Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2008

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 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.

Episode 210

[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 how I could make constructive contributions to the article to make it as high quality as possible.

I would like to know how I could add more depth to the article and what kind of information would be needed to do that. I would also like to know what kind of information the article is lacking so that I, or other editors, could try to add that information to the article.


Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Look to be close to FA status. Hopful this PR can give it the final push. Buc (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Buc (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Singapore

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed GA twice (although the article history erroneously shows three failed GA nominations). GA reviewer Ncmvocalist's primary concern was that several sections, "In general" and "In culture" in particular, were not written in summary style. Please point out other issues that need to be addressed if the article is to attain GA status. Jacklee (the primary contributor) and I will work on the article when we have the time.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Sherwood

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have requested peer review because I and another editor are constantly flipping the birth year of Brandi Sherwood. I state that her birth year is 1971. The editor "Cloverfield" states that it is 1974. However, 1971 as her birth year is documented fact and I have given a reference to it to verify my claim. I can find additional references too reasserting my claim, but I can find none which backs up the 1974 claim.

I would appreciate a ruling or some other intervention because this consistent false data of 1974 is tantamount to vandalism.


Vincent Ree (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lawless

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article and it meets with the criteria.


Thanks, Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmesssageme[reply]


There are a few general things that can be done to improve the article:

  • The lead needs to be expanded significantly as per WP:LEAD
  • There is a lack of references. This is a biography of a living person, so needs to be thoroughly referenced.
  • The personal life section could maybe be moved after the section on her career?
  • I think the section on her career playing Xena needs expansion; this is no doubt her most notable role, and really needs to be expanded.
  • Please wiki-link dates ie 13 October not 13 October.
  • There are quite a few one sentence paragraphs, short paragraphs are discouraged.
  • The inline citations should be formatted so that the title of the article and publisher are also included. The best idea may be to use the templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates.

Thats all I have for now. Not a detailed list. I think the article needs a bit of work before it could be considered for nomination at WP:GAC. - Shudde talk 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marjory Stoneman Douglas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a powerhouse in her lifetime. The article has reached GA, and I'm seeing if I have material for an FA. It will go to LOCE in its near future, but any feedback you can give me on prose, content, style, etc. I hate formatting references. With a purple passion. But I'll do that too. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your lead image is from a problematic source, and probably not free. See [1], where they note that the source information for many images was lost. It seems much more likely to be a scanned author photo from one of her books, than work of a Government employee; note how there's a less-cropped version on this random MySpace page. --dave pape (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Van Der Heijden

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be a hoax. I have not been able to find independent confirmation. Neither have others. I submit this external link to a blog by someone who apparently put a lot of effort in checking the story: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127114619AAjFjwu jimbo (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Ereunetes (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked the internet and Google newspaper archives and could find no information about this person or any Renoir's stolen from the Louvre, it doesn't look real, but you can see if the person who created the article will respond about its authenticity before you get it deleted. Medvedenko (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more in terms of adding a hoax warning on the page. This seems to be a kind of "urban legend" which in itself is fun :-) But indeed, let's first hear from the perpetrator--Ereunetes (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Kain: Defiance

[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 taken major steps towards being a better quality article. Citations are provided where needed, more can be added if found necessary, notability has been established through secondary sources, and the article is of reasonable length (to me at least). I'd like suggestions on how to improve the article further.

Thanks, The Clawed One (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a note, most of the edits made the last few weeks were by me. This is the most recent revision to the article prior to the series of cleanups I've made: [2] The Clawed One (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krator

[edit]

Thanks for the request at my talk page to review this article, I appreciate that! I hope the below helps. Note that since I think I have reviewed articles you wrote (or co-wrote with S@bre I think) before, I omit some explanations here and there. Feel free to ask for more information on any specific point.

  • The lead section needs to be expanded. Try to include the following data: release dates, a random aggregate review site score, a gameplay summary ("action adventure" can be a lot of things. try to grab the essence in a sentence or two). Done
  • I would like to see some introduction to the general story before being rushed into the series' plot. Also, some reviewer must have some point remarked on the obvious Christian mythology present in the series. This seems of note, and fits in the story section. Furthermore, the story section details on "Kain's part" and "Raziel's part", before I even know what this whole division into parts means. It is general practise to put a Gameplay section above the Story section, perhaps this would work to explain the parts thing. See below. Kudos on the nice story description otherwise.
  • Two "standard" sections are missing: Gameplay and Development. Check some of the example articles on WP:VG/A for good examples on Gameplay sections. The Notes section could be merged into any new Development section.
  • The article uses only few independent references. This needs to be improved throughout the article. Using the reviews as sources for just about anything usually helps.
  • In the Reception section, adding Gamespy is close to mandatory. Especially because it's a low score, the exclusion of this major site may be seen as "selective". If other reviews (check the really positive and really negative ones on Mobygames) add some new or surprising criticism, add them as well. Done
  • Screenshots, perhaps? Done

User:Krator (t c) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would appreciate marking points in this review with a {{done}} template, if any edits are made because of it.

Thank you for the assistance. I agree that screenshots would be helpful, but unfortunately I have absolutely zero knowledge of the copyright laws and the policies, etc, about uploading images of any sort, so I have no idea how to acquire them. As for the rest, I'll work of them and mark them with the appropriate template you provided. The Clawed One (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently looking for more independent sources regarding the game's development and the series' allusions to various mythos as a whole. My thanks for the review and I'll continue to work to increase the article's quality in the future. The Clawed One (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to do so. The Clawed One (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't know it was not allowed in kindly asking to do so :) - who made up those rules anyway? User:Krator (t c) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vädersolstavlan

[edit]
Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I spent a long time producing it almost a year ago and still think it does a credible job detailing its subject, but, because of my shortcomings in English, quite obviously still need copy editing by native English-speakers. Also, my use of images in the article is not conventional and should probably at least be discussed.

I'm biased of course, but I think this painting is very interesting, and that the article in spanning over various fields — including the Middle Ages, art history, and meteorology — with a little more effort might develop into a feature article.


Thanks,

Mats Halldin (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to ce it, but I won't be fast :). Marskell (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Seegoon

[edit]

I only just got some free time, so here are my thoughts.

  • Have you considered providing either an audio sample of someone saying the title, or maybe an IPA inscription? Articles like Fredrik Ljungberg do this.
 Done. Quality could be better though. I'm still new to Ubuntu, so I don't know how to increase the volume. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over Stockholm April 20, 1535." - I'd make this "on April 20..."
 Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's necessary to wikilink Stockholm twice in the lead. Likewise, maybe it's not necessary to wikilink "history of Sweden" twice either.
 Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previously covered by layers of brownish varnish, it was hardly discernible until carefully restored and thoroughly documented in 1998–1999." - my objection to this is a personal one. I'd change the structure to: "It was previously covered by layers of brownish varnish, and was hardly discernible until carefully restored and thoroughly documented in 1998–1999." Again, this isn't something lost in translation - English natives do it all the time too!
 Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 20th century" - personally, I'd go for "twentieth", longhand.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Longer periods: "Use numerals for centuries (the 17th century), ...". So, I'll leave it as is. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "right, and an x-ray analysis" - I'd remove the "an", personally.
Agree, this can be left as it is, imho. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just as in the Swedish painting, the panoramic view is not depicting a panorama actually viewed, but rather reality as known." - this is confusing.
 Done This has been rephrased.
  • "dressed in 16th century armour." - "sixteenth", maybe? I'd take the word of a history Wikipedian as opposed to mine. I see you use "17th" in the next sentence. Again, I'd ask someone more in the know than me.
See above. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1998 the artist Göran Dahl furnished" - "the" isn't necessary here.
Per above: This can be left as is. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "posters, box of matches, etcetera." - I'm sure there are tidier ways of ending this abstract list that "etcetera", which reviewers might deem lazy.
 Done Well, personally I don't have a problem with this, but it is reworded now.
  • The Gamla stan metro station picture causes a half-page gap on my screen. If you moved it to the right, that might solve the issue.
It is located on the right side, did you mean left? / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Layout has been changed considerably. Should work now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The political relation between Sweden and Denmark" - "relationship", I think.
 Done This has been scrapped from the article now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a series of personal unions 1397–1524 which united northern Europe under a single monarch" - this is a bit unclear and clumsy.
 Done As above. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1434-1436" - you use a different style of dash here than the one you did in 1397-1524.
 Done The article has been copyedited and this problem should be solved at this time. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, the entire History section might be criticised by some exclusionists as being circumspective, or irrelevant to the painting itself. Personally, I like seeing extra information like this, so don't worry too much about it.
 Done It has been shortened considerably. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The landscape and a great number of notable buildings is veraciously rendered in such great detail" - if you're referring to multiple things, "is" should be "are".
 Done Para rephrased now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are references 2, 3 and 14 separate? Aren't they all the same thing? The same applies to 9, 10, 11 and 13. Your system is a little confusing, and if you're referencing books, you really should be referencing the page number.
Hm, apparently someone tried to introduce a new kind of reference template for Stockholm diff. Author are different for these refs. Should I just restore them using the regular {{cite book}}? / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I restored the refs. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most I can give right now I'm afraid, but I hope it's all of use. Good luck! Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you review. Sorry for having backlogged it.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isotalo

[edit]

I believe much, if not most, of the historical information would be better off in articles on Swedish history and Olaus Petri rather than the article about the painting itself. And I'm a bit concerned about the structure of "History" being a tad confusing since it tries to describe a "prelude" and an "aftermath" of something that wasn't actually a historical event, but a work of art.

The section "Parhelion" seems to be almost entirely misplaced, even I can sympathize with the ambition of explaining the meteorological phenomenon. Just about all of that info is a detailed discussion of the nature and historical understanding of sun dogs, not Vädersolstavlan.

Peter Isotalo 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you,
I've had a discussion about the history section on the talk page. and, yes, I agree, it is to long. I'll try to rewrite it.
Seegoon
Some of your points apparently have been solved by 4u1e. I'll have a look at the others.
Peter
I completely agree on the history section, and the parhelion section is maybe a bit long, but it also explains why the painting is surprisingly accurate - even optical phenomenon not entirely understood before the 20th century are depicted correctly.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell

[edit]

Mats, I'm ce'ing from the bottom, as everyone typically goes from the top. Can you rework "The large circle in the middle of the sky is a parhelic circle – a common halo (while full circles are rare) which is parallel to the horizon and located at the same altitude as the sun, just as depicted." Can't make this out at all. Consider two or three sentences. Marskell (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reworded parts of that section. Thanks for your time.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangan

[edit]

Very interesting article. The look at 16th century and modern Stockholm is very good, but I would like to see more direct comparisons in the images as you've done with Riddarholmen - this really is a case where a picture speaks a thousand words. I agree that the history section needs trimming; the prelude could be condensed to couple of sentences. I also found the "Events" subsection disorganized. I suppose it was meant to be discussing the phenomenon and reasons for the production of the painting, but it skipped back and forth without really concentrating on any particular event. You could move the section on the sun dogs up here, so we don't have to wait until the end of the article for an explanation. I think the article also needs more on the lost painting and the link between the lost and existing versions. The extant painting is referred to throughout as being a copy of the original and at one point as an accurate copy, but there is nothing to tell us how this is known. The original is lost, and there is no documentation mentioned that establishes that the extant painting was copied directly from the original (other than perhaps the mention of "renewal", but this seems tenuous at best), or whether it was an accurate copy. Urban Målare is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text - why is the original attributed to him? The section on the parhelion seems unnecessarily choppy - subsections for tiny paragraphs. Yomanganitalk 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. more direct comparisons in the images - Good idea, I'll try that.
 Done I've reworked the section and added more direct comparisons. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the "Events" subsection disorganized - Yes, I will shorten the entire history section, so hopefully I will manage to bring some order to it.
 Done This section has been shortened and reworked. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. more on the lost painting - but virtually nothing is known about the original painting (which is attributed to Urban Målare simply because he is one of the few painters known by name from that era). There is a sentence in the Painting section saying: "A dendrochronological investigation showed [...] the painting in question must therefore be a copy and not the restored original." The entire Medieval Stockholm section is an attempt to show the is indeed reason to believe the copy must have been made directly from the original. This should be made more clear in the article apparently. In the intro maybe?
 Done I've added a "and virtually nothing is known about it." in the intro to clear this out. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. parhelion seems unnecessarily choppy - Yes, good point. move the section on the sun dogs up - it actually was one of the first sections while I was working on the article, so it is probably a good idea.
 Done I've removed the subheadings in the parhelion section. I've been considering reordering the sections, but it just don't make sense to me. After all this is an article about the painting. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Tree Hill 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 have recently updaded the article to standards seen from a featured list List of Smallville episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes and wanted to get people's oppinion on it. I would be greatful for any contributions and discussions, with pointers for improvements.


Thanks, Russell [ Talk ] 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radon

[edit]
Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of making it a GA. The only problem for it to become a GA is that its compounds section is non-existent. Is there anything else I am missing? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only objection in the last GA nomination was about references and reliability. While there has been a lot of improvement in terms of inline citations, the applications section doesn't have any references yet. Especially some of the more far-fetched ideas such as the "radon spas" would definitely need a citation IMO. --Itub (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:The History section is almost devoid of references as well. --Itub (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reaper X

It looks like this article is on its way. But here are some points that may help.

  • For general GA requirements, see WP:GA?.
  • Make sure that all your inline citations are in proper format. For help with this using templates (which I find extremely useful), see WP:CITET.
  • Either expand the compounds section, or merge it with another section.
  • I'll echo Itub and say you definitely need some more references. Anything with a [citation needed] tag should be taken care of ASAP.
  • Use Xenon as a model! It's a featured article, and it should definitely give you an idea of what this article should/can look like.
  • Find a few free images to integrate into the article. Found one for you: Image:Electron shell 086 Radon.svg.

Besides that, I wish you luck. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have any more questions. Cheers. -- Reaper X 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this is ready for GA yet and even don't think this should be A-class. It is simply not comprehensive enough given the element's importance. Xenon is about as if not less important and interesting, but its article is twice as long. The compounds section is a stub section and many other subsections have single paragraph. A general and extensive expansion is in order. I'll add it to my list but I'm a bit burnt out on chemistry right now; I'll first have to put a geology or National Park article through FAC before I start to expand this article. --mav (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has since been significantly expanded and is getting real close. In fact, I was planning on expanding this article tonight but almost everything I wanted it add is already there in some form (and cited). The major issue I saw is that the ==Precautions== is too long and repeats itself in several places. For example, radon's role in causing lung cancer is mentioned throughout the section and pretty much the same thing is said in a few different locations (2nd leading cause and indoor air pollutant come to mind, not to mention the fact that the U.S. EPA is fully linked a few times and its standards for exposure are repeated at least twice). This needs to be brought together and condensed. I suggest two subjections; ===Exposure=== and ===Health effects===. Neither subsection should be more than 3-4 paragraphs long. Do that and address the points brought by others in the PR and I think this article will go through GAN easily. After that, if you standardize the referencing and perform a real good copyedit, then I think this would also pass FAC. Oh, and I already think this article now merits its A-class status. --mav (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the lung cancer theme is repeated in too many places. Wherever it ends up, it needs to be stated more precisely and put into perspective. I went and read the reference for the statement that it is the second cause of lung cancer (PMID 11762803), and found a few surprises: 1) the paper only talks about the UK, but exposure to residential radon varies by orders of magnitude from country to country (besides the geographic variation in radon production, in warmer climates houses tend to be more ventilated and there is less radon accumulation). 2) only 1% of lung cancer deaths were attributed to radon alone, compared to 5.5% radon+smoking and 83.9% to smoking alone. The remaining 9.6% is from other causes. So while it is true that it is the second cause after smoking in the UK, it is a very distant second. This should be stated quantitatively so that it doesn't sound more dangerous than it is. I already did this at one place in the article. --Itub (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks by RJH

[edit]

I agree with Mav that this article needs more work and expansion to be GA level. Here are a few observations:

  • The article needs many more in-line citations, especially when opinions are expressed ("...shocked to find...", "...prompting local fears...", &c.) It could also use a couple more illustrations.
  • The lead section is too brief. It doesn't cover the history or the applications sections. Also, I think it would be more scientific to say "densest" rather than "heaviest".
  • Vague quantities should be clarified. ("...high levels of exposure..." and "...normally have low rates of lung cancer.")
  • What is the origin of the name "Radon"? The History section does a better job of explaning the name "Niton".
  • It says "named after radium", and originally called radium emanation. I think the name is reasonably clear, considering that other parts of the article show how the gas is in fact produced from the alpha decay of radium. But perhaps it could be made more explicit.
  • What does "brilliant phosphorescence" mean? Does it literally glow? I'd assume it might from the radioactivity, but perhaps that could be explained?
  • In the "Characteristics" section, I would expect to find information on the density (both liquid and gas).[3] It should also mention that the gas is odorless and tasteless.
  • In the second paragraph of "Characteristics", what is the "saturated zone of a soil"? Is this in reference to water saturation?
  • The article should describe how radon is extracted from the atmosphere, especially since it is chemically inert.
  • The paragraph that begins "The European Union recommends..." uses the units Bq/m³ and pCi/L. The first occurance of these units is unlinked. Also it would be helpful if Bq or pCi were explained in terms to which an average reader could relate.
  • The "Testing and mitigation" section does not explain how Radon is detected. Only that kits exist. How does the radon test kit collector absorb Radon? How did the Apollo 15 and Lunar Prospector detect radon (as opposed to some other radioactive element)? It would be helpful if these were explained.
  • According to [4], radon is collected using charcoal. I don't know about Apollo 15, but I imagine that they assumed it would be radon because a gas would be the most likely source at 110 km over the moon, and no other gases emit alpha particles as far as I know. --Itub (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pectus excavatum

[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 could use some general help.


Thanks, Stepshep (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Stepshep (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Teen Hunger Force

[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 last peer review/GA nomination suggestions are over a year old, and I'd like some direction on how I can improve the article as it is now to be ready for a GA nomination. This is my first attempt at such an endeavor.

Thanks, Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks goo, it's pretty well written (wouldn't hurt to have a fresh set of eyes with the time to take out the red pen to have a look over it). It's also god a good scope, but it lacks comprehension in one major area: visual style. This is a must-have for any animated show/film article, where the visual style is discussed, deconstructed and built back up again, and what influences are in place for the style. I'd avoid using abbreviations (you use "A.K.A.", which should be expanded to "also known as"). Another thing is that you have only one image other than the infobox in teh entire article. While that's fine, it'd be a good idea to try to track down one or two more, because we're talking about something that's intrinsically visual and audible in nature; furthermore, the one image you do have seems to be in the wrong place (or seems very out of place to me, sitting in the cold openings section). Anyway, I think it's not far from exemplifying "wikipedia's finest" but it's not quite there yet. let me know when you go over these things and I'll let you know if there's anything else. --rm 'w avu 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like this article to be reviewed because I think it's well-referenced and well-written and am looking for any ways to improve it before I send it to WP:FAC. Thanks, Fbv65edel — t — c // 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please close the peer review: articles shouldn't be simultaneously listed at WP:FAC and WP:PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Peres

[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 stalled in its progression and I want to find out how to develop it towards GA and FA status.


Thanks, Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Brianboulton

[edit]
I'll suggest a couple of areas to work on, to get started.
  • Rewrite the lead. It's a muddle of offices and dates and uninspiring to read. It's also pretty confusing - how can he have "served three times as the eighth Prime Minister of Israel"?And aren't you stretching it to say that his political career has lasted over 65 years? That's before 1943 - yet you also have him "moving into politics" in 1952 (3rd para). You open the article with his birth details, then repeat these at the start of your third paragraph. Also, do you "join" the Knesset, or are you elected to it? You need to sort these things out, but also to generalise a bit more about his career rather than listing every office he held, and every party he supported. The lead should summarise the article, so use it to say interesting things about the man - his principles, his stances (e.g. dove or hawk), his apparent indestructibility, or even his capacity for losing elections - and then make sure these are followed up in the article, which will be more interesting if it isn't simply a record of his achievements in the various offices he held.
  • Sort out the infobox. It is completely confusing as it stands - perhaps you're trying to give too much information. Suggestion: Delete the reference to Olmert in the first box, delete the various presidents from the second box. Or find some other way of showing clearly who is preceding or succeeding whom.

