusher" definitely gives a clearer picture of what's going on. I recommend adopting that language if you are fairly sure it's accurate. I'd also link "skip" as an aid to the unfamiliar reader. If you're able to create an article about the Kriem air separator, that's great. If not, giving some idea of what it contributes to the process would be helpful, if that's something that is available. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to "skip" and replaced "roll" with "roll crusher". Volcanoguy 05:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chav

[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 the article meets a higher grade that it has currently. Can this article now be graded GA?

Thanks, Pennine rambler (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very interesting article, but I'm not sure it meets the GA standards quite yet. The main issues that I see are compliance with 1b and 3. A few broad comments:
  • The lead is an issue, it doesn't really summarize the whole article. Also, information should be in the lead if it's not in the rest of the article. The bit about copying American Hip Hop is pretty interesting, I wish there were more about that later on.
  • The main issue that I have here is the depth of coverage. There is very little about the history and development of the Chav phenomenon, but a number of mentions of minor media and pop culture mentions and incidents. The description of the details of the stereotype is also quite lacking.
  • There are a ton of high quality sources out there about this, for starters: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Also, I suspect you could get more out of the Hayward & Yar article and the Owen book. This makes me question the use of the Daily Mail, Metro, and Sun as sources, you could probably do much better. Unless you're going to featured article candidates, so you don't have to use them all the reliable sources, but I'd suggest digging into a at least a few academic sources if you're going for GA.
  • Some more images would be nice, not strictly necessary though. You might be able to make a decent case for a Fair Use image of Vicky Pollard here.
  • Generally, a Further Reading section is for unused sources. If you're going to cite multiple pages of a book or journal article you might want the {{Reflist}} in a References section and the books and journals in a Bibliography section. There are different ways to do it though. Br'er Rabbit is pretty helpful about reference formatting, might want to ping him for advice.
  • Overall this is definitely moving in the right direction, but I'd advise trying to bulk it up with more sources before going to GA. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folding@home

[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 eager to improve this article as much as I can, with the ultimate goal of achieving FA status. As the primary editor, this article consists almost entirely of my writing, so it's becoming more difficult for me to determine what needs to be further improved. I've already achieved GA status, and some of the criteria quickly passing without comment. In response to my inquiry regarding how I could further improve the prose, the GA reviewer, Czarkoff, later commented "The current text actually impressed me with the balance between the depth of coverage and ease of apprehension, as well as between medical and computing topics. I don't think something should be changed in this regard." (diff) Thus, I'm beginning to feel that it's getting close to FA standards but I'd appreciate a review to help me get there. I wouldn't mind a detailed and thorough analysis, but any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jesse V. (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folding@home review part 1 from JMiall (This is by no means my area of expertise so I am analysing it as it reads without looking at any of the refs)

By not looking at refs, and by reviewing with little knowledge beforehand, that certainly gives you an advantage! Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised that molecular dynamics linked to an article defining it as computer simulation. I would have naively assumed that something called x-dynamics was the general study of the dynamics of x as seems to be generally the case rather than limiting it to only computer simulations.
I've rewritten that sentence. The wikilink makes more sense now. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'to predict that final structure and determine how other molecules may interact with it' - to interact with the structure or the protein?
Well both I guess. It's interacting with the protein, but the structure is crucial to understanding how it interacts. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The project is dedicated to understanding protein folding, the diseases that result from misfolding, and developing new methods for computational drug design' - hasn't this just been said in the paragraph or are you talking about a project within Stanford that includes F@h?
Well it sums up the paragraph. I've merged it with the first sentence instead. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Completed work units' are mentioned as returning before we know what a work unit is, how a computer gets it or what counts as completion.
They are explained later in the article, but good point. I've tried to clarify this a bit. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear what a 'credit point' is when it is first mentioned
It is explained later in the article. However, I've removed mention of them from the lead. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This global computing network' - you have not yet established that it is global, just that it uses 1000s of computers.
Good catch. It is global though, (see this) but I've changed it to "large-scale" because that's more clear. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the Pande lab has produced ninety-six scientific research papers as a direct result of the project using simulation methodology that is a paradigm shift away from traditional computational approaches' - there are 2 possible meanings to this that it would be good to clarify - have they produced 96 papers as a direct result of the methodology used? or produced 96 papers as a result of the project, which by the way happens to use a new method of simulation? Also isn't 'paradigm shift away from' something of a tautology?
I've separated the statements, but the latter is the most accurate. The methodology is dividing up the simulation and using distributed computing, which is a paradigm shift because its not just straightforward computation. It's now "from" instead of "away from". Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'accuracy compared to' - do you mean comparible to?
Yes. See accuracy. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the word "compared" because it's redundant. Jesse V. (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'it typically proceeds smoothly' - what is meant by smoothly here? particularly as not long after the process is described as 'stochastic'.
I believe the source uses "smoothly". It supposed to mean that folding proceeds without problems. I'll think about a better word choice. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'where state each'
Derp! Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I properly understand the operation of the simulation from the description:
I'll do my best to help, but I'm not a biochemistry expert and sometimes the technical papers lose me. It was challenging to write that article's paragraph! Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How are the local minima in the energy landscape from which the simulations are started found?
    I actually don't know for certain, I only have half-guesses. Do you think its important to clarify this? Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Just finding the minima could be a massive computational challenge by itself. JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. On my long-term to-do list. I'm currently trying to figure out how to access the publications from outside Utah State University. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How is the phase space explored? In what way is the exploration different than "waiting" for the protein to leave the minimum and evolve to a new minimum?
    By moving from one minima and finding a new one, you are exploring the phase space. At least, that's my understanding. I've reworded the statement. Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the method of finding a new minimum to set off in a direction in phase space from one minimum and hope that somewhere along that direction will also be a minimum? If not what is it? And how is the direction chosen? JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also on my long-term to-do list. I don't know the answer to either of those questions. Clearly requires more research... Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 'arbitrary resolution' - resolution on what scale?
    I've read that they can "zoom in" into a MSM and see all the configurations which represent a small local minima, or "zoom out" and view the bigger picture where the more prominent local minima dominate the model. I've tried to clarify this. Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. how is it known that no minima have been missed?
    I've never thought about that! I'll have to do some research or ask an expert, just out of curiosity. Is this important to clarify in the article, or is it an unnecessary detail? Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is important to my understanding of how it works. If more detail about how the minima were first generated was available then it may be less important.JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On my long-term to-do list. I'll have to do some more research. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well measurement uncertainty limits the model. Hence they can identify what is causing the most uncertainty, and address it to create a more accurate model. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'In 2002 Folding@home used... and in 2011 they parallelized' but 'In January 2010 researchers used... Folding@home to' - Use and be used. Should this be consistent throughout?
I'm confused as to what you're saying here. I did replace "they" with "MSMs" for clarity, and I think the tense is okay. Please clarify. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I meant was sometimes in the article F@h is treated as an entity that does things by itself and sometimes as an object which is used by others. Consistency would be better.JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I made changes and now F@h as a single entity when its simulating something, but make the distinction that scientists/researchers use it to study something or publish a paper. So in that sense, I will be consistence. See also Rosetta@home. Is this sufficient? Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'including... among others' - more tautology
    Has been been addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cellular infection by viruses such as HIV and influenza also involve folding events within cellular membranes,[29] and computer-assisted drug design has the possibility to expedite drug discovery' - why 'also'? drugs to do what? the part after ref 29 could be generally true and reads rather like it has been bolted on to the 1st half.
    They are now two separate sentences. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JMiall₰ 00:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folding@home review part 2 from JMiall' (based on a printout from a couple of days ago)

  • the article talks a lot about folding but do any proteins get created in a folded state, have to unfold and then fold into a new shape? If so does F@h simulate this?
    It mostly focuses on folding and misfolding. A protein's native state is a pretty big energy minima, maybe even the minimum, so once it gets there AFAIK it won't spontenously fold into something else. There's a YouTube video I've seen where Dr. Pande draws an analogy between protein folding and parking a car. The protein does something, realizes that its now its now in an unworkable state, and backs up and tries something a bit different. I'll research whether F@h studies protein refolding and things like that. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't the F@h methodology be used on supercomputers? AFAIK many of these use a very parallel architecture that would seem well suited to the problem so 'strong scaling of molecular simulations to these architectures is exceptionally difficult' seems an odd comment.
    It's true that supercomputers have thousands of processors which aim to do the work in parallel. These processors are often connected by a high-speed bus. From what I've read, its difficult to get straightforward simulations to use all available processors, and the bus is heavily used. F@h's MSM methodology wouldn't need this bus much at all, since the work is very parallelizable. But the supercomputer's processors may be slower than regular consumer-grade processors, and as the article states supercomputers are very expensive to run and shared by many research groups. Anyway, I've added "traditional" before "molecular simulations" so that it's more clear. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the 'While statement x, statement y' construction a lot. For a bit of variety and simplifying the English many of these could be rewritten as 'Statement x but statement' or 'Even though statement x, statement y' etc.
    True. I like your suggestions a lot, and have applied them. The writing does seem much better! Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Once it is understood how a protein misfolds, therapeutic intervention can be the next step, which can use engineered molecules to:' - wouldn't engineering the molecules be the next step and therapeutic intervention be years down the line? I'm not sure the colon is needed either.
    Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Folding@home is dedicated to producing significant amounts of results towards protein folding' - rewrite
    I replaced "towards" with "about" because that seems to be better. I don't know what the problem is. Please clarify or offer suggestions. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'In addition to the diseases listed below, Folding@home also studies' - there's a big list of diseases above at the start of the section. Why do we need another list here?
    The first list was about diseases that followed protein misfolding, the other list indicated other diseases that F@h studied. Since there was a great deal of overlap and malaria and Chagas Disease appear to be small pilot projects, I've removed the list entirely. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'As a part of Stanford University, a non-profit organization, the Pande lab does not sell' - this doesn't follow, non-profits can still sell things
    Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'upon request, while some' -> 'upon request and some'
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'so that the algorithms which benefited Folding@home will also aid other scientific areas' - will? Just sharing the algorithms doesn't ensure they will be useful.
    Good point. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'For example, in 2011 they released the open-source Copernicus software, which uses techniques developed on Folding@home to significantly improve the efficiency and scaling of molecular simulations on large clusters or supercomputers' - this contradicts earlier in the article. See previous point.
    I've made some improvements to this statement. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The full publications are available online from a local municipal or academic library' - so if I go to my local library I'll have access?
    If your library has purchased a subscription to the journal in which the paper is published, or if the library pays for the paper by itself, then yes. But you raise a good point. I've removed the "local municipal" part. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'In excessive concentrations of misfolded Aβ, protein oligomers begin to form which in turn continues Aβ misfolding, while the oligomer itself slowly grows.' - how about 'High concentrations of misfolded Aβ cause protein oligomer growth. These oligomers also contribute to Aβ misfolding.' ?
    I like that much better! I combined the two statements and used "High concentrations of misfolded Aβ cause protein oligomer growth that in turn contribute to Aβ misfolding." Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'timescales in order of tens of seconds' - of the order of
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This was much longer than previously performed and significant as previous simulations had been limited to several hundreds of microseconds: six orders of magnitude short of experimentally relevant timescales' - this needs a rewrite but aren't you also saying then that tens of seconds is still not relevant?
    I've rewritten it. No, tens of seconds is relevent. 100 microseconds * 10^6 = 10 seconds, so the order of magnitude statement is correct. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'specific small molecules' - which ones? how small?
    Addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'as well as preparing them for future' - them = the small molecules?
    Already addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This is a promising approach' - is regarded as a?
    Better! Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'several small drug candidates to fight Alzheimer's Disease which' - get rid of 'to fight Alzheimer's Disease'
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'which could aid in the development of therapeutic drug approaches to the disease' - this kind of thing has been said a lot recently in the article
    Well yes. Would you like me to remove the statement? If you don't mind, could you help me identify the others which you would also like me to take care of? Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'and although its behavior is not completely understood, it does lead to' - what are the it and its referring to? the aggregate, the excessive repeats, the excessive repeating process, the glutamine?
    Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link 'rational drug design'
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'toxic aggregate formation' - mention toxicity earlier, all we've been told previously about the aggregate is that it leads (with unknown number of intermediate steps) to cognitive decline.
    I moved the word "toxic" to the Alzheimer's section, when I first mention aggregation. It's complicated stuff, but I'll look more into the "unknown intermediate steps" between aggregation and cognitive decline. I think I've already given a sufficient amount of general information about these steps in the Alzheimer's section, but it's a good idea to give more details. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the root causes of cancer' - will it tell us anything about the large numbers of cancers not associated with p53?
    It does contradict the earlier "More than half of all known cancers involve mutations of p53" statement! Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'to other p53-related diseases.' - link this?
    To what? Closest thing I found was P53#Role in disease. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'a form of IL-2 which is three hundred times more effective in its immune system role but carries fewer side effects' - this seems odd. if this new version is so much better why hasn't it evolved previously?
    The statement is true. Check the citations. Perhaps there wasn't enough evolutionary pressure to find this form of IL-2. Evolution doesn't always get it right. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'which fulfills a variety of structural roles and is the most abundant protein in mammals' - swap the order of the 2 statements
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This complexity and timescale make' - makes
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'hemagglutinin' links to influenza verson but then talks about HIV. Is this correct?
    Now just links to hemagglutinin. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I changed it back. The link was correct, it's just that the statement had some factual errors. I've now addressed them with a rewrite. I no longer talk about HIV specifically, but instead viruses in general. Jesse V. (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Researchers have also used Folding@home to study prime', 'Folding@home also took', 'The Pande lab has also used' - also, also, also.
    The word "also" occurs 41 times in text. I've reduced it to 32 times, and addressed those snippets. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did F@h do in SAMPL's blind experiment?
    I had a feeling someone was going to ask! :) In that particular instance, not too well unfortunately, since according to this statement by a scientist, they didn't get as much computations done as they would have liked due to technical difficulties, so they weren't confident that their predictions would be accurate. Their choice of a prediction algorithm apparently needed lots of computing power and the difficulties prevented them from meeting their expectations in that instance. Do you suppose ts that explanation worthy of mention? Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This large and powerful network allows Folding@home to do work not possible any other way, though the Pande lab has collaborated with other molecular dynamics systems such as the Blue Gene supercomputer.' - how does the 2nd half follow from the 1st?
    I felt that they were related. I've seperated them, and moved the second statement to the Biomedical Research section. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Folding@home gained popularity early in its history.' - this rather follows from the steady growth statement earlier
    Good point! I've moved that steady growth statement to right before this one. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unconvinced by the 'PetaFLOPS milestones' section. Could the whole thing be better expressed as a graph of PetaFLOPS against time for F@h & the fastest supercomputer?
    Hmm. I suppose that's possible, though there are some important details in the paragraph that would be lost if the whole thing was a graph. I found Template:Line chart, do you think this would be good? Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Similar to other distributed' - similarly
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donors / users - is there any difference?
    No. Rosetta@home does not use "donors" but instead uses "users". I suppose "participants" also works. Changes made. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'which are exceptionally demanding on a system' - so do users get more points for processing units that their system finds demanding?
    Good point. Done. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'A user can start their own team, or they can join an existing team,[3] but existing points cannot be transferred to a new team or username.' - is this important?
    It's a detail that clarifies how F@h's point system works. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'However, regardless of username or team affiliation, all contributions go to the same place and have the same scientific value' - you've just said that they don't all have the same scientific value
    Well I meant that the scientific value of a WU is not affected by your username or team affiliation. After some consideration, I realized that this statement adds very little, if anything to the section, so I've removed it. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'and third parties may also offer additional statistics on their own site' - is this important? May?
    Removed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'on the user's end' - at
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'A Work Unit (WU)' - this is not the 1st use of work unit and the abbreviation is not used again for a while
    I've removed the abbreviation entirely, and made sure "Work Unit" is consistently capitalized. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Once completed, the results are returned' - there's no mention of the simulation so this makes it sound like results are returned as soon as the download has completed
    True. Changed to "After the Work Unit has been completely processed," Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'before a final full release across all of FAH' - why abbreviate here when Folding@home has been written out in full so many times previously? There's more of these in the 'Client' section.
    I've removed the abbreviations. "FAH" is actually the more official abbreviation, so I don't use "F@h" in text. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Topics in the Folding@home forum can be used to differentiate between problematic hardware and an actual bad Work Unit' - Which topics? How can the first person to have the problem do this?
    I removed "Topics in". If a person encounters an error which has not yet been seen before, they can go to the forum, post about their problem, ask for help, and admins and regular volunteers can help narrow down the problem. The Pande lab will be reported, and meanwhile the person will mostly likely be told to wait and see if several more WUs fail on their hardware. If they do, it's bad hardware. If not, that was a bad WU. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'one of the fastest and most popular molecular dynamics software packages available' - we've just been told that it is a molecular dynamics program.
    Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Each client is the software with which the user interacts, and manages the other software components behind the scenes' - is the user or the client doing the managing?
    Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the diversity and power of each hardware architecture provides Folding@home with the ability to efficiently complete many different types of simulations in a timely manner, (in a few weeks or months rather than years) which is of significant scientific value. Together, these clients allow Folding@home to address biomedical questions previously considered impossible to tackle computationally' - this type of thing has been said previously and probably belongs in another section.
  • '(over port 8080, with 80 as an alternative)' - is this important?
    Rosetta@home is the only article about a distributed computing project which has achieved GA status (its now FA). It mentions it. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'It will upload' - what is it?
    The client. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • EULA - this abbreviation is never used again
    True. Removed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Folding@home's first client was a screensaver...' - can this be said earlier in the article?
    Yes it could, but where? I think it's in a pretty good spot actually. It's under the Client section and is mentioned last because it's not as important or relevant. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Folding@home also utilizes GPUs for distributed computing' - this has just been said in the previous section
    True. I thought it was a good way to open the section. However, I removed it. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'as of February 2012 GPU clients account for' - as it is no longer Feb this could be 'In February 2012 GPU clients accounted for'
    I've already updated the statement, but if the month is correct isn't it better to say "as of"? I see your point, I'm just debating about which one is better. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Small memory soft errors' - what are these?
    Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'over PCs, power which could not' - processing power
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'On March 23, 2007, the PS3 client was first released as a standalone application to the PlayStation 3, developed in a collaborative effort between Sony and the Pande lab' - I'd prefer 'A PS3 client that was developed in a collaborative effort between Sony and the Pande lab was released in March 2007.'
    Good idea. Changed to "The PS3 client was developed in a collaborative effort between Sony and the Pande lab and was first released as a standalone client on March 23, 2007." Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'as well as making Folding@home user friendly' - so is F@h not user friendly on other platforms?
    I guess you could conclude that! Clarified. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The PS3 also has the ability to...' - put this earlier in section
    Done. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'these CPU cores complete single WUs over 4x faster than the standard uniprocessor client' - even on a machine with only 2 cores? or do you mean that the multi-core client runs four times faster on the same machine than the single core client does?
    Sorry. On a machine with 4 CPU cores it's just about 4x faster than a uniprocessor client, as expected. 8 cores -> 8x faster. I used the term "proportionately faster" for lack of a alternative concise way of saying this. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'some of the publications from Folding@home would not have been possible without this computing power' - why? wouldn't it have just taken them longer?
    Yes, but if a simulation is going to take an impractical amount of time, they don't start them. There's a certain point when the simulation just takes too long. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Although it does not natively support the Linux operating system' & 'Although the clients performed well in Unix-based operating systems such as Linux and Mac's OS-X' - I had assumed that the 'it' refered to F@h.
    Oh. It's actually the GPU client. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Despite these difficulties, SMP1 generated significant results that would have been impossible otherwise' - something very similar to this was said in the 1st paragraph of the section
    True. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The SMP2 client also supported a bonus points system, which non-linearly rewards additional points' - is this different to the points system mentioned earlier?
    No it's the same. I didn't realize that there were duplicate statements. I removed this last statement that you quoted. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'originally required minimum of'
    Changed to "originally required a minimum of" Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'which that had'
    Oops! Changed to "that had". Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comparison to other molecular systems' - why is it only compared to 2 systems?
    I've seen the discussions where people have asked for comparisons between F@h and Rosetta@home, and other discussions for F@h vs Anton. I haven't read or heard of any other comparisons. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'some Folding@home's projects'
    Clarified. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'It is probable that a combination of Anton's and FAH's simulation methods would provide both a well-sampled simulation and completely cover the protein's phase space' - so at present F@h does not completely cover the protein's phase space? JMiall₰ 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented that out and tried a different phrasing until I can double-check and find out more. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Angelou

[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 suggested by its previous reviewer to submit it for another PR before it's submitted to FAC. The first review was very helpful, and provided me with some great input of improving this article. I'd like to have additional feedback as per that advice.

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article, and I also agree with Figureskatingfan regarding its good condition. I support its submission to FAC. Thanks, Ax1om77 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all you got for me? ;) Seriously, if you or anyone else has any suggestions for improvement, I'd appreciate it. Unless the consensus is that it's ready for FAC; then I'll go ahead and submit it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write an in depth review on the subject in a couple hours. THX, Ax1om77 21:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62.

Resolved comments have been moved to the peer review talk page.

  • "When Angelou was 14, she and her brother returned to live with her mother in Oakland, California." How could she return to Oakland if she had never lived there before?
    Yes, that's very unclear. How about: When Angelou was 14, she and her brother returned to their mother's care in Oakland, California?
    Err, I don't see how that solves the problem. It still uses "return", which implies that they were going somewhere they had already been. Why not just "When Angelou was 14, she and her brother went to live with her mother in Oakland, California." ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's very important because their mother abandoned them and they were basically bounced back and forth between her and their grandmother, and that abandonment is an important theme in Angelou's life and writings. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which do you feel is more important in an encyclopedia article: using language that reflects the themes in the subject's works, or clarity? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason why both can't happen. I'm sorry, I don't know how the current sentence is unclear. Could you make a suggestion about how we can convey both concepts clearly?
    Here's one possibility: "When Angelou was 14, she and her brother moved in with their mother once again; she had since moved to Oakland, California." This emphasizes the back-and-forth nature of her upbringing without implying that she had ever been to Oakland before. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, went ahead and put it in!
  • The quote boxes are also inconsistent in their punctuation. Some appear without quotation marks, some appear with, and one ends with a single quotation mark without there being one at the beginning. Eep! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note (which I should have seen the first time), the quote boxes should also be consistent in their use of dashes. I see all of the following being used in the article:
    • "...Lincoln.--Reviewer John McWhorter" No space, two hyphens
    • "...music. Maya Angelou" Line break, no hyphens or dashes
    • "...Aaaahhhh!—Maya Angelou" No space, em dash
    • "defeated. --Maya Angelou" One space, two hyphens
    Yes, you should have seen it! And so should have I! ;) Thanks, I think they're all consistent now. Anything else? ;) Seriously, though, I appreciate the thoroughness of this review. It will save me grief at FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helps bunches! Thanks so much. It looks like there are a couple of issues leftover, so once they're resolved, and the article I have languishing at GAC is reviewed, I'd like to submit it to FAC. Whoo hoo! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should go ahead and nominate this at FAC. Others may see prose problems I missed or point out missing information (as I'm sure you've seen before), but I think this article is in damn good shape. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, C! I appreciate the assistance, and the encouragement. I intend on submitting this article, but I don't believe in having more than one article for any review at the same time. Currently, Format of Sesame Street is languishing at GAC, and has been for almost three months! The backlog there is horribly long, so I may go and review an article there to do my part in helping it decrease. It might be a good use of your time, too! ;) At any rate, I'll let you know when this gets to FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Menominee Tribe v. United States

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it ready for FAC. It was going through an FAC previously (September 2010), but I had to leave Wikipedia for a while and only recently returned. I'm wanting to get back to working on the article again and make progress.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. --02:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Doing...

Comments from Noleander.
  • Lead should be clearer: "by the Menominee Termination Act ..." - Use plain english: instead say something like "after the tribe was abolished" or similar.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date? - "in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan for at least 10,000 years." - Probably should be double-checked. Most recent research is that Native Americans only crossed from Siberia to Alaska 14,000 years ago.
 Done - added ref and footnote supporting statement. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Units - "600,000 acres (2,400 km2) " - If using "acres" for English units, probably should use hectares for metric.
 DoneGregJackP Boomer! 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordign - "the tribe was part of a survey to identify tribes ..." - More accurate to say "the tribe was subject to a survey .." or "was considered by a government-run survey.."; as is, it reads like the tribe was helping to run the survey.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 11:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain: - "The tribe and the state of Wisconsin successfully lobbied to delay the termination to 1961". Why?
 Done - Expanded and explained. GregJackP Boomer! 01:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " the Menominee went from being one of the wealthiest...." - Use of "went" is too slangy. Try "became" or similar.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slang: "In 1954, the tribe was paying its own way ..." - "paying its own way" is not encyclopedic. Rewrite as "was financially self-sufficient" or similar.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "Joseph L. Sanapaw, William J. Grignon, and Francis Basina ..." - Should state that they are tribal members right there.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing: "the court found that it must be resolved in favor of the tribe. Since the tribe had hunting and fishing rights under the treaty, the court then looked to determine if Congress had removed that right by enacting the Menominee Termination Act. The court held that Congress had used its plenary power to abrogate those rights..." - This seems to say two contradictory things: (1) they tribe did retain hunting rights; then (2) They did not. Clarify the wording.
 Done - I tried to clarify it. The court first determined if the tribe had hunting and fishing rights, then after it determined that the rights did exist, it found that the Termination Act had withdrawn those rights. GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informal: "The key point to the court was the phrase ..." - Rewords to something like "The court placed special emphasis on ..."
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity: " The court held that the tribe ..." - Throughout the "State enforcement actions" and later, avoid using "the court" because there are 4 courts here: lower court; state supreme; court of claims, and SCOTUS. Always use a modifier to tell the reader which court.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "granted certiorari (a writ to the lower court to send the case to them for review)..." - Readers would probably benefit if this simply said "decided to hear an the appeal" or similar.
 Done - left the statement in, but clarified by adding simple language prior to the certiorari statement. GregJackP Boomer! 11:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informal: "In an interesting twist, both the ..." - Not encyclopedic. Try "Contrary to most appeals, both ... ", although that doesnt seem right either.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "The decision of the U.S. Court of Claims was affirmed." - I've lost track of what affirmed means here: Restate in this sentence what that means to the tribe.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plainer wording: "The case has been identified as one of the ..." - Just say "The case is a landmark case in tribal law ... " or similar.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informal: "A good number of these articles..." - "good number" is not encyclopedic. The whole sentence should probably be reworded to make it go away.
 DoneGregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes: Some end in periods, some don't. Be consistent.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword: "From that date forward for 100 years, this area has been the home of the tribe, and they were free from state interference." - "from that date forward" is too informal. Also "and they were free from ..." is a bit vague: do the sources really say that? Be more specific.
 Done Corrected wording, added footnote with ref to explain tribal sovereignty. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote #3 has some formatting problem at the end.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be enough for now. It looks like you have not edited the article for nearly two years. I recommend that you go through the article sentence-by-sentence and consider if each can be improved. The notes above should give you some indication of the kinds of improvements that are available.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate the review and will work on correcting these areas. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've addressed all of your comments - please let me know if there is anything I missed. I am starting to go through it line by line per your suggestion, and I really appreciate all of your help. GregJackP Boomer! 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons guest stars

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After a re-design and full sourcing in collaboration with Lemonade51, I'd like to say this list is done. But it's been a long time since I've had an FLC so, rather than wasting time with what may well be a quick-fail, I thought it best to have a PR first. So... basically any advice/policy failures would be great. Thanks, Gran2 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There is a circular redirect that needs to be fixed here
  • The article should have an image in the lead. Assuming it becomes a FL, it can be listed on the Main Page and will need an image then. Since Phil Hartman has the record for most guest appearances, perhaps his photo could be in the lead.
    • Done
  • I do not think the lead follows WP:LEAD - per WP:BEGINNING The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. but guest stars are not even mentioned until the second paragraph of the lead.
    • Well, I'll shuffle it, but I'm just following what seems to be standard practice on a lot of FLs
  • I also would make sure that things that have a specific date should include that instead of vague time terms like "currently". SO the Guiness Book of World Records status is "currently", but the actual ref says this is season 21, as of May 2010, and adds that at least 555 guest stars have appeared on the Simpsons as of that date.
    • Done.
  • I would also include the 555 guest stars number in the article, since it is in a reliable source.
    • Done. I've calculated the full, up to date total. Does that count as OR? I mean, there all in the article and all source there.
  • Most of the show background in the first paragraph of the lead seems to me as if would be better in the History - nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
    • But it's context for the list itself, which seems to be standard in most FLs.
  • Awkward phrase ...while actor Seth Rogen co-wrote with Evan Goldberg the episode "Homer the Whopper".[14] would be better as something like ...while actor Seth Rogen co-wrote the episode "Homer the Whopper" with Evan Goldberg.[14]
    • Done
  • There is room for more photos ;-)
    • Will do
  • Did anyone change from a guest star to a regular cast member?
    • Nope
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Gran2 17:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I took a second look. The article looks better to me. I have one suggestion

At the conclusion of season 23, 596 different guest stars have appeared on the show (if the members of bands with speaking roles are counted separately, but bands who merely perform a song are counted as one). This figure rises to 601 if The Simpsons Movie is counted as well.

might read better as something like

At the conclusion of season 23, there have been 596 guest stars appearances on the show (if the members of bands with speaking roles are counted separately, but bands who merely perform a song are counted as one). This figure rises to 601 if The Simpsons Movie is counted.