I hope this helps Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

[edit]
  • The lead could use some work. I agree with Brianboulton about that. The infobox I am not so worried about. I think it makes sense to me; unless it was changed since he commented, but as it stands now I think it reads fine. Given the split-executive nature of the Isreali government (with both a president and a prime-minister), I don't see how it could be presented better.
  • Take care on the referencing. Both GA and FA are fairly strict about referencing (FA more so than GA). Some things that will DEFINATELY need to be fixed before making either commendation:
    • The quote in Personal life: Poland will need a citation. ALL direct quotes must be cited directly in the text.
    • Information about Kibbutz Alumot and and the Zionist Labor movement appear unreferenced.
    • The entire Military and Defense section needs reworking. Besides being unreferenced, its quite vague and it jumps a lot. Is there no more information we can put in here? I mean, first of all, "were of great importance" is so vague, we don't know WHAT deals he was involved in and WHY they were important. Also, it jumps a LOT. We go from joining Haganah in 1947 to becoming Deputy Director General in 1953 with no transition. The whole section could use both expansion and reworking, along with some references, which it entirely lacks.
    • The ENTIRE Political career section contains no inline cites. A good rule of thumb is that at MINIMUM each paragraph should be cited to the work and page it was taken from, and certain phrases in here, such as "as was expected," (expected by WHOM?) needs specific attribution, since they make claims which are likely to be challeneged. Also, statements like "As party leader, Peres favored pushing off the elections for as long as possible. He claimed that an early election would jeopardize both the September 2005 Gaza withdrawal plan and the standing of the party in a national unity government with Sharon. " need specific cite, as they contain interpretations of motives. Without inline cites, it is impossible to verify if such potentially contentious statements are true.
    • Likewise the Political views needs specific cites. How do we KNOW these are his views? Where else is it written as such?
    • The last three references (19, 20, 21) are improperly formatted. ALL references should have full bibliographic information, such as author (if availible), publisher, work it was published in, publication date, and access date.
  • The section on "President of Israel", while referenced well in the state it is in, is far too short. I mean, he's been president for 7 months. Has the ONLY things of note he's done is speak in Turkey and negotiate with Japan? He's his nation's official Head of State, and this is ALL that can be said about that role? Plus, I don't see why this is a separate == header; wouldn't this be better organized as a === header section under Political Career?

That should give you enough to work on. Its a decent article, but needs some real work before being Good Article Standard or Featured Article Standard. Good luck, and if you need any further help, just comment here (I have watchlisted this PR) or on my talk page. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re my comments on the infobox, I'm not sure about the "split-executive" nature of the Israeli govt - surely the Prime Minister is the executive and the President largely ceremonial? Anyway, my objection is simply that, as it stands, it looks as though PM Olmert was preceded by Dalia Itzik, likewise that President Ezer Weizman was preceded by Yitzhak Rabin, and so on. It's a question of ordering the information - it's got to be clear to everyone, not only those with a knowledge of Israeli politics. I'd ask a few people what they think before deciding to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

[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 request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need the following sections
  • Background - the conception of the album/how it came about/ any collaborations
  • Recording - when/where/producers/any difficulties etc
  • Reception - What did the critics say/quotes/ style etc
  • Information on promoting the album such as tours. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll get to work on that soon. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that these same criteria apply for all the Harry and the Potters albums you have listed here - the main problem seems to be a lack of independent, reliable sources. WOuld it make sense to combine them into one main article (they are all pretty short now)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. I would strongly appreciate an example of this type of article, but I may be somewhat supportive of this, only if I like the outcome. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I do not write music articles and do not know of an example - have you asked at WikiProject Music? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport in Victoria

[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 substantially expanded, and believe it covers all relevant points of the subject. I have also referenced all relevant statements, and want to know if there is anything I have missed myself.

Thanks, Wongm (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Peripitus

[edit]

Just a few notes - not a subject I have any expertise in.

  • The lead section is too short and should summarise the entire article per the notes in WP:LEAD checkY
  • The lead gives the impression that Victoria only used broad, narrow and standard gauge. Although the word narrow links to an article on that subject it's not comprehensive. A list by Tim Fischer tells me that both articles are missing details on the lines made with.
    • "Starvation Narrow" - 4'0" - used in the 19th century only at Starvation creek
    • "Rubicon Narrow" - 3'4 1/2" - Ribicon forest in the 19th/20th centuries
    • "Lorne Log Narrow" - 3'1" - Lorne Pier to Mill
    • and other lines of gauges: 3'0", 900mm, 2'6", 700mm, 2'3"checkY
  • The history section, for better flow, should come straight after the leadcheckY
  • Lots of one-sentence paragraphs that need to be grouped into larger paragraphs following a common theme.checkY
  • add non-breaking spaces (& nbsp;) between numbers and the units to prevent them breaking over lines and becoming difficult to read.checkY

- Peripitus (Talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help - any other thoughts? Wongm (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Rockland County, New York

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a better idea what can be thrown into it and its sub-articles (1, 2, and 3). Another user, Airtuna08, and I are putting together future FLCs here and could use any improvement ideas you have. We're accepting anything so...

Thanks, Mitch32contribs 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide

[edit]

Just a few random comments.

  • The bold stuff in the lead (New York, etc.) could be wlinked where relevant.
  • I'm really not sure how sourcing on these lists normally works
  • "Most of the routes act as primary roads in the less developed areas and also serve to interconnect the various villages and hamlets of the county." - Could do with a source?
  • Most of Route articles redirect back to one of this list's subarticles. Are these links necessary?
  • The tables in the "Statistics" seem to have different colouring to the ones above. Streamlining is good.

As I said, someone with more knowledge about these types of articles may be able to help more. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College (1927 film)

[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 my first submission of a movie plot and I would like feedback on how to improve future submissions.

Thanks, Mrtuttle (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is written like a teaser, and should be more factually stated. Do not worry about giving spoilers. Also, Peer Review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work", not individual sections. If you need further help don't hesitate to ask me or someone at the Village Pump/Assistance. ALTON .ıl 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A'Cappella ExpreSSS

[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 my first major contribution to WikiPedia and I want to see your suggestions about this article's improvement.

Please, comment what I should add to the article about A'Cappella ExpreSSS ensemble. Maybe it lacks links or is improperly formatted, or maybe is simply not detailed enough? Please, comment.

And yes, I see it lacks photo. I'm already working on this ))


Thanks, Basilex (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Kakofonous:

I did some basic formatting and copy editing on the article before reviewing it. See the Manual of Style for more information.

The main issue I noticed was the fact that this article is essentially a stub. Apart from the discography section, there are only a few short paragraphs explaining the band's history and background. Perhaps this is due to the fact that there are not enough references available, which leads me to another issue: there are only two citations in the article, not really enough for it to be verifiable. I suggest you spend some more time researching the band, gathering references, and adding content. It is not a problem if the references are in the Russian language. Kakofonous (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peart

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article has recently been promoted to good article status and I am interested in hearing the opinions of other editors regarding the quality and integrity of the article. I would appreciate any analysis and opinion regarding how far off it may be from featured status and what improvements need to be made.

Thank you kindly, Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked a lot on the MARTA article in the past year and a half with several other core editors. About 9 months ago the article achieved GA status. I would like to continue improving the artice, perhaps to FA status, but I am unsure of what areas need improvement. Thanks, Biomedeng (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the whole article and should at least mention (even if only a word or phrase) all of the headers and subheaders in the article. You need to do this. Images are supposed to be set to "thumb" size so the reader's preference takes over, although sometimes a map can be made larger to help with legibility. One of the images have no caption Image:MARTA Rail Map.svg and one needs better explanation of the numbers in it Image:Beltline-breaks.png. Every paragraph needs at least one reference (the first two in "Heavy rail network" have none). Include dates in information that is likely to change, one example is the "Fare structure and operation" section. Headers should not have the title in them, so "Misuse of MARTA funds by employees for personal expenses" could be "Misuse of funds by employees for personal expenses" as one example. The references mostly do not follow the MOS: internet sources should have the url, publisher, the date accessed, and the title. Some sections are pretty list-y too. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I know the references need to be formatted and that is a big task when I have some time. Thanks for the head up on the lead section...I will star working on that. I will also change up the images and add references to the sections that have none. All of this critique really helps. Thanks. Biomedeng (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented some of the changes and used strikethrough to corss them off. I will work on the reference formmating when I have more time. Biomedeng (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the references so that they all follow the MOS and also added additional references to the sections/paragraphs that were largely unreferenced. Any additional feedback is welcome. Biomedeng (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed lists and instead incorporated the information into prose/paragraph format. I feel I have now addressed all of these suggestions and any additional feedback for the article would be most appreciated. Biomedeng (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid having images on both sides of the text - the end of the article is image-poor, so one or two could perhaps be moved down there. Also might want to request a copy edit. Hope this helps and thanks for your reviews here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Brandukov

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After addressing the comments left by the last GA review, I want to put this article up for GA again, but I don't know what else can be done to improve it. I'm specifically looking for suggestions on what can make this article "broader in scope." As I see it, it has a comprehensive biography and information on his most important contemporaries, so I don't know what else to include. Given also that there's so little information on the person, I think anything else would be either a repetition of something already said, or a fabrication and synthesis of sources. ALTON .ıl 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Cup winning managers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello again everyone, this time it's a European list. It was started a while ago and didn't get too far. I thought I'd illustrate and reference it and think it's now pretty much up to WP:FL standards. I'd love to hear your opinions and suggestions before I put it up at WP:FLC. As ever, thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article had a failed nomination at featured list candidates a few months ago. Since then a number of similar lists for other football clubs have gained featured list status (e.g. Aston Villa F.C. seasons). What does this one require in order to join them? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hey Oldelpaso, here are some pointers which may be of use.

  • Use the en-dash for season separators.
  • Have you got an image we could use?
  • Lead is a bit unbalanced - short long short - consider merging into two medium size paras.
  • If "ordinary matches" is italicised for a reason then it should be linked or explained.
  • The lead also is primarily about pre-1900 Manchester City - like it's suffering from anti-recentism! I'd rework it a bit to cover a general history in a couple of paras rather than focus on the early days.
  • Write an article for Hugh Morris, and other top-scorers without articles.
  • Cup rounds in the table could be abbreviated, centrally aligned and then added into the key.
  • A trend has come about to bold the new division when going up or down (that may make the end of the table all bold, I know but it's easier for us to see.
  • S. Turnbull or Sandy Turnbull? And don't use /, just use a line break.
  • I don't like World War I, I prefer First World War. Same for WWII.
  • "Subsidiary Tourn. 1st" - what does this signify?
  • Check out some of the cell colourings in say Ipswich Town F.C. seasons for winning, runners-up etc.
  • Cup Winners' Cup winner etc - link to relevant season's tournament articles.

That should help for now. All the best with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A few more to add to those from TRM.

  • I prefer R1, R2, etc for the progress in the cups, then a key at the bottom. It looks cleaner and easier to read.
  • Not fully necessary, but I'd link repetitions of top scorers
  • Perhaps bold the divisions for a change of division, and bold positions / cups when they're won.
  • Do you have refs for the 1894-95 & 1895-96 FA Cups to explain why Man C didn't enter and then were withdrawn?
  • Try splitting the Others column (see Bradford City A.F.C. seasons or Leeds United A.F.C. seasons. It keeps it nicely aligned and makes it easier to read.
  • Perhaps put the key at the bottom.
  • Can you create entries for the two red-linked Lge Cup finals.

Think that's all. Peanut4 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]
  • Some of these were things on which opinion was divided on the FLC. Subsequent FLC's appear to have resulted in consensus on most of them, which I have now done. An exception is the colouring of winners and runners-up. The colours seem too high contrast to me, and tournaments won are already bolded.
  • A couple more are explained by the fact I attempted to keep the list in one screen width on 1024x768, but this has proved too difficult, so I have now abandoned it.
  • I've referenced the failure to enter the FA Cup in 1894-95, but the reason for the withdrawal the following season is not clear. It is likely that the club viewed the Manchester Cup as a higher priority, but the exact reason for withdrawal is unknown. A home tie against Oswaldtwistle Rovers was scheduled but never played.
  • I'll take a look at revamping the lead.
  • Creating articles for the redlinks is an ongoing project. I have part-articles for some of them in userspace, but in a couple of cases there is very little information in modern publications. I won't blacklink them as an article would be possible, just very difficult - getting anything beyond basic statistical information would involve spending lots of time in the archives section of Manchester Central Library. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

People have already said most of what I would have done. Few odd bits:

  • I'm not particularly keen on the gaudy orange and grey colouring for winners and runners-up either, though the compromise version implemented on Birmingham City F.C. seasons isn't too intrusive. Winners/runners-up is abbreviated to W/RU, the colouring is only applied to cup competitions (not league position as on Leeds Utd) and, for the Other comps column, only the Round column gets coloured. At least I do notice the gold/silver, which is more than I can say for the whatever-colour-it-is that indicates promotion, which is why I always nagged for bolding the change of division as an additional aid for the colour-visually-impaired.
  • Seeing as the mcfcstats fixtures/results pages for the war years don't match the information shown here, I'm assuming your War league info comes from book sources. It'd help if you added a note giving a basic idea of what they were called, how they worked, as there don't seem to be Wiki articles for anything but the 1945–46 league and the Football League War Cup.
    • What are the discrepancies specifically? Some of the WW2 matches counted for both league and cup but are only listed as cup matches on mcfcstats. Would this explain it? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general, it is the cup games counting towards the league as well, but that's the sort of thing that needs explaining, on the offchance anyone's persistent enough to fight their way through mcfcstats to look it up. One miscellaneous discrepancy is that mcfcstats 1941-42 has only 16 second-half games where you have 17. Struway2 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where you link to a particular season of the UEFA Cup, I'd probably link the Round column rather than the competition name. Where there are several occurrences of Charity Shield (for instance) all linking to the main CS article, the reader might be led to expect all the occurrences of UEFA Cup just to link to the main UEFA Cup article thus not being worth clicking, but if the Round is linked, the reader might realise it's a link to something specific.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the last week rewriting 90% of it and I think the article is really good now, but not up to FA quality yet. I need opinions on what can be improved. Sections I believe need the most work are:

  • The development section - may be a bit clunky, need opinions.
  • Reception section - need to make sure its neutral and informative
  • Edit: Character Section - It might be better to delete this and expand the setting section. Suggestions?

Basically, the article just need eyes prodding making sure it flows and covers all the bases so it can join its Shock brethren as an FA. Ill be around to respond to posts. Thanks for all the help, I really appreciate it. Noj r (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krator

[edit]
  • "one of the greatest games ever made", though technically correct, could be phrased better, and less WP:PEACOCK like.
  • Describing speculation and "cult status" is usually difficult, but this article does an excellent job.
  • Some of the jargon in Gameplay needs explanation. For example, why is ammo conservation an element of survival horror? What is a HUD? What is OSA?
  • Do not use gaming jargon like "stats" and "non-scripted".
  • Do not use weasel words like "many players".
  • The article (over)uses expressions like "RPG elements" and "Shooter elements" a lot. Try to diversify the language there a little.
  • The last sentence of Development is speculation, write something like ".. was cancelled at the same time as the dev going out of business" rather than "presumably because".
  • The {{main}} template in Legacy is out of place.
  • The "Fan modifications" section may need to go entirely, but at least the in-line external links need to be removed. Sourcing to forums and websites of mods as the only source is unacceptable, too.

User:Krator (t c) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bridies

[edit]
  • This sentence stuck out a bit: 'The horror elements in System Shock 2 are quite pronounced and many players have found the game to be unsettling.' At least remove the 'many' (weasel word, as above). Saying the elements are 'quite pronounced' seems a bit ORish though it's probably supported overall by the references at the end of the paragraph. However, it's a bit unnecessary anyway; I'd introduce the topic of presentation with a more neutral sounding sentence.
  • The "fan modification" sites in the external links should probably go. I haven't checked them properly but fan sites are discouraged; modding sites are unnecessary for information purposes anyway.
  • Other than that it seems pretty good. It's especially nice that it has a substantial development section which is hard for older games. In fact older, relatively obscure games are hard to write about in general, good job. Bridies (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to make it a GA. I am just not sure what would it require besides copyediting. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Itub

Note: I'm not focusing specifically on GA criteria, but just on improving the article in general.

In general, I think the article is too short. I know much of it is summary style, but still I think more meat should be brought in from the articles on the specific gases and other subsidiary articles. Specifically:

  • The history section could be expanded to include the "pre-history" of the discovery by Henry Cavendish of the anomalous density of atmospheric nitrogen, and also to mention the order in which all the noble gas were discovered and when. Also mention the history of noble gas compounds.
  • The applications section could also have more examples taken from the articles on each gas and also from the article on neon lights. I suggest adding some figures here; for example I happen to like the ones below. :) There are probably many important applications missing, but a huge one that comes to mind right away is the cryogenic use of liquid helium (without it we wouldn't have NMR and MRI! ;-).
  • Neon gas. This is the most commonly used of the noble gases.
    Neon gas. This is the most commonly used of the noble gases.
  • Argon (with mercury). The second most common after neon.
    Argon (with mercury). The second most common after neon.
  • Helium.
    Helium.
  • Krypton.
    Krypton.
  • Xenon.
    Xenon.
  • The physical properties section could use some descriptive text in addition to the data table. For example, a description of the group trends. Perhaps a plot could be added showing how the melting and boiling points change throughout the series.
  • I would rename the "chemical makeup" section to "chemical properties". Perhaps I would also create a separate section about noble gas compounds. Some specific examples of the most common compounds (such as the xenon fluorides) should be added, ideally with figures.
  • I suggest adding a discussion of the theory of bonding in noble gases, and particularly the three-center four-electron bond. This could probably go under chemical properties, or maybe under compounds.
  • I suggest adding a section about production. Most of the gases (Ne-Xe) are produced together, from air, so this is the perfect place to discuss the whole process in more detail than can be given in articles about specific gases. It is also the perfect place to add a table comparing the production volumes and price trends for each gas. As references, I suggest the articles on noble gases from the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia and from Ullmann's Encyclopedia, as well as the chapter from Greenwood & Earnshaw.
  • I would add some mention of the abundance of each noble gas in the atmosphere, whether in the production section or some paragraph elsewhere about "natural occurrence". A brief mention of abundances in other planets might be good.
  • Some mention of the infamous role of radon: its radioactivity, how it is formed, and the health risks.

Hope this helps. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62 The Noble Gas Notation section needs: *Expansion

  • Better explanation for t3h noobs
  • References

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I agree with the previous comments - the references need to be greatly expanded and the article needs to cite more print sources (the individual articles I checked have decent refs). I would also do more comparisons of the specific properties of the elements and their histories - for example the etymologies of the individual gases could be given. Specifics are better than generalities - perhaps more tables of properties. Show where they are different too - not all these gases react, only the last two are radioactive, etc. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nahuatl

[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 it to make FA before too long. I would appreciate comments about content, style, language (English is not my mothertongue), layout, image use, etc. All and any copyediting is also appreciated - I've been working on the article so long now that I have become blind to my own shortcomings.


Thanks, ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peter Isotalo

[edit]

Before getting into specific details, I'd like to bring up a general point about focus. As far as I know, language articles are treated as rather specifically linguistic topics. Literature is therefore treated in separate articles with some reasonable exceptions when describing the history of the language. I recommend making "Literature" a separate article.

Peter Isotalo 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it relevant to mention the literature because the body of existing literature is what makes Nahuatl stand out among the hundreds of languages of the Americas (as a number of the cited sources also state). Plus it is what the language is best known for. It is also the best studied aspect of the languages, and Nahuatl philology is generally treated by linguists as a linguistic topic. In the article about Mayan languages there is also a specific section about literature - albeit much smaller. I think the article would be incomplete with out a separate section about literature, but it could possibly be more summarical in nature. I do agree that we need a specific and much more detailed article about Nahuatl literature, as a matter of fact I have had that on the planning stage for a while now.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An idea: How about we move the things about rhetorical style into a section under the "syntax" section and call it "ethnography of speaking" or "stylistics" or something like that. That would bring it more in line with the linguistic topic. Then the literature section would be only a small summary of the kinds of literature that exists in the language. How does that strike you?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think sorting it under "History" would be more arppropriate since we're dealing with a literay tradition that is pretty much dead (at least in writing).
Peter Isotalo 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read the first part of the article in more detail and made a copyedit of the lead and "History". I'll start with the minor pointers that apply to the entire article:

  • Make sure that you use either British or American spelling consistently. I've changed one instance of "marginalised" to "marginalized" since the article seems to be using American spelling, but I can't be sure.
  • The footnotes need to be standardized. There's a lot of them that come before punctuation and the notes themselves are a inconsistent. I've suggested the format "Smith (2008), p. 67" with a semicolon to separate references to two works in a single note. While this doesn't really matter that much either way, I don't believe the year needs to be specified to authors of only one source, such as Boas or Pickett.

I took the liberty of combining some footnotes to the end of a paragraph or a sentence, but that's only my opinion. Unless we're talking about highly contentious facts, I don't believe the mere mention of any random general figure (like "proto-Nahuatl speakers entered Mesoamerica around 500 AD") really requires a dedicated reference. Either way, you're welcome to revert it if you feel that it might be contentious enough.