I think some people would count a person who appeared more than once as a single guest star, but what is being counted here is the number of guest star appearances (so Phil Hartman is 52 guest star appearances, not 1 guest star). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 596 is the number of different individuals who have guest starred (so Phil Hartman is counted as one in this figure). If all appearances are counted (so, Hartman counts as 52) the number is 847. This is in the 'History' section, but I only included the figure for distinct people in the lead. Gran2 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification - perhaps then it would read better as something like
At the conclusion of season 23, 596 different people have appeared as guest stars on the show (if the members of bands with speaking roles are counted separately, but bands who merely perform a song are counted as one). This figure rises to 601 if The Simpsons Movie is counted.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Me (Katy Perry song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because It is GA class and thanks to the last peer review, I've done a lot of work on it and I plan on bringing it to FA class and I would like one more peer review before I do so.

Thanks, teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 23:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bat'leth

[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 wanted to get some feedback on the article I managed to turn from redirect to a 6,000+ character article with limited sources. It already has a DYK credit and I wanted to get some feedback in view of future improvements or maybe even a GA.

Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First, as a fan of ST:TNG, I'm super happy to see someone take this topic on. Overall, it's a nice article; don't let the length of my comments detract from that. I almost always have a ton of comments on every article I review.

Lead:

  • Nice image. Why the explicit size restriction? 150px is too small, imo. Obviously, if we had a picture of one of the replicas mentioned in the article, it would be even better, and a video demonstration of a martial artist using one, as described in the article would be best of all, but you probably know that already and would include such a thing if you had it. Just a thought for ways to further develop the article.
  • If bat'leth isn't capitalized in the rest of the article, it shouldn't be in the lead.
  • I would split that opening sentence into two sentences. One should say what a bat'leth is and the other, who created it.
  • You should probably clarify that the Klingons are a race of people in the Star Trek universe for the unenlightened reader who isn't familiar with that.
  • The lead says the bat'leth is an iconic image of Star Trek. The body says its creator considers it an iconic image of the franchise. I suggest going with the latter in the lead, too. It's to POV-ish to claim that it is, since that's probably always going to be a matter of opinion.
  • "Replicas are widely available" doesn't tell us much. Are they available worldwide? In certain countries? In certain parts of certain countries? In the body, it seems to refer to the diversity of store types that sell them. I'd try to clean this up.

History:

  • Again, I'd split this first sentence in two, with one sentence talking about why Curry created the bat'leth and another talking about his inspiration, the Chinese fighting crescent. Also, is there any appropriate article we can link "Chinese fighting crescent" to? It's not a weapon I'm familiar with.
  • "It consists of a curved blade ... with handholds along the centre of the sword's back." I'd try to be consistent as to whether we call this a blade or a sword. To me, blade seems most appropriate.
  • "It consists of a curved blade with spiked protrusions at both ends and with handholds along the centre of the sword's back, and is approximately five feet long. The handholds are used to twist and spin the blade rapidly; the weapon can be used with either one or both hands." The ideas in these sentences seem oddly-grouped to me. Suggested rewrite: "It consists of a curved blade, approximately five feet long, with spiked protrusions at both ends. Handholds along the centre of the blade's back allow the wielder to twist and spin it rapidly. The weapon can be used with either one or both hands."
  • "Curry, a martial artist, also developed an appropriate fighting style similar to t'ai chi for the use of the weapon." Suggest dropping "appropriate" from this sentence as mildly POV. Also, pipe "t'ai chi" to "t'ai chi ch'uan" to avoid the redirect.
  • "In 1995, Curry developed a smaller version of the bat'leth, the 'mek'leth'" Do we know what year he developed the bat'leth, so we have a frame of reference?
  • "The bat'leth appeared in 29 television episodes across the Star Trek franchise and was also used in the 1994 film Star Trek: Generations. In addition to the Deep Space Nine television series, the mek'leth appears in the 1996 film Star Trek: First Contact." This seems to me to fit better in the Canon section.
  • "Bat'leths have also led to martial arts teams being founded to try to develop a distinct martial art using the bat'leth." Bat'leths themselves didn't lead to anything. Either the development of the bat'leth or, more likely, the rise in popularity of the bat'leth or the widespread production of bat'leth replicas led to the formation of dedicated martial arts teams.
  • The article mentions that Curry developed a fighting style for the bat'leth. Why, then are others trying to develop one? Do we know?
  • Possibly consider moving this to the Outside Star Trek section, especially if you can expand upon it at all. Maybe give examples of such teams, when they formed, where they are based, what types of events they perform at, etc. Have any of them gained any recognition worthy of mention in the martial arts community?

Canon: *I suggest opening this section with "According to Star Trek canon," or something of that ilk, then not mentioning the words "Star Trek" or "canon" again in the section. The reader should understand that everything that follows is "according to Star Trek canon". The frequent mentions of it in this section really impair the readability.

  • "The original bat'leth was referred to as the Sword of Kahless." You can drop this, as it appears later in the section and flows better there.
  • "The word "bat'leth" itself translates as "Sword of Honour" in the Klingon language." Suggest dropping "itself" as unnecessary. Also suggest moving this to the third paragraph of this section, after the first sentence. Such a move would also allow you to drop "in the Klingon language" from this sentence.
  • "the very first bat'leth was forged in around 625 A.D." A little surprised to see the designation "A.D." here, since presumably the Klingons don't count their years in the same way we do on earth. Could we say something like "was forged around the Earth-equivalent of 625 A.D." without it sounding too awkward?
  • If you choose to adopt the suggestions immediately above, the first sentence of the section could read something like, "According to Star Trek canon, the Klingon Kahless forged the first bat'leth around the Earth-equivalent of 625 A.D." Notice that I changed it to active voice as well.
  • "He is stated to have" Stated by whom? Better to say something like "Klingon [lore/legend/mythology/tradition] holds that"
  • "He is then said to have" Shorten to "He then". We already know that this is according to canon or Klingon lore. Also drop "to have" later in the sentence for consistency.
  • "Kahless is said to have used" Again, shorten to "Kahless used".
  • "and in doing so to have united Qo'noS, the Klingon homeworld." Shorten to "uniting the Klingon homeworld."
  • "was later stolen by an invading Star Trek species called the Hur'q." Suggest revising as "was stolen by a species called the Hur'q during their invasion of Qo'noS." The information about the bat'leth in List of weapons in Star Trek mentions that the Hur'q are believed to be extinct, and the article The Sword of Kahless is about a DS9 episode in which the artifact is recovered and ultimately beamed into space. These seem like facts that should be added to this article.
  • "In Star Trek canon, bat'leths are made of a reinforced metal called baakonite." We really shouldn't have a one-sentence paragraph. Can we combine this with an extant paragraph, or find some more information to expand it with?

Outside Star Trek:

  • "Among those who display one is Ron Moore, who has worked on both Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica." Where does he display it? In his office? As he carries it down the street?
  • "However, due to the dangers of real bat'leths, there are no official or licenced replica versions of the weapon." Checking the source, I see this is nearly a direct quote from the official Star Trek web site. We should just throw quotes around it and say where it came from. That also answers the question of who would make it "official" or "licensed".
  • The next three paragraphs all involve criminal charges associated with bat'leth replicas. They seem to belong in the Legality section to me.
  • "This sword is sometimes referred to by the media as a "double-pointed Klingon crescent-shaped sword",[18] a "Klingon-type sword",[18] a "Star Trek Klingon-type sword"[19] or as a "double-pointed scimitar"." If this sentence stays with the crimes information, I would try to put it near the beginning or the end of the section and say something like "Media reports documenting instances of replica bat'leths being used in alleged crimes have referred to the weapon as a "double-pointed Klingon crescent-shaped sword", a "Klingon-type sword", a "Star Trek Klingon-type sword" or a "double-pointed scimitar"."
  • Really having a hard time figuring out how a bat'leth was helpful to folks involved in Medicare fraud, but I'm assuming we don't have those details. A shame; it would be interesting to know.
  • "A stainless steel bat'leth was once said to be" Said by whom?
  • It would be nice to have more details about how, if at all, the bat'leth was used in the TV episodes mentioned. If they were just scenery, that doesn't seem worth mentioning to me, especially if the only source is IMDB, which I wouldn't really consider a reliable source anyway.

Legality:

  • I would turn the first sentence into two, breaking it at the conjunction "and".
  • "The miniature bat'leth was described as "most horrendous"" by whom?
  • The choices of New Jersey and Colorado as states used to comment on the legality of the bat'leth in the U.S. seems random until you realize that these were the sites of the two crimes mentioned earlier. Yet another reason to bring that content here instead.

Overall, was an enjoyable read. It had to be difficult to find reliable sources for, I'd imagine. If possible, I would try to expand it with notable uses of the bat'leth in the series, such as Worf teaching his son Alexander to use one and Worf killing Duras with one. I'd be happy to comment on this again after you have made some revisions, and I'll watchlist this review so I can react to your responses. Would really love to see it make at least GA one day. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this. I can understand removing a number of the words as I had just put them in there to make up the characters to appease those at DYK. (which annoyingly didn't get 5,000 views!) The sources I have here were the only reliable one that I could find as the rest regarding it were all forums. The reason why I did use IMDB was because most Star Trek episode articles have it so I'd assume that it's been passed as acceptable. You probably could find a video of someone twirling it on youtube or somewhere else but I'm not that good with uploading files. I have made a few adjustments based on your suggestions. I hope I can get it to GA soon. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you consulted the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek for additional references and ideas about expanding the article? If not, you might drop a line on the project talk page about this PR and see if you get any feedback. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on the project. Since then I have tried to do a a few more of the suggestions so you may want to take another look as it does appear that a few missed being striked. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the project members can help decide what other relevant information may belong here. Nice use of the {{cite episode}} template for citations. I hope to have some time to look for a few sources myself in the not-too-distant future. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you good luck as I found it to be hard to even find any reliable sources. Regarding that potential inclusion of quotes about the replicas of the bat'leths, I've looked on the Star Trek website and can't seem to find the article that the newspaper referred to so I think that that avenue is not avaliable, which is why I just put Curry or Paramount at the end. Actually I think I might have done a few of the issues that have been left unchecked. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being WP:BOLD, I did some pretty substantial reorganization on the article, but changed very little of the content. See what you think. After that, I'll see which, if any, of my comments are still outstanding. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that more or less gets everything, then. I think this will stand a good chance of this making GA pretty soon. As I'm able, I'll continue to look for ways to improve and expand the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In searching for some more material to use when expanding this article, I ran across this: http://www.startrek.com/database_article/batleth. There are some pretty serious close paraphrasing concerns here.

  • From the Wikipedia article: "According to Star Trek canon, the Klingon Kahless forged the first bat'leth around the Earth-equivalent of 625 A.D. Klingon mythology holds that he dropped a lock of his hair into the lava from inside a volcano known as the Kri'stak Volcano, then plunged the fiery lock into a lake known as "the lake of Lursor" and twisted it to form a blade. After forging the weapon, Kahless used it to defeat a tyrant named Molor, uniting Qo'noS, the Klingon homeworld."
  • From the website above: "Klingon oral history has it that the first bat'leth was forged around 625 A.D. (Terran equivalent) by Kahless the Unforgettable. Kahless dropped a lock of his hair into the lava from the Kri'stak Volcano, and then plunged the fiery lock into the lake of Lursor and twisted it to form a blade. After forging the weapon, he used it to defeat the tyrant Molor, and in doing so united the Klingon Homeworld."

The wording was even closer before some of my edits. This should not pass GA until this issue is cleared up. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have tried to change some of the words to try and avoid that being an issue as I'm not sure how to rearrange that so that it makes at least some linear sense. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting to avoid close paraphrasing is tough, especially when sources are limited. I've had to do it myself from time to time. I don't think the simple substitution of synonyms was enough. I've done some more modification. See what you think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese People's Volunteer Army order of battle

[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 is the first time I have done an order of battle article, thus I need a few pointers on where to go from B class. Thanks for all comments in advance. Jim101 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need a detailed justification, beyond the single sentence you've got now at FN 2, about why you chose to use 'corps' [ie 38th Army Corps] as opposed to army [ie 38th Field Army]. I've read many descriptions either way. Whichever way you chose to do it, it needs to be clearly justified and sourced, beyond the boilerplate you've got there right now. Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a lack of a consensus among English sources on how to translate Chinese unit titles given the word "corps" does not exist in Chinese language. I have added a explanation along with a source in official Chinese document on the matter, although I don't know if you believe such explanation should go beyond a footnote. Let me know if it is adequate. Jim101 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would put what you've just written - that the word 'corps' does not exist as such - right up front in the intro, not buried in a footnote. That makes the translation dilemma now in FN 2 much easier to understand. Also, have you got any sources for the 15th Army in Korea? Be good to be able to add some pre-1953 info to the Airborne Corps article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I put the info into the intro. As for 15th Airborne corps, I don't have a source on it, but I do have bits of information per its battle records in Korea. I'll see what I can add to that article. Jim101 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Jim101 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links you've put in. Would you mind please redlinking all the divisional articles? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jim101 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see a table of the total casualities of the PVA including Dead, Wounded and POW. In this case it would be good if you mention the fate of the POWs as there was dispute about if the allies allow the prisoners that want to to be brought to Taiwan. Second is it possible to note at every unit in the last Phase the date they left Korea? Maybe it should be said why no chinese forces stayed in Korea as the americans did. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points, I'll try to answer/address this one by one:
  • The total number of dead, wounded, POW and non-battle casualties is already mentioned in the lead, did you mean you want another table besides that, or do you want a phase by phase breakdown (which is somewhat impossible IMO after viewing all the available sources on the topic).
  • As for the fate of Chinese POWs, did you meant you want a separate number for POWs defected per the first point?
  • As for the timetable of Chinese withdrawal from Korea, it is impossible to account for every Chinese unit given the ad hoc nature of some of the Chinese units, nor did this issue received any scholar attention aside from the fact the Chinese official history mentioned that the 1st Corps was the last Chinese unit stationed in Korea before its withdraw on October 1958. My own personal hypothesis is that the massive Chinese military effort in Korea had put an incredible strain on both Chinese and Soviet economies to force a total Chinese withdraw when compared with US, but without a source to back it up, it is still an original theory.
Let my know what you think. Jim101 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I missed the numbers in the introduction.
  • With the POW I mean the fact that not all of them wanted to go back into the People's Republic but go to Taiwan. Mao from Jung Chang and John Halliday states that 21,374 didn't wanted to return and most went to Taiwan. I further remember that in Generalissimo, a biography about Chiang Kai-shek by Jay Taylor and a german book about the war it is further discussed as Mao wanted all the POW back, Chiang wanted as many of them for his forces in Taiwan and the US/UN wanted a free choice for every single one. In my opinion this should be mentioned at the end of the article.
Separated the POW number between captured and defected in the intro. Jim101 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mao doesn't really cared about the POWs from my research, he just wanted an excuse to drag the war for as along as possible, believing that attrition warfare with Soviet support would eventually wear UN forces down to capitulation, until Stalin's death pulled the carpet from under his plan. Anyway, since this is an order of battle article, I believe such extended debate about background politic is out of article scope. Jim101 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that economic strains were a reason for Mao to cut his military at any point of his reign. I will have a look into a few books if I find something about the reason for the chinese withdrawl. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is still open for debate. My point is that you just can't maintain 40%~50% of government budget on military spending indefinitely (which is why China decided to end the Korean War in 1953 with Stalin died and Soviet withdrew their support per Stueck, William W. (1995), The Korean War: An International History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691037671). In fact it is confirmed in Chen, Jian (1996), China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, ISBN 9780231100250 that Mao was in the process of demobilization the bulk of the PLA when Korean War broke out in order to reduce the economic strain to the country. Mao did want to challenge US in every way possible per his theory of revolution struggle in "Third World intermediate zone" between Soviet Union and United States, but the foundation to Mao's theory is Soviet Union actually paying the bills and holding US attention in Europe. Jim101 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems as if the historians have differing opinions about the reason and motivation of the war. Chang and Taylor both claim, Chang more than Taylor that Mao began the war and fought it because of the aid he got from the Soviet Union with the ultimate goal of getting the techniques to build nuclear weapons. But this are discussions that would have to be made about the main Korean War article.
I have found the number of captures PVA soldiers that defected to Taiwan. Jay Taylor: The Generalissimo - Chiang Kai-Shek and the Struggle for Modern China. 1. Edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2009, ISBN 978-0-674-03338-2. says on page 462 that of the about 21,000 captured soldiers that wouldn't return to the PRC, 14,000 defected to Taiwan. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the number in the intro. Jim101 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles All the Way Down

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach FA status.

Thanks, TBrandley • talk • contributions 16:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't think you need to link the word "drama".
    •  Done
  • Worth saying where "Global" is relevant to (I've never heard of it).
    •  Done
  • "Episode" is mentioned four times in four sentences. I know it's about an episode, but this is dull prose.
    •  Done
  • "a 0.9 rating " I (and probably many other readers) have no clue what a 0.9 rating is. Sounds either nearly perfect or rubbish...
    •  Done
  • Where is the production code referenced?
    •  Done
  • Infobox mentions Youth Lagoon yet this is not referenced nor expanded upon in the article.
    •  Done
  • Where is running time referenced?
    •  Done
      • I watched the episode online, which told me it was 45 minutes. It is referenced to NBC, it could be referenced to the episode.
  • "a temporary jail cell" what's that? a cell that later becomes a restaurant or a cinema? Not sure.
    •  Done
  • "for killing Detective" really? or "accused of killing"?
    •  Not done. That's what happened. He killed him, he was so mad that he killed his family.
  • "He - his "red reality" self - lays down " en-dash, not hyphen.
    •  Done
  • "e United States.[5][1]" normally expect to see refs in numerical order.
    •  Done
  • Don't overlink Kyle Killen, and after his first mention, just refer to him as Killen.
    •  Done
  • " in Awake' regular " missing something?
    •  Done
  • "5.0 out of 5" not what the source says exactly.
    •  Done
  • Don't SHOUT in the ref titles.
    •  Done
  • Ref 11, use en-dash for year range per WP:DASH.
    •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global is a Canadian network that airs this show. Thank you very much for this peer review. TBrandley • talk • contributions 21:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carnoustie

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a few years since it achieved GA status and while I was considering putting it forward for FA, I noticed that it scored quite badly on the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool ratings at the bottom of the page. This may be down to mischief (for example, disgruntled shop keepers upset that their promotional edits were rejected), or I may be missing some important failings in the article.

Thanks, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a well-researched article, containing a lot of useful information for people like me who don't know Carnoustie. I can't of course say if the information is accurate but it certainly is detailed. I don't have time for a full prose review, but here are some points which I think require some attention:

  • The lead is very short, and needs to be expanded to become a summary of the article as a whole.
  • Routine facts should be cited in the body of the article, rather than in the lead.
  • There are numerous uncited statements in the article, with at least one "citation needed" tag in place. For example: "This trend has recently reversed somewhat with the increase in golf tourism"; the entire paragraph beginning "The Dundee and Arbroath Railway..."; "The climate is typical for the East Coast of Scotland, although the weather can be locally influenced by sea mist, locally known as haar"; and others, particularly information in the Demography section.
  • Some of the language is not particularly encyclopedic, for example: "it is in this that we see...", and reference to Van der Velde's "epic collapse" (sportswriter's hyperbole)
  • Article structure: some of the sections are very short and contain very little information. These snippets would probably be better incorporated into other, longer sections.
  • Prose style: there are far too many very short paragraphs, often only a single shortish sentence. This destroys the natural flow of the prose and replaces it with a staccato effect. The problem is particularly acute in the "Religion today", "Golf" and "Football" subsections. Incidentally you might want to consider renaming the "History of religion" and "Religion today" sections, which seem rather portentous in the context of this article.
  • Image, Carnoustie 1900: The source is given as "postcard" with no other information. Did you upload from an original postcard? These normally give the name of the publisher. Was the "circa 1900" on the basis of guesswork or definite information.

I realise that this is not a full review, but I hope that these points will help you improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William the Conqueror

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm hoping to take this (very important) biography to FAC soon, and would adore help with continuity, flow, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility to the non-specialist, and lots of other polish before tackling FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty close to FA to me, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think that a family tree in the article would help
  • It might also help to have a map showing Normandy, Flanders, Maine, Anjou, England...
  • There are two dabs (using the tool in the toobox here)
  • In the lead William was son of the unmarried Duke Robert the Magnificent of Normandy by his mistress Herleva. the son? the only son?
  • Does the year need to be repeated here? It was already in the first paragraph His illegitimate status and his youth caused some difficulties for him after he succeeded his father in 1035, as did the anarchy that plagued the first years of his rule.
  • Grammar issues at start of this William final years reign were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. Perhaps "The final years of William's reign were marked by..."?
  • I would link his two sons in the last sentence of the lead. William's lands were divided after his death: Normandy went to his eldest son and his second surviving son received England.
  • In Background, I would calrify that this was the first settlement by Norsemen (presumably what became Normandy already had people living there): Permanent settlement occurred sometime before 911, when an agreement between Rollo, one of the Viking leaders, and King Charles the Simple of France was reached, surrendering the county of Rouen to Rollo.
  • Would it help to identify Edward as "the confessor" in When Harthacnut died in June 1042 Edward was proclaimed king before Harthacnut's burial.[7][b]
  • I nChallenges, add a comma to make clearer the bishops supported him too, or use "while" instead of "and"? While many of the Norman nobles engaged in their own private wars and feuds during William's minority, the viscounts still acknowledged the ducal government[,] and [while?} the ecclesiastical hierarchy was supportive of William.[23]
  • Seems a little awkward William himself founded no new monasteries besides the two in Caen prior to 1066, but from 1035 to 1066, the Norman aristocracy founded at least 20 new monastic houses, a remarkable expansion of religious life in the duchy.[54] Perhaps something like From 1035 to 1066, the Norman aristocracy founded at least 20 new monastic houses (including William's two monasteries in Caen), a remarkable expansion of religious life in the duchy.[54]
  • Harold's preparations - problem sentence But Harold's claim was not entirely secure; there were three or other four main claimants to the English throne, perhaps including his exiled brother Tostig.[70][k] First off, is the "But" needed? Second the phrase "there were three or other four main claimants to the English throne" is broken in some way. Third there are only three claimants to the throne listed after this (Tostig, Harold Hardrada, and William) so should it be two or three claimants (not sure if Tostig is a claimant)?
  • William's preparations - there are a lot of different people in the article and it might help to remind the reader who some of these people are. Here I might use "Duke William" instead of just "the duke" in William of Poitiers describes a council called by the duke, in which the writer gives an account of a great debate that took place between William's nobles and supporters over whether to risk an invasion of England.
  • Tostig and Hardrada's invasion - similarly, would it help here to identify Tostig as Harold's brother and Hardrada as the king of Norway? Tostig and Hardrada invaded Northumbria in September 1066, and defeated the local forces under Morcar and Edwin at the Battle of Fulford. by the way they are identified more clearly at the start of the next section, but those IDs would be better here.
  • This is a one paragraph section - could it be combined with the Battle of Hastings section (since much of it is on William's invasion preparations)?
  • Feels awkward to me "refusing to leave behind the sea" in From there, he ravaged the interior and waited for Harold's return from the north, refusing to leave behind the sea, which was his line of communication with Normandy.[77]
  • I really do not understand this Instead some of the English clergy and magnates nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king, but Edgar's supporters were not solidly behind him. his supporters nominated him as king, but were not solidly behind him??
  • March on London - what happened to Edgar the Ætheling? One minute he is nominated as king, then next section he's getting land from William?
  • First actions - I realize William is now king, but I thought at first this meant the king of France (as the action has returned to Normandy). Once in Normandy the king went to Rouen and the Abbey of Fecamp,[88] and then attended the consecration of new churches at two Norman monasteries.[2]
  • Does the header "william as king" meet WP:HEAD?
  • File:William the Conqueror 1066 1087.jpg faces out of the page, but WP:MOSIMAGE says to have images placed so that the draw the reader's eyes into the center of the page.
  • Death and aftermath - should this section be before the William as king section (since that refers to his death)?
  • "a 100"? This lone relic was reburied in 1642 with a new marker, which was replaced a 100 years later with a more elaborate monument.
  • In the Legacy section, FAC might ask who these historians are - there are a fair number of general statements like These various controversies have led to William being seen by some historians either as one of the creators of England's greatness or as inflicting one of the greatest defeats in English history. Others have viewed William as an enemy ..." Actual names might help here.
  • I wonder if there might be some other legacy items included? Popular culture? Memorials? There is a nice Kipling short story called "William the Conqueror" for example...
  • I did not check refs or sources - you seem to know what's going on there. ;-)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please let me know when this is at FAC Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve dealt with most of these - thanks so much for the PR. There were a few spots where your comments didn't really work - the moving of sections or the consolidating of sections, but all the grammar/spelling/etc issues should be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim Riley

Three spell-check points:

  • Domesday Book
    • I imagine "assement" ought to be "assessment" but I didn't dare change it lest it turn out to be an ancient term.
  • Death and aftermath
    • If you're sticking to UK English, "odour", not "odor"
  • Notes
    • Acute accent wanted for "La Trinité"?

First batch of comments on prose:

  • Numbers (for ages) – You vary between "7 or 8" in the lead and "seven or eight" in the Challenges section. To my eye the first looks quite odd, and second much more natural.
  • Background
    • "Earl Godwin of Wessex", but "Godwin, Earl of Wessex" under English and continental concerns
  • Challenges
    • "acknowledged the ducal government and the ecclesiastical hierarchy" – a comma before the "and" would help the reader's eye, perhaps. (Later: I see Ruhrfisch is ahead of me on this.)
  • Consolidation of power
    • "which William was forced to besiege" – was he really forced?
    • "the marriage went forward" – a slightly unexpected word: "went ahead" would seem more usual, I think
  • Physical appearance and character
    • "although he did become quite fat" – "became quite fat"?

More to come. – Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got most of these I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding remarks from Tim riley
  • Invasion of England
    • "Westminster Abbey" – blue link here?
  • English resistance
    • "The Danish king had brought a large fleet to England and attacked not only York, but Exeter and Shrewsbury" – this reads as though the fleet attacked these cities, but presumably not.
  • Danish raids and rebellion in the north
    • "Robert also married his half-sister Bertha to the king of France" – not sure of the purpose of the "also" here
  • Revolt of the Earls
    • "Ralph eventually left Norwich in the hands of his wife and left England" – repetition of "left"
  • Troubles at home and abroad
    • "asking that William do fealty for England to the papacy" – I feel I should know what this means, but I don't, and would welcome a few explanatory words. (Later: I see "fealty" is bluelinked lower down in the text. Moving the link up to here would do the trick, I think.)
    • "in 1083, when his eldest son Robert" – William's son, not Odo's, as the wording seems to convey
  • Legacy
    • "the obituary notice for William in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle condemns William" – perhaps "him" for the second "William"?

As you are using British spelling, I hope you won't mind if I mention that your use of "likely" – as in "the New Forest was likely sparsely settled", "are unclear – likely it had several purposes", "but his account is likely more of an account", "but it likely occurred sometime in 1051" and "Edgar was young, likely only 14 in 1066" – is an idiom unknown in UK English. We would write "probably" in all those phrases. (The other "likelys" and "unlikelys" elsewhere in the text are fine.)