I have some more specific comments about the history section:

  • Note 9, the one that explains the alternative theory of the origin of the Uto-Aztecan languages, seems like pretty important information. I think it would be appropriate to include it inthe main body of the article in a somewhat shortened format.
  • The second sentence of "Colonial period" says that "...the Spanish allied themselves with the Nahuatl speakers from Tlaxcala and later with the conquered Aztecs." What exactly does "allied" mean here? I was under the impression that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and subjugated them by allying with their enemies. Did the Spanish use the Aztecs as allies when conquering other peoples as well?
  • There's a mention of "mundane documents" as part of the colonial Nahuatl literature. Does this refer to bureaucractic by-products or profane literature such as works on agriculture and etiquette?

Peter Isotalo 09:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I admit that it has a lot of sources - this stems from my experience in a previous FA where reviewers demanded citations for almost everything. I wished to be ahead pof them this time and have made sure to have good sources for any claim I made this time.
  • about note 9: I am reluctant to put it into the text because I am not certain about how influential the idea has been. I have read a lot about proto-uto-aztecan history for the past 5 years and I only stumbled on that article on google scholar the other day, and frankly I was amazed that this view would have been proposed, given the good evidence and wide consensus about Uto-aztecans northern origins. I have not seen it mentioned in any influential studies about uto-aztecan prehistory, in other words I suspect it of being a fringe view and I am afraid of giving it undue weight. I would like to investigate more about how the scholarly community have received the paper before including it in the article.
  • about the allies, yes that is exactly what they did. Cortés for example brought not only tlaxcaltecs but large numbers of mexica (aztecs) with him on his campaign to honduras. When the spanish and tlaxcallan forces conquered tenochtitlan they instated a ruler of their, which in effect made tenochtitlan a puppet state of the spanish. This meant that Mexican forces under the command of their own ruler (albeit a puppet) accompanied spnaish soldiers in their efforts to subdue other mesoamerican peoples.
  • It referred mostly to bureaucratic byproducts when I wrote it, but actually also the latter. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very satisfying replies, Maunus. Thank you. My only recommendation is that you clarify "mundane" a bit more. "Profane" would probably be better, but you could also give one or two examples of what it actually meant.
When it comes to the citations, I think you could probably cut down on the references to entire books in some cases. The referencing should be proportional to the obscurity (even within the topic itself), vagueness and contentiousness of any given fact.
Peter Isotalo 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my arguments about citations, my impression of the meticulous referencing in the article is that of slight overkill. For example, statements about what the Aztecs called themselves and their language seems like something that isn't the least bit contentious and not obscure enough to require a separate citation. I also quite don't see the point of providing separate references for language samples and the likes. Repeating references to pages 61-63 in Suárez (1983) over and over really just pads the number of footnotes without really improving the referencing in any meaningful way. If anything, mere translations of sample sentences and the likes does not require separate referencing.
Peter Isotalo 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the nomenclature, you'd be surprise how controversial it is. Not because there is any doubt in the sources or among specialists, but its the kind of things laymen drop by and argue against almost monthly - only because they believe in some other version they've been taught at school. I personally think that language examples and translations need meticulous sourcing simply because it is important that people know where the examples come from - because any translation can be argued against, and any example can contain mistakes. It is better that it is Suárez mistake than for it to be wikipedias. But of course a single not could state that all the examples given are from Suarez.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with how contentious language topics can be, but I'm also aware that the most stubborn and shrill criticism usually comes from people who haven't read a single page of scholarly research and usually motivate their actions by claiming they "know the language". The referencing of research is yours to decide, but I would like to insist that the translation references would be improved by not being scattered. You could just as well gather them up in one or two footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. It is a good point.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through on down to "Grammar", and I have some more comments:

  • "The Nahuan subgroup of Uto-Aztecan is classified partly by a number of shared phonological changes from reconstructed Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA) to the attested Nahuan languages." This sentence in the first paragraph of "Phonology" is rather difficult to decipher. I see the general meaning, but I think I think the sentence needs to be somewhat simplified.
  • In "Phonology" I found this statement: "giving a complete overview of the phonologies of Nahuan languages is not suitable here." This would be suitable in an essay, but it sounds somewhat odd in an encyclopedia. The statement should be more along the lines of "the details are very complex" or something like it. The suitability of any given level of detail, however, should be more implicit.
  • I'm assuming that "phonemic stress" means that variying stress patterns can change the meaning of words. Whatever the case, it needs to be explained to those who aren't familiar with linguistic terminology.
  • There's a rather longish bullet list illustrating various phonological changes. In a sub-article like Nahuatl phonology it would be appropriate, but in a main article it's very tedious. Could this be shortened to just two or three examples and preferably converted into prose. "Grammar" is also rather long-winded in examples and could just as well be more stringent in its summary style.
  • The literal translations of the sample sentences need to be a bit clearer. The grammar needs to be clearly separated from the semantics, preferably with different fonts or something. For an example of how to solve this, see Nobiin.

Peter Isotalo 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had been wanting to do the small capitals thing , I just didn't know how it worked. Its done now.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Zetian

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article deals with an individual of high historical importance and has been expanded recently. It may be difficult to get it up to feature article standards, but I'd like to see what other people think and can contribute to.


Thanks, Nlu (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:WuZetian.jpg appears to have no source information - how can anyone verify that it really is a depiction of Wu Zetian? (There's a bit of Chinese text, but it doesn't look like enough to be a source citation.) --Davepape (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I have the same concern myself. It's often used by other Web sites to depict her (and the appearance of the image suggests that it is old enough as not to be copyrighted), but I actually can't find any sources that states that it is in fact a portrait of hers. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KitKat Crescent

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Any improvements that can be made to this page? Any more content in particular? Currently at GA, but would be interested to see if anyone thinks it could reach further. Main problem is probably lacking enough content to include for a higher status to be achieved. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a well written, neutral article with lots of sources. I cannot find any faults with it, but I would like a few other opinions before nominating for GA or maybe even FA status depending on what other editors think. I don't think the fact that she was only assassinated in December 07 should hold back this article's nomination to FA status.

Thanks, Zaindy87 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automated review for this article on the given link. How come? Zaindy87 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I somehow didn't copy it in the right place - fixed now, sorry APR t 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments on the article:

  • The head image appears to have some fair use/copyright issues that need to be resolved
The head image looks set to be deleted, so I replaced it with the other valid fair use image in the article. --Zaindy87 (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of references, but a few are not properly formatted and do not have access dates
Fixed. --Zaindy87 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Template:Campaignbox Pakistan attacks go at the bottom of the article? I am not used to seeing it at the top but maybe it is allowed?
WP:NAV states that there is no set policy on the position of navigation templates in an article. --Zaindy87 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakistani Peoples Party is spelled out and abbreviated in different places. Be consistent. Either spell it out the whole time or just once and use the abbreviation therafter. I think always spelling it out is best.
All mentions of the "PPP" have been changed to full form. --Zaindy87 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the aftermath subsections are just 1-2 sentences long and probably do not merit their own subsection title. Maybe they should just be combined into a general aftermath section.
  • I have expanded the economy section by about 75% of it's previous size. The PPP section is the shortest, but the information in it really dosen't fit in any other category of the "aftermath" section. --Zaindy87 (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under responsibility there is an external link at the end of the text rather than a reference.
Done. --Zaindy87 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Layout the external links section should come after the references.
Done. --Zaindy87 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the citations but they seem to be a bit too much in some places. Do you need four references for when she was declared dead? Also some more pictures would be good. Some ideas might be to put freely licensed pictures of Bhutto, and Musharraf and any other important figures you are discussing. Biomedeng (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of references are required for some claims because there are always people claiming something contrary to what really happened with a thing like this assassination. Some people say she died instantly, some say she died at the hospital. References are there to prove which version of events is most widely accepted. And pictures have been added to the article, including one excellent picture showing a damaged building after the riots. --Zaindy87 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England national football team managers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've seen it once before, I know, but it's evolved quite dramatically since then, almost doubling in size since I generated the original page, thanks primarily to User:Dweller. My initial concept was for a brief history overview and then a decent list of results, but the emphasis has somewhat shifted to rather extensive examination of the role, the characters and the media influence since then, and so much the better. This is arguably one of the most significant WP:FOOTBALL articles we could hope to have, so I'm bringing the article here again for as long as it needs to be here to satisfy the project that we've done the best we can. Then it'll be off to WP:FAC with it. So, as ever, I humbly submit the crumbs of our imagination to the scrutiny of the community and thank you all in advance for your time reading, considering and commenting upon it. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting a c-e, but really, I'm too "close" to it. Appreciate overview from others, especially if unfamiliar with the material. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Input from Casliber on this is gratefully acknowledged. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pedant replies

[edit]
  • It is hard to overstate the national significance given in England to the England manager's job. or It is hard to overstate the national significance in England of the England manager's job.
    Done. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would drop the latter part of this sentence Passion for football as England's national sport is coupled with pride in England and moreover Wembley Stadium being the "home" of football. Wembley is no more the home of football than Old Trafford is a theatre or Goodison a science school: these are promotional motifs, not statements of fact. I would suggest Passion for football, usually regarded as England's national sport, is closely associated with national pride.
    Sorry. I disagree. I think most English fans do regard Wembley as the home of football, and we have a source to the analogy from no less an authority as FIFA! Sentence has also been slightly worked on by Casliber. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large sums are wagered on England winning: unless they are odds on favourites, larger sums are wagered on them not winning; Large sums are wagered on matches and tournaments in which the team is involved.
    I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying the opposite of what our source says. Can you elaborate? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dependence (not dependency which means something totally different) on clubs' decision whether to release players is a given, not a negotiation, and it is not called "club versus country". Suggest whole new paragraph, to avoid speculation about likelihood or not of future change: The England manager is dependent on the consent of clubs to release players for friendlies, and "club versus country" <ref> conflict is said to arise when this is reluctantly given, or is withheld. The Premier League clubs typically play more matches in a season than other major leagues, and it is suggested that this is not conducive to the fitness of players in major tournaments. This combination of factors, coupled with England's mediocre record in major championships, has led to the England manager's job being described as the "impossible job".[3]
    Dependency fixed, thanks. I disagree about the negotiation. It did indeed used to be a given and clubs now negotiate, especially over friendlies, about how long a player will be used. Agree on expanding the club v country element. I've done a new version... see what you think. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subtitles in the history section: I would prefer a simple, factual "1946-1962: Walter Winterbottom" etc.
  • Walter Winterbottom had originally been a member : delete meaningless "originally"
  • Any reason why, of all the matches in 1946-1950, one is noted?
    •  Doing... No, not really. It's a fair point, a couple of additional sentences wouldn't do any harm there...
      • I'm uncomfortable adding more. Individual matches should only be included if truly significant. I'd rather remove others that are in the article than add more! --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • England 0-1 USA was a shock result, and the references attest to that: no need for inverted commas.
  • Probably worth flagging up that Ramsey had a different degree of autonomy that Winterbottom had enjoyed: any background on the decision of the committee to relinquish power?
  • Upon his appointment, he immediately declared his belief Immediately? After seconds? minutes? hours? weeks? Unless the adverb means something, delete it.
  • The following year he led England to victory in the third-place play-off of the 1968 UEFA European Football Championship against USSR in Rome, but reflected "We are ...: by the same token, he lead them to defeat in the semifinal. Maybe The following year England finished third in the 1968 UEFA European Football Championship in Rome, but reflected "We are ..."
  • Match description of 2-3 vs W Germany in 1970 much greater than that of 4-2 vs same opposition 4 years earlier: seems odd prioritisation.
  • The whole Revie section is taking one article as unchallengable fact: some of the more contentious assertions should have either additional backing or be re-written. In particular, the "kangaroo court" accusation could be considered libellous if any of the committee are still alive.
  • It looks odd to begin the Robson section with such a specific reference. Maybe something like Robson's tenure included 28 qualifying matches, of which only one, against Denmark in 1983, resulted in a defeat. This contributed to England's failure to qualify for the 1984 European Championships,[48] and Robson offered his resignation, but it was rejected by the FA chairman, Bert Millichip, and Robson went on to lead the England team to qualify for ...
  • I don't recall ever before hearing of a manager being said to "undertake" games.
  • For every tournament prior to 1998, the stage at which England were eliminated is reported.
  • "controversial belief that the disabled, and others, are being punished for sins in a former life." This is presented as a quote, but it has neither source nor reference.
  • Eriksson had a good record in European domestic football, with success in Portugal and Italy, and had led clubs to win the UEFA Cup on two occasions. A couple of commas to allow the reader to breathe.
  • The tone of the Eriksson section shows little sympathy for his appointment. Hard to identify particular phrases, but there seems to be some sort of editorial bias here, and a paucity of credit.
  • with eye-catching headlines of the past including ...: as opposed to headlines not yet published?
  • An intriguing figure in this respect is Terry Venables. Intringingness(?) is an editor's perception.

Good luck! Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry welcomed - as are your good wishes! We'll get onto that lot. --Dweller (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4

[edit]
  • Rôle section includes funny character (forgive me I forget it's name at this moment in time), yet the fourth word is simply role, without any accent.
I have circumflexed my muscles and fixed this. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reference for the first paragraph of this section? Though I concede it isn't all that controversial.
I discussed this with His 'Cratship, TRM. We were comfortable that the information's non controversial and referencing it would take a mass of citations that would interfere with readibility. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • front-page or front page?
the latter, ta. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the claim about Eriksson's appointment being criticised needs a reference.
I agree. Done. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention McLaren hiding under an umbrella, for which he was hugely criticised in the press.
Not sure about this... I think it's only the recency that makes this seem relevant. I doubt in 30 years time it'll be anything more than an oddity. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the most important articles related to Australia and the last peer review a few years ago yielded no fruit. Any suggestions or comments would be great, I would love to see Brisbane featured one day in the very near future, I and many other locals have spent a lot of time on it :)

Thanks, James Pinnell (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus

Just reviewing the opening sections for redundancy and tone - I haven't looked as coverage and accuracy.

  • The colony was moved to what is now the current location of the Brisbane CBD in 1825- moved is already past tense and current expresses "what is now" better...other bits in the lead with writing issues as well.
  • The city developed slowly until after World War II, when it played a central role in the Allied campaign as the South West Pacific headquarters for General Douglas MacArthur - this is very unclear and reads as though the Allied campaign was after the war. Needs thought and rewriting - perhaps as two distinct sentences (1=slow growth, 2=role in WWII)
  • The lead is too short and does not summarise some important parts of the article. There is information in geography, governance, economy etc... that would do well to be mentioned here
  • They knew the areaTo these people the area that would become Brisbane was known as Mian-jin, meaningwhich means 'place shaped as a spike' - everything struck out is clear from the preceding sentences and context
  • 260 hectares - needs acres as other units have been converted previously and the source will be in acres
  • Queensland was proclaimed a separate colony in June 1859 withand Brisbane was chosen as its capital, although. However, it was not incorporated as a city until 1902.
  • "The tower’s other significant claim to fame" - perhaps identify clearly that the tower is the Windmill's tower
  • "Royal Historical Society of Brisbane and effectively runs as a museum" - does this means it runs well as a museum or that in effect is is run as a museum ?
  • Another historic building is The Shrine of Remembrance in ANZAC Square,. dedicated on 11 November 1930, the Shrine of Remembrance is Brisbane's main war memorial. - not necessary to restate that this section is talking about historic buildings
  • Queenslander-style - should be wikilinked at the first occurrance rather than the second as, even to other some Australians, it is not self-explanatory. Perhaps reorder the part of Geography this comes in; so the definition comes before the first usage
  • 43.2 °C (109.8 °F) on the 26 January 1940 - per MOS it seems that dates are not written with an indefinite article.
  • the most severe drought in over a century, as supplying with dam levels dropped dropping below one quarter of their normal capacity. - the way this is written it seems that the dam levels are the cause of the drought.
In the Utilities section
  • Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine, all of which are at all time lows. This is a statement that dates quickly. They certainly won't be at all time lows for all times that the article is read. At the least revise to read "as of February 2008"
  • No information as to what the proposed pipeline is and where it runs
  • "opened up the retail energy market" - no information as to what structure it had previously. Better to say "Until XXXX the energy market was controlled by a monopoly supplier then ....."

- Peripitus (Talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fulfordgate

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to see how far this article could be taken as I look to get York City F.C. related articles to WP:FT status. Sources on it are limited, so even GA is looking tough. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hey Matty, that's good work considering how little I expect there is out there on the topic. Just a few minor points:

Hope this helps!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

[edit]
I used this geocoding site to add it. I just did it by eye, which on maximum zoom is more than good enough I reckon (within a metre or so?). I think the co-ordinates within the Google URL you supplied could be used for a more scientific method, but I haven't looked into that too deeply as yet. --Jameboy (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers --Jameboy (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found OS maps from 1931 and 1936 that answer my 2nd and 3rd points. Fulfordgate (the road) and Eastward Avenue replaced the ground after its demolition. Hope you like the image I added. --Jameboy (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fantastic, thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Edge (1998)

[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 it to become at least a GA and future FA article. Please comment with any concerns, edits, errors. Cheers.

Thanks, TrUCo9311 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only gone through a couple of paragraphs in any detail, but I have a few comments:

  1. Where did Dude Love return from (or return to)?
     Done-RewordedTrUCo9311 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How and/or why did Dude Love and Vince McMahon form an alliance? And how does this relate to the match with Terry Funk?
     Doneexplained better.TrUCo9311 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is the Austin-Love match with Brisco, Patterson, and McMahon the one at Over The Edge (I haven't read ahead yet)? It's unclear when you say "McMahon announced a match".
I Changed it. checkY
  1. Was The Nation of Domination simply going by The Nation at this time?
Yes they were.TrUCo9311 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they were called both the Nation of Domination and The Nation, The Nation is just a derived version. So is it still ok?TrUCo9311 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's not grammatically correct to say "..., thus ____ winning". It should be "..., thus ____ won".
  2. Remember to keep verb tense consistent (in the past tense). There are a few places where you switch to the present tense.

I'll look it over in more detail when I have a chance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY, I also have done tense changing. For the background section.TrUCo9311 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why?TrUCo9311 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again quoting from the instructions above "This size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews..." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things that stood out at me:

  • Raw and SmackDown! should be italicized when referring to the actual show (not the brand).
  • Remove all the bolding per MOS:BOLD.
  • All awful lot of the text is wikilinked. I think the article might suffer from overlinking.
  • The Other On-Screen Talent table is awkwardly placed, at least it is on my screen. The table is messing up the right-hand justification of the Results. Maybe moving it up or to the right would look better.
  • By more consistent with the date linking. When you write out the whole date (ie. June 1 1998) link both parts. There are places in the article where you write out the whole date and it isn't linked. If you only write out the month and day (ie. June 1) don't link it. Actually, it might help with the overlinking problem if you eliminate the year in most cases when writing out the date and de-link the month and day.

Nikki311 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to that in 2 weeks.--TrUCo9311 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHP

[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 nominate it as a Featured Article in the near future, and I consider it a good resource as a summary of the PHP programming language.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

[edit]
Addressed
[edit]
  • "Zeev Suraski and Andi Gutmans, two Israeli developers at the Technion IIT, rewrote the parser in 1997 and formed the base of PHP 3, changing the language's name to the recursive initialism PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor" needs a citation
  • History section is made up of a lot of short paragraphs. These need to be expanded in a similar way to Milton Friedman.
  • "Currently, PHP 5.x is the only stable version that is being actively developed; active development on PHP 4 ceased at the end of 2007." Needs a citation – it doesn't seem to link with the next sentence, but I'm no expert so it may do.
  • The "Usage" section is made up of short subsections. Could these be expanded or integrated into the rest of the text? It doesn't seem to warrant subsections at its present length.
  • "Server-side scripting" section has only one citation.
  • The last paragraph of that section is only one sentence; it would look better integrated and referenced.
  • "Client-side GUI" section is unreferenced. But the subsections will need to be expanded or integrated if you're looking at GA/A/FA
  • The second paragraph of the "Syntax" section has only one reference. Also, as I'm no expert, it would seem better to have a reference for "The usual Hello World code example for PHP is..."
  • "Note that the delimiters are required to process PHP statements." Needs to be changed. It's an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual :) Also, avoid italicising words in the prose (except quotes and technical things and so on).
  • "Everything outside the delimiters is ignored by the parser and is simply passed through as output." Needs a reference. Also I'd avoid the use of "simply", as to me it doesn't seem simple!
  • The paragraphs are again too short, and could be expanded or merged.
  • The last few paragraphs in "Syntax" (under the HTML text) are unreferenced.
  • I'm not sure the phrase "It should be noted" should be used here, but I'm not sure; I'll leave that to yours/someone elses judgement.
  • Sentences in "Data types" are short, as well as the paragraphs. That whole section is currently unreferenced.
  • The list of data types. As this is about PHP, it might help to have an explanation of what they are and what they do.
  • "Arrays support both numeric and string indices, and are heterogeneous." What?! The technical language needs to be explained: those who study IT or computer science might know, but not everyone will. You could follow on with something simple like "...which means..." or something. If a user doesn't understand your article, they won't read it.
  • Functions: similar, short paragraphs, unreferenced. It doesn't seem to me very comprehensive (as it's quite short) so can a bit more info be added? (Again, it might be, but I'm no expert so I apologise for this)
  • "...with the PHP new operator..." Why is this bolded?
  • If you're using HTML text, I would probably italicise it, or use: <code>text</code>. Eg. "PHP supports quasi-anonymous functions through the create_function() function."
  • "Function calls may be made via variables, where the value of a variable contains the name of the function to call. This is illustrated in the following example..." The following example means very little to me! Maybe have a paragraph explaining (in prose) what the HTML text is doing.
  • "Object handling was completely rewritten for PHP 5, expanding the feature set and enhancing performance." needs a citation
  • More citations needed in the "Object" section, only one so far.
  • In the resources section, the "libraries" could be expanded. Perhaps detail a couple of the biggest/most important ones.
  • You need citations in the "Resources" section.
  • Alphabeticise the Further Reading section by author's surname
  • Although you wikilink a number of technical phrases, explanations of what they are might be helpful within the article. Eg. "The program may otherwise output invalid HTML and make the website vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack." Not all readers will see that and know what it is (eg. me :))
  • First two paragraphs of the lead are made up of short sentences, making the prose choppy. These could be expanded into longer, more flowing sentences.
  • Lead needs to be expanded to form a concise summary of the article.
Unaddressed
[edit]

That's about it so far; it might be best to have someone familiar with computer science to have a look as well. I apologise for my complete lack of knowledge on the subject! GCSE was as far as I got with this subject, but we didn't look at any of this. It was enjoyable to read, and I think it can get to FA, but for me it needs a bit more info, lots more citations, and maybe a bit of rearranging of info. Feel free to ignore any comments that you disagree with, and good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 09:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been suggested that the article should be nominated for Featured Article, and I believe a final review is in order. I am primarily concerned with ensuring that all items requiring citation are cited and that the article meets the prose requirements of a Featured Article.

Thanks, Codharris (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please close and archive the peer review; per the instructions at WP:FAC and WP:PR, articles can't be listed at both places. I'd do it for you, but I no longer understand the PR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish football champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The bare bones of this list was already present, but I've hacked it about into what I think is a potential FL, but I'd be grateful if some extra pairs of eyes could tell me if there's anything else I might need to work on.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, let's see...

  • "who have to date" - perhaps safer to say As of...
    • done
  • "and the two clubs between them won 27 consecutive titles between 1904 and 1931." - previous part of the sentence was "has", so I think a verb is missing here (like "have won 27...")
    • "...the clubs have won 27 titles between 1904 and 1931"? That doesn't sound grammatically correct to me.......
      • Never mind, completely rewritten it now anyway.........
  • "This feat could potentially be repeated in 2012, as the clubs have won the title for 22 consecutive seasons as of the 2006–07 season." - not sure this is necessary, it's a little WP:CRYSTAL for me.
    • junked it
  • Force columns in tables to be the same width in each section so the tables don't snake. I'm using Safari and I think IE7 makes it worse (not sure), there is a trick you can play, but I'll need to dig around to find it!
    • I have absolutely no idea how to do that, but I will have a look around......
      • Cracked this now I think.......
  • You've got repeated wikilinking throughout but the tables aren't sortable. Either make 'em sortable (preferred by me) or ditch the repetitive linking. If you make the sortable you'll probably need to ditch the colspan going on in the hdgs though and have a separate column for number of goals scored by the top scorer...
    • OK, I'll decide which way I want to proceed with this and put it into place.....
      • All tables are now sortable (although I still need to put the "sortname"s in place for some of the goalscorers.......
  • This may be onerous (and isn't essential) but consider relieving Wikipedia of those top scorer red links...
    • Yes, I plan to do that over the next couple of days
  • Not 100% keen on the incrementing number of titles in parentheses... just a summary would be fine (for me).
    • OK, I'll bin it
  • Worth noting in the lead that the league was suspended in the second world war (and interestingly, not the first)
    • done, and for reference I have no idea why the situation was different between the two world wars..........
  • There seem to be a number of specific SPL season articles. Is it better to link to those instead of the more generic "x-y in Scottish football" articles?
    • OK, will do that
      • done - there don't seem to be specific "Scottish Football League 19xx-xx" articles for the seasons prior to 1998, so I've left them as the generic "....in Scottish football" links
  • (including one shared) - in the summary table - make it a footnote.
    • done
  • Doubles, Trebles.... section, merge the text here, three really brief paras don't work for me.
    • done
  • Since you've taken it upon yourself to define these terms in the context of Scottish football (!) I think you could do with referencing your beliefs!
    • done
  • The Doubles, Trebles... table, on my screen the seasons are forced onto two lines because the table is allowed full freedom of the page. It may be against some people's ideas but I'd force the widths myself, ensuring that the seasons only occupy one line.
    • Again, I'll see how to go about doing this
      • Struggling with this one at the moment. I can force the colums to % widths of the whole table and thereby ensure that the seasons appear on one line, but I have yet to find how to fix the table at a width narrower than the entire page. I'll keep on looking..... :-)
        • Got it sorted now, I think.......
  • Is Foot.dk. a reliable source? (question, not accusatory jab!)
    • It seems alright to me, it looks like the Danish version of Soccerbase.

That's it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, looks great now, passes with flying colours in IE7, I'll try Safari later... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quickie comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

    [edit]
    • Personally, I think lists of names look tidier left-aligned, as is the default for text items, rather than centred.
      • do you think the columns with the club names need to be left-aligned, or just the scorers......?
        • if it was me, club names as well, but it's a personal viewpoint. some people like flags with everything, I wouldn't mind if flags were banned from football articles, that sort of thing.
    • The Scottish First Division table still doesn't sort properly, because of the colspan= for the war years.
      • I can't figure out how to fix that, any ideas............?
        • Four possibilities that I can think of, none of which are particularly satisfactory.
      1. Messy, un-pretty. Keep the columns, put some wording in the middle column ("Second World War" and a footnote to expand on it, say), then put non-displaying high-values "ZZZ" or whatever in all the columns apart from the year, so that row always sorted to top or bottom, that'd work. Sorting on the year column would bring it back to its proper place. But it would look horrible when that row gets sorted to the top.
      2. Less messy. Keep columns with wording in middle, as per #1, no need for high-values, put class="sortbottom" on that row. That will always sort the row to the bottom. The problem is the always: sorting on date column also sorts it to the bottom.
      3. Leave that row out and put a footnote on the previous season to explain the missing years. Loses a bit of clarity doing that.
      4. Scrap the sortable tables.
    • Are you sure the third place column is relevant? I know the English version has it, but it didn't when featured, and looking at the talk page, it appears to have been specifically excluded when the list was being prepared for FLC. Going back through the history, it seems to have been added by an anon without discussion or edit summary.
      • The NotW Annual, which I used as a source, certainly lists first/second/third for each season, I have no preference either way. I'll see what people think at the FLC, I'm happy to go with the majority view..
        • fair enough

    Rest of it looks fine. If you have time to spare and fancy some prose to pull apart, List of Birmingham City F.C. managers is available for peer review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Warner

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    While I am not responsible for initiating this article, I played a role in expanding it. I have listed Jack Warner for peer review because I want to ensure that the article provides a comprehensive, balanced, and engaging treatment of the subject. Any recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks, twelsht (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by Jayron32

    [edit]

    I'm not normally into biographies, but seeing as I was personally asked to help review, I will see what I can do. I will just add my thoughts, stream of consiousness, as I have them while reading the article.

    • The lead seems rather odd. For a general overview of the man, it seems to present a rather unusual set of facts for an introduction. Too much seems to be given to the tabloidish aspects of his biography (scandalous divorce and remarriage, familial infighting) and not enough to his business acumen in actually running Warner Brothers, which, of course, is what he is primarily known for. I see no problem with a short paragraph on his personal life, where some of this is mentioned, but it is entirely out of balance, proportionally speaking, in the current organization of the lead.
     Done Comment: Your point is well taken. I removed most of the material on Warner's personal life from the lead. What remains is a brief reference to his fallout with his brothers in the 1950s. I also created a new paragraph that emphasizes Warner's contributions to the studio's success.
    • Formative years seems a tad unencyclopedic of a title. A less flowery and more formal "Early life" may be more appropriate.
     Done
    • Other section titles need some better ideas, perhaps retitling "Screening and film distribution" something like "early business ventures" or "Early film-industry ventures" or something. Also, consider collecting all of his professional life under a == heading titled "Professional career" and then giving each section a === heading, for organization purposes. Consider moving the "later years" section under this, as it deals mainly with professional life after Warner Brothers. Perhaps, retitling this section something like "After Warner Bros." or "Post-Warner Bros. Career" or something would be good.
     Done Comment: There may be more work to do in this department.
    • The "see also" section is redundant, as it lists people already linked in the article. Consider removing it entirely.
     Done
    • Overall, the article seems comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. It may be a good idea to try to scare up a few more references, as this one depends almost entirely on the Thomas bio... Providing additional perspective in an article is always a good idea.
     Done Comment: Thanks! I've added a half-dozen new references and plan to use more to offset the article's reliance on Thomas' bio. -- twelsht (talk)

    I think if you can fix the lead, and the organization issues I note above, you would be might close to featured article status on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

    [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 and co-developers would like feedback towards attaining Featured List status for the article and its subarticle, List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City. There are 50+ NHL list articles in progress, but none have yet been nominated for Featured List, so standards aren't entirely clear. A lot of work has been done on this article, on the NHLs in NYC subarticle, and on the NHL articles they index, by many people. Its current condition is built upon work done by others elsewhere (in developing the NHL list table format, on developing NRHP infobox format and generator tool, on many supporting articles on architects, NRHPs and NHLs in general, and many other topics). This the biggest state list (it has 257 NHLs in two parts), and it is easy to get bogged down for a long time in implementing any specific additional improvement to the site descriptions or to the 257 articles it covers, so peer reviewer guidance that weighs cost and benefit considerations especially would be appreciated.

    Thanks, doncram (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive1.

    European Golden Shoe

    [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 list has improved a lot, I would like to know whether I should go for FL, as it is essentially a list, and is in a list category. Thank you for your time NapHit (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]
    • "in all the top " - in all of the top or in all top...
    • "Soulier d'Or" - translate.
    • "or the spring-fall season before in relevant countries" not clear to non-experts. Plus should we not use "autumn" as "fall" is very US-English.
    • "because of suspect scoring sprees in Cyprus." this needs expansion and citation. I don't understand what it means at all.
    • "of which France Football is part of" - no need for last "of", and what is the relevance of France Football; indeed, what is France Football?
    • "which is weighted according to the relative strength of each of Europe's leagues" - this probably needs to be expanded, perhaps highlighting the range extremes, so strongest league (serie A perhaps?) has higher weighting than, say, Cyprus league?
    • "golden boot twice" - Golden Boot twice.
    • " the amount of games" - number of games.
    • Hugo Sanchez's notes box isn't rendering correctly (I'm using Safari on Mac OS 10.5)
    • If you use rowspan or colspan, it tends to mess up sorting (try it - it goes bananas).
    • Rather than Country, I'd identify the League in which the top scorer was playing.
    • "Pancev affair" again, this should be expanded upon in the text rather than be consigned to a footnote.
    • Zviad Endeladze deserves an article, albeit a stub!
    • Arsen Avetisyan's final column isn't rendering properly.
    • Henry/Forlan final column isn't rendering correctly either. Plus similar problems with sorting and colspans etc.
    • "France Football decide to " - decided?
    • Fill in the {{Cite web}}s completely, including accessdate=
    • Use the Category:Football (soccer) in Europe category instead of the sport in europe cat.

    Hope these are useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elderly Instruments

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I have exhaustively researched the subject of this article and am trying to get it ready for FA status. I would appreciate comments on prose, comprehensiveness, and any other issues you spot.

    Thanks, Laser brain (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never done a peer review, so sorry if this isn't the right format.

    Feedback
    Factoids I found
    • Elderly was a sponsor of Michigan's 2001 National Folk Festival.[5] [6]
    • There's a video here.[7]
    • Elderly is a dealer of Deering banjos [8]
    • Elderly sells or sold bodhráns [9]

    --Edibility (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've addressed most of these issues except as noted above - thanks very much! --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Enya

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article for the FA. It has all the references.

    Thanks, Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

    Here are my suggetions to improving the article:

    • References are not properly formatted per the MOS. Also all websites need an accessed date listed by them in the references.
    • At least one place has a space between the sentence period and the reference
    • Several places do not have sufficient inline reference (example: the part about what her parents did has no citation) and there are complete paragraphs without citations
    • The article has several citation needed tags that need references
    • The comment that Enya is a very private person seems rather subjective and not verifiable.

    I don't think this is ready for FA status because a lot of statements need referencing. Biomedeng (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Europe

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've already done small amount of work on this article but it is rather long and I would like to get some suggestions for how to improve it further, with a view to getting it to GA or even FA status.


    Thanks, Harland1 (t/c) 13:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry I can't actually find the review. Harland1 (t/c) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reran it and fixed the link - should work now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Harland1 (t/c) 10:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone through everything up to Geography, and have given detailed comments below. I'm not a historian nor a professional writer, so take everything I say as suggestion. Overall, I think it's a very good article, bound to get through GA and maybe FA without too much more work. --jwandersTalk 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead

    Para 1: "Physically and geologically..." isn't this the same thing and redundant?

    removed. Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Para 2:

    • The lead image doesn't include Russia, but the text says Russia is Europe's largest country.
    It includes the part of Russia generally considered to be in Europe but not the rest. Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This para switches twice between discussing Europe compared to other countries and comparing the countries within Europe. There should only be one switch, and these could perhaps be separate paras.
    Changed Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Para 3:

    • "...after the beginning of colonization" should specify which colonization is being referred to.
    Changed but perhaps not enough
    • This historical summary skips the North American fights for independence; perhaps this is notable enough to be included?
    I would say not? This is just one episode of a colony fighting for freedom, we can't include them all so not just one. Harland1 (t/c) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice linked map! I'll have to remember that and steal the tech sometime ;-)

    Etymology

    Para 2:

    • The formatting of "...see Prithvi (Platia)" looks off. Consider adjusting the punctuation (no need for the semi-colon), or better, working the "Prithvi" wlink into a natural sentence.
    Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority view should be referenced, ideally to more than one source as it is the majority view.
    • The last sentence does not read well. I think the problem is a combination of the unfamiliar names, unusual letters, and the quoted punctuation. Perhaps expanding to multiple phrases would help?
    • I don't believe "see also X" is accepted wp:Manual of Style form. Again, try expanding into a full sentence including the appropriate wikilink, or at least put the "see also" in parentheses.
    Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Para 3:

    • Rephrase "A majority of major..."
     Done Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "Turks" an accepted term for "The Turkish people"? It sounds unencyclopedic
    Changed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence says "for centuries" but doesn't indicate which centuries it's referring to. Is this still true today, or was it the case from 700-400 B.C.?
    Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prehistory

    Para 2: The information on the roman empire seems out of place in this section.

    Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dark Ages

    Para 1:

    • "Isolated monastic communities in Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere" Be more specific than "elsewhere" or just say "Ireland and Scotland".
    Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "disappeared from European popular currency." I've heard the word "currency" used to refer to the value of ideas, but not to the ideas themselves. Are you sure this is proper usage?
    Removed Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle Ages

    Para 2: In summary style, it's always hard to know how much detail to include, but I would suggest expanding this para on the Black Death to a few more sentences.

    Done a bit

    18th and 19th centuries

    Para 3:

    • No mention of N. America's independence from Europe? I'm not a historian, but it seems this might be worth a sentence.

    Added a sentence will add more. Harland1 (t/c) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note about Karl Marx's manifesto seems out of step. Either expand it to show context and relation with the rest of the para, or remove it.

    20th century to present

    Para 2: This sentence is very hard to parse as it's main cause is modified both beforehand and afterwards: "Economic instability, caused in part by debts incurred from the First World War, brought about the worldwide Great Depression during the 1930s, precipitated by the Wall Street Crash of 1929."

    Para 3: First sentence is too long, should be split into 2 or 3.

    Gas

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished re-writing it and I wanted to get some feedback on quality and clarity.

    I am planning on moving on to the simplified gas models such as ideal and perfect gas and later creating some more related articles.

    Thanks, Katanada (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by RJH

    [edit]

    I have a few (hopefully useful) comments:

    • Please take a look through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to see how it can be applied.
    • The lead is much too brief. See: Wikipedia:Lead section. As written it might also be applied to a plasma (you specifically mention ions and electrons), so I think more care needs to be taken to distinguish the states of gas and plasma.
    • The "Physical Characteristics" section shouldn't refer to the "aforementioned particles" (or depend upon the content of the lead section), but should instead start from the beginning. I.e. the lead is a summary of the article body. The "force field" analogy seems a little unorthodox to me, but I guess it's okay.
    • The article needs inline citations so that editors know where to look in order to confirm the facts.
    • Virtually all of the sections are far too short, resulting in an overly long table of contents. Some have multiple "main article" links embedded within the section, rather than at the top. Please consider merging and/or expanding the entries.
    • There are too many bulleted lists. Please consider converting these to prose.
    • Please run it through a spelling/grammar checker. I'm seeing "througout" and "with with" (DONE), for example, as well as some minor grammar issues. Also you'll need to check for passive voice such as "it is typical", and vernacular such as "over-kill" (DONE).
    • Please remove the "NOTE:". It looks unencyclopedic. (DONE)
    • The "See also" section is empty. Please remove it. (DONE)

    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Diego Velázquez's only known nude portrait. Any suggestions for improving the page greatly welcome. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Faidherbe Bridge

    [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 if i could propose it for FA.

    Thanks, Mario1987 13:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My comments on the article:

    • Lead section is only one sentence. The lead should be 1-2 paragraphs for an article this size and summarize the whole article.
    • Some paragraphs have no references.
    • "With all it's difficulties" should be its not it's.
    • Some of the images seem to have licensing problems. The stamp image has a licensing statement saying it can only be used on an article illustring the stamp. What is the date of the postcards? It says 100+ years beyond the author's death, but you don't give a publication date for either card
    • The picture legends on the postards should be relevant to the article. Discuss the picture and not the fact it is a postcard
    • The references are not properly formatted and don't have access dates for the urls.
    • Overall the writing needs improvement. It is certainly understandble, but is not well written enough to be FA status as written. Biomedeng (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kannada literature

    [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 Kannada language is one of the oldest languages of India, with a history of over 2000 years. It has a literary tradition spanning 1500 years. Kannada writers have made invaluable contributions to Indian literature, both classical and modern. Hence I feel this article is important. The article is well referenced and cited. Please provide constructive feedback which would help improve the format, prose and presentation.

    Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will attend to this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The spellings are consistant with British English. I have trimmed the article and included several sub-articles. The titles of sections meet the auto PR requirement now.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comments by Redtigerxyz PR
    • Most of imgs are copyrighted and may not be used in the article. Add fair use rationales for those imgs.

    ....more to come --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Thanks - KNM Talk 18:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will reduce number of images.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Removed one image. gave better alignment to images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel I need to drop a few more images, I have no problem.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    General note: avoid copyrighted imgs as much as possible.

    DK Reply Currently 5 out of 19 images are copyrighted.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply user:KNM has requested a friend to take some images of modern poets in Bangalore. May take some time though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Placement of Basavanna img facing out of article rather than in the article. Place that img to left. Same case with Lyricist, D.R. Bendre img; Poet, playwright and novelist Shivarama Karanth img; Romance poet K. S. Narasimhaswamy (1915–2003 img.

     Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mysore period has 3 imgs. Reduce 1.

     DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Transition and Navodaya: 5 imgs. Atleast remove 2.