I greatly enjoyed this article, and I look forward to greeting it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being English myself I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the "likely" idiom is unknown in UK English, but I take the blame for any of Ealdgyth's Br English infelicities, as that's what she pays me for. I'll take a look at each of the likelys and fix any that don't seem idiomatic to me. In my defence I hadn't yet finished looking through the whole article, but that's really no defence at all. Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments A few thoughts on the early sections, which I'll post now in case you're looking to close the review soon. I will add more if time allows:-

Lead
  • W's greatest historical legacy was probably the Domesday book, and I think this should be in the first, all-important paragraph, rather than the reference to his pre-Conqueror struggles to hold the dukedom of Nomandy (which is discussed in some detail in the second paragraph.
    • W's greatest historical legacy was Domesday???? (snorts). Hardly. I think it's much more likely it was actually conquering England, wouldn't you agree? Domesday is considered a big deal NOW, but for many many many years it wasn't... it was pretty much forgotten soon after William's death. I have reworked the first paragraph some, but I would feel very ORish if I put Domesday in such a prominent place. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid starting successive sentences with "After..."
Background
  • "When Scandinavian attacks were renewed at the end of the 10th century..." Clarify what and where they were attacking
  • Second paragraph begins "Danish raids continued..." Are these the same as the Scandinavian raids of the previous paragraph? If not, maybe say when they began.
  • I found the relationships described in the second and third paragraphs quite hard to follow. I kmow thee things can be complex. When I had a similar problem with Tichborne case, Tim kindly provided me with a chart, which made things a lot simpler. It may be worth asking him to do the same sort of thing here.
Early life
  • "Robert also had a daughter, Adelaide of Normandy, by another mistress." Is this relevant (there are no further mentions of her)
  • "Robert also supported..." - but the previous narrative has been about who supported Robert, not who he supported.
Duke of Normandy
  • The chart is useful, but hard to read unless you use the thumb...in which case you lose the caption. Maybe increase the size a little?
  • More importantly, I'm a bit confused by the key given in the caption, which seems to indicate that some people were both opponents and supporters - William of Talou, Archbishop Mauger.
  • "...some evidence indicates that he was either seven or eight years old at the time." In view of what has been established (W was born in 1027 or 1028, Robert died in July 1035) the above statement seems needlessly tentative. Is there other evidence that suggests he was neither seven nor eight?
    • Actually ... his birthdate is worked out from the evidence that he was 7 or 8 at the time when he became duke ... so it's kinda important to note this, although I've reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten all of these, if I don't comment, it means I had no concerns with the suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
  • "first ... King of England": style guides usually say to lowercase "king" here, but since we're not lowercasing "Grand Poobah" and whatnot, I don't push it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The MoS seems quite clear on the matter: "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are ... are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When the correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France)". Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay by me. Do you remember where we've discussed where to draw the line? - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great so far.
  • "Further corroboration": What was the first corroboration? - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William appointed a Norman to the bishopric of Le Mans in 1065 as well as allowing his son Robert Curthose to do homage to the new Count of Anjou, Geoffrey the Bearded, William's western border was thus secured, but his border with Brittany remained insecure.": run-on sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William also put the government of Normandy into the hands of his wife for the duration of the invasion": I'm not sure about the connection between this sentence and the rest of the paragraph, and I'm not sure what the "also" refers to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defeating the invaders on 25 September at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September, in which Tostig and Hardrada were both killed.": How about this? "defeating the invaders and killing Tostig and Hardrada on 25 September at the Battle of Stamford Bridge."
  • "It is unclear when Harold learned of William's landing, but it was probably while he was travelling south.": Any objection to this? "Harold probably learned of William's landing while he was travelling south."
  • In one paragraph in William the Conqueror#March on London, you start four sentences with "William then".
  • "The king marched through Edwin's lands and built a castle at Warwick. This caused Edwin and Morcar to submit, but William continued on ...": I don't like "This caused" here; how about this? "Edwin and Morcar submitted after the king marched through Edwin's lands and built a castle at Warwick, but William continued on ..."
  • Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at William the Conqueror#Troubles in England and the Continent. - Dank (push to talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking through now at stuff that was changed after I copyedited ... the changes were generally good, but I made a few tweaks. I'm not sure what "continued Norman support" means. I was reverted after I translated "volte-face", but I don't see the point, since that's not common in English and easy enough to translate. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "volte-face"; I explained in my edit summary that your translation of "about face" is subtly different in meaning, and a term generally only used in the military. If in fact the phrase were "easily translated" then there would have been no need for us to import it into English. And I would most definitely dispute your assertion that "volte-face" is uncommon in English – or at least, it's not uncommon in England ... but then we've pretty much all got Norman blood in us now. If you're really set on dumbing down the language you might consider something like "change of heart" instead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're George? I didn't know. Google ngrams flatlines "volte-face", but if you want to keep it, go ahead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to know what I gotta do to get this through FLC. :)

Thanks, Khanassassin ☪ 15:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Mackereth

[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 the article is at GA standard.

Thanks, Pennine rambler (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Date of birth: both Who's Who and The Times obituary give his date of birth as 19 October 1893.
  • Parents: both the above say that his father was a Fellow of the Royal Society - not something you'd expect in a bank manager. Who's Who states that his mother was called Muriel

Both these need clearing up, I think. Tim riley (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser. There's no-one called Mackereth in the list of FRSs List of Fellows of the Royal Society M,N,O. Can Who's Who and The Times have both been wrong? Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet it was the Royal Society of Arts. That mistake has been made before. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Given the length of the article, four paragraphs is a bit long for the lead
  • Spell out WW1
  • Any more information on his early life?
  • Some general copy-editing needed, especially for punctuation
  • "He returned to the Middle East in 1933 when he was appointed to be consul for the Sanjaks of Damascus, Horns, Hama, and of the Hauran and the Governorate of the Djebel Druze on 10 January" - you'll need to explain this
  • Tagged dead link should be addressed
  • Not sure this or this would be considered reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awake (TV 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 i am interested in this becoming a FA, or GA. TBrandley • talk • contributions 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TBrandley • talk • contributions 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awake (TV series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it at FA status.

Thanks, TBrandley 16:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry, but under the PR rules (see WP:PR there is a limit of one open request per editor. This is your second, so it has to close until the earlier one is clear. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late Spring

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to go all the way to featured article status, and hopefully to become a Today's Featured Article. If you check the earliest versions of the article, it was little more than a few paragraphs; I have since expanded it to reflect the range and depth of English-language scholarship on this great, complex film. (If you've actually seen Late Spring, that would be ideal!) I would appreciate it if you could start tactfully by letting me know what you think is strong about the article. It doesn't sit well with me to spend months working on a project (like this one) and have someone begin by saying "you did X, Y and Z totally wrong!" Then, give me the critique: where and how the article could be more concise, more precise, more consistent with Wikipedia's rules. The whole purpose is to give reviewers less to challenge once I actually nominate it as a FA. And when you explain why something I'm doing is against the rules (or if there's a rule that I'm *not* following) it would help if you explain the logic of the rule, if you know it.

Thanks, Dylanexpert (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review as requested. Tim riley (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very substantial article, and I shall need several goes at it. I am enjoying the article, and I think it has the potential to be promoted to FA after a bit of fine-tuning. Here are my first lot of comments:

  • General
    • "Parenthetic dashes: Wikipedia style is either en-dashes with a space on either side (as in my prose below) or em-dashes with no space—like this. You have em-dashes with spaces, and you should switch to one of the two approved formats.
  • Disambiguation
  • Lead
    • I think many reviewers at FAC will boggle at the large number of references in the lead. Where an uncontentious statement in the lead is later amplified and cited in the main text you can omit the citation in the lead. Direct quotations in the lead should have citations, though. You mentioned Ruma Maida when inviting me to review your article, and I think the lead of that is a model of how to do it: no citations at all, because all statements in the lead are elaborated and cited in the main text.
    • "The film's reputation has not diminished over time." – I'd omit this sentence and let the quotations speak for themselves.
  • Biographical and historical background
    • There's a considerable amount in this section. I found it highly readable, but I wonder if so thorough an overview of Ozu's earlier work is really wanted here. If I were writing an article about, say, Hamlet, I wouldn't give extensive details of Richard III and The Comedy of Errors. If you feel it essential to retain it, be prepared to defend it stoutly at FAC.
  • Ozu's alleged "subversion" of the censorship
    • "any other film Ozu ever made" – I'd omit "ever"
    • Image caption – "much-remarked-upon": I don't think the phrase is backed up in the text
  • Kogo Noda
    • "hadn't" – except within quotations I'd avoid such informal contractions for your prose; they are not considered suitably "encyclopaedic" by some reviewers
    • "safely middle class" – it isn't clear what "safely" conveys here; comfortably?
  • Narrative, themes and characterization
    • "unusual — some would say highly eccentric — approach" – unless you are going to justify this statement with a citation I'd advise omitting the comment about eccentricity
    • "not shown at all by the director" – I'd omit the last three words.
  • "Parametric" narrative theory
    • "He claims that" – be careful with "claims": it tends to suggest that someone has an agenda of some sort. I'd substitute "In his view" or some such.
    • We aren't recommended to put Wikilinks within quotations, but there are times when this rule can be ignored, and I'd say "fabula" here is one such, assuming that fabula here means the same as here.
    • "He points out that" – there is a general expectation that in a new paragraph the first mention of a person uses the name, not a pronoun. I think this is a silly idea, and other encylopaedias don't follow it. Nonetheless, be warned that at FAC someone is likely to quibble.
  • Major themes
    • "This summary is not intended to be comprehensive" – admirably candid, but you'll have trouble with this at FAC. Someone will ask why an article should be promoted to FA when it contains incomplete information. That's nonsense, of course, but I advise you to omit the sentence. Instead I suggest " The following represents what critics such as X, Y and Z, regard…"
    • "is , of course, marriage" – I'd lose "of course"
    • "and still exists today in parts of Japan" – WP has a very wise policy against phrasing that is liable to date – "recently", "today", etc – instead suggesting phrasing such as "in 2012". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. I'd say here something like "and still existed in parts of Japan more than sixty years later"

That's all for now. More to follow. Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies for the delay in continuing with the review. I hope to be free to give it the necessary attention in the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made all the corrections you have suggested. As for the "Biographical and historical background" section, I have shortened it a bit and made it a bit clearer. I'm assuming an audience that has never seen any Japanese film, let alone an Ozu film; therefore, I need to place Late Spring within the history of the genre and the history of Ozu's work, without which the reader cannot possibly understand what he was trying to do or its significance. As to your Hamlet example , as a matter of fact, if I were writing that article, I would not summarize every play Shakespeare wrote, but I would bring in quotes about his previous tragedies to show how critics have viewed the ways in which the author's conception of tragedy evolved, and also commentary on other Elizabethan examples of the form (e.g., The Spanish Tragedy) to illustrate why it was so different from, say, Greek tragedy. That might make a longer article, but, also in my view, a fuller and clearer one. Dylanexpert (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm catching up with my backlog and I have this article on my to-do list for tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry at further delay. I have not forgotten and I hope to be back in earnest within 48 hours. Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More Riley comments
  • Narrative, themes and characterization
    • "However, to Kathe Geist, Ozu’s narrative methods" – it looks odd to me to start a sub-section with "However". I think the sentence would work very well if you started it "To Kathe Geist, Ozu's…." Done.
  • Major themes
    • "An interesting aspect of the film" – editorialising Done.
    • "Says Geist…" – Journalistic wording. "Geist says" would be more decorous. Done.
    • "Westernized phenomenon: the divorcee.[48][75][42]" – better to get your references in numerical order Done.
    • "On the other hand, he" - better to name him as it's a new para Done.

More to come. So sorry I'm so slow. Tim riley (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim: I made all the corrections you suggested, or circumvented the problems in other ways. Hope that the article will soon be ready to achieve feature article status!
Crisco 1492 comments
  • Quick comments. I will try to pop in tomorrow when I am more awake (nearly 11pm in my time zone)
  • Agree about references in the lede. Only quotes should be cited if the other stuff has citations below. Done. I retained only non-quote references in the lede if they didn't occur elsewhere in the article.
  • The article is, per the DYK check tool, 72850 characters (12151 words). You should probably trim it, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Stuff such as "Director and scriptwriter Kaneto Shindo describes it as his favourite of all Ozu's films.[162]" is quite minor, remembering the magnitude of this film. The section Biographical and historical background as well as having two paragraphs of biography for Kogo and Setsuko seems a bit much, considering we can also link to their articles and give a quick (like, two lines maybe) summary.
You would probably still find the article too long, but I tried to explain the rationale for the Historical and biographical background section better, and reduced the subsections on Noda and Hara. Hara is important, because I feel that the article is as much about her as about Ozu, but I have done some cutting and stuck to the essentials about her. I agree that the Shindo sentence (which I didn't write) should be deleted, and I have done so.
  • Double check your italics. Examples of needed italics include Variety and I Was Born, But... (you have both in standard font) Done.
  • There are numerous places where it's all walls of black text. You may be underlinking.
I actually think I was overlinking, but I will have another look at the text.
  • The Home Media section needs a good rewriting to avoid single sentence paragraphs. Done!
Hope you feel that the article is at least an improvement over the way it was. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto comments
  • I have only a few at first glance some of which haven't been picked up on above:
  • Could the cast list be split into two columns to reduce white space?
  • In the "Style" section you have bundled four citations midway through a sentence. As per WP:CITECLUTTER, could this be moved to the end of that sentence?
  • Also in "Style" you have quoted "pillow". If it's quoted it will need a source.

Looks like a very promising article. Well done! -- Cassianto (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the Cast list in table format not only to eliminate white space, but to make it easier to read. I took the four citations that were in the middle of the sentence to which I believe you were referring and moved them to the end of the sentence. I have put citations in both places in which the phrase "pillow shot" appears in quotes and eliminated the quotes around the phrase in all other instances. Done! Dylanexpert (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical and historical background

  • also known as the "home drama" -- Why is this in inverts? Source if intended?
These are in quotes because the phrase, which makes use of two Japanese loan words "home drama" ("homu dorama"), derived from the English term, signify a distinct film category. According to Bock, it is now used pejoratively as a synonym for "soap opera," but in the period I discuss, it represented a new and original kind of domestic drama aimed at a female audience.Dylanexpert (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Mixing laughter and tears, the "Kamata-flavor" film was aimed at an urban female audience. Kido wanted films that, in his words, "looked at the reality of human nature through the everyday activities of society". -- Source for quotes?
  • The films might be socially critical, but their criticism was based on the hope that human nature was basically good. People struggle to better their lot, Kido believed, and this aspiration should be treated in ‘a positive, warm-hearted, approving way.’” -- The opening quotation mark is missing. Where does it start?
I apologize because the questions relating to the two points shown above all derive from the fact that I did not place the correct quotation marks correctly. Now that the quotes are right, it is much more clear not only who (Kido or Bordwell) said which words, but that the reference at the end of the quote covers the entire Bordwell quote. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Occupation censorship - Censorship problems with Late Spring

  • "considered feudalistic the Japanese custom of arranged meetings for prospective marriage partners, miai, because the custom seemed to them to downgrade the importance of the individual." -- source needed. and avoid wiki linking in quotes.
  • I knew there would only be a few (and oddly within the first couple of sections). All these small issues have been resolved. No further issues. I would be happy to support as and when it's listed at FAC. Ping me when it's listed and I'll show my allegiance. -- CassiantoTalk 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State University–San Marcos

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Late last year this article was nominated for GA by an uninvolved editor. GA was declined but resulted in good feedback making me wonder if GA is a real possibility for the article. I have just finished a pass through the article performing a major rewrite of pretty much the entire article. I'd like to get a pair of experienced eyes to look at it and see what improvements need to be done in hope of moving towards another shot at a GA nomination in the future.

Thanks, --TreyGeek (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

I did not check for potential plagiarism, but would recommend you do so, particularly for parts of the article you did not write. I'm watchlisting this review, so feel free to reply here if you have any questions.

  • I think the plagerism and copyright violation issues have been taken care of. The article was nearly entirely rewritten with the edits I made the first part of the year. Other parts were rewritten back in 2009 when the initial mass copy/pasting from the University's website was discovered. A spot check of the last few sentences looks clean in a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyGeek (talk • contribs)
  • File:HigherEduPlaque.jpg: under US law, you also need to identify the creator and copyright info for the plaque itself, not just the photo
  • I might have to remove the image from the article then. I'm unable to find any information on who created the plaque. The most substantial information I can find is here which is basically nothing. This is the first I've seen that pictures of art/sculptures/etc need to have the artist's information as well. It's good to know because there are a number of statues that have had pictures in this article over the years. Now I know to keep a look out for that and update the image information if I can.
  • Since the US doesn't have freedom of panorama for artworks, pictures like this need to account for the copyright of both the photo and the work itself. It can be tricky to find that information - you might consider contacting the school directly to see if they have any information. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I still haven't been able to find anything on my own. I submitted a request to the University's "Pride and Tranditions" committee to see if they can provide that information. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Platopainting.jpg needs US PD tag
  • Can you clarify this? The image is added to the article via {{Portal|Austin|Texas<!--State institution-->|University}}. Are you saying the image over on commons needs to have the Template:PD-US added to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyGeek (talk • contribs)
  • Fixed Added the template to the image on commons.
  • "457-acre (1.85 km2) of hills": measurement isn't adjectival here
  • Fixed (in two places)
  • Dead links should be resolved where possible
  • Fixed
  • Don't use contractions except in direct quotes
  • Fixed
  • Only full dates need commas
  • Fixed
  • Needs some general copyediting to catch errors like "which was part of the his Great Society"
  • Fixed (from what I could find in latest read through)
  • Rather short history section - is more information available?
  • There is likely a lot more that can be written in the History section. I punted on that during the rewrite and forgot about revisiting it. The difficulty may be finding sources to cite that isn't from the Texas State website. I'll see what I can do though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyGeek (talk • contribs)
  • Citation needed tag should be addressed
  • Fixed (With the exception of {{cite court}} which doesn't require publisher information.)
  • I'll read through the article to do copyedits and other prose edits you've noted above (I'll do that within the next couple of days if I don't get to it tonight). Thanks for the review! --TreyGeek (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Can Do It!

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This fun and inspiring image has perhaps a surprising history including decades of obscurity before bounding into popularity. The article recently went to GA successfully but now I want to see if folks here have any ideas about improvements for FA.

Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Nice, short, slightly off-beat article about which I have only a few minor issues:

  • Recommendation: Consider reducing the lead image to 250px; it is just a bit overwhelming at the moment
  • "The model for the poster..." - this phrasing suggests the person rather than the original medium. I would rephrase: "The poster is generally thought to be based on a black-and-white wire service photograph..."
  • I was intrigued to see Ron Paul's name linked with Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton. While it's clear how the campaigns of the latter two might have used the poster, I'm at a loss as to how Ron Paul might have used it. Unfortunately the text gives no indication of this. What's the story?
  • "Today" should be time-referenced
  • As Miller was hired by Westinghouse Electric, why is it that the licencing for File:Any Questions About Your Work - poster.jpg refer to "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government"?
  • The "Geraldine Hoff" section contains information that might be seen as padding, e.g. the information about Hoff's cello-playing and her transfer to a timekeeper's job.
  • "for her left hand" → "on her left hand"? (otherwise readers might think "as a substitute for her left hand")
  • File:We Can Do It water bottles.jpg Maybe extend the caption to indicate that this is one example of the commercial expolitation of the image.

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I have instituted most of the changes you suggest. Regarding Ron Paul: his face was not put into the image. Instead, the woman in the poster was provided with an American flag background next to the phrase "Hope for America". [9][10] Westinghouse was provided with federal funds to pay the artist; I made that more clear. Regarding padding in the Hoff section, I will take a longer look at it to see what might be taken out. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Humber

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Before April 21, Philip Humber was a failed top prospect who was coming off a 2011 season that made it appear he might be a serviceable MLB player after all. This was the sorry state of his article.

Then, on April 21, he threw the 21st perfect game in MLB history, forever etching his name in baseball lore. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) and I undertook a massive overhaul of this article, including a 5x expansion that took it from nearly 5k of almost entirely unsourced prose to over 25k of top quality article writing. It just passed as a GA today, and we would like to nominate it for FA status. Given the timeframe here, we don't want to rush it. We agree that this article could use fresh, unbiased eyes to suggest any areas that need to be addressed before this work of art can become an FA.

Thanks, – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment I'm not sure about this, but aren't Portal links supposed to be in the "See also" or "External links" sections, instead of the "Personal" one? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like putting them in a section like that, but I have done it before. I created a "See also" section, which is a better place for the portals. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (general comment, remember this isn't just for baseball aficionados, it's for everyone, so make an effort to explain all those complex things).."

That's a start. Ping me when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be closed, or are there more comments coming? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Me (Katy Perry song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was nominated for FA and the reviewers stated it needed a copy-edit and reference fix and any suggestions would really help. Thanks, teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 18:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Independiente (Ricardo Arjona 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 i want to get it to GA. An editor reviewed the article and i fixed all that needed to be fixed. He told me to request a peer review.

Thanks, Hahc21 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Recorded between the United States and Mexico" (1) no need to link common geographical terms and (2) I'd say it was recorded "in the United States and Mexico".
  • Fixed.
  • "It is his first album not ..." Reinforce the subject, so "It is Arjona's..."
  • Fixed.
  • "within the period of one year" -> "within a year".
  • Fixed.
  • "it debuted atop the " just reads a little odd to me, would prefer "debuted on top of the " or " at the top of..."
  • Fixed.
  • Avoid relinking e.g. United States in the lead, but also per above, don't link common geographical terms.
  • Fixed.
  • "became a commercial hit" hit->success.
  • Fixed.
  • "the singer embarked " new para so "Arjona embarked..."
  • Fixed.
  • I don't agree that there's a fair use for the record company logo here. We don't need "help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" in an article about an album. Perhaps in an article about the record company itself, but not this album.
  • Lets keep the image till i finish in my sandbox the label's article.. To avoid it being deleted as an orphan.
  • "is the first album Arjona releases as an independent " released.
  • Fixed.
  • "releases as an independent artist. It was released through " repetitive use of "release".
  • Fixed.
  • "company he created to refocus his career.[4] This new company," repetitive use of "company".
  • Fixed.
  • "presided by Arjona " normally I think people "preside over" something.
  • Fixed.
  • "is based in Miami and Mexico City[5], " move the ref behind the comma, and unlink the common linked terms.
  • Fixed.
  • "Although, the album is being distributed by Warner Music.[7] " ... this seems incomplete to me... although what?
  • Fixed.
  • "Arjona commented, in multiple times," poor grammar, "Arjona commented many times..."
  • Fixed.
  • "release of Independiente, the Guatemalan singer released " again, repetitive prose.
  • Fixed.
  • "record label by exchange" I don't really understand what this means.
  • Fixed.
  • References that are not in English should use the language= parameter in the citation template.
  • Fixed.
  • "and it marks the " no need for "it".
  • Fixed.
  • "offering backing vocals where needed" just "providing backing vocals" would suffice.
  • Fixed.
  • "it marks the fourth time Arjona had collaborated with Tommy Torres" vs "marks Arjona's third collaboration " vs "The other two albums "... how many exactly?
  • Fixed. There were some confusions wether hoy many albums they've worked together, but now its clear, 4. Nobody modified the info as of now. Thanks.
  • "the artist decided to make use of the lowest number of instruments as possible" Arjone made use of the fewest instruments possible.
  • Fixed.
  • "simplifying his sound at the most" what does "at the most" mean here?
  • Fixed.
  • "on a music basis" surely this is redundant? If not, then "musical" instead of music.
  • Fixed.
  • Again, no need to link United States.
  • Fixed.
  • "with guatemalan singer " capital G.
  • Fixed.
  • "mom in a Mother's Day" should that translated as "on" rather than "in"?
  • Fixed.
  • "becomes a President" no need to link or capitalise.
  • Fixed.
  • (will come back to prose if these are all addressed).
  • Personnel section should use spaced en-dashes instead of spaced hyphens per WP:DASH.
  • Fixed.
  • Certification column doesn't sort correctly (should go from most to least or vice versa).
  • Fixed.
  • Why is Yearly charts not sortable when other two tables are?
  • Fixed.
  • Please ensure tables meet MOS:DTT for WP:ACCESS so screen-readers can make best use of them.
  • Fixed.
  • Retrieved by dates should either be yyyy-mm-dd or Day Month Year or Month Day, Year. Not dd-mm-yyyy.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. What's next. Still working on some 3 recommendations, but the rest has been addressed. . --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well hopefully you'll get comments from others. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Afroyim v. Rusk

[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 a major revision of the article — more than doubling its length, adding a large amount of new material (including additional sources), and generally cleaning it up. I believe this article has the potential to become a Featured Article in the next few months, and I would be grateful for constructive criticism and suggestions.

Thanks, — Richwales 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE — Still awaiting a review. Someone started doing a review on May 28, but they changed their mind about doing it and deleted their comments. — Richwales 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly pretty nit-picky.

  • I am not a big fan of refs in the lead unless they are required for direct quotes or extraordinary claims. I note that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (which you are a major contributor to, ;-) ) is a FA on a Supreme Court case which does not have refs in the lead. As a summary of the article, the refs should be in the body any way.
  • Link naturalized US Citizen to United States nationality law?
  • Should the year of ratification for the 14th Amendment be given?
  • I think that all Supreme Court cases are notable, so should there be red links for cases mentioned in the article, such as Mackenzie v. Hare or Savorgnan v. United States or Mandoli v. Acheson, etc.?
  • Probably needs a ref for FAC and held oral arguments on February 20, 1967. and The respondent in Afroyim's case—representing the U.S. government—was Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
  • Why is there no summary of the arguments made before the court?
  • "An official statement by the Attorney General in 1969 ..." Identify who - John Mitchell? Ramsey Clark?
  • How is "unless he explicitly indicates to U.S. officials that this was his intention" different from " formal renunciation of citizenship before U.S. consular officials"? Under these new rules, the government assumes in almost all situations that an American who performs a potentially expatriating act did not in fact intend to give up his U.S. citizenship, unless he explicitly indicates to U.S. officials that this was his intention.[75] Exceptions to the presumption of intent to keep U.S. citizenship are limited to extreme cases such as treason, high-level employment in a foreign government, or formal renunciation of citizenship before U.S. consular officials.[76]
  • I saw in the news that Michele Bachmann recently became a dual citizen in Switzerland, which seemed a bit odd for a former presidential candidate and sitting Member of Congress - not sure if that is worth a mention here or not
  • Tool on this page shows some links that need an access date here
  • Should the Ancestry.com refs somehow indicate it is a subscription service?
  • Please let me know when this is at FAC
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks very much for doing a peer review on Afroyim v. Rusk. A few comments:

  • My understanding was/is that cites are expected in the lead only when a statement is likely to be disputed, or when direct quotes are involved. I added cites to the opening sentence because, a while back, someone insisted on making the article say that Afroyim protected citizenship only for people born or naturalized in the US — whereas, in fact, the Afroyim opinion included no such limitation, and it was only later (in Rogers v. Bellei) that the coverage of Afroyim was narrowed in this way. I felt (and still feel) that including the cites is appropriate in order to forestall such disputes. As for the cite in the opening sentence of the second paragraph, I added this because some might argue a wider acceptance of multiple citizenship didn't really take hold until Vance v. Terrazas, or maybe not even until the 1990 State Department policy changes — whereas there are in fact sources attributing the start of this policy shift to Afroyim. At least, this is the way I saw/see the matter; I'm definitely open to other views.
  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark does, in fact, have some citations in the lead section (though not in the first paragraph) — albeit attached to direct quotes, which must have cites no matter where they are in an article.
  • I had been under the (mis?)impression that redlinks were discouraged in FA's — though I tried to find such a guideline or policy just now and couldn't, so I guess maybe I was in error. Mandoli v. Acheson does have its own page now, BTW.
  • Michele Bachmann's brief foray into the world of dual citizenship (she said a few days later, BTW, that she would be renouncing her Swiss citizenship, presumably after so many of her fans got their tea bags in a twist over the "divided loyalty" thing) should surely be mentioned in Citizenship in the United States, but I'm hesitant to add this or much more detail about specific individual dual citizens to the Afroyim article, especially cases which happened decades later. Do you really think something about Bachmann belongs here? And if so, where would you want to see it added?
  • I'm pretty confident nothing in this article constitutes plagiarism / copyvio, but I agree with you that we need to be careful, so I'll be sure to check it again to be even more sure.

BTW, I've been in contact with Beys Afroyim's son, and I've got a bunch more source material which I'm going to sift through to see if anything more can be added to the article before I'm done with it and ready to nominate it for FA. I'll definitely let you know when this article comes up for FAC. I do wonder if, when that happens, I'm going to end up with as spirited a fight as I did at the Wong Kim Ark FAC's. :-) Thanks again for your feedback here. — Richwales 05:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since there have been challenges, I am OK with the refs in the lead - I did not look at the article's edit history, but am OK with pre-emptive refs, as it were.
    • Sorry, I somehow missed the refs in the lead of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but did note above that "refs in the lead ... are required for direct quotes"
    • I have a personal rule to not have red links in articles I bring to FAC, but I do not know of any offical Wikipedia restriction against them in FAC articles.
    • I am fine with not including Bachmann in this article (unless there is a RS that explicitly makes a connection between this case and her Swiss citizenship kerfluffle). Good idea to include it in the Citizenship in the United States article
    • The copyvio bit is included in every peer review I do - I did not see anything in this that seemed anywhere near it.

That is neat that you are in contact with his son. I usually spot check images (these all looked fine) and saw that the snapshot of him and his infant son was OTRS from the son. Is there a reason why all the images are set so small? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Seductive

[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 extensive work on it, and I feel it could be GA worthy soon. Please be honest with criticism, as I don't mind if it makes the article better.

Thanks for your time! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • I'm basing this PR on the GA criteria at Wikipedia:Good article criteria
  • If possible, 1 or 2 pics should be added. If none are not available, that is okay.
  • Past tense: "and is produced by record producer Punch," - I think "was produced" is better.
  • Overall the prose looks fine ... I'm not seeing any big issues. For GA recognition, I think it is adequate.
  • The citations are more than adequate, so the Verifiability requirement is met.
  • I don't see any bias in the article, so the NPOV requirement is met.
  • No edit wars are in progress. so that is not a problem.
  • Lead looks good.
  • Conclusion: It appears to meet all the GA criteria. I suggest that you nominate it at WP:GAN. It looks like it will have, at most, a few minor prose issues to resolve.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having fixed the issues you have stated, I think I will put it to WP:GAN. Thank you for your time! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Breakdown

[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 was going to work on it for an FA and I thought that a peer review will be better to know the weakness about the article. I want a peer review that will help in developing the article for FA. I will also take assistance of the main contributor IllaZilla, but also a peer review will be helpful too.

Thanks, TheSpecialUserTalkContributions 04:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Most FAs have no refs in the lead these days, the point being that everything in the lead should be expanded upon (and therefore linked) in the main part of the article.
  • "has sold 1,005,000 copies " a little too precise for my liking here, perhaps "over one million copies" and then "more than four million worldwide".
  • "Later that year, it was confirmed that the band worked ..." since this is placed chronologically when Vig was still working, wouldn't it be better to say "it was confirmed that the band was working ...."?
  • "2009 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Championship " worth a link? Particularly to us non-US sports types who don't know the significance of such a game.
  • You link vinyl but not CD, why not?
  • " at #1 on " avoid hash per WP:HASH.
  • Please make all tables comply with MOS:DTT with regard to row and col scopes. This will allow screen reader software to access the tables.
  • Album awards, results column, not sure why "won" and "nominated" are in lower case.
  • Where is the release of the non-charting "Last of the American Girls" referenced?
  • Certifications table, the "summaries" row shouldn't sort with all the others.
  • Looks like there are a few marked dead links.
  • There's dmy and mdy date formats mixed in the refs, would pick one (probably mdy for a USEng article) and stick with it.
  • Ref 60 is a little oddly formatted and points at a blog.
  • Check all refs have all the relevant fields, like accessdate etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rodgers

[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 made the changes to the article that were requested in the last GA and wanted more advice before I put it up to GA.

Thanks, SKATER Is Back 04:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make the Touchdown celebration into paras, not isolated sentences.
Personal section looks odd - anything that can embellish section will improve look of article.

Overall, I think this is within striking distance of GA, so a nom now would have a reasonable chance of passing. You can also ask Malleus to take a look at prose. I am not too familiar with american football. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really find much to put in the personal section. I thought you were familiar with American Football, you must of meant soccer on your peer review statement :p. Thanks for the review!--SKATER Is Back 03:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead could easily sustain three paras per WP:LEAD.
  • Infobox captions needs no period.
  • Is there a good link for "interception rate" for the lead? Not all of our readers would understand what that means.
  • "Professionally, Rodgers is the NFL's all-time career... " could he be anything other than professional in the NFL?
  • Explain MVP before you abbreviate it.
  • "Edward Rodgers tossed a football with his sons Luke, Aaron and Jordan, and told them not to drink and party in college or else they would limit themselves in sports like he did. Aaron Rodgers took this advice to heart" I get what you're saying but this is hardly encyclopaedic writing.
  • Infobox has specific references for some but not all of the career highlights and awards. Looks odd to ref one or two but not all.
  • "Career NFL statistics as of Week 17, 2011" in the infobox. Sorry, as a newbie to these NFL bios, does that mean the last game he played? Is that made clear in the lead etc?
  • "Despite his record-setting statistics, " context. It's an entirely new section so where/what were these stats?
  • "5'10 (1.78 m)" is that using the {{convert}} template? Likewise for weight.
  • Please ensure all tables meet MOS:DTT for the purpose of screen readers. This means denoting rows and cols with scope parameters for accessibility.
  • "[37] [38]" would add these refs into the "All values from NFL Combine" note. And would make the table full size.
  • "did not believe that Rodgers' attitude could co-exist with him" not really, perhaps, "because of Rodgers' attitude, it would be difficult to..." or similar.
  • "In August 2005 Rodgers agreed to a reported five-year, $7.7 million deal that included $5.4 million in guaranteed money and had the potential to pay him as much as $24.5 million if all incentives and escalators were met.[41]" it may just be a loser Brit saying this, but I'd like to see more about the "incentives and escalators" (as far as I know, an escalator helps me get upstairs in a department store).
  • "3-48 loss. [32] " en-dash for score, remove space before ref.
  • "his game reps" pardon?
  • ""as a starter.[63]His passing" space
  • "Awards and achievements" a lot of unreferenced claims.
  • Regular Season -> Regular season.
  • As Starter... ditto.
  • In refs, author names should be consistent, so First Last or Last, First.
  • WP:DASH should be applied to the ref titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia

[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 once a Featured Article but was delisted in April 2009 (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cambodia). It has since undergone significant improvements. While I can not take credit for all of the new content, I have tried to address the concerns raised in the 2009 review while copyediting all the contributions for flow and ease of reading. I would like to see it become a Featured Article again. Any comments, concerns, or help (especially help) toward meeting the FA criteria would be appreciated.

Thanks, William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 05:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana Boomer

While I appreciate that a good bit of work has been completed on this article since the 2009 FAR, it is unfortunately still well below FA standards. Referencing is the biggest issue, although there are quite a few other niggles. Specifics:

  • Referencing is currently the biggest problem with regards to this article meeting the featured article criteria. There are many fully or partially unsourced sections throughout the article, many of which contain statistics, opinions or information likely to be challenged. Paragraphs that contain these three things need to be referenced for the article to even meet GA criteria, much less FA criteria. Fixing this item is going to take a significant amount of time and an editor with access to a wide range of sources on Cambodia.
  • Reference formatting also needs a good bit of work. Web references should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, as well as additional information such as authors and publication dates where available. Books need to have page numbers.
  • Reliability of references is questionable in several places. Remember that for FAC, the requirement is not just that a source be reliable, it's that it be a "high-quality" reliable source.
    • What is ref #73?
    • What makes ref #102 (about.com) a reliable source?
  • Some out-of-date information. For example, ref #99 (country-data) is from 1987, yet the information is presented as if it is current.
  • Expansion banner on Dance section, which should have been fixed before the article was even brought to PR.
  • There should not be external links in the article text, as there is in the Foreign relations section.
  • Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is in several places throughout the article.
  • Mixed English variations - I see neighbor and neighbour, meter and metre, -ization and -isation, for instance.
  • Dab links to Strong man, Ayutthaya, Funan
  • Two dead links, see here for details.

Overall, the referencing needs to be improved before much else is done. Usually, when extensive referencing work is done, the prose changes as well, and often the organization of the article, as it changes to meet the weight and importance given to the various subjects by high-quality reliable sources. It would definitely be possible to get this article up to FA standards, but it will take a lot of work. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both the time you spent and your comments. I knew there was still a lot of work to do, but I have been staring at this article for so long I just couldn't see where (I don't know how I missed the expansion banner!). Your input provides a good place to start going forward. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better!--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Hinde

[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 to improve the quality and try to reach "good article" status.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Lead is a little brief. See WP:LEAD for what is expected as a summary of the whole article.
  • Christ Episcopal Church is a dab link.
  • "During Captain Hinde's life..." just refer to him as Hinde, rather than Captain Hinde...
  • "life Hinde generously donated a large portion " reduce the POV, i.e. delete "generously".
  • "Hinde was one of seven children" perhaps "He was..." as there's no doubt who you're talking about.
  • "Eventually, Hinde grew up and ..." well yes, that's what we do if we continue to live, we grow up...
  • "in Mount Carmel, Illinois. His father founded the town in 1815. " merge, so ".. Illinois, which his father had founded in 1815."
  • Looks like you need a good copyedit, perhaps put in a request at WP:LOCE?
  • " Hinde attended Indiana Asbury University at Greencastle, Indiana for" don't think you really need ", Indiana" here.
  • "Even though these were low paying jobs Captain Hinde was able to support himself because he had inherited large land holdings from his father Thomas S. Hinde.[3]" again, think about how you refer to the characters in this article. Be consistent and clear.
  • Image captions that don't form full sentences don't need a period, e.g. the daguerrotype one.
  • Per WP:HEAD, "The Coronado Beach Company" should just be "Coronado Beach Company"
  • In References, newspapers such as The San Diego Union should be in italics.
  • What makes ref 18 a reliable source?
  • Not to mention it's poorly formatted.
  • Ref 12 and 14 are the same, so use a ref name to repeat them in the article without having multiple instances in the refs section.
  • Similar for refs 22 and 23.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I tried to make most of the corrections you suggested. Lawman4312 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all these concerns are now resolved, except for the sketchy citation, currently #17. -- Dianna (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TS-19

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has reached GA status not too long ago, and I would like to nominate to FA status eventually. I have become more confident with my prose, but I'm still a little iffy as to whether it meets the featured article criteria. I would like some feedback on the current state of the article, and some suggestions on how to improve it.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • " the group finally " who's "the group"? For this to standalone as an FA, we need to understand what "the group" means.
  • Any reason why "Daryl Dixon" is redlinked in the infobox?
  • "and a 3.4 rating in" as a Brit, I have no idea whatsoever what that means.
  • "highest-rated telecast in its first season." context? In the US?
  • "walkers" you need to explain the zombie apocalypse you mention in the lead is directly relevant to the word "walker".
  • "which Rick agrees to" -> "to which Rick agrees."
  • "such as showers and wine," -> "such as taking showers and drinking wine..."
  • Not sure we really need to link "suicide" or "rape" in an article in English Wikipedia, pretty common terms.
  • "but is unsuccessful" perhaps just me but it's an odd turn of phrase when referring to a failed rape attempt.
  • " to 8 hours after" eight.
  • "if it can't power" avoid contractions.
  • Don't force image sizes (other than lead images), so portrait images should be thumb|upright and landscape should be thumb only.
  • Don't think you need "pictured" in an image caption.
  • " ultimately explodes shortly thereafter" either ultimately or shortly thereafter, both not required.
  • "The opening and concluding scenes of "TS-19" are reminiscent..." maybe note that "It has been noted that.." or similar since you're stating a kind of opinion here.
  • Apparently New York Daily News is actually just Daily News (from New York)...
  • Time Inc. has no comma.
  • Wall Street Journal has a The included.
  • Check ref titles meet WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tron: Legacy

[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… Old peer review cancelled due to construction tag still being on, have to re-submit.

Thanks, RAP (talk) 14:04 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • What is CLU?
  • See WP:DASH for en-dashes in the lead rather than spaced hyphens.
  • "Kosinski wasn't interested" avoid contractions.
  • Last para of lead is odd, talks about how the production started in 2009 and then.....
  • And filming is active, so more likely "took place" than "occurred".
  • " abandoned Video arcade" no need for capital V here.
  • " Sam discovers a secret chamber in which Sam unintentionally " in which he...
  • No need to capitalise Light Cycle.
  • Don't think you need to link science, religion, medicine...
  • Nor sunrise.
  • "Owen Best plays the seven-year-old Sam Flynn." not sure why that needs to be indented. Would just add it, referenced, at the end of the main character bio.
  • "became the first feature film created entirely from computer animation" is that actually true? I thought there was live action before it became the computer animation?
  • I'm not sure you need to use ref [32] 8 consecutive times. Probably once per para would be sufficient.
  • "We also get a glimpse ..." not encyclopedic writing.
  • "along with a special presentation of material " why "special"?
  • "40 minutes of the film" most of the time I think we avoid starting sentences with a number.
  • Don't overlink 3D.
  • "That is not interference or a production fault" who said it was? Just explain what it is, not what it isn't.
  • Don't miss the diacritic on the Galapagos...
  • No need to link France.
  • " stradivarius" is a name so should be capitalised.
  • "used it a large scale simultaneously" I don't understand this at all.
  • "being then followed by " no need for "being then".
  • You link CSS but not GIF, why?
  • "Tron themed monorail passing through Epcot at the Walt Disney World Resort." period not required.
  • (enough of main body for now)
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs for the same parameter (i.e. don't have yyyy-mm-dd and dd mm yyyy mixed together for, say, access date).
  • Check titles for SHOUTING and incorrect use of hyphens per WP:DASH.
  • Decide if author names should be First Last or Last, First and be consistent.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after receiving the previous peer review feedback for this page, I followed all advice given, and the article is completely re-written, in an effort to comply with FAC. The only issue I am fully aware of is distribution's lack of broad coverage. This is only because I have yet to find info on other countries the program reaches. I plan on nominating for FA, but would like to receive final feedback before doing so. I would appreciate an experienced user, who's dealt with FAC before, to explain any flaws of the article, and anything that would stop you from saying yes at FAC.

Thanks tremendously, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a show I have heard of and seen commercials for, but never watched. Thanks for your work on the article, which seems pretty comprehensive (i.e. pretty much all the information needed seems to be here). However, I think it needs a fair amount of work before it would pass easily at WP:FAC, especially with the lead and prose. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which are mostly comments I would make if this were at FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There is one FA on a medical drama, House M.D., which seems like it would be a useful model. I also note that there are a fair number of FAs on television series at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - it seems as if these might give some insight into how to handle certain aspects of the article (like where to put information on the spin off)
  • The lead seems to me like it does not follow WP:LEAD well. One problem is that the lead should be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there does not seem to be anything in the current lead about the musical episode, or the merchandise, or top ten lists, or even casting. Note it does not have to be more than a brief mention, but as a full summary these things should be mentioned (if it is important enough for its own (sub)section, it should be in the lead.
  • I also think the lead needs to make it clearer what the current or most recent season is (the eighth season ended in May) to help provide context to the reader. See WP:PCR
  • 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 - the ninth season renewal seems to only be in the lead though
    •  Done It is under U.S. television ratings, on the chart.
  • The level of detail in the second paragraph of lead seems excessive to me - as noted I have never seen this show and only know that there is a character nicknamed "McDreamy" on it. I do not think the medical specialties of the various doctors need to be given in the lead in most cases - there is too much "medical specialty A" of "character whose name I never heard of B" (played by "actor or actress I usually do not know C") and it gets confusing. Again look at the House article - it does not mention in the lead that Taub is a plastic surgeon
  • The most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of prose. This is decent, but could use some polish. A few examples follow, but this needs a copyedit
    • Avoid needless repetition - first sentence says it was highly rated (top ten) in its first four seasons, then the next sentence repeats this but omits season four for some reason: Having attained commercial success and critical acclaim, Grey's Anatomy was among the top-ten rated shows in the United States from its first through fourth seasons. The first, second and third seasons received high ratings, with an average viewership of around 19 million, but the past few seasons have seen a decrease. Also the last phrase about the past few seasons is one of those things that can get outdated quickly - better to be specific and say which seasons had a ratings drop.
    • Just ungrammatical and needlessly complex: The series, especially during the second and third season, has received numerous awards, of which are the Golden Globe Award for Best Drama Series in 2006 and two Primetime Emmy nominations for Outstanding Drama Series in 2006 and 2007. AND nominations are not the same as actually receiving awards - plus why single out these two noms, when it has many other noms and won other awards for acting, producing, makeup etc.?
    • Unclear - I thought this meant the series was currently in its fifth season when I first read it Having been on the air for five years, Grey's Anatomy was named the fourth-highest revenue earning show in 2010. How about something like In 2010 after its fifth season, Grey's Anatomy was named the fourth-highest television money-maker, in terms of advertising revenue per half hour.
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • The images are nice and often are the first thing that readers look at - I think that they need to be a bit more informative. I think it is OK to use full names and wikilinks in captions (it is not overlinking or a violation of the MOS). So Rhimes envisioned a racially diverse drama. could be something like Series creator Shonda Rhimes envisioned a racially diverse drama.
  • That said the MOS says to use a person's full name on first mention, then just use their last name thereafter (assuming there is no one else with the same last name, and obviously not changing direct quotations)(Plus captions are OK to use full name), but SHonda Rhimes is repeated in full in the Production team section
  • For FAC, lots of little things like this need to be take care of - why is "Dyslexia" capitalized in The catalyst of the series, Patrick Dempsey (Derek Shepherd), was fearful of not receiving the part, due to his Dyslexia.?
  • And why is Dempsey "the catalyst" for the series? This is mentioned in the lead and in the sentence quoted, but never explained or expanded
  • The structure of the first sections after the lead seems odd to me - first the reader learns about the "Conception" of the series, then about the spin off, then the all musical episode, and then sections on the production team and casting follow. I would look at a FA on a tv series with a spinoff to see how it is handled, but it seems to me that the spinoff and musical episode sections should come much later in the article.
  • Or there is stuff in the article that just does not agree with the rest of the article - for example Throughout its first six years, Grey's Anatomy was included in various critics' top ten lists... is followed by four years of such lists (not six)
    •  Not done This was written this way, because it is not four straight years. The years were 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010. That is a span of six years. So, I thought the best wording would be "throughout its first six years". TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
  • Or The series' primary writer is Rhimes; she has written 170 episodes. Under Rhimes, on the writing staff, is Vernoff with 18 episodes, Stacy McKee with 17, Tony Phelan with 14, Joan Rater with 14, and Debora Cahn with 13. adds up to over 240 episodes, but the infobox says there are only 172 so far - this needs to clarify that some are co-written, and also needs to add a year or date (as of when is this true?)
  • Avoid vague time terms like currently - better to use "As of YEAR" or perhaps "after the nth season" The series currently holds a score of 66 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on five reviews for the past season.[164]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example "medical personnel" is linked to Medic, which a) does not seem like the correct link, and b) does not really do anything to increase the reader's comprehension
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied these comments here from my talk page:

On the peer review, you mentioned that the article needs a copy edit. However, it has already been copy edited by a member of the GOCE, just last week. Are you saying that it needs another one? TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few more questions—if you don't mind:

  • Again, should this article still be c/e even though it was done last week by the GOCE?
    • I do not mind and yes, I think it does.
  • Is it okay to mention season nine's renewal, just in the lead? I do not know an appropriate section to add it to, and it will only be there until the ninth season commences airing.
  • You said: "Throughout its first six years, Grey's Anatomy was included in various critics' top ten lists... is followed by four years of such lists (not six)". However, the years that the show was included in a list were 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. That is four years, but it is spanned across six years. Therefore, I thought the best wording would be "throughout its first six years", no?

A few more questions:

  • Do you think a "Related media" section would be appropriate to include the spinoff and musical episode?
  • Do you think I should request the c/e from the GOCE, or perhaps do you know someone that is great at copyediting?

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The musical epsiode is still an episode of Grey's Anatomy, so I would not call it "related media". I would look at some model articles: Meerkat Manor is an FA on a TV series with a prequel movie. The Quatermass Experiment is a British sf tv show that spawned three sequel series (and is an FA). The Simpsons is a FA and discusses the movie based on the series. Note that none of these talk about sequels in the conception section.
  • I would look for someone who has had at least one FA where they were the/a major contributor for a copyeditor. There are also some volunteer copyeditors at WP:PR/V.
  • The article feels long - I would make sure to avoid needless repetition and too much detail. It might be worth checking to see if the Casting section (which is pretty long) duplicates the later plot and characters material.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy

[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 need an editor to address the prose, grammar and flow. Since the last peer review, some copy-editing has been completed and i have also formatted references in line with the Wikipedia:Feature article criteria. The article has had one unsuccesful nomination for FA last year, but i am still aiming to get to FA status.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Two dab links, "turnpike" and "terraces".
  • I'd consider making the first two hatnotes into a single line so the article isn't pushed too far south.
  • The lead is a little odd for me, it's supposed to summarise the whole article, but right now it seems to just deal with the early history and then industry/employment. Nothing else is really mentioned.
  • "The battle fought between the Angles and an alliance, was led by King Áedán mac Gabráin of Dál Riata, of Scots, Picts and Britons." -> "The battle was fought between the Angles and an alliance led by ...." perhaps?
  • "(reign 1058-93)" needs an en-dash.
  • Apply that to all other year ranges (see WP:DASH).
  • Don't think you really need to link commons terms such as wool or salt...
  • Could link Transport Scotland.
  • I think "first past the post" is typically hyphenated.
  • Maybe my ignorance but shouldn't "are tributary to the " be "are tributaries"?
  • Ensure all tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes so that they can be accessed by screen readers.
  • "about 90 less than " shouldn't that be 90 "fewer".
  • "Total Population" -> "Total population".
  • "Foreign Born" -> "Foreign born".
  • "Over 75 Years Old" -> "Over 75 years old".
  • "Population Change" -> "Population change".

Will come back to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by Webster's Topographical Dictionary of Scotland in 1755," shouldn't the book title be in italics?
  • " Early manufacturing and in neighbouring Pathhead consisted" doesn't make sense to me.
  • " terms of floor space" do you mean "retail" floor space?
  • Could link A92 road for our international audience.
  • Don't overlink Ingolstadt.
  • "Sport and Leisure" -> "Sport and leisure".
  • It's Raith Rovers F.C. (note the full stops in F.C.)
  • "the town's senior football team, "-> "the town's professional association football team".
  • "the highest tier of the Scottish Football League at their ground," while true, I believe this to be mildly misleading to those who aren't aware of a thing called the SPL.
  • In the Landmarks section, I get some text squashed between images which is undesirable.
  • " 339-343" (etc) needs en-dash, not hyphen.
  • "all children 5–13" -> children aged 5 to 13.
  • Could link "Education (Scotland) Act" to Elementary Education Act 1870#Scotland.
  • What is the inclusion criteria for "notable residents"? It's usually a bad idea to have these sections in any article.
  • Apply the en-dash (per WP:DASH) to page ranges in the refs.
  • Be consistent. Is there a space after the p. or not in the refs?
  • Are all those external links really specifically relevant to Kirkcaldy?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Kessel

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

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

I believe that it is now worth GA status, at least for its Ice-Hockey merits. In my opinion, the page is comparable to other GA-class ice-hockey articles such as Alexander Edler, Curtis Glencross and Adam Pardy. At least I would very much appreciate feedback on the article itself so that I can improve it.

Thanks, Doug "Killer" Gilmour (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Resolute

Most of the information looks to be there so you have a good base to start from, but there but this article will need some work on prose quality and referencing if you would like it to reach GA status.

  • The biggest issue is the use of proseline throughout much of the article. Avoid repetitive "On date X, Y happened" entries and try to format the information in logical paragraphs.
  • Personally (and I wrote the Pardy and Glencross articles), I prefer to place milestones in the article body rather than as a list at the end. Same with the records. Things like "most goals in team history by an American" looks ugly in a list since it is a non-record record, but as part of a paragraph detailing Kessel's success as an American-born player it could fit.
  • Sourcing is your other big issue. Large parts of the article are unsourced. For things like his milestones, you will find the Leafs' media guide to be ridiculously useful. It can be downloaded off the team website under the "Team" section.
  • The referencing format will need to be made consistent. You can choose any format you like (WP:CITE has some advice), so long as it is consistent and key information is available. Personally, I like to use the {{citation}} family of templates. Also, things like "TSN" should be expanded to "The Sports Network", "NHL" to "National Hockey League", etc.
  • After that, it is just minor things. I would move all of the stats tables together (example: Jarome Iginla#Career statistics), and I personally like to use tables for the awards section (example: Theoren Fleury#Awards).
  • Under international play, I would remove the "Kessel played for the United States in..." list as it is redundant to the stats table. For an example of a decent international play section format, look at the Iginla and Fleury examples above.
  • Personal life: far too much detail on his father. At most, I would note that his dad was a football quarterback who was drafted by the Redskins, and then mention his post-football career, if any. Kessel's cancer is appropriately noted in the Bruins section since it impacted his NHL career, but if Phil is involved in any charitable endeavours as a result, this is the section to note that.
  • Minor manual of style issues. Scores and records should use en-dahses rather than regular dashes. e.g.: 2–1 instead of 2-1 or 2 - 1. Also, the names of print publications should be italicized, e.g.: The Hockey News.
  • Finally, the lead needs some expansion. Per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the subject and touch on most, if not all, sections of the article. Sometimes a short lead paragraph is acceptable (like the Pardy article), but there are some important things that this lead is missing. It is noted that he won the Masterton trophy, but mention why: "...he was awarded the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy after overcoming cancer during the season." Note that he has represented the United States internationally on several occasions, and specifically point out that he was a silver medal winning Olympian.

It may seem like a lot, but GA status should be relatively easily doable from here. It'll just take a little more work, and once you get that first one down, bringing other articles to the same status gets progressively easier. I won't be monitoring this PR closely, but I am always happy to help out a fellow hockey editor. Feel free to ping me on my talk page if you have any specific questions or wish me to take a second look once you've addressed some of these points. Cheers, Resolute 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock (TV 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 the article receives a lot of page views (over 600,000 in the last 30 days). It would be helpful for someone who has not been involved in the article to check it against the GA criteria.

Thanks, The JPStalk to me 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

Overall, this looks very, very good. My only minor issue is that there is some inconsistency in coverage and parts need updating to reflect the reaction to Series 2. The prose is very good, with just one or two points to clear up, and it seems to cover everything very thoroughly. I cannot imagine this having any problems passing GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the lead needs a little more about the actual series, and possibly some of the events from it; per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to reflect everything in the article.ω Awaiting
  • "and will reportedly air in 2013": Reportedly is a little weak. Who says so? Better to give this. Done
  • "The two writers are both big Sherlock Holmes fans;[6] The theme of "friendship" appealed to both Gatiss and Moffat.": There should not be a capital letter after the semi-colon. To be honest, I do not really see a connection between the parts of this sentence and I think they would be better split. Done
  • "The writers realised that someone else would have the same idea to produce a modern-day version.": I know what this is getting at, but I'm not sure it makes it clear for the reader. I think the point was that they though someone was almost certain to do their idea eventually, so they wanted to get there before anyone else did. Not sure that this comes across. Done
  • "Gatiss has criticised recent television adaptations of the Conan Doyle stories as "too reverential and too slow", aiming instead to be as irreverent to the canon as the 1930s and 1940s films starring Basil Rathbone.": Suggests that it was the "reverential" adaptations which were aiming to be irreverent to the canon. Not sure
  • "In the DVD audio commentary, Moffat and Gatiss say they decided that everything that had previously been done about Sherlock Holmes was canonical: not just the Conan Doyle stories but the Rathbone and Granada Television versions." I don't really see how this affects the series, as it does not reference any other "version". It may be interesting in terms of Moffat and Gatiss' views, but I can't see that it has a place here. Or anywhere in the article, to be honest. Done
  • In addition, I don't really see the need to refer to "canonical". For the purposes of this article, it may be better to just say "Conan Doyle's books" or similar. Not sure
  • "reported to have cost £800,000": Reported by who? Done
  • "The original pilot was included as part of the series on DVD.": Does not quite make sense. Perhaps "included on the DVD of the first series". Done
  • "The pilot, says journalist Mark Lawson…" How does he know, and what makes him an authority. Done
  • "The actor was cast after a reading.": Possibly the reader will not know what a reading is, and may imagine something to do with tarot cards! Done
  • Is it worth making the link with the drug habit in the original series and the nicotine patches; this seemed to be a feature of the second series. Not sure
  • "However, Moffat turned the character "more Victorian" in the second series": This is a little vague; what does it mean? Done
  • "with Martin Freeman eventually taking the role": "with noun verb-ing" is not the best sentence structure. Maybe "and Martin Freeman eventually took the role". Done
  • "The writers said that Freeman's casting developed the way in which Cumberbatch played Holmes.[8] Journalist Victoria Thorpe said, "Freeman's dependable, capable Watson unlocks this modern Holmes, a man who now describes himself as 'a high-functioning sociopath'."" A little odd to have a sentence saying that the writers said something, backed up by a quote from an unconnected journalist. She is referring to how the actors come across on the screen, not what the writers/actors intended following the casting of Freeman, Done
  • "His first name is revealed to be Greg in "The Hounds of Baskerville".": For completeness, a ref would be good here. Done
  • Anything on the casting of other regular cast, or on guest stars? Not sure
  • There seems to be an awful lot on the filming of the pilot, but very little on the filming of the rest of the two series. I think the minimal approach taken to the filming of the two series is fine, and perhaps the detail on the pilot filming could be trimmed back? Done
  • Anything on the sets; for example the Baker Street interior? Or maybe move the detail on the pilot and the "Baker Street" location to a more general section.
  • Episodes: Filming dates are given for S2, but not for S1. I think both or none are needed and the info may be better in the filming section anyway. Done
  • Ditto broadcast dates not consistent in this section. S2 given, S1 not. Done
  • Reception: This is exclusively from the first series. I think it needs something to reflect the reception to the 2012 series, including the continued largely positive reviews. Also, what about the 2012 BAFTAs; Scott won an award, but the series was nominated in several categories. Done
  • I also recall that there was some controversy over S2, for example over the role of Irene Adler. And maybe put in a little more here over the speculation over the ending? Done
  • Is it worth putting in somewhere how the tie-in websites actually link to the broadcast series and are referenced in it? Not sure
  • References not checked and no spot-checks done.
  • One or two more images would be good, but not essential.

I do not watch peer reviews, so please contact me on my talk page if there are any issues or further responses are needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Fruit Society

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am particularly fond of this article and would eventually like to see it go to Featured Article status. Passed GA in January 2012 and I am interested to know generally and specifically what the weaknesses are so I can improve the article.

The Spirit Fruit Society (don't be put off by the name!) was a commune founded in 1899 and is said to be one of the most successful and longest-lived groups of its kind. I find it an interesting topic, I hope others do as well!