    --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "It consists of writings from the medieval socio-religious developments of Jainism, Virashaivism and Vaishnavism,[2][3] to the writings on secular subjects[4] and modern literature." Isn't modern literature a vague term?
    Dk Reply Not sure how to better word it. All the books I have refered to call literature from 1800-2000 as "modern".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dk Reply I have rearranged and re-worded the lead. Please see how it looks now. Also, the paragraph in the lead that starts with Medieval Jain writers wrote about Jain Tirthankars and other personages important to the Jain religion....... is probably better off merged with the 1st paragraph under the "Medieval Section" itself. How do you feel about this?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DK Reply I have merged one para (mentioned above) from the lead into the first para in medieval section (called overview) to keep the lead trim.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done copy edited.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "the earliest available record of Kannada poetry in tripadi metre (three line verse) is the Kappe Arabhatta record of the 7th century.[" details like tripadi metre may not be given out in the lead, but in later part where Kappe Arabhatta is mentioned. As a general thumb rule, all points in the lead are expanded further in the article.
    DK Reply I will deal with this shortly.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Vaishnava writers accounted for the Hindu epics the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavata, as well as for the Vedanta and other subjects from the Hindu puranic traditions" THe epics were not written first in Kannada. ARe they Kannada versions or translations? clarify.
    Dk Reply Actually, the Kannada language writings on these epics fall into various categories, each with several examples. These works were either direct translations, or adaptations (meaning the writer gave his own views), or inspirations, or portions there off (such as Airavata by Kumara Vyasa of 1430 who wrote only on the episode concerning Indra's elephant). It is the same case with Jain writings on Tirthankars and Veerashaiva writings on god Shiva and his famous devotees. As we progressed in time, these devotees written about were no longer ancient personalities from Hindu/Jain/Shaiva lore, but recent personalites (relatively speaking) from the Kannada speaking regions itself, such as Allama Prabhu, Akka Mahadevi, Basavanna etc. To not go into all these details, I just called it "accounted for" because two authors use that term. Perhaps I should re-word as "treated" as that could cover all types?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Around 900, Gunavarma I wrote the Sudraka and the Harivamsa." Is it the same Harivamsa or a translation???
    DK Reply No, this is not that same Harivamsa. I dont have any futher information to indicate whether it was a translation or a different story altogether. In fact there is one more Harivamsa written in Kannada by Gunavarma (1070 CE) in the Western Chalukya court. It was fairly common to re-use names of classics. I will try to dig up more information ofcourse and I think I have a source for that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done provided disambiguation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "whom he favourably compared in the Sudraka to King Sudraka of ancient times." Can king Shuraka's date be given?
    Dk Reply I did a google search and generally came across a date prior to 5th century. There is no certianity ofcourse, with some scholars even claiming him to be a mythical king.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done clarified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Isn't LIngayat and Veerashaiva same? Stick to one of them for consistency.

    --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. If I find any more, will make it consistent.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Birmingham City F.C. managers

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Hi, I've adopted the style used in the featured List of Manchester City F.C. managers, i.e. with a large prose section preceding the table, and comments on this section are particularly invited, though I'd be grateful for any feedback you can offer to help this eventually gain featured status. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Good work, Stru, here's a few little things I picked up on........

    • If the club's current name is shown in the lead with the "F.C." in place, shouldn't it be appended to the former names too, for consistency? – removed first F.C.
    • The sentence about Alex Watson is a bit grammatically shaky, it should probably read "Successor Alex Watson's two seasons in charge ended with the club having to apply for re-election to the league and Watson handing responsibility for team affairs...." – reworded
    • "Billy Beer[7] and Bill Harvey[8] kept them in the lower half of the First Division" - could be construed as implying that these two managers actively stopped the club from getting into the top half, maybe try "....kept them in the First Division, albeit in the lower half of the table" – reworded verbatim, thank you
    • "Merrick is the only manager to have won a major trophy" - I know what you mean, but it reads kinda like no other manager of any club has ever won a trophy. I know this sounds daft, but it's worth re-wording slightly for total clarity – reworded
    • Is the reference about the fine for poaching Fry really relevant to the table? It's already mentioned (and referenced, with a different source) in the body text, I can't really see why it's referenced again in the table..... – historical reasons :-) i.e left over from before I decided to have a detailed history section, gone now

    Overall it looks really good, hope this helps.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for taking the trouble to look at it, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Very nice. Some comments which may (or most probably may not) be of use!

    • "secretary-manager" why italics?
      • Pass. Would you put quotes round it, or leave it as an ordinary word?
    • I'm sure the MOS is clear (I haven't checked) and I'm sure you're right but didn't "Jones's" used to be "Jones'"?
    • " He also forgot to enter them in the 1922 FA Cup." - this doesn't flow quite right, it's a very short sentence which is a little trivia-esque.. could it be expanded upon? The previous sentence talks about the good things and this is then kind of wedged in...
      • It's a very short sentence which, far from being kind of wedged in, deliberately contrasts in style to the preceding flow of good things. Stops the reader falling asleep.
    • " Bradford, Crosbie and Tremelling " any reason why you haven't included their full names?
      • Excess of space-saving zeal, probably. The section was threatening to sprawl its way to a complete history of the club. I'll put them in.
    • Remove "the" from the Second World War link. doing
    • You could easily move [18] to the other side of the comma. doing
    • Same with 41 and 37... doing
    • "first team" or "first-team"?
      • Both, I think. In the lead, it's an ordinary adjective and noun, so there's no reason for a hyphen. Later on, it's a compound adjective so would normally be hyphenated. See Hyphen#Compound modifiers.
    • "except" again, why italics? Pass. Removing.
    • Nationalities need to be linked all the way down the table, it can be reordered after all. doing
    • Something Matthew mentioned to me on one of my FLCs, consider linking English to English people?
      • I'd consider it, but would need convincing. The xxxx-ish people articles tend to be about an ethnic group rather than a nationality (although English people is more inclusive), and I don't think I'm really referring to the managers' ethnicity. An admittedly extreme example: Tony Cascarino's country appears in player lists as Ireland, because he played international football for them, yet linking to Irish people would be completely inappropriate, as his only claim to Irishness was his mother's adoption by an Irishman. Perhaps Matthew/someone will raise the matter when this goes to FLC.

    Otherwise it'd get my support at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for taking the trouble to look at it, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Irreplaceable

    [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 because a thorough peer review would be great before passing to FAC. Any comments are appreciated.

    Thanks, --Efe (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dihydrogen Monoxide

    [edit]

    As promised, here are some comments. I haven't read the article in full (sorry) so this is more general stuff. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I said to you in the past, the quotes need borders around them. Also, the second quote, "I wanted to make a record that women could relate to.", doesn't really stand out that much and could just go in the body passage.
     Done
    • In the Background and inspiration section, the first 2 paras only really use 2 sources, so it :{Question}} I cant find. There are some images of her, which are quite good, but uncaptioned which I dont know what song is she singing. (In Flickr)
    I'm not sure if it matters too much. I took a look too, and there were photos from a 2007 tour (on which you had commented, I believe). Saying something like "performing at a 2007 tour" in a caption wouldn't be bad at all. Kakofonous (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But we are not really sure if she is singing "Irreplaceable". Yah, that was me "BritandBeyonce". Could you help me find one or two? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Irreplaceable" entered many charts around the world. The following table lists the various charts and peak positions." - That's fairly self evident
     Done Removed.
    • The concession boxes at the bottom look a bit like overkill...so many!
     Question: Do I have to cut it down?

    I made a few edits myself...I hope this helps a bit. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks.--Efe (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still waiting for the review guys! --Efe (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    M3tal H3ad

    [edit]

    Sorry about the late review. I'm skipping the lead section for now

    • If you go for FA you will need to cite all quotes -""they might not have gone in the direction they did on the song." I know it's referenced further down but it's the way it is
    • He then considered making R&B-country
    • Beyoncé was working on materials - should that be material?
    • after filming Dreamgirls, which her role inspired her - the last part is confusing
    • Beyoncé asked for some twists on the track, add drums and sang - "twists" is vague, second part doesn't flow
    • sang it much higher - how did she sing it higher?
    HIgher than the demo? I think the notes? No information stated; so I stick to it.
    I just add "in higher note"
    Skipping to music video:
    • who co-directed the video of "Get Me Bodied"
    • A video edit was produced for the "Irreemplazable" - remove 'the' it's like saying, was produced for the "Irreplaceable"
    • the video follows a simple story - simple according to whom? it is an opinion and should be attributed or removed
    • She is preparing herself to welcome her new man - not very encyclopedic
    • Stargate Management - capital M?
    • A lot of references have the publisher listed twice "FOX News, FOX News Network," "IGN. IGN Entertainment, Inc" i don't see the point in this
    • All Music Guide should not be in italics, it's a website and not a publication
    Its in the "work" entry, so normally its italicized.
    • ref 11,12 needs italics
    Brief review, i will be back later. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the partial. I would be expecting a lot of comments here. I'll be addressing them as soon as I have a longer time to edit. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copyedited it partially. --Efe (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LuciferMorgan

    [edit]
    • Comments'
    • "The tune was not associated to Beyoncé's voice and Ne-Yo wrote the song based from a male's perspective." The first part of this sentence sounds awkward, and needs rephrasing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ne-Yo considered making R&B-country western music song.[2]" - Needs the word "a" after "making". LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When the team wrote the song with Ne-Yo, they recorded it with a male on vocals; but they thought of it as having more on a female vocal part.[1]" The last part of the sentence concerning the "female vocal part" sounds awkward, and needs rephrasing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Beyoncé asked for some changes on the track, including addition of drums, while singing the song higher than the demo presented to her.[1]" - "Addition of drums"? Do you mean "additional drums", or "the addition of drums"?
    • "Ne-Yo revealed that he wanted to make anthems for people that can relate to and that "Irreplaceable" was the product.[6]" - Another awkward sentence. Perhaps you mean "... anthems which people can relate to, and that "Irreplaceable" was the result." LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The tune of the song is a somber reminiscent of her former group Destiny's Child's 2005 single "Girl".[13]" - Drawing correlations between songs is arriving at a conclusion, so therefore needs to be attributed to an opinion. Also, there is no need for "a". LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Irreplaceable" is about putting out a boyfriend after he cheats." - Putting out? Not sure what phrase to use here, but I wouldn't use "putting out". LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The female empowerment theme of "Irreplaceable" drew comparisons to the central concept of Terry McMillan's novel Waiting to Exhale.[15]" - Drew comparisons from whom? What's the name of the critic, and what's the name of the publication he or she writes for?
    • The last paragraph of "Musical style and lyrics" needs sourcing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A 12" single was released in the same country on the following week.[17]" "On"? Do you not mean "during", or perhaps you should merely remove "on"?
    • "In the United States, "Irreplaceable" served as B'Day's third single, following the poor chart performance of "Ring the Alarm".[1] " - Whether a single has a "poor chart performance" is actually an opinion, so therefore differs according to the judgment of that specific person. If the chart performance of "Ring the Alarm" is relevant, then state it's achieved position and who felt it's performance was "poor". LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the 2007 American Music Awards, Beyoncé rendered a surprise performance of the country version of song.[23]" - "Of song"? And, why was it a surprise? Was it unannounced she would perform it in that way? If it was previously announced, then it's not actually a surprise. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I quoted it and the word "surprise" is actually the title of the news. --Efe (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much LuciferMorgan. You're well-versed when it comes to this type of work. --Efe (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    McFly (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 asked for one before but it was never done (apart from a auto bot one). I'd like to nominate the article for "good article" status but it quick failed before due to lack of references but since then, this has been improved immensely so I believe it should be reassessed. A peer review would tell us what else we should do to improve it.


    Thanks, Stacey talk to me 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of comments:

    • I think it is a little weird to put the band members birth dates in the lead section. That information is not stated anywhere else in the article and the lead is supposed to be a summary.
    • The number of references is very good. All of the references seem to be properly formmatted, so hopefully you will not be quick failed again.
    • The disography section seems to be a repeat of the album subsections in the history section. I am not sure why that is duplicated.
    • The Awards section is just a list. Could you say the same thing in paragraph form? I've been dinged for having lists instead of prose/paragraph form before.
    • Maybe one of the pictures of the band playing should go in the infobox so that way people coming to the article immediately see a picture.
    • Per Wikipedia:Layout the See also section should come before the references.
    • From my experience I have always seen templates put at the end of the article. The see also section does not seem to be an appropriate place to put the McFly template. See also is meant to be a list of articles that are relevant but not wikilinked in the text.
    • If you have access to more pictures (properly licensed) then that could add to the article as well. It also seems from the bands website that they have a logo...maybe you could come up with a fair use rationale and use that in the article or infobox.

    Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the review! I just have a few comments. I agree about the dates of birth, where do you think they should (if they should) be included? I'm not sure what you mean about the discography section, isn't that what all of them are like? Also for the awards section...I looked at "Good Article" articles (e.g. Fall Out Boy, Lindsay Lohan)) and they've all had "Awards" as lists. We previously had it as prose and I was never happy with it...I believe the lists look much better and they're more informative. I removed the "See also" header and moved the template. We're unable to find more fair use McFly photos at the moment and we previously used the logo but we got told that it did not come under fair use. -- Stacey talk to me 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if the birth dates even belong in this article, especially since there are articles about the band members. I guess you are trying to emphasize the members are all young? I guess what I meant about the disography section is it duplicates the other subsections under history. Maybe you need to move those sections to disography? Biomedeng (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Expo '88

    [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 a current B level article and I would like to see this progress through to FA status. I'm aware that inline citations are an issue with this article, however I would like some reviews on what is missing to make this a more complete article.

    Thanks, Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made some changes to the article since the automated peer review listed above so would appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some comments:

    • There are a lot of unreferenced statements that should have inline reference (some whole sections don't have references). This is critical if you want to get the article to GA status
    • The few references you have need to be properly formatted
    • The statement "During Expo the park was filled with 90 sculptures, one of the largest and most prestigous displays the country had ever hosted" seems a little subjective. How does one define something as the most prestigous?
    • The lead section could be expanded a little bit to include a summary of some of the details about the fair (number attending, events, etc)
    • I don't feel that the USSR stamp adds much to the article, especially since it does not pertain to the text it is placed next to. Perhaps you can use a more relevant picture from the gallery for this section.
    • One source of more infomation might be old newspaper articles. I just did a quick search for Expo 88 on the New York Times archives (which are now free for those published after 1987) and there were some articles that came up. If you are in Australia (or have access to old news reports from there) you might have even better source options.

    Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Le chemin de fer

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    The article is quite short, but its pretty uses the entire literature on the internet about it and most printed materials too. What can I do to improve it, to even get it considered for GA (as it would probably be quickly rejected due to length)? ALTON .ıl 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from User:MeegsC Some things you might consider including:

    • What instrument(s) was this written for? (I'm assuming piano, but the article never says.)
    • Was it a "typical" composition for its composer, or was it a radical departure from other works?
    • Was it written for someone/something specific (a particular performer or conductor perhaps, or the opening of a railroad station, etc.)?
    • When was it first performed and where?
    • How was it received at the time?
    • Has it been used in any film or TV show, or referred to in any literary work?

    MeegsC | Talk 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fraggle Rock

    [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 it lately. I feel this could be a featured article with a bit of work. Should some of the sections be moved to list articles? I think that's a big problem with the article: too many list sections. Does the link section need cleanup (many just look like fansites that aren't that notable)? Any other thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

    Thanks, RobJ1981 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A childhood fan of Fraggle Rock I felt compeled to review this article. Comments:

    • Not enough references. Many paragraphs and even whole sections do not have any inline citations.
    • The reference are not all formatted properly
    • At least one reference has a space between it and the end of the sentence.
    • I think this article needs some section devoted to the reception of Fraggle Rock by viewers. How popular and in which countries was it popular? Any kind of ratings information would be good.
    • The long list of every fraggle character (other creatures) detracts from the article and adds very little value. Perhaps it can be spun off into another article.
    • The cast section duplicates the list of characters section.
    • The song list, book list, and soundtrack musicians do not seem to add at all to the article.
    • The episodes section does not have any text beyond a link to the list of fraggle rock episodes. There should be some summary text that goes in this section to discuss the episodes.
    • The lead section is quite good but some of the issues discussed in it are not addressed in the article (ratings, critical acclaim, the vision of fraggle rock being an allegory to the real world) and should be expanded upon in the article
    • Some of the text consists of short and abrupt sentences which do not flow well together (such as section The television show).
    • The external links section has some fan sites (but maybe these are full of useful information). At 6 sites (half of which are not fan sites) seems fine for the article.

    Good luck improving the aricle. I think it needs some more work before it should be considered for GA status. Biomedeng (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of unrecognized countries

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it just needs a bit more criticism before it is ready for a WP:FLC.


    Thanks, Gary King (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Epbr123 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Like this (see imaghe to right): --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrecognized countries
    Red indicates no recognition
    Yellow indicates limited recognition
    Green indicates majority recognition

    PeterSymonds | talk 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The map is inaccurate though; it doesn't include the unrecognized countries, it includes the countries they're rebelling from. I very much doubt Georgia and Azerbaijan and Sri Lanka and Moldova are wholly unrecognized. --Golbez (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will change the wording to something more explanatory, but I will not change the map because there is really no other way to indicate which countries have regions within them that are unrecognized. I'm showing which countries have regions that are unrecognized, not which regions are unrecognized. I suck at drawing :) Gary King (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Principal and the Pauper

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.

    Added a notice at talkpages of WP:DOH, WP:COMEDY, WP:US-TOON, WP:TV.

    The Principal and the Pauper was successfully reviewed and listed as a Good Article on February 4, 2008, and has remained stable since then. It is part of the Featured Topic, The Simpsons (season 9). I have started this Peer Review, in order to elicit suggestions about anything else that could be done to improve the article further, and/or comments if you feel it is ready for WP:FAC just yet, as the article moves along in the quality process. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This line bugs me: "In the original draft, there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and would have made all of the difference in the episode. However, they were cut for time." It is cited, but the cite is to the DVD commentary which, of course, is vapor to anyone who does not own the DVD set. I would like to know what those "two sentences" were, if they were so crucial to the structure of the episode. Tantalizing the reader like this is foul play. Also, the last paragraph of the article, "Legacy", is awkwardly written and needs work. And finally, though the negative reaction to the episode is well detailed, would it really hurt so much to just come out and truthfully say that the episode is pure crap? (wink wink) --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, I think perhaps Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) would be the best one to address most of that stuff, though I could work on rewording the last paragraph of the article, "Legacy". Cirt (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Keeler doesn't say what the two lines were. He says they would have made all the difference, but then says he can't remember what the were. -- Scorpion0422 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case then inclusion of the comment seems pointless. IMO. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-automated peer review

    </noinclude>

    Aang

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This article just passed GA after its fourth nomination. I think the article has come a long way. The article has had previous peer reviews, but since the main problems with the article have remained the same until now, all of the reviews (with the exception of a comment by User:Figureskatingfan) have not been helpful whatsoever. Now that the article is fixed and is now in out-of-universe context for the most part, I would really like some serious comments on the article's quality so maybe it can be nominated for FA someday. Thanks, Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, I like this article, but it needs some things to me in order to be eligible to feature:
      • The section titles need to be rethought, particularly for the H2 "Avatar" section, both for itself and for the H3 sub-sections. It's a little ambiguous and not descriptive enough to guide the reader as to the topic of the section. Maybe simply changing the section title to "Avatar skills" or something, rather than simplly "Avatar" would be apropriate.
        • Done - I fixed the section titles in the Avatar section. I hope everything is better now.
      • The second half of the "bending" paragraph and most of the "medium" sescion is underreferenced.
        • Done - The bending paragraph is linked to capacity. Any seemingly unreferenced statements are actually referenced by the citation in the next sentence or two. As for the medium section, I completely rewrote the section.
      • The lead is underreferenced.
        • Done - I added some more references. However, I did not think the topic sentence needed to be referenced (as it is not in any other article).
      • The "Reception" section needs to be clarified, expanded and referenced. As a note, the response from parents is probably of the least critical importance. Priarily, you'd be looking at the watching demographic, and then reviewers and advertisers, while finally in the case of a pre-adolescent TV program, you may look at the responses by those who should control the viewing habits of the target demog. Using the word "especially" is a HUGE ask to leave in the article. I believe it needs to go altogether, since it's a very stsrong word, and even moreso, the statement is left unreferenced, so be very careful.
        • Partially Done - As of now, I removed the statement about the parents because, as you said, it is generally not necessary and of little importance. In addition, the statement is speculation. However, I have yet to expand and reference the section. I expanded the section a little bit. Unfortunately, there is not much more information.
      • Hair color: Dark Brown (When not shaven). I would prefer to simpl state "Dark Brown (generally shaven)", as this gives the reader a clearer perception of the character, and is in a more appropriate use of the english language.
        • Done - Replaced old phrase with new suggested one. You are right, it does make sense to say that his hair is generally shaven.
      • Inuniverse style: a few places really dwell on character information for too long, considering the reader ought to generally have it reminded that it's a work of fiction they're reading about.
        • Done - I found the most in-universe context in the Avatar abilities section. However, there were some in other sections so I fixed them too. Hopefully, it is up to standard now.
      • Lead: needs some expansion. The three paragraphs in there all need to be doubled in size. It can easily be done by noting out-universe things, such as "Aang, being the central characer for the program, has appeared in all episodes of the show, beginning with its pilot "The Boy in the Iceberg". You mention Aang as "comic relief" and as a "reluctant hero". These are both speculative terms. I'm not saying its wrong to say so, but it's not reinforced by the body of the article (with the info about reluctant heroism being only hinted at again in the artile's characteristics section VERY briefly), and most importantly, it's not sourced, either in the article nor in the lead.
        • Partially Done - I removed one of the speculative statements, as it is not necessarily true, and I sourced the other. The lead has yet to be expanded. I expanded the lead and referenced a bit more. Hope its OK now.
    • I hope these observaions help you. Once you'vev tackled these things, I'll gt back to you if anything else jumps out at me. --rm 'w avu 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed all of the problems to the best of my ability. Now the article has really come a long way since B-class. It is really starting to develop into a full article. Please leave comments if anything else is wrong or if you have more comments. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC Young Musician of the Year

    [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 progress it to FL eventually, and would like to request some feedback before it does there. I'm willing to make changes if they're in the best interests of the article, so any reasonable issues will be addressed quickly.