Thanks, Wikipelli Talk 10:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead seems a little heavy, four paras for a short article, check out WP:LEAD.
  • "existed longer and more successfully than any other American utopian group.[1]" some claim. You source it to one book. Is there any other evidence that this claim is true?
 Doing... Re: the first two bullets: I've reduced the lede to 2 paras. Started a section at the end (don't like the name, though, "Success of the society" Suggestions? I'd like a 'post-mortem'-like section where the success in retrospect could be examined. Wikipelli Talk 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a vaguely related note, I don't see refs in the lead in most FAs these days, they tend to expand upon the lead in the main part of the article and ref stuff there.
 Fixed I agree. I prefer not to have refs in the lede. Took them out except one since there was a direct quote. I felt uneasy taking that one out. Wikipelli Talk 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quote must be cited per WP:LEADCITE
  • Not sure soul needs to be linked.
 Fixed Unlinked Wikipelli Talk 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ottawa Free Trader -. 27 November 1908" odd space/hyphen combo here.
 Fixed typo Wikipelli Talk 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the further reading work titles be in italics?
will check and fix Wikipelli Talk 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed
  • "Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org)" well that's why we have archiveurl as part of our {{cite web}} template, so fix that.
Checking on that, too... Wikipelli Talk 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the input! I appreciate it... Wikipelli Talk 21:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State University–San Marcos

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Late last year this article was nominated for GA by an uninvolved editor. GA was declined but resulted in good feedback making me wonder if GA is a real possibility for the article. I finished going through the article performing a major rewrite of pretty much the entire article a couple months back. I'd like to get a pair of experienced eyes (or more) to look at it and see what improvements need to be done in hope of moving towards another shot at a GA nomination in the future. (Note: this was put up for peer review a month or so ago, but was kicked off the list due to the backlog.)

Thanks, --TreyGeek (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Noleander
  • Clarify: "is an emerging research university ..." - What does "emerging" mean in this context? Recommend omit the word "emerging" from the lead and instead mention "emerging" and elaborate on it down in the article body.
    • Fixed "is a state university ..." - I wasn't wild when emerging was added to the into. It is already explained in the research section, but I've modified the lead to be more in line with other university articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim: "state to have a former President of the United States ... " - No need for word "former" here.
  • Lead balance: The lead has an entire paragraph on LBJ: "Texas State University is the only university in the state to have a former President of the United States as an alumnus. President Lyndon B. Johnson graduated from what was then Southwest Texas State Teachers College in 1930 with a teaching certificate and a Bachelor of Science in history. In 1965, he returned to Southwest Texas State College, as the school was known then, to sign the Higher Education Act of 1965." - That seems excessive. The lead is supposed to represent the entire article, proportionately. Consider cutting LBJ material in lead in half, and adding more info from body (summarize) into lead, so the lead reflects the entire article's contents.
    • Done: (for now) I put one sentence about LBJ at the end of the first paragraph and removed the third paragraphed focused on him. I'll see if I can find things from the article to summarize as a third paragraph and move the sentence back. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold? - In History section: "The Southwest Texas State Normal School was proposed in a March 3, 1899" - Check the MOS on this. I think bold is only supposed to be used in the Lead section for alternate names.
  • Bold? - Ditto for " the school officially became known at Texas State University–San Marcos."
  • Wording: " The Quad is considered to be the heart of campus as it is surrounded by the majority of the academic buildings .." - Remove "is considered". Also, "as it is .." is not appropriate. Try "... campus because it is centrally located amidst several important academic buildings" or similar.
  • Quotes? - " a 17-foot high aluminum sculpture of two horses, called the "Fighting Stallions." - Check MOS:QUOTES .. I think quotes should not be used here around a proper name.
  • Quotes? - Ditto for "Built in 1903 and originally called the "Main Building", Old Main .."
  • Capitals? - "ed its first official mascot, the Bobcat, at ..." - Should Bobcat be lower case?
  • Merge footnotes: "ge have consistently been given Fulbright Scholar grants[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] " - Too many footnotes. Collapse into one following guidance at WP:CITEBUNDLE.
  • Wording: "The previous rivalry was with Nicholls State and began in 1998. " - Doesnt seem right. The rivalry is still in progress, correct? Rewrite entire sentence, maybe "A rivalry with Nicholls State began ...". Also, consider moving NS text up above the more recent rivalry, so things are in chronological order.
    • Done The Nicholls State rivalry is over now that TxState is moving to a new conference. Besides moving Nicholls up to the first paragraph, I've started it so that the current situation is clearer. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold: In the Colleges section there is a box listing a dozen colleges, using boldface. I'm pretty sure the MOS discourages bold in that situation.
  • Quotes: No quote marks needed: " Trauth created the "Athletic Strategic Planning Committee" with ..."
  • No quotes: "The University called its efforts "The Drive to FBS.""
Yes, those other quotes should also be removed. I, like you, tend to use quote marks a lot in my own personal writing; but I have to suppress that tendency in WP articles. In WP articles about the only things that go inside quote marks are direct quotations of individuals. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks again for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the requestor is only concerned about GA status (vs FA), I'll stop here. The article is in decent shape, and if the above items are fixed, I'm sure it will pass GAC next time with no problems.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments. It fixed a few things I was unsure about and others I glossed over in my various readings. I'd like to try and get one or two articles to GA before I think about FA. One step at a time. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence 13X

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Clarence 13X was a fascinating character from 1960s Harlem who successfully founded a new religious movement. I'd appreciate a peer review based on the FA criteria (WP:WIAFA). Input on flow and comprehensibility would be particularly appreciated. Trying to balance the discussion of his theology with his life narrative was somewhat difficult. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a very interesting read.

  • "also enjoyed gambling" plus "He often gambled and.." in consecutive paras, probably no need for the reptition.
  • "After an incident that year " later or earlier?
  • "Virginia was then racially segregated, ..." could be read that this happened afterwards as opposed to "At that time, Virginia was racially..."
  • Is the infection with syphilis really relevant or is it there to hint at some level of promiscuity?
  • "He was nicknamed "Pudding"; ..." seems somewhat crowbarred in, especially after talking about him being known the FBI, it seems something of a non sequitur.
  • "unrest occurred owing " reads awkwardly to me. "unrest was caused by"?
  • "concluded that numbers represent specific concepts" not 100% but think that "represented" would read a little smoother.
  • "Some Five Percents supported " previously and subsequently you refer to them as Percenters.
  • "women were "earths" with " you said this before, perhaps a minor rephrase of this section to avoid repeating the "earths" name.
  • You link "birth control" but not "polygamy", I would think most would know the former but perhaps not the latter...
  • Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the arrest etc which you said was in the "same year" as when he was first shot (1964) seems to have been in 1965 according to the Arrest section?
  • "about 60 of his " personal pref but I'd prefer to see "around 60"...
  • "and set $9,500 bail" reads a little odd to me, but I'm British. I would have expected it to say "set his bail at $9,500."
  • "have psychological problems" in the lead you were specific in saying he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Could be specific here.
  • "While Clarence 13X was in prison" you referred to it as a hospital in the previous paragraph...
  • I think court cases are typically in italics, e.g. R. v. Oakes...
  • Should Urban League be National Urban League?
  • "The city of New York subsequently agreed ..." I see this a lot but what does it mean?
  • "That morning, several people .." -> "Later that morning.."?
  • "Clarence 13X was cremated, and his funeral was held four days after his death" seems to me this is the wrong way round...
  • "pp. 32–35." vs "pp. 37–8." be consistent with number of digits.
  • "pp. 66 & 69." any reason why that isn't a range?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Found some time this morning to give this a read through, per your request. Comments follow.

Lead:

  • Why no infobox?
  • The most natural way for me to read the name of the article's subject is "Clarence thirteen-ex", and I suspect that's how it is meant to be, but it occurs to me that it could also be "Clarence one-three-ex" or "Clarence thirteen times" (X being the symbol for multiplication). Wonder if this could be clarified without looking goofy?
  • "later known as Clarence 13X and Allah" Might it be appropriate to say something like "better known by his assumed monikers Clarence 13X and Allah" so that it's clear he chose those names for himself?
  • "It is not known why he left" I think you can drop this. The rest of the sentence implies this, and it can stand on its own.
  • "He disagreed with the NOI's teachings about the status of Wallace Fard Muhammad, whom they considered a divine messenger. Clarence 13X argued that Fard could not be divine because he was part white, contradicting the NOI's teaching that God is black." Could we maybe combine this to say "He disagreed with the NOI's teaching that Wallace Fard Muhammad was a divine messenger, because Fard was part white; Clarence 13X argued that this contradicted the NOI's teaching that God is black."
  • Later in the article, we have "[Clarence 13X] believed that Fard was of partial Caucasian descent". Was there doubt about this? If so, we should note it in the lead as well.
  • Why is Wallace Fard Muhammad referred to concisely as "Fard" instead of "Muhammad"?
  • "took the name Allah to symbolize [divine] status" In light of this statement, it might be worth linking "Allah" somewhere for readers that may not know that is the name of the deity of Islam.
  • "They devised numerological teachings about letters and numbers" Can you devise a "numerological teaching" about a letter? Maybe choose a different adjective here.
  • I like the use of semicolons to vary sentence structure, but I think it's overdone in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • "He was released from custody after a court ruling in 1966." What did the court rule? How did it effect his release?

Early life and Nation of Islam:

  • "he witnessed incidents of racism, including a fight between his father and a white man" A fight between two people of different races is not necessarily racism. Do we know anything about the incident and how it was connected to racism?
  • "In 1946, he moved to New York City with his mother, where they settled in Harlem." Did his parents divorce? Were they ever married? What prompted their separation and his mother's move to New York?
  • "Dora had embraced the group while he was away" This paragraph should lead with this information. It makes the transition from the previous paragraph smoother.
  • "Clarence 13X became disillusioned with the organization" Disillusioned kind of implies that he was misled about something. "Disenchanted" might be a more accurate term.
  • "His departure has been variously attributed to doubts about the NOI's theology, violations of their moral code, objections to the luxurious lifestyles of their senior leadership, or that he was distrusted by Malcolm X." The last item breaks the parallelism of the sentence. Maybe try "His departure has been variously attributed to doubts about the NOI's theology, violations of their moral code, objections to the luxurious lifestyles of their senior leadership, or Malcolm X's distrust of him." Alternatively, you might break the last part out into its own sentence.
  • "NOI members have offered contradictory accounts of the events that led to Clarence 13X's departure, and whether it was voluntary." This might work better before the preceding sentence.

Founding the Five Percenters:

  • "At that time, they sometimes smoked marijuana together, and John 37X regularly used heroin." This kind of seems like a random tidbit until mention of John 37X's imprisonment on drug charges. Later, we also have "he sold and used drugs". I'm not sure you couldn't drop both and just leave that "During [living mathematics'] development, John 37X was imprisoned on firearms charges." Otherwise, I think the integration of the drug use/selling facts could be tighter.
  • "Comparisons have also been made between his teachings and Gnosticism, Kemetism, and Kabbalah." Who has made these comparisons?
  • "Five Percenters teach that Clarence 13X was an incarnation of God, and that black men are gods. Followers are thus encouraged to look within themselves in their search for God." There is a shift to the present tense for two sentences here, then back to past tense. I understand that these are probably still teachings of the Five Percenter movement, but the shift in tense within the same paragraph was jarring for me. You might want to look for ways to avoid it.
  • "arguing that pigs were similar to animals that are not eaten, such as rats and dogs" Other animals that are not eaten by whom? My understanding is that some groups of people do eat dogs, at least, and maybe rats too.
  • "Hip hop mogul Russell Simmons recalls" Why is Russell Simmons qualified to comment? Where does he "recall" his observations from? Did he live near a recruiting post or something?
  • "Attendees were given wide freedom to speak in a system that has been compared to Quaker meetings." Again, who is making this comparison? We have to know in order to judge its reliability and accuracy.
  • "The group initially became known as the "Suns of Almighty God Allah", or the "Blood Brothers"." Why not "Clarence 13X's group was initially known as the "Suns of Almighty God Allah", or the "Blood Brothers"."?
  • "they are said to embody his attributes." Whose attributes? Clarence 13X's? God's? I guess they are kind of one in the same to this group, but it is still a little unclear to me.
  • "The name was drawn from the NOI's claim to be the five percent of the black community who knew and promoted the truth about God; Clarence 13X considered his movement to be the five percent of the NOI which still held to truth and integrity" So, just to check my understanding, they were 5% of the 5%? If so, no action needed. If not, this is the conclusion I came to reading this.

Opposition:

Arrest:

  • "At his arraignment, around 60 of his followers attended" Maybe just "Approximately 60 of his followers attended his arraignment..."
  • "were removed from the court after shouting "Peace"." Was this like a one-time shout in unison or was it repeated like a chant? Maybe it was a disorganized cacophony. It would be nice to know, if the sources say.
  • "Five Percenters resisted Louis Farrakhan's attempts to convert them" Convert them to what?
  • "It took an unusually long time for Clarence 13X's psychiatric results to be processed" Given the next sentence, I'm guessing that "unusually long" was Knight's assessment. It probably needs to be attributed, and I think you can probably combine this sentence and the next one to do that effectively.
  • "converting one young white man" Is this the "white follower" mentioned in the lead? Is he the only white Five Percenter that we know of? If not, is he at least Clarence 13X's first white follower? If so, that probably deserves note.

Cooperation and conflict:

  • "Prompted in part by concerns voiced by the NYPD" Has this abbreviation been spelled out before?
  • "The city of New York subsequently agreed to help Clarence 13X publish a book of Five Percenter teachings and portions of the Quran." Interesting that he wanted to publish portions of the Quran, but he no longer identified as Muslim. Any idea why?
    • That is counter-intuitive, I'm not sure there's a clear reason why in the source. I believe his objection to "Islam" was that it means "submission", and as Allah he didn't have to submit to anyone. The group was/is syncretist at heart though, so it's not uncommon for them to borrow from other groups to an extent. I put a bit about that next to his not identifying as Muslim. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, we can't say what the sources don't. I didn't expect there to be much about this, but left this comment to prompt you to look anyway, just to be sure. It's fine. I suspect your explanation is pretty close to right. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Willieen Jowers recalled that Clarence 13X admitted that his previous teachings about racial hatred were wrong around this time." What role has Jowers been playing all this time? I kind of assumed she faded out of the picture after the birth of her second child.
  • "Gloria Steinem published an article about Clarence 13X in New York." Maybe specify New York magazine. Otherwise, we don't know if it's a book, newspaper, or what.

Death:

Legacy and reception:

Again, this is well-written overall, and my quibbles are pretty minor. Probably not a subject I'd have reviewed voluntarily, but a pretty easy review considering the article's length. If you get a chance and wouldn't mind, I've got Constitution Square State Historic Site up for PR. It's kind of a different article for me, too, considering I usually do biographies, but after a weekender trip there a few months back, I got interested in it, and I think it might stand a chance at FAC. See what you think if you have time. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a re-evaluation based on its current contents.

Thanks, Bearpatch (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For anything like GA etc, you'd need to expand the lead a bit, per WP:LEAD I reckon a couple of paras would do the job.
  • Image captions that aren't complete sentences don't need full stops.
  • Although not mandated by most processes, it would be good to see alt text with the images.
  • "issue of Agatha's paternity" just "her" paternity would be fine.
  • "She came to England with her husband ..." as this is the main body, you at least rename the husband and possibly even expand upon his role.
  • Newcastle upon Tyne doesn't have hyphens.
  • "Simeon of Durham [2]" avoid spaces before references.
  • Before text like "thaes ceseres maga, filia germani imperatoris Henrici" I would be tempted to put "Latin:"
  • "to bear on the question" what question?
  • Forgive my ignorance but what is the relevance of the names on the family trees that appear in italics?
  • Giselle or Gisela, be consistent.
  • "As tempting as it may be to thus view .... " not really encyclopedic writing.
  • Last two paras of "Kievan theory" section are unreferenced.
  • Online refs need publisher info, access dates etc where possible.
  • I would split footnotes from references.
  • Page ranges need an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Foreign language references should specify which language they're in.
  • Be consistent, is it "pp" or "pp."?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fairy Tail characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we have been working on this for a potential FL candidate over the past couple of months and has gone through an extensive copyedit. I would like to have some feedback on how we can improve this list even further.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am halting this peer review one week from today per the discussion at Talk:List of Fairy Tail characters#Peer review. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review restarted. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead could be longer. The list is mammoth and therefore the lead could easily handle more info (don't forget it's supposed to summarise the entire article).
  • Lead image could then be bigger, and the caption should be improved to describe the characters shown.
  • Also, captions shouldn't have a period unless they're complete sentences.
  • You should use DISPLAYTITLE to ensure Fairy Tale is shown as Fairy Tail in the article title.
  • "rambunctious titular guild" ok but you haven't said that Fairy Tail is a guild...
  • J. R. R. Tolkien has spaces between the J and the R etc.
  • " For the relationship between Natsu and Igneel, " who's Igneel? You mentioned him in the lead but you should be expanding here.
Expanded. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had a lot of yelling in the" okay, but doesn't read very encyclopaedically.
  • What is ADR?
Clarified. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(妖精の尻尾フェアリーテイル) Fearī Teiru?)," seems to be missing a (
  • café -> cafe. Sufficiently anglicised now to avoid the accent.
  • "He joins Fairy Tail..." reiterate Natsu here (because the last "he" you mentioned was Igneel).
  • "[ch. 1,5] " space after the comma. Ditto throughout.
  • "in using celestial magic... using a set of . ... She uses a ..." repetitive.
  • "Heartfilia[n 3]," note after the comma.
  • "becomes more friendly with " -> more friendly = friendlier.
  • "halves their affects if " that'd be "effects".
  • Generally, I find the frequency of citations and notes to be off-putting. Consider putting them all at the end of sentences so I can read the prose and only have to wait until the end of the sentence I'm reading before I find the appropriate citation.
  • General again, no more fair use images you could use here for these characters? Since for some of them you go a way to explain how they appear (e.g. Happy), I would imagine that would constitute good grounds for a FU image.
  • "In the Japanese series, her voice actress is Yui Horie.[11]" one example of where you don't have the corresponding English dub artist. Why not?
Funimation does not have the license to dub the episodes yet. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S-Class Wizard" be consistent with capitalisation of W/wizard.
  • "Shadow Gear[n 14], " note after punctuation.
  • "[ch. 244-248]" en-dash for ranges.
  • "can even turn her" no need for "even".
  • "but loses an arm, leg, and some organs as a result" sounds serious. Most people don't get over losing "some organs". Perhaps you could specify?
  • In the "Other wizards" section, although it pains me, it's probably worth making the names of each of them bold.
  • Reedus Jonah has a [citation needed] which should be fixed.

That's a good start. About half-way through. Please apply common comments above to the rest of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note A second peer review was opened while this one was still active, so per this request on my talk page diff, I moved the relevant PR comments here and will delete the second PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 The article looks very good but I'm not too familiar with the series so I'll leave some issues I found

  • A section named "Minor characters and groups" sounds as if they are not really notable characters, so maybe their information could be unsuitable in an encyclopedia.
Okay. Changed to "Other characters and guilds". Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections like Jellal Fernandes contain several plot details that can be trimmed.
  • The reception section only uses sources from Anime News Network. Probably IGN, DVD, FandomPost and UK Anime Network also have reviews from Fairy Tail to add more opinions.

List of Indian Premier League centuries

[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 will like to take this list to FL status and a detailed peer review will help.

Thanks, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a detailed review, but... Not sure if the lead [and only] image at the lead of the text 'IPL' is the right choice. As in most other cricket lists of the same theme [centuries], have a player photo of some top records at he lead, for example. They are definetly better content for the list, so I would suggest a McCullum pic, hitting the first and highest, [preferably in KKR jersey] would be the right choice. extra999 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added Gayle's pic, Since he has scored the most 100s. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Diane

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the second peer review request; this may help. I have done as much as I can in User:George Ho/Sam and Diane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (or "Sam and Diane" if history log is already moved at WP:REPAIR request). Meanwhile, I have added some more plot details that include cliffhangers without directly saying "cliffhanger". I wonder if this article is now ready for GA-status.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ok, will review for GA (whatever that really means) but will hope to give you comments that exceed that requirement. Feel free to ignore.

  • Refs in the lead are unnecessary. Articles should summarise the content in the lead and then expand on it in the main body, so all references should be used in the main body. That's what FA would expect by the way.
  • Four shortish paras in the lead, perhaps look at merging a bit and making three more substantial paras.
  • "is called by David LaRocca one of the well-known examples of the "delayed romance" theme in situation comedy..." the quote starts late, is "one of the well-known.." included in the quote?
  • "Season 5 finale" is there a reason that "Season" is a proper noun here?
  • "In the fifth season finale, "I Do, Adieu" (1987)" you pretty much said that in the previous para.
  • "In the 1993 series finale" well, you had fifth season, now it's 1993 series... be consistent.
  • "praised as the "famous couple",[5]" makes no sense to me, "mostly praised" with one ref, and "the famous couple". What does that mean?
  • "viewers condemned the relationship for alienating television viewers" repeat of "viewers" is not elegant.
  • " other later couples of other shows, such as The X-Files and Friends," -> "other couples of later shows such as..."
  • George Ball is a dab link.
  • Seems to be an ongoing obsession to capitalise "Season".
  • 1982-1983 needs and en-dash per WP:DASH, check throughout.
  • "becomes consummated but eventually dysfunctional." odd, maybe "is consummated but becomes dysfunctional..."?
  • " to the unseen character." cliffhanger link again. Odd.
  • No need to link Los Angeles.
  • Critique -> Criticism.
  • "Non-positive reactions" merge with Criticism (it means both positive and negative)
  • Don't overlink Entertainment Weekly.
  • Have you linked Huffington Post?
  • Link the Emmy it won.
  • " placed them #4 in" see WP:HASH.
    1. 50 ditto.
  • Suddenly it's The Huffington Post (and linked). Do it right and do it the first time.
  • "of 26%" see WP:PERCENT.
  • As the article continues, it descends into multiple paragraphs of one or two sentences, sort of like a trivia hit parade.
  • "04 Feb. 2012." -> "4 February 2012" or "February 4, 2012" is ideal. What is here now is not.
  • Date format is questionable since USEng would be Month Day, Year.
  • Check all refs have suitable consistent fields, e.g. 63, 68 without access dates.
  • Avoid bare URLs in Further reading section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have changed the lede, and I have restructured "Development and storyline" section (maybe "Relationship" section). --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a re-review here if necessary. I have made changes. Now I'm goaling for GA. --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding Dance

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it further than it currently is. I wish to get it up to FA standard. It is currently a GA but I want to get it further.

Thanks, ⇒TAP 09:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Its way off being FA standard! I honestly can't see it becoming a featured article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay! I'll just use the peer review of what can be done to make it better. Regards, ⇒TAP 14:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to clarify Voyerism, what does your sentence mean? I see you have implemented some more of earlier suggestions. Have you been able to get a super high resolution so that you can have a zoom in of the table? Where is the groom? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think the word "painting" is used eight times in two paras of the lead, somewhat repetitive. Can we not mix it up a little, using alternative words?
  • " an oil on panel " I imagine that "oil-on-panel" should be hyphenated here.
  • "which was found in 1930 in " -> "discovered in 1930"?
  • In the infobox you link "oil painting" which is pretty obvious to most people but not "tempera" which I don't believe is obvious to most people.
  • Consider linking "Renaissance period".
  • "Along with The Peasant Wedding (1567) and The Peasant Dance (1569), which share the same wedding theme and elements, were painted in the same..." grammatically incorrect.
  • Who is "Robert L. Bonn " and why should his opinion be important?
  • Same comment for "Walter S. Gibson ".
  • " Voyeurism is depicted throughout the entire painting.[16]" this is identical to the lead. You're supposed to expand upon it in the main body.
  • Last sentence of "Description" is wayyyy long.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Good luck with it in the future! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My initial aim was FA, but I guess that won't happen. ⇒TAP 17:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain class frigate

[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 seek suggestions for improvements, so all constructive criticism and suggestions are welcome. I'd like to one day get this article to FA status however at the moment my immediate goal is to get the article to a point where it would pass a GA review.

Thanks, Thefrood (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, it needs some copyediting. I'm working on copyediting another article right now, but will try to get to this one after that. In the meantime, you may wish to click on the "automated tips" link in the sidebar - it found a couple of things, including possible problems with the links from uboat.net (I don't think they're actually dead links, despite what it says, but they may no longer be pointing at the right place). Allens (talk | contribs) 11:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The uboat.net links are working fine, they just don't like bots. I've used uboat.net instead of a bibliographical reference because Guðmundur Helgason and the rest of the uboat.net crew try very hard to keep on top of the latest research published in books and journals, revising positions as and when wrecks are located.
A good copy edit would also be appreciated, thank you --Thefrood talk 19:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some things found while copyediting:
  • What happened to the returned vessels? Were they all scrapped, or were some preserved?
The fates are listed on List of Captain class frigates, There are no preserved Captain class I know of, with a few exceptions all were scrapped - Affleck was converted to a cargo carrier and Balfour was acquired by the State of New York for use as a training ship by New York Maritime Academy (DANFS can used to reference both of those if you think I should add some detail to the article) --Thefrood talk 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the minimum, I'd put some info on this into the infobox. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the draft actually 9 feet for both subclasses? The Buckley article indicates 11 feet.
fixed --Thefrood talk 21:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info on armour? How about decks?
Added info on thickness of steel plate used to early history and No. of decks to infobox. --Thefrood talk 19:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, instead of (Evarts/Buckley) after differing measurements, how about Evarts: or Buckley: before them? (That way, there aren't cases of ") (", which at least to me look rather odd.)
IIRC another user exprimented with that a while back, if memory serves me right it also looked very odd --Thefrood talk 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well... Allens (talk | contribs) 12:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noted the two ship's boats; more info is needed on the US Navy-supplied one.
  • Early History: "superfiring position ("B")" - what's the B?
a gun mounted so it fires over the "B" gun position - I've altered the text a little bit to try and make things clearer --Thefrood talk 16:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early History: How about the time required to produce one - compared with a fleet destroyer?
Given Halsted as an example (24.5 days) --Thefrood talk 21:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early History: "graceful shear to deck-line from the forecastle to midship" - did the Admiralty-designed ships lack this or did the Captain-class frigates?
The Captain-class were considered more "graceful" - "graceful shear" and "rakish" are the words the referenced text uses. Thefrood talk
I've tried to make this clearer; please correct if I've misunderstood. Allens (talk | contribs) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me --Thefrood talk 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early History: Use of welds instead of rivets - any practical difference made by this?
I've added some details on how this reduced production costs --Thefrood talk 19:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sea-keeping equipment: Were the "lifesaving rafts" actually "liferafts" or "lifeboats", as per the definition in the liferaft article?
The wikipedia article seems skewed towards modern concepts`when defining a liferaft, suffice to say they were considered rafts by the Navy - a lightweight solid buoyant outer ring with a thin flat flexible base (deck?), I think anyone who has viewed old war movies that show similar rafts in the water would have no trouble describing these as liferafts (as opposed to lifeboats) --Thefrood talk 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Carley float --Thefrood talk 16:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunnery: What other extra guns were Coastal Forces control frigates fitted with, besides the bowchasers?
  • Gunnery: Was it actually only on some ships that either a gun shield or a "spray and blast" shield was fitted? And, again, what's the B gun? And why would more rocket flare projectors be fitted to it when it had a spray and blast shield?
Altered text with regards to location of "B gun" to reflect discussion on Milhist talk page - trying to find a reference --Thefrood talk 17:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea on the criteria for deciding if "gun shield" or "spray and blast shield" should be fitted (but given the wartime condition it could be as simple as what was available from stores), as to the extra "rocket flare projectors" when a "spray and blast shield" was fitted as I read it the implication was that the "spray and blast shield" took up less space and the extra "rocket flare projectors" were fitted to take advantage of this freed up space - this is however reading "between the lines" of the referenced text so I can't really include it in the article. --Thefrood talk 17:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunnery: "the addition of a two-tier director which improved visibility and gave better protection to the equipment" - this is not the purpose of the "director" linked to.
From the linked article "On ships the director control towers for the main battery are placed high on the superstructure, where they have the best view", the linked article has a poor intro. Thefrood talk
I've tried to make it clearer that this is talking about the tower giving better visibility, etc, not the "director" itself, from what I understand; please correct if I've misunderstood. Allens (talk | contribs) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me --Thefrood talk 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navigation and communications: "fighting" lights?
I've no idea what these are, they are listed in the referenced article but no explanation is offered. I've asked over in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see if anyone can offer enlightenment --Thefrood talk 14:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the referenced explanation given over at "talk:WikiProject Military history" is correct it seem that "fighting lights" belongs in gunnery, I'm giving a little time for more replies before making the move (there is also some discussion of "B gun" over there) --Thefrood talk 15:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at http://www.admirals.org.uk/records/adm/adm239/adm239-261_SectVIII.php section 442 "RECOGNITION BETWEEN THE BATTLEFLEET AND ITS SCREEN" --Thefrood talk 20:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the text to try and explain the purpose of fighting lights and what they are --Thefrood talk 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ships companies: "Hostilities Only"?
I'd assumed that this phase was self describing but during the war the military was composed of regular career military and those who had either volunteered or been called up for the war. This latter group were "Hostilities Only" - I have nothing that references the exact terms of a H.O. enlistment but if memory serves me I seem to remember reading it was something like the duration plus six months - as this does seem to cause confusion I've changed the wording to emphasize the lack of previous military or seafaring experience. Thefrood talk
Addition copyedited; I've also changed the header to "Ships' companies". (Is there some British/naval usage of "Ships companies", without the apostrophe, that I'm not aware of?) Allens (talk | contribs) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was just my poor use of my native language. --Thefrood talk 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allens (talk | contribs) 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Everyone goofs sometimes... Allens (talk | contribs) 12:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got back from 5 days of mud at a music festival so sorry for the delay answering - give me a day to unpack and recover and I'll start trying to work through your list. --Thefrood talk 21:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understand fully! Allens (talk | contribs) 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sawtooth National Forest

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently made major additions the page, essentially writing the entire page. This page also recently underwent an informal peer review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Assessment & Review Request: Sawtooth National Forest. I thought I should open a formal peer review to get further feedback on all aspects of the article.