    Thanks, Qst (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting this has a feature page up right now. --Vergency (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lancia LC2

    [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 thinking of nominating it for GA, but would like some review of it first before I submit it.


    Thanks, The359 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4u1e's comments

    Just random stuff:

    • For a general audience you may need to give more detail on what things like factory team, Group C, Group 6 etc mean. Suggest in the lead you just refer to the 'recently introduced 'Group C' regulations', rather than mentioning Group 6 and the LC1.
     Not done I attempted to try and explain factory team, although I guess it is hard to describe. Intro changed to just say that the LC2 was their first car in the new Group C regulations. I'm not sure if I can really explain Group 6, since it was a bit of a wide-open class, but the premise behind Group C is there.
    Looks better now. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'managed only three victories' - I think I may just have my NPOV-o-meter turned up too high, but I get twitchy when I see the word 'managed' and the word 'only'. Perhaps replace with 'won three of the X races it competed in'?
     Done Changed it to that the LC2 earned three victories to eliminate NPOV potential.
    • I would personally give a little more background on the introduction of Group C at the start of 'Development', to give context, but you may feel that is too much.
     Not done I'm not really sure if an explanation of the shift from Group 6 to Group C can be done in a concise manner, except for possibly simply saying that Group C was introduced in an attempt to level the playing field.
    A one-liner as you suggest (an attempt by the FIA to level the playing field) would be good - it just gives some idea of where this came from. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Added a statement that Group C was intented as a method to equalize manufacturers and teams.
    • de-stroked is probably jargon. 'reduce the capacity of'?
     Done I had added the term destroked the other day, and had been looking up how to link it to an article, but it appears we have no article on destroking, so I'll agree it is jargon.
    • 'destroked to 2.6 litres to increase fuel economy, while two KKK turbochargers were added for power.' This feels a bit wrong - how about 'Two KKK turbochargers were fitted to a reduced capacity version of the engine to provide the required combination of fuel economy and power.'?
     Done Changed to say that the engine was reduced and turbochargers were added to provide the fuel economy and power necessary.
    • You should give U.S. conversions for units.
     Done Forgot that bit.
    • I think there's something missing from this sentence: 'At the rear, a pontoon-style design was adapted, with the large wing bridging the gap and the rear diffusers exiting from below the car.' What gap is the large wing bridging?
     Done Another bit of a hard one, I had figured that pontoon inherently meant that there was space inbetween, but it is not always completely empty. I think I've made it a bit better now.

    I'll come back with more comments. Hope these are useful. 4u1e (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you much for this so far. No rush in adding any more, I know you have other work to do. The359 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No trouble. Further comments:

    • Are you sure you want 1 decimal place for cubic inches? I know that technically you've matched the number of decimal places in the original figure, but since litres are roughly two orders of magnitude bigger than cubic inches, it's perhaps not appropriate.
     Done My mistake, I haven't used those auto conversion templates much so I wasn't quite sure what the 1 was for.
    • I would wikilink the 1983 season again at the start of the '1983' section. I know it's already linked in the lead, but that's a semi-separate piece, and the link would be useful here. Definitely link the seasons that are not linked in the lead (1984 and 1985) in the main text.
     Done
    • tire or tyre? My favourite argument :) It's not as clear cut here as it often is for F1, which has on average been dominated by British teams. I've read somewhere that European English, representing an Italian team, sponsor and (mostly) drivers, follows UK English for spelling, but I don't know if that's the case in practice.
     Done Yeah, honest mistake there. I tend to use Tyre on my results templates, but forgot it here.
    • 1000km Monza or 1000km of Monza? The article is called the former, but refers to the latter in the text.
    I personally have preferred to use Distance of Location, such as in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. I brought up this problem with WP:SCR since some of the classic 1000km events had already been written, suggesting they be changed to "1000km of Monza" and such. However, there was no consensus, with the debate being that "1000km Monza" or "Monza 1000km" is the more popular usage in Europe, apparently. So the articles remain withou of, but I always tend to put it in the articles I write.
    Without wanting to be parochial, this is en.wiki, so it should follow the common usage in the English language. Is Monza 1000km/1000km Monza more common in English in Europe? You can always pipe it from here of course to use your preferred spelling. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about it further, I'd be happier with 'Monza 1000km', which I do see sometimes, than '1000km Monza', which I don't recall having seen. But I still suspect 1000km of Monza is even more common. 4u1e (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'and the second car lost twelve laps to the winning 956' It finished 12 laps down, or it lost 12 laps with a problem? If the latter suggest you specify the problem, if the former, I think the wording needs to change to be clear.
     Done Finished 12 laps down, not sure if it all happened at once (I assume not, they likely backed off towards the end to have enough fuel to finish).
    • Any idea why Lancia skipped Fuji etc in 1984 - were they competing in the Euro championship again?
    There was no European Championship after 1983, so their reason for skipping Fuji is unknown, except maybe to save cost or because they were already statistically eliminated from the championships.
    OK, if it's not known best to leave it. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • '1985 became a year in which Martini Racing needed to show etc' Did it 'become' such a year, or was it such a year from the start? What changed during the year to make this the case?
     Done Was, due to the lack of success in the first two years.
    • I may just have learned an intolerance from user:Tony1, but I'm finding that there are a lot of words like 'actually',' ever' and 'managed' that can be cut from the text without changing its meaning. The theory is that this makes the text more concise and to the point. I've had a go at some of it, but there may be more opportunities to do this.
    I agree, I probably do it too much, they seem to just fit too naturally in my writing. I'll try to think of some alternatives.
    I do it too. I tend to write horrendously long at the first attempt and I have to work at being concise, unfortunately. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lancia was or Lancia were? Either version is acceptable, but it should probably be consistent.
     Done I've attempted to change it to Lancia were (as well as several instances of LC2s were, rather than LC2 was, since there were multiple LC2s).
    • What has happened to the Lancia machines since? Are they competing in historic events, for example?
    As far as I know two were used in historics in the US, but I believe one was sold and checking the major Group C organisations, none are currently running. I'll try and dig some info up though on how many were used in historics and such (the US HSR series website is down at the moment it seems).
    • Nothing wrong with online refs, but is there any chance of getting hold of some hardcopy ones?
    Unfortunately I lack any sort of sports car texts, beyond official race programs for the past few 24 Hours of Daytona (AKA, not much help). They're rather expensive and I spend enough on my diecast hobby as it is. However, looking through the WP:Motorsport library, I did notice that you and Diniz have the Autocourse annuals for the 1983 through 1986 period, which did cover the World Championship, so some tidbits might be available in there if you can find some.
    D'oh! Thank you for pointing that out, 4u1e misses the bleedin' obvious once again. I'll have a look and get back to you.

    Nice clean article, which I have enjoyed looking at. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comparison with Autocourse

    I'm reading through again and comparing with the 83/84/85 Autocourses. All seems pretty consistent; I'm tweaking where it seems useful and will try to ref to the books in a few places, more for the look of the thing than because there're any real differences. Some further thoughts:

    • The team field is not showing up in the infobox - any idea why? Also, should the Jolly Club be listed there? Apparently they ran a car in 1984.
    I initially listed all the teams (Mirabella Racing, Jolly Club, Sponsor Guest Team, Veneto Equipe), but those teams apparently only ran about 5-6 races ever with their LC2s. Mussato on the other hand ran races over several seasons, and Dollop ran nearly an entire season as well. I simply eliminated the teams which did not run much for the sake of space. I did the same with some of the drivers as well.
    Fair enough. 4u1e (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it correct to list Gian Paolo Dallara as the only designer? Autocourse lists Gianni Tonti as Chief Engineer (different roles, I know) in 1983 and Pierpaolo Messori as filling the role in 1984 "[affecting] more aerodynamic improvements..." Claudio Lombardi did the job in '85. It seems the Lancia Chief Engineers were responsible for development of the original car.4u1e (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed Dallara simply because he was the only one I saw listed in an actual designing role on any of the sources, although I too debated whether "designer" covers those who develop the mechanical bits as well. I'm not sure if chief engineers would be considered those who design the mechanicals though.
    On reflection, probably not. It probably just seems odd because in effect Lancia bought the chassis in from Dallara. I think I'm expecting to see a Lancia in-house designer who just doesn't exist. 4u1e (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd guess there might have been a Lancia in-house designer, or at least someone involved in the design, but his name simply can't be found at the moment. The359 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciate the aid of Autocourse. There's actually some video reviews of WSC races online that I have been able to watch, but they lack any sourcing information (I have no clue who made the video or what it is even called), and I can't link to copyrighted material, so I can't use that as another source unfortunately. The359 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tel Aviv

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This article has had two recent failed FA nominations - I think it has got close but it just isnt quite there. One reviewer has said it is POV, and others have picked up on other issues in it. Hopefully I can have some help identifying these issues in more detail and someone can work with me to rectify them and bring this article up to FA status.


    Thanks, Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Costello Music

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Somebody who has since vanished and I got this up to GA. Would like comments for the final push to FA, if anyone has any thoughts :) Thanks! -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Primetime Emmy Award winners

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This list is comprehensive and accurate, but I would like some general article feedback before bringing it to FLC. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments from MeegsC:

    • The lead needs work. Currently, it's a series of single-sentence paragraphs (in fact, the first "sentence" isn't even a grammatical sentence), and it's pretty disjointed. It will also need in-line referencing.
    • Don't forget that this encyclopedia is read by people from outside the US; don't assume prior knowledge by your reader, and don't make them link to another article to learn even the bare basics of what you're talking about! What's an Emmy? In which country are they given? Who gives them out, and for what? Link the TV stations.
    • The year listing gets quite hard to interpret, as each year's "space" can vary dramatically (e.g. see 1959 v. 1968). Given that some series span multiple years (when they've won multiple years in a row), it becomes a real mess occasionally (e.g. 1966–69). I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think it will pass FLC as is!
    • The web reference needs a better title than "www.emmy.org".

    Hope this helps! MeegsC | Talk 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beckton Gas Works

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because… the article has gone through substantial development by a relatively new editor, and he needs to be given some indication of how his work fits into the wikipedia quality process.

    Thanks, Kbthompson (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The principal editor would benefit from feedback on:

    Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from MeegsC: A few notes to start, with more to come...

    • The lead is far too short. It should summarize the basic points of the article.
    • Eliminate as many 1-2 sentence paragraphs as possible. Can they be expanded, or combined with other paragraph?
    • Popular culture sections are generally discouraged, but at a minimum, you should convert the list of bullet points into proper paragraphs. And all the items in this section would need in-line referencing.
    • The assertion that the "Beckton Alps" is the highest artificial hill in London needs a reference.

    MeegsC | Talk 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that, very useful comments. I'll drawer the editor's attention to the review. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crawley

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

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

    It has been improved significantly through a lengthy collaboration between myself (Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)) and another user, Tafkam. Crawley is an important town in South-East England, but before the rewrite, which took place in userspace, its article was stub-like, listy and messy. (Diff dated 30 August 2007.) Since the rewrite (first diff), the article has been stable and has had more content added as per WP:UKGEO's style guide to writing about UK settlements. The intention is to seek FA status after this review, but as neither of us have attempted this for an article before, we would appreciate guidance on tone, layout, use of images (too many...?) and length (too long? Too much detail in some sections? Should some be split off into separate articles?).[reply]

    Thanks, Tafkam and Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry it has taken me a long time for this. Here's a first set of things to look at. I'll be coming back with a second set at some point. Apologies if I've asked about something that is explained or has since been fixed but I've partly read various versions of the article through the last week and not checked what the changes have been.

    • Are the districts that Crawley is next to really so vital to the article that they need mentioning in the intro?
    →I'll move to the Geography section.Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Although the area was inhabited from the Stone Age onwards' - does this imply that it isn't inhabited any more? How about 'Has been inhabited'? Also has the inhabitation been continous?
    Reworded to clarify, although I'll need a source to confirm continuous habitation. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Tafkam (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The area was designated as the site of one of the "new towns" proposed by the New Towns Act 1946, however, and rapid development ensued' - why 'however'?
    →In contrast to its slow and steady growth to that point; but I agree, it's not really needed.Reworded. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When were the 3 places absorbed, soon after 1946 or more recently?
    →Three Bridges was very soon after; Ifield was also fairly early; Pound Hill was quite late (1970s/1980s).Wording added to reflect this. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1st link to Horsham is to the district the 2nd is to the town yet both passages are refering to the district. Probably only the 1st is needed.
    Done. One mention was moved to the Geography section; have linked the other mention to the Horsham District article. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has the expansion been planned with Horsham because the town extends beyond the districts borders?
    →I think it's because it will encroach into Horsham District territory if it goes ahead. Can check.
    It will be entirely outside the Crawley borough boundaries as they currently stand... but immediately bordering the town. Not sure how we can cite that,save for showing a map maybe?
    Added sentence from the existing source to describe this, but not sure if more detail is needed, as Tafkam says. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who awarded the coat of arms and who chose the motto?
    →Have expanded this section, although I can't find any reference to exactly who chose the motto. I have provided an explanation of its origin, though. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why have the same image twice? I do like the large number of images though, much better than a lot of town articles. I might crop some of them, the one of Woodfield Road has a lot of sky that doesn't add a lot to it for example.
    →The duplication occurred recently when another editor put the Queen's Square pic in the infobox and didn't remove it from its original position. I'll remove one of them.
    Replaced with another, of The Boulevard, and a further image added. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Crawley poulation graph's text does not come out well on my screen. Could this be redone so the text comes out better at the size it will display at?
    Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture captioned 'The remains of Lowfield Heath village, looking east towards St Michael's church.' does not look like the remains of anything. The church looks fairly intact although you can hardly see it. I assume that the Travelodge is not one of the remains!
    →I'll amend the caption. Lowfield Heath is a weird place and very difficult to get a decent photo of because of its strange, squashed-in layout. The church is theoretically still open, but in reality is partly derelict. Hopefully there are some sources out there.
    Caption reworded, although I think the whole Lowfield Heath section needs work. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All either delinked or linked via alternative relevant wikilink. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the annex built in the middle of the street? How did people use the street after this? Was it the annex or the original inn that became the George Hotel?
    →I believe it was in the middle of the street. (It's an incredibly wide high street.) The original building is the modern hotel, I'm pretty sure. Will check and source.
    Your belief is correct. Best sources are probably photographs from books... can these be cited?
    • Should the church be "St John the Baptist's"?
    Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did nothing much happen in Crawley in the Middle Ages then? Are there population figures or anything to at least give an idea of how it grew through time?
    • 'The locally-famous Longley family' - if it is worth mentioning them it is worth mentioning why they are or were locally famous. Was the expansion in housebuilding related to the Longleys setting up business?
    →Yes, they were a prominent local building firm. I think I have info in one of my Crawley books.Reworded to give an idea of their prominence. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map of West Sussex is fairly meaningless to people who don't already know the area very well. Could we have the names of the other areas shown? Or dots for towns? Or main roads or rivers?
    →I'll see what other maps are already available; otherwise I can get somebody at WP:UKGEO to do a bespoke one.
    The Dutch article on Crawley does this slightly better by having both the country and local maps next to each other. I've not checked if this infobox supports this. JMiall₰ 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left the map showing the borough, but have added to the infobox a "dot map" showing the town within the county and the county within England. This might not be an ideal solution, as it makes the infobox quite long. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the text in New Town section could do with a bit of work. I was wondering if I was being too picky but as there are several such as 'and then more widely' - what does this mean?, 'original proposals for a population of 40,000 were insufficient to match the growth of the town' - firstly it has already been said it was planned to go to 50,000 in 1949 but also if the growth of the town was down to the plan then how was the town growing beyond the plan? Was it just that there was a lot of demand to live in the area (i.e. houses were filling up as soon as they were built) so the planners decided to make the town bigger than they had origianlly envisaged?
    →Will thoroughly edit this section (I hadn't really touched it since writing it originally). From memory, there were two conflicting sources on the projected population: one said 40,000 and the other 50,000. Demand for housing was immense: your phrase above covers the situation pretty well.
    • 'the Hawth', is this an area of town, road?
    →It's a local name. I've found a source: "The Hawth gets its name from a local pronunciation of the word 'heath', an area of rough grazing not suitable for general farming use. The name then became associated with the wooded area in which the theatre is situated." (Link) I'll put this in soon.
    • Did Crawley not have any of those public services before the 60s then? Wouldn't they have been in the original plan as they'd be fairly essential for a town of this size?
    • Were all residents permitted to buy their houses from the outset? How about putting the council owned sentence earlier. JMiall₰ 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your comments, JMiall — they are extremely helpful. I'll be addressing this first set of points over the course of the week. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added a few notes. Will try to find some evidence to support some of the thornier points at some point! Tafkam (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Back for chunk 2, still lots more to go...

    • 'the slimmest majority as of the 2005 General Election' - 'majority of the' I would guess unless you are expecting the situation to change soon.
    Rewritten. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (this may be a bit nitpicky but) wouldn't the geological beds actually meet beneath the town?
    Word changed. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The land to the south of the town, in the then much extended Tilgate Forest, saw the discovery of the first bone of an Iguanodon in 1822, near Cuckfield' - this is a horrible sentence. Put the date before the 'then' and all the location bits together.
    See below. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any other significant dinosaur finds nearby? The 1st Iguanadon discovery sounds quite significant, maybe this should be extended to a paragraph or more.
    I have overcome both points by significantly extending the paragraph to include more info about the discovery, and something about the subsequent discovery (also in Tilgate Forest) and naming of the Hylaeosaurus. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the climate template and have seen a few of these recently. I'm particularly interested as I put together something like this myself not too long back choosing colours fairly randomly. Is there a standard colour scheme for these somewhere? If not then I'd argue that 16degC is hardly dark-orange temperatures and 3.8 hardly white.
    I based it on the one in the Weymouth article — although just looking at it again, some of the colours don't match up. There are a few listed in the . I think the Weymouth example was the first one used on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a standard colour scheme. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'the street name is displayed in black on a white background, with a coloured strip below it bearing the name of the neighbourhood in white text.' - I don't think you need this
    Removed that clause. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Neighbourhoods of Crawley table is not necessarly below the map
    Removed "below". Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the population is a bit different in age to the county (and country?) it may be informative to show population pyramids for both these, again if the info is easily available.
    • 'Plans were soon in place' - what, soon after it became a market town?
    Rewritten to clarify. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'the rapid growth of Gatwick Airport provided further opportunities' - for what? I think the language in this whole section could do with tightening up. For example you would expect any industry to encompass newer technologies to some extent with time. Did Crawley's do it to a particularly large amount?
    Changed the sentence to emphasise the impact of the airport. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Unemployment has been historically low in the (new?) town, during the boom of the 1980s the town boasted the lowest level of unemployment in the UK.[53] and had rates at around 1.47% of the working-age population in 2003.[54]' - I think this is a better ordering of these 2 sentences.
    Reordered and slightly rewritten. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'However, there are some discrepancies' - however again! What is this however about? We've just been told about the lo w unemployment rates so presumably there are reasonable numbers of vacancies then it is mentioned that an area with the most vacancies is a discrepancy.
    Removed whole sentence. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JMiall₰ 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alto saxophone

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
    Contrabass saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Bass saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Baritone saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Tenor saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Alto saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Soprano saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Sopranino saxophone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    We have here a series of seven articles which are all, in essence, subarticles of Saxophone. What I would like to know (because of course there's no featured-topic potential here :D) is how editors think these articles should relate to the main saxophone article. What should be included on each page? What should repeated from the main article? What shoudl not be duplicated? Comments on the parallel peer review for saxophone would also be greatly appreciated. Happy‑melon 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • A quick suggestion, especially if you're considering aiming for featured topic, is to have a similar format for each of these articles, i.e. section headings and content. I'll let you decide what's the logical format, but some ideas are already in tenor saxophone and baritone saxophone. The importance of some sections will obviously vary depending on the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Saxophone