I had a suggestion by one reviewer to use "Staff" for references without authors, but this seems awkward to me. Also, another reviewer said the lead section is too long, but per Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader this section should be 3-4 paragraphs. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
  • The lead is a bit long relative to the body of the article, but nothing fatal. Done
  • Wording: "is a federally protected National Forest ..." - Why say "federally protected"? Arent all Nat forests protected? Why draw attention to that fact in the 1st sentence? Suggest move down to lower in lead. Done
  • Wording: "and covers" -> "that covers" Done
  • Wording: "which are found in the SNRA. " - "found" doesnt seem right for a large mtn range; maybe "which traverse the SNRA" or "which cover the majority of the SNRA" or similar. Done
  • Wording: "One plant species, Christ’s Indian Paintbrush, is endemic to the forest, .." - Most readers wont know what "endemic" means, and why make them click on the link? Recommend rewrite as something like "Plants that are found only in [or "unique to"] the SNF include ...." Done
  • Unneeded: "While it does not directly border Sawtooth National Forest, .." - Best to remove those words. Done
  • Remove: "This article refers to areas managed as Sawtooth National Forest, including the SNRA, but is generally applicable to those areas designated as, but not managed by, Sawtooth National Forest." - First, it is generally bad form to mention "this article"; second: It is rather confusing; third: whatever point is being made there is better being made down in the body where specific topics/places are discussed. Done
  • Simplify: " is currently managed " -> "is managed" Done
  • Chronological confusion: In section "Forest management" the first three paragraphs in order are: current time; 1905, 1891. Most articles start off with some kind of historical background that proceeds in chronological order. I'm not saying that you must create a "History" section (although that may be a good idea) but at least reorder the paragraphs sequentially. Done
  • Viewpoints? - "Sawtooth National Forest practices conservation of resources, which ensures a sustainable flow of ..." - That reads like a promotional brochure :-) Granted, that is the official policy of the NF, but are their other viewpoints? Are there environmentalist groups that have objected to lumber practices in the SNF? If so, their viewpoint ("Group ABC lodged a complaint in 2004 objecting to clear-cutting blah blah ...") should also be included per WP:NPOV. - There isn't much controversy any more over their resource extraction practices because as mentioned it has become less common. Also, I feel that the history behind the SNRA creation represents this controversy well.
  • White space: In section "Geography and geology" - there is a huge block of white space to the left of the images. That is generally considered unsat. Can you move the images elsewhere in the article? Or eliminate a couple of images (granted, they look superb)? Or, as a last resort, move the images into a WP:GALLERY at the bottom of the article? See WP:Galleries. - I think I have fixed this, but I never noticed a "huge block" of white space. Done
  • Define: "are nearly 1,500 known heritage sites on the.." - Define or link "heritage sites" Done
  • Details: "Boating is also popular on the large accessible lakes in the Sawtooth Valley. " - List a couple of the lakes right there. Done
  • Confusing: " has accurately depicted the Sawtooth Mountains since 1991, and beginning in 1986 license plates depicted a basic mountain range " - Again, reverse chrono order. Mention the 1986 plates first, then "The plates were revised in 1991 to depict a more realistic ..." or similar. Done
  • Recent stats? - "Visitors 1,188,600 (in 2005)" - Is there data from a more recent year available? - there is no more recent data
  • Simpler wording : " with the exception of grizzly bears, which have been extirpated." - Many readers won't know what extirpated means. Article should be accessible to high school students and laymen. Done
  • Wolf issues: "Gray wolves were reintroduced to the SNRA in the mid-1990s and now occupy most of the forest except for the Minidoka District.. .." - There is a huge controversy in Idaho about introducing wolves: the article should at least have a sentence about that with a link if there is another article on the topic. - added "amidst controversy" and already included link to article on wolf reintroduction Done
  • Clarify: " are the large top predators that live in the forest" - Many people wont know what "top predator" means: reword as "high in the food chain" or "have no animal that preys on them" or ???  Done
  • Informal: " have been floated since the 1990s, .." - "floated" is too informal for an encyclopedia. Try "proposed" or "suggested". Done
  • Clarify: "Bull trout are the management indicator species for the forest, ..." - Don't make the reader guess what " management indicator species" is: either link to management indicator species or define it right there. Done
  • Reword: "There are few reptiles in the forest, but snakes found on the forest include ..." - Reads awkwardly; also the word "but" should generally be avoided: use it only if the latter phrase directly contradicts the former. Consider: "There are few reptiles in the forest. Snakes are found ..."  Done
  • Rewords: "the protection status of remote and/or undeveloped .." - and/or should never be used. Just use "or" . Done
  • Informal: "extinguishing all fires, created huge sources of fuel in the form of dead and dying trees. ..." - Word "huge" seems too informal but maybe that is just me. Try "large", or "extensive" or "caused dead and dying trees to accumulate far in excess of the level found when fires are allowed to burn out naturally" etc. Done
  • Contradiction? - Fire fighting is confusing: on the one hand "an active Fire Management Program which recognizes that forest fires are a natural part of the ecosystem;"; and on the other hand: "The forest has wildland fire engines, pumps, hand tools and fire hose at its disposal. A helicopter can be summoned quickly, along with a regional base for a team of smokejumpers and air tankers used to provide air support in the manner of retardant and water drops." - Which is it? Do they attack fires or not? Done
  • Illustrations: double check all illustrations/pics and make sure that they are "free" and meet WP copyright rules. Move any images that are in WP to Commons. Done
  • You ask about: "a suggestion by one reviewer to use "Staff" for references without authors, but this seems awkward to me." - I agree with you. Anonymous sources should just omit the author. Using the word "Staff" when the source does not say "Staff" is misleading. Done
  • Overall, it is a fine article: broad in coverage, with great illustrations. Formatting, spelling, layout are find (except for white space). I suggest you implement the changes above, and then take this to WP:GAN and get Good Article recognition.

End Noleander comments

Comments Overall, an interesting read on a topic that might have been difficult to find sources for. Sounds like a beautiful place. Comments are below:

Lead:

  • "Sawtooth National Forest is a National Forest in the United States that covers 2,102,451 acres (850,832 ha) in the states of Idaho (~96%) and Utah (~4%)." Even though it is hyperlinked, "National Forest" may not mean much to the non-U.S. reader. I suggest rewriting the first two sentences as "Sawtooth National Forest is a federally-protected area that covers 2,102,451 acres (850,832 ha) of the U.S. states of Idaho (~96%) and Utah (~4%). Managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it was originally named the Sawtooth Forest Reserve in a proclamation issued by President Theodore Roosevelt on 29 May 1905."
  • Why the date-first format? I almost always see month-first in the U.S.
    • I didn't think this mattered, but I can change the dates in the article. Should I change the date in the references as well for consistency? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:STRONGNAT, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month." Not sure about having to be consistent between the body and the references, but it might not hurt. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as Hyndman Peak (12,009 feet (3,660 m)), the ninth highest point in Idaho" Suggest "as well as Hyndman Peak, the ninth highest point in Idaho at 12,009 feet (3,660 m) above sea level". That specifies that the height is relative to sea level and avoids the double parenthesis.
  • "Sawtooth National Forest contains a variety of habitats including sagebrush steppe, spruce-fir forests, alpine tundra, and over 1,100 lakes and 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of rivers and streams." Are these properly called "habitats"? I would think of them more as types of terrain. They may provide habitats for lots of different species, which I think is what you are getting at.
  • "The area that is now Sawtooth National Forest was first occupied by people as early as 8,000 BC and then by the Shoshone after 1700." This kinda makes it sound like the Shoshone are not people. I think there must be a better way to express these thoughts in relation to each other.
  • "Early explorers, trappers, and prospectors were the first European descendants to enter the area, and they founded many of the current towns around the forest." First, "early" is relative, but this doesn't give context so we know relative to what. Also, I suspect the some of the Shoshone who were already there were considered explorers, trappers, and prospectors. Might suggest rewording as "The first European descendents arrived in the area around [whenever]; they were mainly explorers, trappers, and prospectors, and they founded many of the current towns around the forest."

Forest history:

  • "The Sawtooth National Forest was created as the Sawtooth Forest Reserve in the Department of Agriculture by proclamation of President Theodore Roosevelt on 29 May 1905 with an area of 1,947,520 acres (788,130 ha) and named after the Sawtooth Mountains in the northwestern part of the forest." That's a lot of thoughts in one sentence; consider splitting into two.
  • "The Cassia Forest Reserve was established on 12 June 1905 and the Raft River Forest Reserve on 05 November 1906." Even though it breaks up the flow chronologically, I suggest keeping this with the later information about these reserves being merged and added to SNF. Otherwise, they look kind of random here.
  • "The Fairfield Ranger District was established in 1906 and merged with the Shake Creek Ranger District in 1972." This made it sound like the merged district was called "Shake Creek", so I went looking for that and didn't find it anywhere else in the article. When I searched for the Fairfield district, I discovered you either have to read the lead or the next section to find out how it is related to SNF. Again, suggest bringing this information together somehow (or repeating it, if necessary) so the reader knows why it is important here.
  • "and in 1960 Senator Frank Church introduced legislation" I think the fact that Church was a senator from Idaho is worth mentioning here.
  • "one to establish Sawtooth National Park and another for the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA)." I think the verb "establish" is worth repeating here. It reads awkwardly without it.
  • "The Forest Service recommended the creation of the national recreation area, which they would manage rather than the National Park Service." So what effect did this have on Church's legislation? I see that the recreational area wasn't established until six years later. Was the same legislation reintroduced year after year until it passed in 1972, or did Church's bill get voted down as a result of the NFS recommendation and/or the molybdenum find?
  • "The economic benefits and environmental and scenic degradation of the development of such a mine would be profound." First, you don't explicitly say that the American Smelting and Refining Company wanted to mine the mineral find, only that they found it. Without this, "such a mine" in this sentence has no meaning. Also, I suggest better contrasting between the potentially positive outcome (economic benefits) and the potentially negative outcomes (environmental and scenic degradation). Something like "The potential economic benefits of mining the area would be substantial, but the potential for profound environmental and scenic degradation would be significant as well."
  • "The Forest Service proclaimed that due to existing laws and claims they would be unable to protect the White Clouds from mining." Why? What did they lack? Was the area of the molybdenum find not part of the SNRA? Did any mining occur before the 1972 legislation?
  • "was signed into law by President Nixon." Go ahead and give first and last name here.
  • "The Burley and Twin Falls Ranger Districts were consolidated on 16 October 2002 into the Minidoka Ranger District." Same comment as before; relate this to SNF when it is mentioned.

Management:

  • "The SNRA headquarters and main visitor center are located north of Ketchum," Since you have already referred to the ranger district as "Ketchum", you might want to specify "the city of Ketchum, Idaho" here.

Flora:

  • "forested areas are dominated by various combinations of species" This is kind of like saying "Earth is dominated by various combinations of species"; it doesn't tell us much. At least, I'd suggest rephrasing to "forested areas contain a variety of plant species".
  • "including the largest whitebark pine in North America" Does this mean that the single largest whitebark pine tree is there, or that characteristically, the largest whitebark pine trees found in North America are found in this area?

Fauna:

  • "Invasive zebra and quagga mussels are potential threats to the forest’s aquatic ecosystems." How a zebra is a threat to an aquatic ecosystem is not readily apparent to a non-expert like myself. Can this be expanded upon a little?
  • "Gray wolves were reintroduced to the SNRA amidst controversy" What was the controversy about? How was it resolved?
  • "Plans for the reintroduction of grizzly bears to central Idaho have been proposed since the 1990s, but have not progressed." Why not?
  • It seems like there are a lot of animals in the area that are considered "big game". What are the hunting regulations in the park?
  • "salmon populations have collapsed" I don't know what this means. Are they locally extinct or have their numbers just dwindled? Needs some clarification.
  • "first salmon season in 31 years" I assume this means a time for legally fishing for salmon, but I'm not totally sure, especially since I don't know what it means that the population "collapsed". It could mean like a breeding season or something.
  • "listed as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List" Spell out IUCN on first mention.
  • "accidental species" Again, this strikes me as jargon. Does this mean species that were accidentally introduced to the region?
  • "(proposed scientific name Loxia sinesciuris)" I found this jarring here. Maybe save it for the later sentence about it being proposed as a new species.
  • "Mosquitos can be pesky in the spring and summer, particularly in the SNRA." "Pesky" seems non-encyclopedic to me, unless there is a scientific meaning to the word that I'm not aware of.

Wilderness:

  • At first glance, I'm not sure why this isn't closer to (or part of) the History section. It seems closely related.
  • "The roadless area is part of the proposed ... wilderness areas that have been proposed" Avoid this repetition.
  • "as a part of the controversial Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act" What is controversial about this Act?
  • "the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, that have gained no support among Idaho’s congressional delegation" Why have acts like this gained no support among the Idaho delegation?
  • "including even bicycles" Drop "even".

Fire ecology:

  • "around 1450 years before present after the development of lodgepole pine forests" I don't understand this.
  • "The Smoky Mountains" Being from Kentucky, I associate this with the Great Smoky Mountains. I'm assuming this is a different range. Is there a relevant wiki-article?
  • "A helicopter can be summoned quickly, along with a regional base for a team of smokejumpers" The helicopter and the regional base can both be summoned quickly? Am I misreading this?

Geography and geology:

  • "The elevation in the forest ranges from 4,514 feet (1,376 m) to 12,009 feet (3,660 m) at the top of Hyndman Peak," Again, I'd include "above sea level".

Waterways:

  • while some lake occur the other mountains of the forest." I think one or more words may be missing here.

Seismology:

  • "the last large earthquakes occurring 7,000 and 4,000 years before present." Is this a range (i.e. between 7,000 and 4,000 year) or two distinct events (one 7,000 years ago and another 4,000 years ago). Also, why use the term "before present" as opposed to the simpler "ago"?

Glaciology:

  • "some are believed to exist" Who believes this?
    • I changed this to "may still exist" because they are known to have existed in the past, but determining whether they remain is difficult because of the need for nearly daily aerial imagery from multiple consecutive years. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "glaciers probably existed during the Little Ice Age" If there is doubt, it is important to know who asserts this.
    • I haven't found anyone who refutes this, but it is still not certain because there are no glaciers now, but definitely were during the last glaciation ~10,000+ years ago and any that occurred during the Little Ice Age would have been tiny, not persisted long enough to make a significant mark on the landscape, and not recorded because of the lack of human habitation. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human history:

Recreation:

  • Parts of this section read like a brochure. Examples: "the greater solitude of the backcountry requires accessing hiking trails", "The Sun Valley area has an extensive network of mountain biking trails that is famous among enthusiasts.", "provide plenty of elbow room during even the most crowded of fishing seasons.", etc. These need to be cleaned up.
  • "Thompson Peak and Hyndman Peak are perhaps the two most popular peaks to hike to" Again, if there is doubt, who says so?
  • "conditions ranging from flat water to class IV whitewater" Is there a relevant wiki-link that explains these rafting terms?

I'll try to strike through these as you address them. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City

[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… Since the last reviews, many things are changed and previous problems are addressed. Also the problems in the last failed FA nom are "almost" addressed. I'll be considering a FA nom in 3-4 weeks so I want a review to know that what corrections are to be made in order to make this article of FA level. Happy editing and Thanks, →TSU tp* 03:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Aircorn

[edit]

I looked at this article when it was up for GA a while back and one of the major problems I saw then was neutrality. Claims in the infobox of New York's nickname being "The Capital of the World" and "Center of the Universe" are a bit over the top. The lead itself is too full of positive and unattributed claims. It reads more like a tourist brochure than an introduction:

  • "A global power city, New York exerts a significant impact upon commerce, finance, media, art, fashion, research, technology, education, and entertainment"
  • " As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world"
  • "Many districts and landmarks in New York City have become well known to its approximately 50 million annual visitors. Times Square, iconified as "The Crossroads of the World", is the brightly illuminated hub of the Broadway theater district, one of the world's busiest pedestrian intersections, and a major center of the world's entertainment industry"
  • "The city hosts many world renowned bridges, skyscrapers, and parks"
  • "New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world"
  • "Providing continuous 24/7 service, the New York City Subway is one of the most extensive rapid transit systems in the world"
  • "Numerous colleges and universities are located in New York, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which are ranked among the top 50 in the world."

All statements should be supported in the body of the article anyway, which is not the case for many of these. It is doable to fix these up, but from my brief experience there you will encounter a lot of resistance. I would recommend expanding out the overcites from the lead into the body and writing the statements more ambiguously in the lead, something like this. Good luck. AIRcorn (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Peripitus

I'm not really thrilled by the state of the article and don't think it will do well at FA. I echo Aircorn's comments about the lead and have some more.

  • The lead is a hagiography full of statements that can be distilled into "NY is really big" and "NY is really wonderful". I get to the end of the lead and know little about the city. Actually through the article it's full of "New York is the xxxxxest", "New York has the most xxxxx" which after a while becomes tiresome to read.
  • The lead should certainly not be full of citations—these are for the body—and I note that many of them seem not to be used later in the article. 5 citations for one fact is terribly ugly and smacks of desperation to prove something.
  • Don't link common terms that reader's would be expected to understand (see WP:OVERLINKING) like "democracy", "real estate", "commuting", "traffic conjestion" , "London", "Toyko"
  • Though there are many citations there are unreferenced sentences that I am not sure are supported by any of the used citations - eg: about 1/4 of the "Early History" paragraphs and some of the trailing sentences in paragraphs.
  • What does "has also been published as showcased by the National Library of Australia" mean - did they simply publish the book ? There a quite a lot of textual errors and unnecessary words, I've cherry picked some below. Much polishing is needed.
  • "vast mass transit network" - tell them about the system and let reader's decide if it's vast
  • "in more than 1,200 separate primary and secondary schools" - all 1200 schools are either primary or secondary and none are both ?
  • "ranked 197th in crime among the 216 U.S. cities" - I recognize here the US obsession with numbering and measuring everything but it tells me nothing of importance. Just tell me that it has relatively low crime and I can read elsewhere if the statistical nuances matter.
  • "22% of Manhattanites" - how about the simpler "residents"
  • "The New York metropolitan area had approximately gross metropolitan product of $1.28 trillion" - grammer issue
  • ". Additionally, there have been" - drop the Additionally
  • "40 million combined domestic and international tourists visiting each year in the past five years" - until when ?
  • References [1], [2] and not reliable sources and I'm not thrilled with "U-S-History.com" when the same facts could be referenced (and perhaps corrected) using more scholarly works (refs [34], [36]). Ref [51] is to Encylopedia Britannica - a secondary source rather than tertiary is better. [342] and [343] do not look like sensible references also.

- Peripitus (Talk) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle (The X-Files)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it up to Featured Article status within the year (optimistically). Please feel free to point out any areas that need work, tweaks, or adjustment. It already has passed GA and has undergone a copy-edit.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Figureskatingfan

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. It's a good read and lots of fun with very few glaring issues. I think it's very close to being at the point of submitting to FAC. It's nice to see X-Files articles getting to this high quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, while the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work. As a viewer, I understand that this is a synopsis that establishes the show's premise, but it reads like this is Scully's role throughout the series. By season 6, hasn't she become less of a skeptic? Perhaps you can add that she was initially hired to debunk Mulder's work. If this is too picky, please disregard.
  • Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) is found nearly drowned at sea, having been shipwrecked. Is it clear that Mulder's been shipwrecked? I'm not sure what that means, anyway. It's been a while since I've seen the episode, but I recall that we see him floating facedown in the ocean, and then he's taken aboard by the Queen Anne. The first phrase may be enough to clearly convey what you want.
  • At that moment, the Queen Anne is commandeered by SS troops commanded by a figure reminiscent of the The Smoking Man (William B. Davis)... "Commandeered" and "commanded" are too similar. I suggest changing the second word to vary the phrase a bit.
  • Once there, Mulder is ordered to identify the scientist, otherwise the Nazis will begin shooting passengers. These are two independent clauses; therefore, you should put a semi-colon in front of "otherwise".
  • Mulder subsequently wakes up in 1988 in a hospital, surrounded by Scully, the Lone Gunmen and Skinner, having been found floating among wreckage. It's unclear exactly who was found floating. You could say, "Mulder subsequently wakes up in 1988 in a hospital after being rescued..."
  • During filming of "The Red and the Black," Carter used more film than any other director except for Kim Manners. It's clearer to say, "...than any other director but Kim Manners".
  • The scenes on board the Queen Anne were filmed aboard the famous passenger liner the RMS Queen Mary, which is currently used as a hotel. You mix your tenses here. Actually, you do this often throughout this article; instead of pointing out every instance from here on, I'll let you go through it and correct them yourself.
  • The X-Files staff spent a total of eleven days filming on the Queen Mary, and found it necessary to erect wrap-around scaffolding on the bridge... "Found it necessary" uses too many words. It's better to say "and had to..."
  • During the scenes on the bridge, large sprinkler systems provided a constant supply of fake rain. "Fake rain"? I think you want to say that they had to make it look like it was raining, so they used sprinklers.
  • She later likened the episode to live theater, which she had worked before she was cast as Scully. If you're going to use the word "which" you have to say, "...which she had worked in..." You may want to change "which" to "where". And how about changing "likened" to "compared"?
  • In order to bring naturalness to the set, several British and German actors were used to portray the British sailors and Nazi soldiers respectively. I don't think I like the word "naturalness". How about "In order to make the episode more authentic..." And I don't like "were used". Keep the wording simple: "...several British and German actors portrayed..." And you don't need the word "respectively"; I think it's obvious that the Brits played the sailors and the Germans played the Nazis.
  • William B. Davis' dialogue was entirely in German, a language he does not readily speak. Here's another tense mixing problem. It's unclear if Davis spoke German or not. If he didn't, say that: "...which he did not speak". If he knew it but not fluently, say: "...which he spoke, but not fluently enough for the episode".
  • The tagline at the end of the opening credits of the episode was changed to "Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo Da Draußen," which translates as "The Truth is Out There. How about: "The tagline that usually appeared at the end of the opening credits of the episode, "The Truth is Out There", was translated into German:..." Personal note: When I saw the episode, I thought the German translation was so cool, I showed the credits to my husband, who knows a little German, and made him translate it, even though he hated the show. ;)
  • For instance, during the scene wherein Scully runs into an elevator... Instead of using "wherein", how about "in which"? There are a few more times you use that offensive word (I must not like it, eh?); I recommend replacing them in this way each time.
  • The X-Files composer Mark Snow listened to big band albums, such as records by... "Albums" and "records" are redundant. How about: "The X-Files composer Mark Snow listened to big band albums recorded by artists like..."
  • The final scene, which features Mulder in bed telling his friends and co-workers that he saw them in his reverie, bears a striking resemblance to the closing scene from the 1939 movie...Furthermore, during this scene, when Mulder mentions that Skinner was with him in 1939, Skinner replies, "with my dog Toto" and Scully tells him "there's no place like home". The episode takes place in 1939, the year The Wizard of Oz was released. You mention the movie coming out in 1939 twice, so it's redundant. I would remove the first reference and say, "...to the closing scene from the move". If you do that, how about combining the last two sentences: "Furthermore, during this scene, when Mulder mentions that Skinner was with him in 1939, also the year in which The Wizard of Oz was released, Skinner replies, "with my dog Toto" and Scully tells him "there's no place like home".
  • Personal question that came up for me as I read the "Themes" section, which may be unanswerable: Did any of the critics parallel the fact that in the book Wizard of Oz, it wasn't a dream for Dorothy? Wizard critics have said that's why it probably wasn't a dream for her in the movie. My own personal conjecture is that it's why it probably wasn't a dream for Mulder, either. Did anyone talk about that?
  • I'm not sure what I think about including the critics' Wizard of Oz song. It's a cute anecdote, but borders on being fannish. I'm not sure if the FAC reviewers would like it. Maybe you can say that they made up the song and then put it in a note.
  • References: Look good, from a cursory look. I looked specifically for close paraphrasing, and with a sampling, found nothing glaring. (I've found that if one source is paraphrased too closely, it's a problem throughout the article.) I could go through each ref if you'd like, but it doesn't seem necessary to me. Many of the refs in this article are from inaccessible sources, so I won't be able to check all of them, but I think that any reviewer would assume good faith and accept them.


Nice job! Forgive my picky-ness, but I've found it's a good sign when the reviewer is picky. It means that it's really close to where you want it. I suggest that after you work on the above issues, that you submit it for another PR before you submit it for FAC. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the peer-review. I made the changes you suggested and I feel the episode is looking better already. I'll try to weed out the mixed tenses. Sometimes I do find it difficult, such as the first lines: "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, and the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work." Mulder still is a believer, but Scully has changed. She was initially assigned, but is now more of a believer. Anyway, thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks & Dunn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've looking for suggestions to improve the article. This has long been on my to-do list, but with B&D as one of the biggest acts in country music history, I'd love for them to be at least GA level. I've structured the article like I have other country music GAs such as Joe Diffie, Clay Walker, Shenandoah (band) and Montgomery Gentry.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments good news – some comments. Bad news – I know nothing about the subject matter, so please excuse my ignorance...

  • " They were paired by record ..." do you mean the producer "manufactured" the group by putting these two together?
  • "Brooks wrote songs ..." but then just a passing note that Dunn charted two singles...
  • That's because Dunn was comparatively less active in the 80s.
  • "the duo recorded ten studio albums" would prefer to read "Brooks & Dunn recorded ten studio albums"
  • Our B. W. article has a space between B and W.
  • "Arista Nashville" was previously (and exclusively) referred to as "Arista Records".
  • Because they didn't move to Arista Nashville until 1996.
  • "1990-2010" en-dash per WP:DASH required.
  • "Ronnie Dunn" not exactly an informative caption...
  • "b-side" I thought that was usually "B-side"?
  • I've never gotten an answer on that.
  • "it was led off by its title track, which peaked at number 4" what does "it was led off" mean? and number 4 -> number four.
  • I was told that "Number 4" vs. "Number four" are both correct, as long as the article is consistent between which of the two it uses. Chart positions can use digits.
  • "Kix Brooks" similar comment about WP:CAPTION.
  • "these songs[…]with " spaces before and after the captured ellipsis.
  • In the refs, don't mix formats for the same kind of date, i.e. don't have yyyy-mm-dd and mm, dd, yyyy for publication date.
  • Be consistent with the presentation of CMT. Is it CMT or CMT?
  • Surprised the majority of dates are dmy when this is a US article, would have thought mdy would prevail, but as long as you're consistent......

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEO Panel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help in proving its notability - I have listed as many non-primary sources of information as possible, but I will need more help in identifying other sources.

I need help developing the History section and in writing a more complete and concise introduction to the article.

Thanks, by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad, India

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, The comprehensive editing done through the last couple of months had Improved its standards, We need input/feedback from peer reviewers to make it an absolute FAN. Thanks :) Omer123hussain (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
  • Numbering: The article uses "crore" five times, which (I didn't know) means 10,000,000. I would not use that word, although I understand it is used in India and the sources. The wording for the article should be aimed at typical readers from around the world. If you insist on using it: (1) make sure the first usage is linked (now it is the 4th); and (2) put it in parenthesis after a more standard number. E.g. "The population was 200,000,000 (20 crore)."

 Done

  • Number: "ninety third" should be "93rd" per WP:ORDINAL

 Done

  • Poetic: " sobriquet" - a bit fancy. Could a plainer word be used? nickname?

 Done

  • Ambiguity: "Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh, is located in the north-western part of the state ..." - Readers may not know that AP is the state. Consider " Hyderabad is the the capital of the state of Andhra Pradesh, and is located in the north-western part of that state." or similar.

 Done

  • Need map: The article would be more useful with a map of the city.
  • Clarify & wording: "the city was listed among the Gamma+ World City by GaWC... " - Readers wont know what GaWC is, nor what Gamma+ means. Maybe try somethin g like "The economic anaysis group GaWC ranked H in its third tier (Gamma+) of cities by importance." or similar.
*I think we should remove this contents, as it gives no weight and importance of being a tier three city in 2010.
Yes, just remove this. Unimportant info.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you to remove it or not; however I've seen those GaWC rankings mentioned a lot recently; so being in Gamma+ is something to brag about. --Noleander (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite bundling: when a sentence has two footnotes such as #18, #19, #20; or #117 and #118, consider merging them into a single footnote per WP:CITEBUNDLE (already done in #116 and #249)

 Done

  • Sister cities: Two cities are missing citations. I'm not sure if that would be an obstacle to FA, but you never know.  Done
  • Puffery: Pic caption: "with world class infrastructure" - the term "world class" is a bit WP:PEACOCK ... can a more professional term be used?  Done
  • Wording: "Hyderabad houses 13 universities, of which two are private universities, .." - "houses" doesnt seem right for a city. Try "Thirteen universities are located within H ..."

 Done

  • Precise? : "The city is among the 16 most polluted cities of India, transportation ..." - That reads strange. What is the exact rank? Why not just say "The city is the 14th most polluted city ..."?
The source does not give the ranking of the particular city, it was generally presented as "16th most polluted city".
Actually the source is a newspaper report that says Hyderabad is among 16 most polluted cities in India. This is ambiguous. The newspaper report does not mention its source. I think we have to delete the particular number here. Just remove the sentence, unless you can find some reliable report (from some central government agency such as Central Pollution Control Board ) mentioning any such ranking.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plural? - "which was ruled by the Chalukya dynasty from 731 CE to 966 CE.[7] Following the dissolution of Chalukyas into four .." - Maybe it is correct, but it seems odd that singular Chalukya is later plural.

 Done

  • Wording: "As per the ..." - "as per" is not encyclopedic. Reword to "According to ..." or similar.

 Done

  • Link broken: Footnote #28 has a link error: "^ Lumby 1954, pp. 240 Harv error: link to #CITEREFLumby1954 doesn't point to any citation."

 Done

  • The "Further Reading" section at the bottom: Recommend move up below the Footnotes section: See WP:LAYOUT or WP:FURTHER which indicates that FR should be below the footnotes but above the External Links.

 Done

  • Books missing: it is customary in articles with important subjects, such as a major city, to include a list of significant books that cover the topic. More books should be added to this articles Further Reading section. Articles on much more focused/insignificant topics have better Reference lists than this article. For example, Google Books shows over 10,000 items with the word "Hyderabad" in the title, here: [11]
 Done
  • Comprehensive? Have history books been used? It seems strange that the vast majority of the citations used in this article are newspaper or magazine articles, rather than texts, history books, cultural books, etc. The article cites a few books, e.g. A history of South India from prehistoric times to the fall of Vijayanagar - but only a few. I'm not doubting that the magazines cited are valid sources, but it seems odd. I recommend that you locate some top-notch history/economic/cultural texts that cover India/Hyderabad and read the books' coverage of Hyderabad and see if you find some additional material for the article.
 Done
  • Ambiguous Link: Click on the "disambig" button in upper right corner of this PR page: it will show that Mughal link needs to be disambiguated.
  • Images should be supplied with an "alt" caption. See WP:ALT. Although not strictly required for FA, the alt text helps blind or seeing-impaired people get a verbal description of what each picture is showing. To review alt images in the article, click the "alt image" button in UR corner of this page.
  • Images on left side? MOS:IMAGES suggests that some images should be on the left side of the article. In FA articles, it is customary to have about 1/4 to 1/2 of the images on the left side; but it is not a hard requirement. Sometimes it is difficult to get images on the left side, but for this article try to move a few over there.e
  • Shall look into this part in the end, after fulfilling all the requirements of PR.
 Done :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completeness? - Double check that the article is "comprehensive" as required by FA: find some other FA articles on cities, such as Bangalore or Tulsa, Oklahoma or San Francisco or Seattle , and review their table of contents, and make sure this article has comparable coverage, if applicable. For example, this article does not have a Landmarks/Tourist attractions section; nor a section on Neighborhoods/Suburbs etc.
Landmarks or Tourist attractions of the city have been incorporated in other sections such as Culture. Just as an example, museums and architecture have been discussed under "culture".
A subsection on neighbourhood would be a welcome addition under "Geography" section. It need not be a large subsection. Just general cityscape or how the parts/neighbourhood of the city are arranged could be adequate. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol? In the section "Pollution control" is the sentence: " The project started with a sum of  ??? 434 crore, funded by the state government." - I have put ??? where a mystery symbol is (it will not cut-and-paste). Readers will have no idea what that symbol is. There is no link on the symbol, so I cannot click on it and find out what it means. Instead use dollars, GB pounds, or Rupees.
  • Overall, it is a fine article. If you fix all the issues above (especially looking at additional books to ensure comprehensiveness) it should be ready for FAC. Or, you can always seek another Peer Review (you cannot have too many :-)

End Noleander comments Your Peer review is very much, standard and organized. Its ggod to have you. best wishes for our task :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Brett Lee

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on the list for the past couple of days and I feel it's currently in good shape and can be improved further. I want everyone's feedback on how to make this an FL.

Thanks, —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment
  • "Lee however, never managed to take more than five wickets in a single innings in any format of the game." His best performance in an innings in first-class cricket is 7/114: I think you need to specifiy "in any format of the international game." I'll try to take a further look at this later, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if I haven't in a few days. Harrias talk 06:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

Looks good to me. If you think I'm tough to please, you should try getting User:Sarastro1 to look at the prose! Harrias talk 11:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image caption is somewhat uninformative, could you say where and when?
  • "has taken a number of" why not just say how many?
  • test is usually capitalised when referring to Test cricket.
  • "which Australia eventually won" any real need for "eventually"?
  • Mention somewhere he hasn't got a fifer in T20I.
  • " he never managed to take more than" -> "he never took more than"
  • Most refs are missing Cricinfo" from them (in particular refs 9 through 17).
  • "sinclair"->"Sinclair".
  • Dinesh -> Denesh.
  • Why MS Dhoni when all others have first names?
  • Same for RP Singh.
  • Sorting needs work, so sorting by best number of wickets should sort by fewest runs conceded second. Take a look at the coding in some of the existing FLs on "fifer" lists.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

  • The venue column requires consistency, it's a mix of Stadium, City, City, and Stadium.
  • There are a couple of sentences that are a bit odd to read. e.g. "With nine five-wicket hauls, he is third overall in all-time ODI list." where an article before all-time would be nice and so on.

—SpacemanSpiff 08:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hail to the Thief

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

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

I think the page is well-written, well-researched and well-cited, and I am wondering if, after some peer reviewing, it might eventually be worth nominating for a featured article.

Thanks, Popcornduff (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: I know this album and think the article is in pretty good shape, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Kid A and In Rainbows are Radiohead album FAs, although both are older and may not be up to date in terms of current FAC requirements. Please see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music for many FAs on albums
  • There are quite a few free images of Radiohead and its members on Commons - see here. I would include some free images to make the article less text heavy. Also when this makes FA and appears on the Main Page it is good to have a free image to use then
  • The lead seems a bit short to me and does not really summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the lead does not seem to mention alternative titles, or artwork or reissues.
  • The lead is a summary, so nothing should be in the lead only, but the longest Radiohead album statement seems to only be in the lead.
  • Similarly, as a summary the refs are normally in the body of the article, except for direct quotations and extraordinary claims (which need refs no matter where they are in an article)
  • In the lead, the official title on the album is "Hail to the Thief (or The Gloaming)" so I would bold the whole thing, i.e. Hail to the Thief (or The Gloaming) (not, as is currently the case Hail to the Thief (or The Gloaming) with only partial bolding).
  • I would make this more specific "In later years members of Radiohead have expressed regrets about the album." - they seem to regret the inclusion or order of some songs on the album
Recording
  • It helps to provide context to readers who are not as familiar with the subject. So here it would probably help to give year(s) for the recording sessions for Kid A and Amnesiac, or I would identify The Bends as either their second album or by year. See WP:PCR
  • Language is WP:WIAFA criterion 1a and, although this reads well, there are some places where it could use a copyedit. Does a band really "tour" songs? The band spent May and June arranging and rehearsing the songs before touring them that summer.[8] (how about ...before performing them on tour that summer.)
  • O'Brien did not tell this to Yahoo - reading the article, Yahoo quotes Rolling Stone (and if you search for the album title on RS online, the article with the quote comes up)
Title...
  • Make sure this follows WP:LQ - here I think the period (full stop) should be outside the quotation mark as the quote is not a full sentence The decision to give the album and each of its songs an alternative title came from "old Victorian playbills which chronicled the kind of moralistic songs which were played in music halls."[20]
Music and lyrics
  • The WP:MOS says to use a person's full name the first time they are mentioned, then in most cases to just use their last name. I think most editors are fine with first mention in the lead and in the body of the article being full name, and of course when two or more people share a last name (i.e. Greenwood) their full names are used to avoid confusion in most cases. But Thom Yorke is used in full four times in the body plus a fifth time in a caption (which most editors would be OK with). Look for similar overusage with Ed O'Brien etc.
  • I would be consistent on the Kid A and Amnesiac sessions (which are also described as the Kid A/Amnesiac sessions - most FAC reviewers are not fond of slashes as punctuation
  • Part of getting an article ready for FAC is making sure all the little things are consistent - so the capitalization of all the no no nos is different here than in the track listing (I would follow the album itself for the capitalization etc. of titles)
  • Missing word(s)? The band attempted to record [the ninth track and lead] single "There There (The Boney King of Nowhere)" in the Los Angeles sessions, ...
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing -- Bagpuss is linked twice, for example
  • Part of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness - I was surprised that there was not more on the individual songs by critics (there is usually somehting by Radiohead members on each track, but only the last quotes a magazine, NME). The Rolling Stone review here mentions six of the tracks with material that could be used here, and I assume other reviews are similar. Not that every song needs something, but only one of 14 seems a s bit sparse
Artwork
  • I own an (American) "Special edition" (from 2003) of this record. It is a regular CD, but the case is paper and tall (almost like a pamphlet) and has a 7 page booklet with the lyrics and a foldout large artwork similar to the cover. I did not see this mentioned in the article at all
Reception
  • This seems a little sparse to me. Again I was surprised the ROlling STone review was not quoted here (though the star rating is given). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide
  • I do not think the part in square brackets is needed - it is clear which album is meant However, the NME's James Oldham saw it as "a good rather than great record" and wrote that "the impact of the best moments [on Hail to the Thief] is dulled by the inclusion of some indifferent electronic compositions."[49]
  • The Kid A reissue has its own critical reception section - one of the reviews here is on the reissue. Not sure if it belongs here, or in the reissue section. Are there any reviews of the reissue that mention the extras?
General
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricki-Lee Coulter

[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 GA status. Thanks, Oz talk 12:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Peripitus

Finally someone has replaced the poor image I took, that had been in the lead for too long ! A few notes on this article:

  • Don't overlink. If linking Auckland it is not necessary to link New Zealand immediately following. Too many blue links make the article hard to read. There is no need to link common terms that most readers will understand (like say flute and trumpet).  Done
  • Consider, for the sake of making editing easier, moving the named references to the refs section - press the edit button on the notes section for Hadspen, Tasmania for what I mean. It makes the text much easier to read in the edit window  Done
  • Avoid repeat references - sentence 1.[5] sentence number 2.[5] and sentence number 3.[5] Should be sentence 1. sentence number 2. and sentence number 3.[5] - the excess clutters the reader's experience.  Done
  • Coulter relocated to Gold Coast, Queensland - surely she simply grew up there, her mother relocated but this implies she made a decision.  Fixed
  • she auditioned for the second season of Australian Idol and placed seventh - implies she placed 7th in the auditions. Missing some explanatory words.  Fixed
  • Though it is sometimes used in the media, Albums don't spawn (singles), fish spawn. Songs from the album are released as singles.  Fixed
  • at the first use please explain what certified gold, platinum seller means. They do not have a common meaning worldwide.
  • The album was preceded by the top-twenty singles - are they stand alone singles or are they destined to be on the 2012 album release ?
  • High School.[7] From then on, - from when on ? did she suffer lonliness from when she started high school, finished or when ? I am unclear after reading this  Fixed
  • played netball for Queensland for six years - on the state team or where ? I know the reference does not say so you need more information here  Fixed
  • there is some far too close paraphrasing of sources in the article.
  • Reference - She completed her schooling with honours in academics, music and sporting achievements, however ultimately chose to pursue a career in singing
  • Article - She finished high school with honours in academics, music and sporting achievements, however Coulter decided to focus on her musical career
  • almost a direct copy. This needs to be rewritten to avoid copying and you have to look for other such problems. In this though what is "honours" in context of completing high school in Australia and what is "academics" - reads like it's written from an American perspective.  Fixed
  • I'm concerned about the in-universe language when discussing Australian idol and/or Popstars. Lots of readers will not understand the significance or meaning of "final top 12", "final seven round", what "elimination" means in the context. A short section (few sentences) explaining what the shows are and how they work is really needed before discussing her performance and the outcome. Without this the text lacks sufficient meaning.  Done
  • However, Coulter signed - sentences should not start with However. try (note the plural records means that several is unnecessary)
  • Coulter was offered a recording contracts, by several record labels, including the show's parent company Sony BMG,.[9] However, Coulter and signed with Australia's biggest independent label Shock Records.[9]  Done
  • Watch out for reading like a dot-point list. Starting successive sentences with In March 2010, In May 2010, On 2 July 2010 reads like this.  Done
  • Look out for all of the sentences that start On/in/after <date> - consider alternate ways to phrase this like later that/the same year and other ways to turn it from a series of facts stated as single sentences into prose  Done
  • Endorsements - I far rather stating outright that this is paid advertising work, as the euphemism implies, particularly in reference to the Woolworths Earn & Learn program, that there is some charitable or personal drive involved.

I think the article fairly well covers what I see it should, appears well referenced, looks to be an appropriate length and is well laid out and illustrated. If I have time I'll do some copyediting, but if not all the best in the quest for a great article ! - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article! Oz talk 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


-Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

[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 was told that it's close to FA quality but not quite there. I've nominated it four times now and already had one other peer review and I really just want to be done with this. I've done FA/FL work before and I honestly don't know what else I need to do, except maybe have someone look at my prose--it's always my weakest area of contribution.

Thanks, —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


THR review

Background section:

  • The first sentence makes a noteworthy event out of an announcement, but it's really the work we care about. Why not start the section this way: "The genesis of David Byrne and Brian Eno's first collaborative album since MLitBoG (1981) was a discussion between the pair [at a dinner party] in 2006."? Byrne's description of the album could be moved somewhere else.
Not done Actually, announcing the album was itself a big deal as the two hadn't worked together in a quarter-century and had done some of the work for two years without even mentioning it. Then, they announce it more-or-less right before it's released. The way that it was recorded, announced, promoted, and marketed is a part of the story.
The announcement may have been a big deal, but not in a section discussing the genesis of the album. Here, it's just an explicit mention of the source for the rest of the sentence and only gets in the way. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...to songs that he had written and intended to finish..." – How about "...to some of his unfinished songs..."?
Done.
  • "...but as they progressed, they felt confident enough..." – How about "...but eventually felt confident enough..."?
Done.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is made redundant by my first suggestion, although "the two had discussed making an album together for several years" could be salvaged.
  • Why all the non-breaking spaces in the links?
Non-breaking spaces are included to keep things that should be together from being line-wrapped. Sometimes, that's in links, but usually not.
I understand the purpose of non-breaking spaces, but you go far beyond what I've seen done elsewhere and the examples at WP:NBSP. What makes you think the reader will have trouble if "BBC Radio", "The Weekender", etc., are broken at the end of lines? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byrne visited Eno's London studio to listen to the rough mixes of his demos..."
Done.
  • "...and the two decided to collaborate to finish writing the songs, leaving Eno and Peter Chilvers to convert a variety of digital music formats into MIDI, thereby stripping out extraneous information and making them suitable for Byrne to embellish." – I'm not seeing this in the cited NYT article.
  • "although Byrne confessed that he was initially "terrified" at writing lyrics for the demos" – this is covered two paragraphs later
Done.
  • "...and agreed that if the project was not enjoyable for both of them, they would abandon it."
Done.
  • "The duo decided to remain low-key about the project and not [to] announce their new collaboration..."
Done.

Composition section:

  • I usually find this kind of stuff interesting, but the section was boring to read. Too much unnecessary detail; not enough brevity. I recommend cutting it by at least a third.

Themes section:

  • Same as the Composition section. Could use a good trimming before we fine tune.

Back with more later. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KMFDM

[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 becaue it has been more than a year since its last peer review, and I've taken all the comments from that one on board, and have added a lot of new content as well. I'm hoping to take this to FAC sometime this year. One of my big questions for anyone experienced in writing articles on bands is: is there anything missing subtopic-wise?

Thanks, —Torchiest talkedits 00:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "dozens of singles, selling millions of records in the United States alone." a touch on non-encyclopedic language. Say how many millions and how many singles.
  • Think four short paras in the lead could be better distributed as three larger paras.
  • "including countless guest" countless? Really? In an encyclopaedia?
  • "almost two dozen times" I would prefer "over twenty times".
  • "and has invited more fan participation at concerts since reforming" well isn't it obvious that all concepts invite more participation? Or does this mean something else? Like onstage larks?
  • "Schulz'" -> "Schulz's".
  • Is it Pig or PIG?
  • "as a joint effort" not keen on "effort", perhaps "project" or "venture" or something more specific.
  • "Konietzko treating five " don't understand what "treating" means here?
  • "They signed directly to Wax Trax![1] to distribute this album." put the ref at the end of the sentence.
  • "had filed bankruptcy[1] in November 1992.[12] " I thought you filed for bankruptcy, and move the [1] ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Avoid over linking, e.g. you link Adios multiple times in one section.
  • No need to link Norway.
  • "Steve White and Lucia Cifarelli performing with KMFDM in October 2005." image looks like you've forced the size, just stick to thumb and no need for the full stop in the caption.
  • "Musical style" section has a lot of short paras, consider an elegant way of merging them.
  • Tour table should meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes so that a screen reader can announce it.
  • "The cover of 84–86, " caption doesn't need a full stop.
  • "1989–1990, " would be "1989–90, " if you're being internally consistent.
  • Ref 62 (for instance) has no publisher information.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to read through the article and add your notes. I really appreciate someone else being able to see all the little things that my glazed over eyes don't register anymore. —Torchiest talkedits 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Sorry it's taken so long for you to get some picky comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have some relevant post-copyedit comments:

  • Two general comments on writing style: first, there are still some overlinks. Each name should be linked once per article; this article is long enough that a name linked early can be linked again later in the article. Lucia C-Whatsername especially is victim to this. Second, avoid starting sentences with phrases like "In 1987," "In April 2004," "Meanwhile," and so on. These delay getting to the point, which is occasionally desirable, but most of the time just jerks your readers around.
  • Intro: KMFDM has toured almost two dozen times, normally at least once after each album, and has invited more fan participation in recording concert performances since reforming.
Those ideas are separate enough that they should be separate sentences, and the part about fan participation doesn't make sense as such, it needs more detail.
  • later: The next album, What Do You Know, Deutschland?, was recorded from 1983 to 1986, and released in December 1986.
That attracted my attention because three years is so long, then I realized that 1983 is before the band formed! This is apparently correct, per your reference, but it's confusing to the reader and needs explained.
  • In late 1995, close friend and president of Chicago's Wax Trax! Records Jim Nash died of an illness complicated by AIDS
I'm sure he was a "close friend" to somebody, but to whom? The reference doesn't say, so you need to provide one that does and clarify the phrase, or cut it.
  • The word "temporarily" shows up a lot. Don't use it unless you know that something was intended all along to be temporary. Otherwise, it's redundant. Omit it.
  • While the album Don't Blow Your Top was more sparse in content, due to the influence of producer Adrian Sherwood,[12][13] it was the exception rather than the rule.
"Sparse in content" implies that there wasn't much material. Should this be "sparse in texture" or "sparse in sound"? Dementia13 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for these comments. I've made some small fixes and am still working through some of the slightly more in-depth suggestions. —Torchiest talkedits 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the Road

[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 completely rewritten, restructured and fully referenced it. I'd like to get some input on how to improve it, with the goal of getting it ready for GA review.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Done Hat note link to the film needs to be corrected.
  •  Done I think also that you need the other part of the hat note to say "End of the Road (disambiguation)".
  • teachers college should be teachers' college.
That's what I originally thought, but it appears that colleges for teachers prefer "teachers college". It makes me wonder what these colleges are teaching... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "he gets entangled" -> "he becomes entangled"
  •  Done " by critics and Barth " -> "by both critics and Barth himself" or similar.
  •  Done " were written in 1955 and are available" odd tense change, was it a one-volume edition originally?
Barth's first two novels are now available in a one-volume edition together. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done You link metafictional and postmodern but not fabulist, why not?
  •  Done " Barth's LETTERS, most" perhaps " Barth's epistolatory novel LETTERS, most..."?
  •  Done "rated X," normally X-rated?
Uh...I went and changed this, and then someone went and changed it back...
  •  Done "two novels. Barth ..." -> "two novels. He..."
  •  Done "The Floating Opera found a publisher" a little passive...
  •  Done "with a new author's introduction" perhaps "a new introduction from Barth" as opposed to "a new (i.e. different) author"?
  •  Done "October 4, 1955[5] " would recommend a comma after 1955.
  •  Done conteporary - typo.
  •  Done "on the Fabulist Giles Goat-Boy.[14]" why capitalise Fabulist?
  •  Done Why use "black" and link to African American? Just stick to fact?
  •  Done "rôles" no need for that diacritic, role is perfectly English nowadays.
Awww..... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Jake" or "Jacob" or "Jacob Horner"? Don't abbreviate his name unless you've explained why or at the very least that you have.
  •  Done "Joe and Jake enjoying intellectually " just "enjoy".
  •  Done " Joe with Colt .45[22] in hand. " put the ref at the end of the sentence.
  • " of his Scriptotherapy on the Remobilization Farm" a lot of capital letters...
"Remobilization Farm" is the name of a place; all the therapies (Mythotherapy, etc) are capitalized in the book. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs
  •  Done Image captions that are complete sentences need to take a full stop.
  •  Done I would avoid squashing text between the two images.
  •  Done "Jac Tharpe saw this change of style as evidence that the chapter had originated as a se@arate " not sure about Jac Tharpe and the @...
  •  Done "pp. 182." for a single page ref, that should be p. 182
  • Ref 30, don't include the page numbers in the link.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Ref 16 page range needs an en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the feedback! CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about an early work by an important 20th-century author. I'd like to see it advance to GA, and I hope my comments below will help nudge it in that direction.

Publishing history

  •  Done "While attending Penn State... " - This suggests that Barth was a student at Penn State. I don't think that is correct. He taught at Penn State, but his earned degrees were from Johns Hopkins.
  •  Done "which they felt" - Perhaps "which the publisher felt". I would say that a company is an "it" rather than a "they".
  • "A revised edition was published in 1967, restoring material originally intended to be in the book, with a new introduction by Barth." - Rather than leaving this as a one-sentence orphan paragraph, I would suggest expanding it to include something about the changes. What material was restored? Why?
I haven't had luck with this one. I know that the ending was restored in THe Floating Opera, but I haven't found out what was restored in The End of the Road. The sources I have access to don't say, and the only copy I have of the book is from after 1967. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  • "Controversial contemporary issues are presented in the book, such as abortion (which had yet to become widely accepted socially) and segregation." - I'd take this a bit further by adding (with citations to reliable sources) that abortion was then illegal in most states under most conditions. This changed dramatically in 1973 after Roe v. Wade.

Themes

  • "Horses and their symbols permeate the text." - So what? What is it about horses that's relevant or especially important? Cars, trees, and other things also "permeate the text", presumably. By the by, Morgan is a kind of horse, so the horse stuff may well be intentional and meant to be meaningful. But how? Also, what does the cited source mean by a symbol of a horse?
I've expanded this a bit. I'm surprised I missed the bit about Morgan's name, as it's mentioned right there in the source.
There are at least two essays that deal explicitly with the symbol of the horse in the novel: Jack David's "The Trojan Horse at the End of the Road" (1977) and Robert V. Hoskins III's "Swift, Dickens and the Horses in The End of the Road" (1979). Unfortunately, I don't have access to either of them. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jake Horner takes Jean-Paul Sartre's famous existentialist line, "Existence precedes essence", saying "existence not only precedes essence: in the case of human beings it rather defies essence." - Could if be made more clear what "existence defies essence" might mean? Surely Jake Horner was not born with cosmopsis.

Style

  • "He sometimes indulges in bursts of eloquence: "A turning down of dinner damped, in ways subtle past knowing, manic keys on the flute of me, least pressed of all, which for a moment had shrilled me rarely." - I don't know what Harris says about this, but the syntax in this sentence goes beyond "eloquence" into a kind of playfulness with language that readers might not expect in "realistic" novels by Hemingway or Steinbeck, let's say. Even in these early novels, Barth can't resist showing off his linguistic dexterity. This sentence is like a little jazz riff in the middle of an otherwise familiar tune, metaphorically speaking. Perhaps one or more of the critics have something to say about this.
  •  Done "to which Jake is witness and finds himself unable to conquer his emotions with reason." - Grammar. Maybe: "to which Jake is witness and after which he is unable to conquer emotion with reason."
  •  Done "Jack Tharpe saw this change of style" - Who is Jack Tharpe? He is not mentioned in the bibliography.
Jac Tharpe wrote John Barth: The Comic Sublimity of Paradox, which was quoted in the source given. Unfotunately, I don't have access to the book itself. Added to "Further reading". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "one that was prepared for in the previous chapter with the subtle introduction of some accidental naturalistic detail" - This seems contradictory. Can something that is subtly introduced be said to be accidental?
"Accidental" in this case was meant to mean, I think, "in passing" rather than "not consciously". Reworded. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Morgan

  •  Done "Despite Jake's making fun of her, he likes Jake for appearing to take her seriously, as few men would take a woman seriously." - Instead of "her", perhaps "Rennie" would be more clear, followed by "Joe" to eliminate ambiguity. I also wonder about "as few men would take a woman seriously". Perhaps something like, "as he believes that few men would take a woman seriously" would be more accurate.
  • "voyeuristic in the rationalized probing of his wife" - Ouch! "Probe" is probably not the best word to use here. Maybe "seems to take voyeuristic pleasure in the details of his wife's affair with Jake."
Well, a lot of the probing does happen in bed... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie Morgan

  • "Joe's wife, she looks up to her husband, who has twice knocked her out cold in the past." - This is not a complete sentence. Deleting ", she" would make it a complete sentence, but it would still express something odd. Does she look up to him because he has knocked her out cold? This seems doubtful.
I'll have to find something about it in the sources I have, but Joe knocking her cold is presented as a key point in their relationship.
Sentence reworded. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "She is treated and observed like a patient... " - Better if flipped to "observed and treated" since that is the normal order.
Really? okay. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor

  •  Done "An elderly black doctor, specializing in immobility and paralysis, who works outside the law." - For consistency, I'd make this into a complete sentence. As it stands, it's merely a fragment.

Peggy Rankin

  • This is the first mention of Rankin in the article. Shouldn't she be mentioned at least briefly in the Plot section?
This did bug me. I'll try to hunt down more on her, but she didn't get much notice in the sources I had access to. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

  •  Done "Jonathan Lethem has written about the influence The End of the Road had on his novel As She Climbed Across the Table." - Almost anyone reading this will want to know something more. How was Lethem influenced?
  • This section is too thin to qualify as broad in coverage. How have feminist critics regarded this novel, which sounds misogynistic? How have critics concerned with social issues regarded this novel? (Does it really deal with segregation, abortion, or anything political in any meaningful way?) What has the more mature Barth said about the book?

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful, and I've made a number of changes based on your input. A lot of it will be difficult for me to do myself, however. I live in Japan, so my sources are limited to what's on my shelf and what's online. Alas, I can't just pop over to the library and put in a request for an inter-library loan for more sources. It would be awesome if someone else (with access to more sources) could motivate themselves to contribute more substantially. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to team up with someone in the U.S. who has an interest in Barth. If you're looking for particular articles, I might be able to track them down for you. I have access to JSTOR, for example, through my local library. The language and literature section of JSTOR includes 290 journals, and some of them probably contain articles about Barth. Just let me know if you have a specific title in mind. Tracking down everything ever published about The End of the Road goes beyond what I'd be willing to do. Somebody might, though. If you can figure out a way to do that kind of in-depth research, you'll be in a better position for GAN and eventually a shot at FA, which requires comprehensive treatment of the subject. Finetooth (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Monte Carlo Rally

[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 just passed its Good article nomination and I want to know what should be done before nominating it at WP:FAC. It's the first GA for a World Rally championship race so the WikiProject doesn't have any other race reports to compare to, although I based the format on Featured Formula 1 race reports.

At this point I'm mostly concerned whether the article is too long and too wordy, and whether any technical and official terminology is unclear, but any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Define Rally: Most readers will have no idea what a rally race is. Must give a brief defnition somewhere, maybe not in lead, but immed after lead. Also, rallys come in various flavors, right? Speed and "how close to target time". What flavor was this race?
  • Explain: ", but on Stage 6, Loeb extended his lead from 6.6 seconds to nearly 24 seconds, ..." - Does that mean he was driving faster or that he was hitting the target times more precisely?
  • Wording: " and from thereon became unattainable." - unattainable is not right. Maybe "impossible to catch" or similar?
  • Clarify: "Controversially, the 2007 Monte Carlo Rally was no longer based in Monaco and localities nearby, where it had been held in recent years..." - but the race is 75 years old. Exactly when did it leave MC? Only in 2007?
  • Wording: "after taking a six-week break" - better as "after a six-week break" since the race itself did not take the break.
  • Wording: "he should definitely have sat out the Monte Carlo Rally. " - Is this advice given before or after the race? If before, it should be "he should sit out the Monte Carlo Rally. "
  • Too dramatic: ""It has been okay in testing but what about the long stages?" he asked. His answer: "I don't know."" - reword to more detached & encyclopedic.
  • Reword: "Controversially, the 2007 Monte Carlo Rally was no longer based in Monaco .." - Controversially is an adverb that should be adjacent to a verb. Better to rewrite the sentence in plainer terms. Maybe: "After 75 years of being based in or near Monaco, the race organizers located the race in ABC, giving rise to controversy because ...."
  • Wording: ". After conducting the entire race in France the organisers only paid lip service to the principality ..." - "lip service" is a bit too informal. Use more encylopedic words such as "made an effort to include Monaco, the race's namesake, by holding a stage .." or similar.
  • Reword: " his brother Petter had a similar problem in the same corner, but his quick reactions were able to control the car so he just drove into the scrub and got back on track. " - two issues: (1) "quick reactions" is a bit too WP:PEACOCK, needs to be more detached; (2) "just drove into" is too informal. Write ".. his brother Petter had a similar problem in the same corner, but was able to get back on the road after driving into the scrub." Just state plain facts.
  • Good job on the road map illustration ... looks like it was a tough one to create.
  • Link or define: "Privateers François Duval driving a" - Need to link or define Privateer.
  • Explain: "The drivers hoped that with the rally taking place on higher altitudes, wintery conditions and burle (a freezing wind blowing from the north) would produce ice and snow on the ground, making for a more exciting event;" - Could you elaborate a bit more ... that seems to be wishing for dangerous conditions. Why? To increase crowd interest?
  • Clarify: "It was also badly located and poorly run,[9] and WRC's commercial director David Richards said that the service area was "like a car boot sale"" - Two issues: (1) what was badly located? The entire race? or just the service area? (2) Cannot say "it was bad" or poor in WPs own voice, those sort of judgements need to be attributed to a source. E.g. "Driver ABC said 'the race was poorly ...' "
  • Explain: " the fifteen stages totalled 328.54 competitive km (204.15 mi), which was shorter than the FIA's regulatory minimum of 360 km (220 mi) for Special Stages" - Why was the race permitted to be shorter than required?
  • Judgement? - "But Latvala pushed too hard and when he drove over some loose gravel .." - Again, "pushed too hard" is statement of opinion, not fact, and cant be in the article. If a source (e.g. driver or commentator) said it, okay, but then the source needs to be named.
  • Define: "have only two passes on the recce, " - what is a recce?
  • Punctuation: "We'll see how Chris drives and hope for the best.". - Shouldn't have 2 periods at end. Just the one inside the quote is sufficient.
  • Footnote order: " and set a time of 12m 42s.[7][3]" - Not a big deal, but at FAC they'll probably require that the sequence be flipped so it appears [3][7]. Same issue in a few other places.
  • Pics: A couple of more pics would be nice, maybe one of victor Sébastien Loeb?
  • Explain: "..to test the new compounds." - should explain "compounds" ; maybe say "tire compounds" or "tire composition"?
  • Specific? : "The 2007 event also marked the return of the nighttime stages." - WOuld it be better to say " the return of nighttime stages."? the word "the" means there are some specific stages being discussed.
  • External links: the external links tool [12] shows 7 links that are 403 status: probably dead. Validate those and update if needed.
  • Clarify: "Over a total distance of 1,185.22 kilometres (736.46 miles), the fifteen stages totalled 328.54 competitive km (204.15 mi)," - Explain the difference between the total distance (1185) and the "totalled" (328) ... why are those numbers different?
  • I don't see any mention of TV coverage. Was there any live coverage? By who?
  • Also: press coverage? Spectators? Any detail about fans: where were they located? Which stages had most fans?
  • In general, it would be nice if there was some more info about things other than the racers/cars: did anyone in the non-racing world comment on the race? Celebrities? Mayors of the towns the race when through? Politicians from Monaco that were upset? Sponsors of the race?
  • Wording: "were either very similar to, or came from, the Xsara," - better as "were similar or identical to those of the Xsara,"
  • Wording: "they were hoping that Petter Solberg and Chris Atkinson could just earn" - Try "they were hoping that Petter Solberg and Chris Atkinson would earn "
  • Clarify: "Leg 3 began early Saturday morning.... Stage 9 was the first of the day, .." - What is the difference between a Leg and Stage? Define those terms the first time they are used in the article.
  • Define: "After the midday service, the next three stages .." - Did they stop for a catholic mass?
  • Wording: " and was the first fastest non-Citroën driver" - Eliminate "first"
  • Alternate text for pics: Some FAC reviewers will expect "alt" text for the pics. That is text for seeing-impaired readers. See WP:ALT. Cick on the "alt text" link in upper right corner of this PR page to see. To add alt text for a pic, just use the "alt" keyword in the picture line.
  • You ask the question: "At this point I'm mostly concerned whether the article is too long and too wordy, and whether any technical and official terminology is unclear, but any suggestions would be appreciated." - Regarding the technical terminology: yes some is unclear, and I've enumerated the issues above. Regarding "long and wordy" - FA doesnt mind long article, in fact detail and completeness are required. Is it too detailed? Not in my opinion, but there is a spectrum of views on that, and you should be prepared for a reviewer at FAC to complain that it is too detailed and has too many quotes. But I doubt that would be a reason for it to fail at FAC.
  • Overall it is a fine article. It is on a very narrow, focused topic, so it is not grand and sweeping, but FA doesnt care about that. My recommendation is to implement the above suggestions, then do one more PR (you have to wait 14 days between PRs); then go to FAC. The reason for one more PR is that the article's prose needs to be top-notch, and Im not great at prose, so maybe a second PR reviewer would catch some more issues.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Formula One season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it nominated for FA status one day. However, it's already quite a big article, so if there are any critical issues with the page, I'd like to know about them sooner and incorporate a solution into future editing, rather than discover them later and have to do substantial re-writes. Barring anything truly dramatic, I think the page is fairly representative of the direction it will ultimately take.

Thanks, Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Brave effort to try and get a season article in shape for FA! Always been a difficult type of article, due to the difficulties of trying to get such a wealth of goings-on into a concise form. Given that we're at an early stage of the season, the lead won't really be able to take it's form until the season is complete and the story is known. However at present the record breaking stuff in the lead isn't featured anywhere in the main article.

We jump straight in with the race-by-race report, and it's going to be tough to keep each of these summaries to an acceptable length. Extreme ruthlessness is needed to take every point and say "does this really matter in the context of the season as a whole?". With the exception of one or two races (e.g. Bahrain), I'd suggest that the length per round needs to be no longer than Australia (around 250-300 words). Take Monaco, which at just under 500 words is far too long. Here for example, nearly 50 words are spent covering Schumacher being on pole but not being on pole (significant in terms of the event, but not really significant in terms of the season as a whole) Elsewhere, consider things like was the Pit Fire in Spain significant at all in terms of the season as a whole? Even if it was, would a mention of it rather than a detailed account be more suitable for a season overview?

Only after the race reports do we get introduced to the teams and drivers taking part, first in tabular format and then with the changes explained in prose compared to last year. There's some questions here as to how significant changes in say the Williams technical department are to the season as a whole, but I guess there's nowhere else at present for this information to go, unlike with the race reports. Would spinning out an article along the lines of "Competitors in the 2012 Formula One season" work? Here, team and driver line-ups could be discussed in more detail, not just the changes compared to last season. A brief overview and the major changes could then be summarised in this article, leaving the details and more minor points (third drivers, team structures) to the dedicated article. Just a thought - comments welcome!

The calendar is then introduced with a paragraph, then a table before being followed by bullet points. I'd like to see the prose and the bullet points worked into a couple of paragraphs. The list of rule changes is fairly long - as an example would someone who wants a summary of the 2012 F1 season as a whole, care that helium was banned from airguns? Again I wonder if there's scope to spin these off into a separate "Regulations in 2012 Formula One season" season along with things like in-season technical directives and just summarise major changes in this article? Sections for random stuff that doesn't seem to fit elsewhere tend to be cruft magnets, and are best avoided if at all possible. For example, the FOTA exits could move to the teams section (again, if it is significant enough to be included at all).

Structure-wise, getting the pre-season driver and team changes after the final race of the season has been described is a bit awkward chronologically, and this structure also doesn't help the reader by talking about all these drivers and teams in the races before introducing them. Looking at the most similar FA I could find, the structure was pre-season changes, schedule, roster, game notes, after the season which read much better.

I've focused on more general points rather than specifics, as clearly it's far too early in the season to be making minor tweaks to perfect the article. Happy to discuss/clarify anything I've suggested. AlexJ (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm aware of a couple of the issues you point out, particularly with the season report. I figure it's better to have more content now and trim it down later than it is to be brief now and try to remember everything that happened (and find sources for it) six months from now. I have often found that earlier season articles tend to only concentrate on one or two drivers - usually the championship contenders - and ignore the rest of the grid, and while I certainly don't want to recount everything the teams do blow-for-blow, I do try to illustrate that there are a few subplots running through the season that should at least get some coverage; for example, Pastor Maldonado winning in Spain and then crashing out in Monaco is one that should be (and is) included. I want the narrative of the season to feel like it is one season, and not twenty races in isolation.
As for the use of tables, it's a hotly-contested issue with the motorsport editors. There are some who feel that there are too many tables in the article, but the driver changes one is essential. Once mid-season changes begin, things can start getting very complex very quickly, and a table is the best way to represent that. For example, if you look at the driver chart on the 2011 season page, you'll notice that the HRT driver changes are particularly intricate, like when they swapped one of their drivers between cars for one race, then moved him back to the other car for the next.
I think the driver changes section is probably as good as it is going to get. Traditionally, it has been written in bullet point format, with the changes grouped under heading like "Entered/Re-entered Formula 1" (ie Raikkonen), "Changed teams" (Petrov) and "Left Formula 1" (Alguersuari). This year, we tried something new, and put it in prose. When I wrote that section, I tried to follow cause-and-effect relationships instead of going chronologically, because I thought it would make it clearer. So now, we have Renault taking Grosjean; which meant Senna lost his seat; Senna went to Williams and replaced Barrichello; Barrichello went to Indycar. If that section was written chronologically, those four parts would be scattered throughout the section rather than grouped together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about chronology of the article as a whole, rather than within specific sections. It's currently setup as Race Reports/Entrants/Calendar meaning that the events are described before the reader is introduced to what the events are, or who's taking part in them. AlexJ (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see what you mean. I've moved it now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistan Twenty20 International cricketers

[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 a FL status…

Thanks, ZiaKhan 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saharu4u. I've noted some very minor problems with this article. If these problems are cleared, it will definitely be reaching to a FL status. I find a slight problem with the references, and referencing style. Reference no. 4 is a redirect and changes it's domain. If you can do so, please change the reference into another source. And some references does not have accessdate, (sorry the tool isn't giving which reference it is)so please add it. Other than that I don't see any problem, and others are welcome to participate in this. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 03:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference no. 4 as the list doesn't need this and fixed the rest. Thanks. ZiaKhan 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harrias talk

Looking at the table there are a few things that have drawn my attention:

  • Viewed on even a reasonably large monitor the table display is visually unattractive due to the large number of columns. It might be worth removing some of these: for example, "Maidens" isn't seen on most similar lists, nor the number of runs conceded. As only one player has taken a five wicket haul, that also seems surplus, as his achievement is highlighted when sorting by best bowling performance.
    • Removed three columns from the list.
  • Abdul Razzaq's maidens sort incorrectly (clearly not an issue if the column is removed however).
    • Column removed.
  • Khalid Latif's batting average sorts incorrectly.
    • Fixed.
  • What does "Ties as half a win" mean and who decided that?
  • Why do references #6 and #71 use italics when none of the others do?
    • Fixed.
  • As the T20I caps is listed as a reference (#5) it shouldn't also be listed as an External link.
    • Removed the section.
  • "Inzamam-ul-Haq served Pakistan's first captain in T20Is." – Is grammatically incorrect. Also, some of the images flow from the name into a sentence, while some others then start a sentence in the caption.
    • I tried a little. Please have a look now.
  • "Forty-six players have played in fifty-three matches since their first match in 2006." the table shows that Shahid Afridi has made the most appearances with 50: so clearly 46 players can't have played 53 matches.
    • Replaced "Forty-six" players with "Pakistan cricket team"
  • "The Pakistan cricket team played its first T20I match under the captaincy of Inzamam-ul-Haq at County Cricket Ground, Bristol.." – This is lazy language: it allows the possibility that Pakistan played matches before this one with a different captain.
    • Removed "under the captaincy of Inzamam-ul-Haq".
  • "Pakistan is the most successful T20I team, having played 53 T20I matches with 32 wins, and a tie against India." Firstly, this places excessive importance on the tie, and secondly it doesn't define success. Pakistan has won one World Twenty20 tournament, the same number as England and India, so by that marker, all three as equally as successful: I assume you mean that in terms of wins, or a winning percentage they are the most successful. This needs to be made clear.
    • Added "In terms of wins".
  • "Mohammad Hafeez is the recently announced new T20I captain of the team." – This will quickly become very dated: if you are going to include something of this sort at all, limit it to something like "Mohammad Hafeez is the current team captain for T20Is."
    • Done.
  • "dismissing 58 batsmen over 50 matches." – But earlier in the sentence it says he's only played 48 matches? Being able to keep a rapidly changing list such as these up-to-date is a criterium for FL.
    • Updated.
  • The end of the third paragraph reads like a string of bullet points tacked together; try to vary the style and make it flow better. Harrias talk 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • I see both "their" and "its" in reference to the team. Is it a singular or plural item? I've seen both usages, but it should be consistent either way.
  • Pakistan having played 55 matches is repeated in the second paragraph when it is already stated in the first. Perhaps try changing the second usage to fix it.
  • "Misbah-ul-Haq score of 87 not out". Put 's at the end of his name.
  • The photo gallery above the table isn't that useful, and I suggest that it be removed.
  • Sorting in the T201 captains table could use some work. I know that having rowspans interferes with sorting, so this is something you might want to consider changing.
  • ESPNcricinfo shouldn't be italicized in any of the references. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Monteux

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Monteux was a great conductor, who, perhaps because he was not flamboyant or publicity seeking, is not as well known to posterity as he might be. Cg2p0B0u8m and I have been working on this article for some considerable time, and we think it is now ready for peer review with the aim of taking it to FAC after that. All comments gratefully received, on prose, balance, neutrality, length and anything else. – Tim riley (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments
File:Pierre Monteux, Conductor of the Ballets Russes (c1911-1914) - Gallica (cropped, BW).jpg - Needs a US PD tag ({{PD-1923}} will work, or {{PD-anon-1923}}) and one for anonymous works ({{PD-France}} or {{Anonymous-EU}} will do).
File:Georges Enesco & Alfred Cortot 1930.jpg needs a reason why it is PD in the US. Not sure if it is.
File:Saint-Saens-organ.jpg is PD in France (anonymous works published more than 70 years ago) and can be safely transferred to Commons. Templates as above.
File:Stravinsky-Nijinsky-Petrouchka.jpg looks fine, although finding out when Bert died would be necessary for transferring the file to Commons.
File:Jeux-1913.jpg can be safely transferred to Commons, with {{PD-UK-unknown}} showing it is PD in Britain
File:Le Sacre du printemps by Roerich 02.jpg - For some reason I can't access the source images. You should double check that this one was indeed published in 1910.
File:Farrar-Homer-Martinelli-Caruso.jpg may be PD as well, if there is no Author information.
File:Monteux-family.jpg looks fine, can be transferred to Commons.
File:Salle-Pleyel-P1000321.jpg needs a copyright tag for the building, as France does not have freedom of panorama. Is the architect's name available? That would help immensely.
File:Pierre Monteux 1933 (2).jpg this one also needs a US PD tag, although I don't think it is PD in the US. It would have fallen afoul of the URAA
File:Pierre Monteux with wife and daughter 1933.jpg this one also needs a US PD tag, although I don't think it is PD in the US. It would have fallen afoul of the URAA
File:Rimsky-Korsakov. Scheherazade, Symphonic Suite, Op. 35 - 01 The Sea And Sinbads Ship.ogg comes across as an invalid ogg file. Does it work for you?
Strange! It works perfectly if I use Firefox, but not if I use Internet Explorer. I have run across this phenomenon before, but don't know what, if anything, I can do about it. Tim riley (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my image comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these. I'll follow up and deal accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments:
Lede
Early life
  • Should probably have his date of birth in the first paragraph.
  • "née Brisac" - Would this being in parentheses be better?
  • Henri and Paul - Notable enough for a redlink?
  • Franck's Symphony - Is it Franck's Symphony, Franck's Symphony, or Franck's Symphony
  • Perhaps a quick descriptor on what the Folies Bergère was?
  • "Monteux recalled Brahms's remark, "It takes the French to play my music properly. The Germans all play it much too heavily."" - Is this pertinent to the article at hand?
  • "Years later, in his seventies, Monteux deputised with the Budapest Quartet without rehearsal or score; asked by Erik Smith if he could write out the parts of the seventeen Beethoven quartets, he replied, "You know, I cannot forget them."" - I'm not sure I see how this relates... mind you, I'm certainly not well-versed on classical composers, so it could be something blatantly obvious that I'm missing.
    • Cg2p0B0u8m – you mentioned this on your talk page. Perhaps you'd add your thoughts here. Tim riley (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence about Beethoven string quartets illustrates (1) his remarkable musical memory (2) the degree in which he was immersed in the classical quartet repertoire in his early years (3) an important part of his formative musical experience.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither the bride's family nor the groom's approved of the marriage. " - "Neither family approved of the marriage."
  • "There were a son and daughter of the marriage." - Why not something like "Monteux and his wife later had a son and daughter."
  • "During these years he also belonged to a group which toured with the Casadesus family of musicians and Alfredo Casella on the piano, playing ancient pieces allegedly found in libraries by one of the Casadesus, who in the end confessed to having written the music himself." - This should most definitely be split.
    • Cg2p0B0u8m – I think you added this. Do we know if Monteux knew of the deception? If not I wonder if it should remain in here?
      • I was trying to broaden our coverage of the first 38 years of his life… this illustrates (a) others famous musicians with whom he was in close contact and (b) the types of musical activity he was in. I agree it appears a bit rambling.
  • "Monteux was successful in the competition for the chair of first viola of the Concerts Colonne," - Why not "Monteux was chosen for the chair of first viola of the Concerts Colonne," or something more succinct?
  • "Colonne had known Berlioz; Monteux marked his scores with notes based on the composer's intentions. These scores were stolen from his Paris apartment by the Nazis in the Second World War and lost" - This footnote should not be in the reference section (check your formatting).
  • "where he continued to play from time to time for several years" - "where he played occasionally over several years" or something similar, perhaps?
First conducting posts
  • "the player engaged for the important and difficult organ part" - Any idea who?
  • grandes écoles - a bit of clarification on this classification would be nice... sounds interesting.
  • "he was physically quite unsuited to soldiering." - Is quite necessary here?
  • "under whose baton he had played," - Sounds whimsical. Why not "under whom he had played,"
    • Agreed.
Ballets Russe
The Rite of Spring
  • "It is not clear how much Monteux ever came to love the score." - Love, like, or enjoy here?
    • Point taken, but "love" is right I think, as in "music lovers". I'm inclined to see how it fares at FAC.
  • "Leading up to the 1913 London performances, Diaghilev's authority was challenged when Monteux declared that he was the composer's representative in matters related to Rite of Spring." - Should we use the active voice here, like "Leading up to the 1913 London performances, Monteux challenged Diaghilev's authority by declaring that he was the composer's representative in matters related to Rite of Spring."?
  • Valses Nobles et Sentimentales - italics?
The Met and Boston
  • "The tour took in fifty-four cities in the US and Canada. " - Are you missing a word after "took"?
  • "Monteux refused to conduct Nijinsky's new ballet Till Eulenspiegel as the music was by a German – Strauss, so a conductor had to engaged for those performances." - I think Strauss should be surrounded by either two dashes or two commas, not one and one.
  • "At the Met (as the Metropolitan Opera was and is often called)" - Why not move the parenthetical above and have "French repertoire at the Metropolitan Opera, or Met,..."
  • Petrushka, in a new production by, and starring, Adolph Bolm, in an unusual opera-ballet double bill with La traviata. - This feels like jamming too much information in a single sentence, especially with the other debuts before this. Perhaps a split, like "... Petrushka; the latter was a new production (written?) by and starring Adolph Bolm that was presented in an unusual opera-ballet double bill with La traviata." or something similar.
Amsterdam
  • ("Ve vill make some changements", as an English player quoted him) - Is this necessary?
    • Not strictly, but I think it gives a splendid flavour of Mengelberg. By contrast, the idea of Monteux's making some changements is unthinkable.
  • While in Amsterdam Monteux conducted operas, including Pelléas et Mélisande, its Dutch premiere, Carmen, The Tales of Hoffmann, a Lully and Ravel double bill of Acis et Galatée and L'heure espagnole, Gluck's Iphigénie en Tauride (also brought to the Paris Opéra) and Verdi's Falstaff. - I think this needs some semi-colons instead of commas in some places. Also, don't think Carmen has been linked yet.
  • The OSP bit seems a little confused, with Monteaux appointed in the opening sentence and again below. This is probably to explain the background a bit, but it feels like wandering.
    • I see what you mean, and will see if I can devise any better wording. Cg2p0B0u8m, any thoughts on this?
General
  • Should image captions have (l) or (left) in them?
    • I don't think the MoS specifies. My usual rule is to prefer any form with the fewer characters, but I don't feel strongly on the matter.
  • Note that ellipses should use ... and not a hardcoded ellipses character.

I am most grateful for this very thorough review. I'll go through the points with my co-nominator. We'll be busy for quite a while! Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco and the Monteux School
Last years
  • "orchestra of Radiotelevisione italiana" - Is this the common term, or is it more common to see "Radiotelevisione italiana orchestra"?
    • I should say the former is more idiomatic. Tim riley (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (moved here to avoid duplication) Which RAI orchestra? There were four at the time (Turin, Rome, Naples and Milan). Presumably, this would have been the Milan one, the Orchestra Sinfonica di Milano della Rai. Unfortunately, the disbanded RAI orchestras haven't got Wikipedia articles yet. I'd suggest rephrasing this clause, using RAI rather than the formal but little used Radiotelevisione italiana, perhaps accompanied by an explanatory phrase such as "the Italian broadcasting company/service".
  • Date of death should probably be in the body of the article (after all, the lede just summarises the article)
Personal life
Alright, I plan on tackling the musical section tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings
  • "It is also possible that Monteux played in the Colonne Orchestra's 20 early cylinders recorded around 1906-7" - Is "early cylinders the name of the work? If so, perhaps "It is also possible that Monteux played in the Colonne Orchestra's 20 early cylinders, recorded around 1906-7"

Once again, thank you so much for these suggestions. I'll go into a huddle with my co-nom and work out what we are going to do about them. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cg2p0B0u8m: Would you care to review the comments and my replies above, adding your own comments where you wish? I'll then action the outstanding points. Tim riley (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps: addressing these, before going on to Wehwalt's, below. Tim riley (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I think we are there or thereabouts on the above. I'll set to work on the amendments. Then on to Wehwalt's suggestions, below. Tim riley (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • I would add a second sentence to the first paragraph stating what Monteux is best known for. My opinion is that the first paragraph of this lede generally should not be that short.
" and the viola privately with Benjamin Godard. After working as a violist," To mention a viola is of course necessary, but as both words orbit close by the violin, can these two not be combined into one by using some such construction as "which he played"? Perhaps by having the sentence break between the violin and viola.
  • " Among the composers whose concert works he premiered " Since you earlier specified that certain premieres took place in Paris, readers may assume that all of these happened in London.
  • "but he nevertheless made a substantial number of records ranging as widely as his concert repertoire, from Bach to the premieres he conducted, and including all the Beethoven symphonies" This part of the sentence could use a bit of work for clarity.
  • "Hancock County, Maine" People are more likely to have heard of a name of a town than a county in the US. It doesn't have the same association as in the UK.
Early years
  • You dance around the point but do not actually say if Monteux and his immediate family were Jewish. Also, "Sephardi Jews", in my experience "Sephardic" is more common.
  • "The young Monteux" I would re-establish that you are talking about Pierre.
  • " Folies Bergère" You mention it twice in quick succession, ending consecutive sentences. I suggest that you combine with a semicolon and use only once.
  • "he played many concerts with the Quartet, " In view of the fact that it's bracketed by others of its breed, omitting "Quartet" in favour of some other word.
  • "inter-religious marriage; furthermore both families thought the couple too young to marry.[10] There were a son and daughter of the marriage" Perhaps one of the marriages could make way for "union" or similar? Also, is "mixed marriage" a term outside the US?
  • "During these years " What years? The years of his marriage? You haven't framed what years those were for us.
  • "playing ancient pieces allegedly found in libraries by one of the Casadesus, who in the end confessed to having written the music himself." A bit awkward; if they were composed by on eof the Casadesus, then they weren't ancient. Suggest rephrase.
  • "Berlioz". First mention, should be linked. Additionally, passage somewhat cryptic, though the footnote does help.
Ballets Russes
  • "he insisted that Monteux should conduct the premiere." suggest delete "should"
  • " In the middle of the tour Monteux was briefly summoned back to Paris by the Concerts Colonne, leaving his deputy, Désiré-Émile Inghelbrecht, in temporary charge at the Ballets Russes.[34] The Colonne orchestra had a contractual right to recall Monteux, who remained its assistant conductor." Hm, perhaps "In the middle of the tour Monteux was briefly summoned back to Paris by the Concerts Colonne, which had the contractual right to recall him as its assistant conductor, leaving his deputy, Désiré-Émile Inghelbrecht, in charge of the Ballets Russes."
The Met and Boston
  • "Monteux was called up for military service" Judging by his first service, the scraping of the barrel bottom indeed. Perhaps "again called up"?
  • Is it possible to say how two years in the trenches affected him?
  • On balance, I would give the double bill of Petrushka and La traviata its own sentence.
  • "from German backgrounds" possibly "with German backgrounds"? Or "of German heritage" if the source will stretch?
  • You should probably mention that Ansermet was the initial musical director. You do imply it, but it had me looking backwards.
San Francisco
  • SFS or SFSO? You use both.
  • Can some mention be given to WWII, which I believe was going on at some point?
1950s
  • "He returned annually" Monteux
  • Any connection between Monteux's return to the Met and Rudolf Bing's ascent there?
London
  • " Neville Marriner" FYI you previously link and describe as "Sir Neville Marriner". Perhaps this time, change to "his former student Marriner, who was by then (whatever he was)"
Music
  • For the final sentence of the article, it seems odd that this is a sentence about audio recordings in a paragraph about videos.
  • Is the see also really necessary? It's in the text?
That's all I have. A good read as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these points. I'll go into conference with my co-nominator and agree what we are going to do about each of them. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Sorry for the delay in getting to this, but "events, dear boy, events...". Here are a few initial points, none of much substance:-

Lead
  • I echo Wehwalt's concern about single-sentence opening paragraphs, which often introduce the subject rather weakly. You need a second sentence which draws attention to the subject's main claims to notability. In this case, perhaps something along the lines of: "In the course of his career he premiered many important works, including..."
  • "He then served in the French army for two years, and in 1916 conducted the Ballets Russes on a North American tour." The two clauses are too diverse in subject material to be joined by an "and" - events separated by over 20 years.
Early years
  • "He attended the world premiere of Franck's Symphony." Perhaps give the date. Personally I would say "Cesar Franck", and separate the links on the composer and the work.
  • "given to the composer" → "given before the composer" ?
  • "Although only eighteen..." → "at the age of eighteen" ?
  • Paragraph beginning: "During these years he also..." Needs name, not pronoun.
  • "one of the Casadesus" doesn't work; it's like saying "one of the Menhuin".
First conducting posts
  • Is it right to refer to his conducting of the Saint-Saens as a "conducting engagement"? He certainly wasn't intended for this job initially.
  • "called up for compulsory military service." I would have thought that "called up" implied "compulsory"
  • Suggested clarification: "As a graduate of the Conservatoire, one of France's grandes écoles, he was..."
  • It is possible to adjust the brightness and contrast on the Saint-Saens image, so that the old boy appears with better definition. I have tried this and I think it worked - why not have a go?
Ballets Russes
  • Mention Weber as composer of Le Spectre de la Rose?

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as ever. Please don't rush to finish your comments. My fellow conspirator and I have loads to be getting on with (supra). Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll wait till you've dealt with the earlier comments, so I don't bore you by repeating points already made. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A most practical suggestion. I'll knock on your talk page when we have got our party line sorted out. I take grave exception to the suggestion that you could ever bore me. Pshaw! (a word I've seen written but have no idea how to pronounce). Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]