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This FFA was completley rewritten around information from the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and the other sources present in the article. After realising that inline citations were ridiculous, it was converted to a largely bibliography-based referencing system, which permitted it to pass GA review. I'd like to know what needs to be done to get it back to featured status, particularly with consideration to referencing and additional content. I know a lot of (unsourced) information about specific composers and pieces using the saxophone was removed during the rewrite (here's a pre-rewrite version), and I simply dumped the entire "technique" section into saxophone technique, which is now a complete mess. Does some of this stuff need to be worked back in, or is it better off in the gutter? Happy‑melon 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, this article regretfully needs a great deal of work, which is sadly like most musical instruments on Wikipedia. Generally speaking it's underreferenced, but a few lines stick out to me: "It is suspected that Sax himself may have attempted this modification." Who suspects this? Everyybody? Saxophonists? Specialists? Writers? We need to know who suspects this, and very much need a source that verifies it. If it's annotated in one of the books that's listed in references, we need a footnote-reference indicating the page. "This extension was adopted into almost all modern designs." This is split-tense prose. It either should be "has been adopted" or "was adopted into most designs of the time" (or something to that effect). There are a number of other things which I don't have time for now, but tonight, I'll thoroughly scour through and see what I can help you with. In the meantime, just try to reference anything that potentially needs it. The line about Jazz being the most common use of Sax definitely needs citation, even though there's no real question about it, it's still a very BIG statement to just be sitting there with the reference not being pointed out (even if it is in one of the footnoted references, one is not going to read them all to figure out where it is confirmed. I know I'm not). I'll be back. --rm 'w avu 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious why the in-line citations set-up didn't work for you. Surely, a line like this is begging for a citation or, perhaps, a non-NPOV tag: By far the most well known, and iconic, implementation of the saxophone is in modern jazz music, usually in the form of a saxophone quartet or larger ensemble. That's just one example. I see the editor above has a similar concern. I'm also curious what is the reasoning for the forced ToC. Personally, I would recommend removing that, and moving the image of Adolphe Sax to the right so that he is facing into the article (as is the policy in the Manual of Style). Anyway, like the editor above me, what will likely keep this article from passing FA is the lack of referencing. Consider some of the more recently-passed FA articles: Harold Innis, Emily Dickinson, Atom, Hockey Hall of Fame. Hope that helps. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liverpool F.C. seasons

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is my intention to get this article to FL status I feel the list is capable of meeting the criteria, and is based on other lists of this nature such as Manchester United F.C. seasons. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Peanut4

    [edit]
    • Nearly at FL status. Just a few things to look at:
      • I'd be tempted to create an abbrevation for the Lancashire League (LL?) and add the full league name in the key to narrow that column.
      • The others column needs tidying up. Either split the competition and progress into two sub-columns as per recent seasons articles, or at the very least certainly swap the dash for endashes and finish off those missing dashes.
      • Some of the refs need sorting
        • 8 and 9 are inconsistent (looking at later ones, I presume 8 is wrong)
        • 13 needs a full stop at the end
        • As do 17 and 19 maybe?
        • 21 needs round 3 changing to round three (or Round Three as per key)
    • Think thats it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found one more thing.

    quick comments from Struway2

    [edit]
    • very strongly suggest you look at recently-featured seasons lists (Leeds United and Bradford City spring to mind) for some formatting tips, and at Leeds peer review, which was very much a community effort, for discussions/explanations. In particular, the Europe column needs splitting into two (comp name, and round reached), and only the round reached wants colouring where appropriate (see Leeds 1970-71 for example). Winners and Runners-up can be abbreviated to W and RU to reduce column widths.
    • 1968-9 league posn should be 2nd not runners-up
    • your prose needs a bit of a copyedit for grammar/punctuation.

    at first glance it doesn't need much doing to it, I'll have a proper look later, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vengeance (2005)

    [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 for the article to be a professional wrestling Good Article. Any helpful feedback, would most be appreciated.

    Thanks, Zenlax T C S 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good, just want to watch out for a few things.
    1)The dates like "May23rd" you should change to -->May 23 2005 that way you can wikilink the date. Zenlax T C S 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2)With that, you should wikilink dates. Zenlax T C S 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3)Also consider covering a third feud in the BG section. Zenlax T C S 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --TrUCo9311 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good good, lastly I would recommend having someone copy edit the article, and also wait for the automated peer review. Then we shall see how it goes from there.TrUCo9311 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did a copyedit of the article, and I noticed a couple of things that need fixing.

    • You alternate between RAW and Raw. Shouldn't they all be written with the lowercase letters? If not always, there are certainly times were all caps are used when they shouldn't be.
    Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence makes no sense grammatically: "The last moment in the match saw Jericho dodge an Unprettier by Christian, which resulted in Christian being thrown directly to Cena, who was prompted directly onto Cena's shoulder and Cena retaining the WWE title, after he pinned Christian with an FU." Perhaps dividing into two sentences would help. I was going to fix it myself, but I didn't watch the match, so I thought I might mess up the meaning so that it was incorrect.
    How 'bout now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck. Nikki311 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of football clubs in England by major honours won

    [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 did a couple of edits on this today, and kept on going. I reckon it could be close to being FLC now, and wanted to find out what else is needed to push for featured list status. The only glaring omissin I can see is a few more refs to those clubs without an honours page on their official websites.


    Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Here's a few points:

    • In the second sentence I wouldn't say "clubs who have", I dunno if it is technically grammatically correct but it sounds wrong (to me at any rate) given that clubs are not people.
    • The FA Cup was first competed for in the 1871-72 season, not 1872 specifically
    • Maybe clarify that the Cup Winners Cup is no longer competed for?

    All looks good other than that....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Some things to consider:

    That's about it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Few odds and ends:

    • The 3rd para might read better if structured differently. Perhaps move the UEFA and CWC sentences to directly after the first sentence. Then the As of 2006-07, 32 English teams..., then Four sides winning the European Cup.
    • As the Fairs Cup was never a UEFA competition, they would tell you that the UEFA Cup and the Fairs Cup aren't the same thing at all, although it's only in the past very few years that they've rewritten history to claim as much. Could write it The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, which was succeeded by the UEFA Cup in 1972(?? or 1971), was founded two weeks after the European Cup.
    • Don't think you can disband the CWC. Discontinued? maybe add a clause saying it was merged into the UEFA Cup?
    • Column layout. The long heading CWC/FC/UC followed by the sort button stretches that column to well over 100px wide. Can get round that by introducing a line break before the UC, makes the heading a little untidy but it keeps the column widths the same. Though 100px is too wide on a 1024px width screen, bring it down to 80 for the number columns and it looks tidier and stops the clubnames (except Wolves, obviously) wrapping. Maybe percentages rather than pixels would be better for specifying the column widths, that way you don't have issues with smaller screen sizes.
    • In the references, I'd have specified the publisher as Template F.C. rather than Template official website, on the basis I see the F.C. as the publisher and the official website as the published work, but I wouldn't bother going back to change them.
    • Did you know that the recommended format for the date parameter in {{Cite news}} etc is ISO unwikilinked, the same as the accessdate? I didn't, until recently. I wouldn't bother going back to change them, either.

    hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers for your help. I've amended the lead per the first three. Going to try on the second par now. I think I understand what you mean about the column widths, but can't really test to make sure it's right. How does it look now?
    The CWC/FC/UC column was still being stretched to a different width from the others due to the absolute width of the heading, so I've introduced a line break and now those columns appear all the same width. See what you think, please feel free to revert or fiddle.
    I've completed the references using FCHD. Any other comments or suggestions? Peanut4 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine to me, though I'm not sure External links need an access date. Noticed it was UEFA used the word "disband", of the Cupwinners Cup, still wouldn't have thought a cup competition was the sort of thing you could disband. If you'd like some prose to pull apart, I recommend List of Birmingham City F.C. managers which is available for peer review here, not that I'm canvassing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry and the Potters discography

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because… it has failed to achieve featured list status twice, it also went through two peer review before with nothing but semi-automated comments. I would like to know how I can improve the article, so that it meets the featured list criteria. Length has been addressed and now am wondering how it can become "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" - I believe it requires third-party sources, though I am not certain. I am looking for any suggestions about improving the article, generally meeting the criteria or if you would be so kind, directly editing the article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's what I came across; all the dates are not uniform, some have "Month Year" others "Month Day, Year" and still yet "mm/dd/yyyy". Those all need to be the same. Under live albums, for how short the section is demonstrtive pronouns are used too much, that section also needs to all be in the same tense except for the part about the availability of download. The other sections are extremely...useless. I suggest either replacing that section with album covers, or greatly expanding those sections. Finally, the not released section is outdated. The link which goes with "The Wrath of Hermione" brings me straight to the song. Hope that was helpful. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot change the format of the dates, as Harry and the Potters are an independent band and release dates are not kept or recorded, it is however suitable for Internet Archive albums where the recording date is. The live albums section, now changed to the Internet Archive albums section has been edited and uses the sentence structure of that in Tenacious D discography. The other sections are not useless and album covers cannot be placed in discographies as it is against copyright issues, also they cannot be expanded anymore. I have changed the reference on the Unreleased songs section as it did link straight to the song. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anemospilia

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because i think it would be better for everyone to suggest changes, i re wrote most of the article from scratch and i wanted people to help improve it.

    Thanks, Tom.mevlie (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Great work here but I do have a couple suggestions. First, consider using inline citations (see WP:CITE or footnotes; it'll give the article a bit more heft. Consider adding a few more wikilinks too, as per WP:BUILD. Also, now that the article has some bulk to it, consider expanding the intro per WP:LEAD. I'd also suggest that many of your sections are very short. Consider combining each of the sections on the chambers into one main section, and each "wing", if you will, as subsections. The biggest problem in this article is the "conclusion" - it screams original research, which is a definite no-no (it also makes it sound like it's written like a high school essay). If you need more specific comments, feel free to ask. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter de Coventre

    [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 peer comment (but don't expect it) and because I want the bot to go over it. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article does a good job of establishing how little we know about this person and I think it offers just the right amount of context for his life. Haukur (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first question I had was: Is this Scots for Coventry?; the answer is a definite maybe, but it took a while to find. The second sentence is Born perhaps in the early 14th century from a family near Abernethy, Scotland, but it's not only the birthdate that's uncertain (and from the data, the early 14th century is relatively certain). Perhaps something like There is no direct evidence on his birthdate, his family, or their origin; there are some theories. with a link to the family and origins section?
    • I still dislike "×" in an article intended for general readers; but some of these are less obviously replaceable. Perhaps
      • Between 1333 and 1335: Granted Licentiate in the Arts
      • By 1345: Obtained Abernethy canonry and prebend
      • Between 1348 and 1351: Exchanged Abernethy canonry and prebend
    and so on. I think the Abernethy line is the only one that would need division, and the remodeled version does contain one more scrap of information.
    • I do prefer and to the slash (which is ambiguous to readers who are not quite sure what a prebend is) even in tables. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad relations is a touch weak for an endemic state of war. Scots humour, I presume? (Most readers won't get it.)
    • Either at some later stage in 1370 or else in early 1371, Walter de Coventre died. This is known because on April 27, 1372, the Pope provided Andrew Magnus to the vacant bishopric of Dunblane. Try Walter de Coventre must have died later in 1371 or in very early 1372; because on April 27, 1372, the Pope provided Andrew Magnus to the vacant bishopric of Dunblane. (In fact I'll do that. If the typo is in the other direction, please fix; but the tightness makes it more readable.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technicalities: accession parliament, provided, outside the papal curia.
      • These are from the same paragraph, and there may be others. I am not advocating a purge, but I am not convinced our general approach should be to compel the reader to understand 14th century language in church or state. In general, it is our job to understand it, and then to explain it to him. The following are questions; I'm not sure the answers are yes:
        • Is it worth lengthening the sentence to say "parliament at his accession", with link?
        • How much do we lose by saying appointed instead of provided?
        • The present text translates as not in attendance at the papal court, which is good; but would it be simpler to say: He was not in attendance at the papal court when he died (or even He did not die at Rome, unlike many ecclesiastics.) and put "outside the papal curia" in the footnote, with the source we are quoting? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cockburn thought it came from the English Coventry ... i.e. that the de Coventre family were English or Anglo-Norman immigrants ... something I guess supported by their use of Norman forenames. Watt, more of an expert, thought it came from that place call Coventre (etc) near Abernethy, which is probably more likely as all the signs are that he was from that area. No idea if that place is linked to the English Coventry or an independent name of Gaelic derivation. I didn't speculate as none of the sources do.
    • I don't think enough people have written 'bout old Walter to use the phrase "some theories". The only argumentation I saw was in Watt, who as he always does guestimates their rough birth-period by working back from their graduation ... i.e. people are usually of a certain age when they do that. It's a bit like ... though far from being exactly like ... a Scottish or American student graduating with their first degree ... you can guess pretty accurately if they graduated in 2004, they were probaly born in the first half of the 1980s. I'll relook at the text and see what I can do.
    • I still dislike "×" in an article intended for general readers; but some of these are less obviously replaceable. Perhaps
      • Between 1333 and 1335: Granted Licentiate in the Arts
      • By 1345: Obtained Abernethy canonry and prebend
      • Between 1348 and 1351: Exchanged Abernethy canonry and prebend
    • and so on. I think the Abernethy line is the only one that would need division, and the remodeled version does contain one more scrap of information.'
    • My worry would be it'd make that box unwieldy ... but I'll do it and see. Probably won't be too bad, and prolly as you say worth doing to make the meaning more transparent to the non-historian.
    • I do prefer and to the slash (which is ambiguous to readers who are not quite sure what a prebend is) even in tables.
      Noted.
    • Bad relations is a touch weak for an endemic state of war. Scots humour, I presume? (Most readers won't get it.)
      Things we're that great in the Anglo-Scottish relations front of this time, 'tis true. It wasn't meant as humour though ... just to cover the whole timeframe when there were sometimes years of nominal peace.
    • outside the papal curia.
      The little interpretation of that I gave was me sort of guessing. I've assumed it means died outside the Roman court [at Avignon], and that seems pretty safe, but it is my assumption.

    Amsoil

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

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

    This article could use the addition of more editors to smooth out any NPOV disputes.

    Thanks, 75.56.56.244 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have archived this request as Peer Review is not for NPOV / dispute resolution. Perhaps a listing at WP:COI/N would be a better place to resolve this? I see it has also been suggested on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kinawa Middle School

    [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 know how I can improve my school's wikipedia page. I expanded it from a three sentence stub, and I am wondering if there is anything I could add to make it better.

    Thanks, Somekofootball (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - since this article is the subject of a WP:AfD, please wait to review it until the AfD is closed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cannon

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Hello. Cannon is the current main collaboration of the Tzatziki Squad, and some outside eyes may be quite helpful. The article is currently A-Class and is reasonably complete, but suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SGGH

    All I can see at the moment, the content is good, hence the lack of comment on it. Mainly nit-picks really, good article. SGGH speak! 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much for the feedback, I'll get right on it. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff, let me know if there is anything else. SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

    You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, good work, everyone!!!! About time for a Nom? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'd like to go over the article one more time and finish all that nitpicky stuff from Andonic's javascript, but it could be ready in under an hour. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's ready, should we wait for another opinion? Keilana|Parlez ici 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely not ready; a few things remain:
    1. Source everything (especially in the lead: each sentence should end with a reference).
    2. Copyedit at least three more times.
    3. Re-add dashes where appropriate (okay, so I overdid them: but J-stan and Keilana practically witch-hunted them out of extinction).
    · AndonicO Hail! 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK you're not meant to source the lead. I'll copyedit once more, you and J-Stan can do it once (we would be doing that anyways) and the dash-comma combination isn't grammatically correct. We could use a few, but they were kind of overused in earlier versions, in my opinion. Keilana|Parlez ici 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to source in the lead if it is already explicitly referenced in the text, unless it is an exceptional claim which would need referencing. I think you are OK with the lead to be honest, though I don't like the constant repitition of Cannon at the beginning of sentences. I also don't think AC/DC should be mentioned in the lead, there are far more important things that could be listed there. Frankly, I don't even see why it is in the article at all.
    I agree that another copyedit might be helpful, I saw a few run-on sentences and a couple of measurements that need nbsps. Other than that, it is looking good. A good example of summary style. I will take another deeper look soon. Woody (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO it's better to source the lead, since that's usually the first (or only, even) part of the article a reader reads. I've tidied up the lead a bit, per your suggestions. @Keilana: Dash/comma combination is correct, but I do agree that I tend to overuse it. I've added one back in that was correct. · AndonicO Hail! 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen a dash/comma deal before. Well, I'll check through it through the day, run it through Word, see if microsoft has any suggestions we could use. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know most users won't get past the lead, but those same users that only read the lead won't check the sources for the most part. Woody (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, hadn't thought of that. Well, I guess we'll just have to check that everything in the lead is sourced further down, instead. @J-stan: Don't use Word, the grammar suggestions there aren't always good... · AndonicO Hail! 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, btw, the MOS states that its actually bad practice to cite the lead... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Askari Mark

    Just a quick note on one weak area I encountered recently when wikilinking to this page: The use of “cannons” on military aircraft should be brought out more explicitly than a parenthetical pair of examples in the ‘Modern times’ subsection; it would be nice to have an overt subsection to link to. A picture of such a weapon mounted in an aircraft would be a plus. That same ‘Modern times’ paragraph would also benefit from further explanation of how such smaller-calibre weapons came to be called “cannons” (on fighters and tanks), particularly at a time when the term was being less and less used for artillery. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How does that look, so far (I'm not done yet, but I don't have time at the moment: someone feel free to have a go at it, while I return)? · AndonicO Hail! 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few changes last night, so please see what you think of them. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PR comments from EyeSerene

    Great article Keilana! Most of what I would have said is covered above, but I do have a few observations:

    I think the lead still needs some work as far as summarising the rest of the article goes. A good rule of thumb is that it should be possible to delete the rest of the article and, with just the lead, provide a reader with a good grasp of the article subject. You could get away with expanding it further ;) On the sourcing point, it's not really necessary to provide citations in the lead, because content should be sourced in the main article below where it's covered in more detail (exception: WP:BLP!).

    Also from the lead: "A cannon is a type of artillery...that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile over a distance." Using "gunpowder" in the definition is potentially confusing, especially as it's wikilinked to Gunpowder (which is basically black powder). Smokeless variants (eg Cordite) have been in use in cannons since the 18xx's - while technically still 'gunpowder', I think the distinction would be lost on the average lay-reader.

    A general copyedit would be useful, mainly to tighten up the prose and clarify the odd awkward sentence and typo. To give a couple of examples, the sentence "The Spanish Kings enlisted "the first artillery-masters on the Peninsula" in the mid-14th century.[24] while hand guns were probably in use at this time, such as against the Mongols, and Italian scopettieri ("gun bearers") were mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen in 1281." needs a bit of work, and in 18th and 19th century there is a paragraph starting with "But...".

    The wikilinks could be checked over - I don't think it's really necessary to link "music", for example, but a link would be useful for "shrapnel".

    I'm not sure the mention of torpedoes (in Middle east) is relevant to the article.

    I spotted one or two claims that need explicit citations (for example, "The Tsar Cannon, founded by Russian founding master Andrey Chokhov in 1586, was the largest howitzer ever made.") Also, the first paragraph of Modern times makes a number of factual claims but has no references.

    Some of the books listed as references have no ISBN information.

    A couple of the external links in the article may need checking: the link URL for "Cannons and Gunpowder" (first 2 refs) doesn't match the address it goes to, and the same for "Artillery through the ages". Click here to check the links.

    I enjoyed reading the article - hope this helps ;) All the best, EyeSereneTALK 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done some quick work with your suggestions, I'll go back to it later. Thanks! Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on refs and copyediting, but I'm only around halfway through the article. Not enough time, sadly. :( And I thought I had removed the torpedo reference... Thanks for the suggestions. · AndonicO Hail! 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we mention Space guns? It would seem appropriate, as this is clearly based on cannon concepts. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't those more science fiction than reality? · AndonicO Hail! 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think AndonicO is right, that might not be appropriate in this article and could detract from the focus. Things are coming along really well though - great work all! EyeSereneTALK 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Isotalo

    A nice amount of content and good illustrations overall, though I have some pointers and suggestions:

    • The main article links and various see also-links under the sub-headings of "History" are a bit excessive.
    • "Cannon operation" is a bit over-specific. The duties of indivudal members of a gun crew are better described in the sub-article. It would also be better if the section was a bit more theoretical and not confined only to cannon operation ca 1600-1800.
    • "In music" borders on the trivial since the use of cannon in music is very limited. More than half the section is about various interpretations of 1812. If information like this should be included (and preferably in a summary form) it should be within a section on general cannon symbolism and other non-military use.
    • "Restoration" puzzles me. It's basically nothing but a conservation aspect of marine arcaeology and looks quite out of place in this article, or at least a separate section. Peter Isotalo 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestions; I've removed the see also links from "Early modern period", as they both linked to Star fort (the other was a redirect), which was already in the main text. I think the entire "Middle East" section should be expanded, perhaps to include the two "Further information" linked articles. · AndonicO Hail! 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed some of the over-specific details from the operation section. It was really specific. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Socrates

    [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 one day nominate it for FA status, and am after informed, specific feedback on it's current state - from glaring weaknesses, to positive strengths. Any and all thoughts would be much appreciated!

    Hopefully I can use some of the suggestions as a road map for the work necessary before a bid to reach FA is possible....


    Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Ealdgyth First, it is lacking seriously in citations if you're planning on going to FAC with it. A general rule of thumb at FAC is that every paragraph should have a source listed at the end of the paragraph, at the very least. Also, every quotation should be cited. The sources you're using mostly look okay to me, but the source for footnote 1 is probably a bit old to actually be using. Also the PhilipCoppens.com site looks self published to me, and the actual article you're using quotes no sources, so it would probably fail as a reliable source. I might consider moving the sources section to the beginning of the article, as it's pretty much the foundation of the whole article. Given how few ancient sources we have on Socrates, discussing them first is probably a better order than relagating that discussion to later in the article. I didn't do a serious read of the article, mainly because at the moment the lack of sources is going to be the biggest single issue. It wouldn't even make it past GA as it stands. You probably need to branch out a bit on the sourcing, look at Michael Grant's works as a starting point and see what he uses as sources for Socrates. I regret to say I don't have much on the history of Philosophy myself, so nothing I have on my shelves would be much help here with more sources. First step is to get the article sourced with inline citations. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks heaps for taking the time to comment, Ealdgyth (and I hope this note is appropriate to the forum... please refactor to talk etc. if best....) - I take your points re:sourcing - particularly the philipcoppens.com one, which I'll look into, and likely usurp... I think your idea about bringing the 'sources' section to the fore is interesting, and would like to to hear others' thoughts on that too..... once again, thanks! - Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eggtown

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I am hoping to take this article on the fourth season episode of Lost from the Lost WikiProject to FAC shortly; however sgeureka has noted that "the prose … need[s] some more polishing" and 97198 always has comments and if they are posted here, the FAC page will not get crowded. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Redl@nds597198:

    • "In the United Kingdom, Lost brought in 1.1 million" - everyone understands, but maybe add 'viewers' just for clarification/easy-reading purposes.
    • "Alan Sepinwall ... because he was also unimpressed" - maybe switch wording to 'he also was unimpressed', because the first time I read this I assumed it meant he was unimpressed with something else, rather than he was unimpressed with the same thing as other critics.
    • "ninety-plus days" - now, I'm not personally counting days, but I'm curious as to where we lost track?
    • "the plot was presented at a slower pace" - to me it just makes more sense to say something like 'the plot progressed'. Can't really think why, but it's not vital anyhow.
    • "Kate spends the night with James "Sawyer" Ford (Josh Holloway) but does not sleep with him" - the almost-euphemism 'to sleep with' for having sex kind of confuses things here. She slept with him, however she did not have sex with him. (That's my understanding, anyway - correct me if that's wrong!)
    • "Daniel Faraday (Jeremy Davies) stares as three face down cards" - should that be 'stares at'?
    • "Kate is famous as one of the Oceanic Six. Kate is tried for her numerous crimes" - the latter Kate should probably be a 'she'.
    • The Production section references Kate's possible pregnancy however this is never mentioned in the plot. To me this was a pretty significant part of the episode, also considering the producers said ages ago that it would be revealed whether or not she was pregnant by episode four. Thoughts?
    • "If she could choose to play another Lost character, it would be Claire" - how about saying that Evangeline Lilly has said that she'd choose Claire?
    • "it puts her in a much different situation from previous seasons" - I'm not sure if it's because I speak in Australian/British English, but 'much different' doesn't sound very right to me.
    • How about saying 'Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly suggested that..., while John Kubicek of BuddyTV guessed that...' even though the latter sentence is pretty long?
    • ""Eggtown" continues Lost's pattern" - maybe add some nowiki tags around the third apostrophe thing because the markup is getting confused with whether it's an actual apostrophe or part of the italics.
    • "calling the trial, "blandly delivered" and Lilly and Fox, "expressionless"" - IMO there needn't be commas after 'trial' and 'Lilly and Fox'.
    • "Jensen of Entertainment Weekly thought..." - he's mentioned earlier, but maybe say 'Jeff Jensen' as a courtesy to readers - it's hard enough to remember the actors' last names!

    Hope that helps! And one of my personal favourite episodes, by the way, even if it is only because I like Kate ;) •97198 talk 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See changes. As for the timeline: According to Lostpedia, "Eggtown" takes place on days 95 and 95/Christmas and December 26, 2004. In "The Constant", which should be set on day 95/December 26, Desmond and Sayid look at a calendar, which indicates that the date is December 24. Desmond then calls Penny, who still has wrapped presents in front of her tree. So either Gregg Nations and the production team messed up, Lostpedia messed up, there is a time warp, or nobody has been marking off days since Minkowski got sick and Penny likes to wait to open presents. I suspect that it is a continuity error. But until we get some confirmation (hopefully in the next podcast), we're saying season 4 takes place in late December over 90 days after the crash. See also Talk:The Constant. And I will add a paragraph to the production section about the conclusion of Kate's pregnancy storyline. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see someones paying attention - even if it isn't the people who should be! •97198 talk 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Silverchair

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Recently passed GA, now going towards FAC. There are some comments on the talk page that have mostly been dealt with, hence asking for more! :)


    Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

    You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)</noinclude>[reply]

    • Some long sentences which I'll take a look at. I'd love to see a little more about the band's impact, Silverchair really helped drag Aussie rock out of its pub rock stagnancy and paved the way for the current burgeoning alternative rock scene. That's almost OR coming from me, but I'm sure you could find backups for that :) Just that the incredible iconic stature that Silverchair holds for many Australian musicians doesn't seem to come across. Overall it's a fantastic effort. Perhaps lacks the 'meatiness' I've come to associate with FA, but I don't know all that much about it. Good job. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From delldot

    [edit]

    Very well done, I had trouble finding stuff to criticize, hence the extreme pickiness. I'm not familiar with music aritcle standards, so please ignore anything that's way off base.

    • You say the spelling is British, shouldn't it be Australian, since they are?
    • For image captions, aren't you only supposed to have a full stop for full sentences?
    • "...and released albums to success and acclaim..." Show don't tell. Just give facts and let the reader decide whether they're successful (on the other hand, Alice in Chains says they were "one of the most successful..." so maybe it's OK. Looks like other FA class band articles use success when referring to a specific thing like an album).
    • Maybe the lead should have a sentence describing their musical style/sound.
    • Might want to read through and remove some instances of "this". It's vague, the reader won't necessarily know what "this" refers to. You can use "the event" or something instead.
    • "...long time schoolmate..." In American English this would be "longtime", is it different in British or Australian?
    • "They played many shows around the Hunter Valley region in their early teens. They participated in Youthrock in 1994, a nationally recognised competition for school-based bands, although they did not win the competition." Many is vague. Both sentences start with they, a little repetitive. Can you find a way to rephrase the 'although' part? That sounds a bit awkward to me for some reason. Maybe "...but did not win."
    • "The prize included Triple J recording the song and SBS filming the video." Could this be reworded? Maybe "As part of the the prize, Triple J recorded..."
    • "...was well received, with All Music Guide..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." Here's another one: "...with Mac again joining the band on Young Modern and on the Across the Great Divide tour."
    • "...taking a 12 month break" WP:MOSNUM recommends non breaking spaces between numbers and units, but I don't know time measurements like months count.
    • "Freak Show reached #2 in Canada, while Neon Ballroom reached #5." I could swear I just recently read somewhere that you're not supposed to use "while" except to emphasize something that's happening concurrently or to emphasize real contrast.
    • "during the time of his disorder" sounds awkward to me. Maybe "while he was suffering from the disorder"? "felt a slave to writing it." Also sounds awkward.
    • "Neva Chonin attributed this success to the album's more mature sound." I would reword this so it's clear that he's calling the sound mature. This way it sounds like the article's commenting that the sound is mature. The quotation marks suggested by Drewcifer would also work.
    • "numerous record labels" - vague, like many. If you could find a source, it would be great to say just how many.
    • "Upon the album being released, numerous critics stated that the album was more artistic than previous works." Maybe "Upon the album's release"? and maybe commented rather than stated?
    • "During the tour, Johns took heavy reactive arthritis medication; this forced the band to cancel several shows" what does "heavy" mean here? That he took a lot of it? Or that it was a particularly strong drug? This sentence leaves me curious: does he have arthritis, or was he taking the drugs for some... uh... recreational effect? Or was he trying to harm himself?
    • In American English, re-unite would be reunite, is it different in British or Australian?
    • I could be wrong, but I don't think then-wife needs a hyphen. I think self titled does need one.

    I'm gonna hit save now and keep working, so more will follow soon. Overall great work, excellent organization. delldot talk 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that. I've replied to stuff that hasn't been done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More, as promised
    • Isn't organizations American spelling? Maybe do a find and replace for 'zation' and 'ize'.
    • In American English it would be song writing -> songwriting, again don't know if it's different with British. But it should be consistent.
    • "17-year gap" - I don't think you need a hyphen here, could be wrong.
    • "the fifth straight Silverchair album" - does this mean the fifth one in a row? Not clear on the meaning (I'm picturing albums that are attracted to albums of the opposite gender...) Also a little repetitive with the single called "Straight Lines".
    • "Erlewine admitted the band were showing..." I think admitted is a word to avoid. It sounds POV to me here.
    • Some of the stuff under Musical style seems like it belongs under a separate "reception" section or something.
    • "Johns took regular medication for his reactive arthritis" still gives me trouble. Did he take too much of it? Or have an adverse reaction? Why did taking his normal, prescribed medication make him have to cancel shows?
    • There are still a bunch of instances of ", with". Maybe try a semicolon instead for some.
    • "Clayton Bolger described Young Modern as yet another improvement..." If he used the words "yet another improvement", they should be in quotes. If not, it should be rephrased.
    • "He said that much of the band's, and his, success, came as a result of them trying to push themselves harder in recording and writing." This sounds awkward to me. Maybe "the success of himself and the band..." but this sounds too stuffy. I also have a problem with the "them". Could you say "resulted from trying"?
    • There are a few instances of passive voice throughout the article, which I think is considered weak writing (yes, passive voice was used in this sentence). For example, "was praised by reviewers" -> "Reviewers praised", or maybe "it received praise".
    • "noting that the band were more unpredictable..." and "noting that it stood out in an otherwise dull market" You shouldn't use words like noted or pointed out (not that you use the latter) unless you're talking about an objective fact. I think WP:Words to avoid discusses this, but I'm too lazy to check. I think there are a few more instances of this kind of wording in the article.
    • I'm not sure, but I think "self producing" requires a hyphen, like most compound words with self.
    • "containing some overly complex music" - how complex is overly complex? Is it trying to convey the impression of "too complex"? If he used this wording, use quotation marks. Also, some seems redundant.
    • "Self producing allowed the band to do so without record company pressures." Sounds awkward.
    • "Gillies described Silverchair, and Young Modern, as "arty", explaining the band "all like the arty kind of life"." - kind of redundant
    • In the Personnel section, I think the first paragraph is too introductory for this far down in the article and should either go in the lead or somewhere higher up.
    • It may not be possible for all of them, but wherever it is, the web references should have publication date and author.

    Overall, excellent work. delldot talk 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, replied to stuff not done. Thanks heaps! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whup, one more:

    One last thing, sorry:

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey, sorry to have kept you waiting ;-) but been busy... so, for what they're worth, my comments...

    • Overlink Australia - twice in first two sentences of lead.
    • "They have won 19" - consider "As of March 2008, they have won 19..."
    • Year ranges in the infobox need en-dash to separate them.
    • "hiatus" not needed in the infobox in my opinion, the fact that there's a gap in the dates makes this self-evident.
    • First history section could be merged from four short paras down to two for better flow...
    • "toured with Red Hot Chili Peppers, at the same time continuing with their education in Newcastle." - how is this geographically possible? I think I know what you're saying but unless the RHCP's played exclusively in Newcastle, or they only toured in school holidays, I find this assertion a little confusing!
    • Same comment about avoiding short paragraphs really applies throughout...
    • "MP for the ALP" - expand these for those of us not familiar with politics and Australian parties.
    • Awards/accolades paragraph says they've won 20 ARIAs, other two times it's been mentioned it was 19....

    Otherwise not much else to say! Let me know should you take the article further (which I'm sure you will!) All the very best, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks heaps! Stuff not replied to has been done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Daniel

    [edit]

    A very good article, and the people above stole a lot of what I was going to say. Anyways...

    • " They would form a band named "Innocent Criminals"." — tone!
    • "Frogstomp's lyrical concepts were fiction-based, drawing inspiration from television, hometown tragedies,[8] and perceptions of the pain of friends." — move reference to end of sentence.
    • "The album was well received; All Music Guide and Rolling Stone both rating it in excess of four stars, praising the intensity of the album; especially "Tomorrow".[9][10]" — change to "rated", and try and ditch one of the semicolons.
    • "While experiencing the success of Frogstomp in Australia and the United States, Silverchair began recording their second studio album; Freak Show, which they released in 1997.[12]" — semicolon should be a comma.
    • " The band were subsequently pursued by record labels during their break. At the end of the break, they announced that they would be signing with Atlantic Records for North and South America" — use a synonym for "break".
    • "Johns also collaborated with then wife Natalie Imbruglia on her Counting Down the Days album." ...which was released in [month]?
    • "Silverchair reformed for one show at the Wave Aid fundraising concert in Sydney, to raise funds for aid organisations working in disaster affected areas." — synonyms for "raise" and "funds"?

    I'll do the rest later; this screws with my head :) Daniel (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All bar last (not sure what else to use...) are done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Lara

    [edit]
    • [Lead] I think you should put in the lead what year they formed. In the second paragraph, it states In 2003, following the release of Diorama, the band announced a hiatus... which then causes the reader to have to search for the formation date in the info box to put 2003 into context.
    • [History > Formation] In 1992, singer/guitarist Daniel Johns and drummer Ben Gillies started playing music together at their primary school, and when they both moved on to Newcastle High School, longtime schoolmate Chris Joannou joined the pair on bass. - I would split this into two sentences. In 1992 should just cover 1992.
    • The band played numerous shows... - Change The band to They.
    • four and a half stars should read four-and-a-half stars per WP:HYPHEN.
    • As Frogstomp and "Tomorrow" continued to gain popularity through that year, the group toured with Red Hot Chili Peppers and played on the roof of Radio City Music Hall, at the same time continuing with their education in Newcastle. - Where were they touring with RHCP? How were they touring and going to school in Newcastle? Was it at the same time or the same year?
    • [History > Critical] 12 month break should be 12-month break per WP:HYPHEN. (Twice; second and fifth paragraphs.)
    • Both Freak Show and Neon Ballroom topped the ARIA Albums Chart, making them the band's second and third respectively to do so. - This reads funny. Should there be commas around respectively, perhaps?
    • After the announcement, Sony released The Best of Volume 1 without the band's consent. - When was the announcement made, and did anything come of Sony's release (as far as the band's reaction, legally, etc.)?
    • [History > Extended] then wife should be then-wife per WP:HYPHEN. I double-checked this one, as I saw it was changed per a previous review, and two users in en-admins (NYB and Luna san) both agreed it should be hyphenated.
    • ...telling The Sydney Morning Herald; "It only took us 15 years... - The semi-colon should be removed.
    • ...we've realised, 'Fuck we've really got something special and we should just go for it'." - The closing quotation on the quote within the quote should come after the full stop as it is a full quote. Therefore it should read it.'"

    I'll pick up where I left off in a bit. Lara❤Love 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • [History > Return] Young Modern was demoed in the Hunter Valley, and recorded at Seedy Underbelly Studios in Los Angeles in 2006 with producer Nick Launay. - Suggest for better flow: In 2006, Young Modern was demoed in the Hunter Valley, and recorded at Los Angeles' Seeny Underbelly Studios with producer Nick Launay.
    • The band toured extensively before releasing the album, performing at Homebake and numerous other shows. The band... - The second The band should be changed to They.
    • Silverchair produced Young Modern independently,... - Change Young Modern to the album.
    • [Musical style] ...though their loyalty to specific genres has changed as they matured. - This is off. It should be either has changed as they have matured or remove the has altogether.
    • There's a lot of "Johns said" and the like in this section. This should be tweaked and reworded in places to avoid redundancy. In places where he's not being directly quoted, it isn't necessary to use "he said" or similar.

    I'll finish tomorrow. Lara❤Love 05:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks heaps. Stuff not replied to is done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis B. Wai

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently added a lot of references and tried to improve this the best I could. It was difficult considering that Francis Wai died at an early age and you have to really search for sources. I want to nominate this as a good article but I need some constructive criticism.

    Thanks, --Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: First off, this is a good start and it is obvious that a lot of work has been put into it. I think it needs some more details and work to become a WP:GA though.

    • I looked again at the Good Article criteria and think this would would fail on several points.
      • Criteria 1a - there are several places where the prose is less than clear and there are grammar issues. For example, it used to read Growing up, he often surfed with Duke Kahanamoku regarded as the father of the sport of surfing and Buster Crabbe who later become an actor. This makes it sound as if Duke is regarded as the father of Buster. I fixed it to read: Growing up, he often surfed with Duke Kahanamoku, regarded as the father of the sport of surfing, and Buster Crabbe, who later become an actor. Or the photo caption Wai during the beginning of World War II should be cleaned up - perhaps Wai at the start of World War II? (The source does not specify this - how do you know?)
      • Criteria 1a - there are also spelling errors (at least one - "along side" instead of "alongside"). it needs a copyedit / proof reading.
      • Criteria 3a - it does not seem to me to address all major aspects of Wai's life. What is there is fine for the most part, here are someunanswered questions: what were his parents names, did Wai marry or have children, did he have any siblings, what were the four sports he was involved with at UCLA, what else did his unit do in the war before his death? I realize this will be difficult to find out, but as the article currently stands, it is not complete enough for GA.
    • I do not understand this part - he graduated in 1939 (probably May or June), WWII did not start in the US until Dec. 1941, but he was called into active duty before that - when?. Being in the National Guard is not generally a full-time job. What did he do between graduation and active full-time duty?

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Meaning of life

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

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

    This article was nominated for deletion in November 2006, AfD nominated version, and has since gone through some major restructuring and addition of a lot of content. I see this article as being a large signpost, giving readers a quick sense of a particular views outlook on life, and letting the reader explore other related subjects.

    However, the article has grown quite long (110kb, right now) and some views are given a disproportionate amount of space. Meaning of life#Popular views of the purpose of life and Meaning of life#Humorous, aesthetic and entertainment media treatments add a considerable amount of length to this article, but they also add by presenting a broad plurality of views.

    I am looking for was to improve the presentation of existing views, but also other major/important views that should be included. If possible, I would also like to reduce the length of this article (split?), and other general improvements.

    Thanks, NickPenguin(contribs) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken a look at the article and would like to give my feedback:
    1)It is extremely well written. I do not think the length is a problem at all, because each section has been written in summary style and link to corresponding longer articles if someone wants more information.
    2)The only section I found that needs work is the Christian view section. It quotes a lot of Scripture, but no other sources. This gives the appearance of original research. The Scripture references may be an accurate portrayal of the Christian view, but another source should be used.
    3) The only sections I think should be removed or possibly edited is the Humorous and Popular Culture sections near the end. The Humorous section seems muddled and confusing, and I think the images take up too much space. The pop culture section seems more like trivia and thus a bit (but not completely) irrelevant to the subject at hand.
    I hope that helps. Good job at summarizing an extremely vast subject in such a concise article! Kristamaranatha (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    King Arthur

    [edit]

    a lot of people know or think its real and most people said that he will return soon and fight darkness and build Camelot again ( most people say he will in 2090 or even before )

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    We're aiming for FA status as part of a King Arthur WikiProject collaboration.

    Thanks, Wrad (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ealdgyth

    Wow. Quite impressive on first glance. The biggest thing that jumped at me, what the heck is Pre-Galfridian? Eventually I got the impression it means before Geoffrey of Monmouth, (in fact it's buried in a footnote) but given the fact that it's such a section header, perhaps a bit of explanation of the jargon might be in order directly in the article? Also, I don't feel like dragging out my copy of Bede, but does Bede mention Arthur? Given that Gildas, Bede, and Nennius are pretty much the narrative sources folks think of for early Anglo-Saxon history, a mention of him mentioning or not mentioning Arthur might be in order. Other notices:

    • In Pre-Galfridian traditions, second paragraph, there is a "i. e." in the text. I think I remember reading in the MOS that that is frowned on? (Trying to keep up with the MOS would be a full time job!)
    • As a total sidenote, when I was in college and attending some graduate seminars on Anglo-Norman studies, one of my fellow students was writing his dissertation on the political influences on Geoffrey of Monmouth. I do not know if he went on and published that, but the basic gist was that Geoffrey was influenced and wrote the work as a political commentary on King Stephen's reign. You might check JSTOR for articles on that sort of thing. I do know a couple of Anglo-Norman historians studied Geoffrey as a side interest, so something may have been published along those lines. (By the way, our article on Geoffrey is not the best.)

    All in all, on a not-so-in-depth-look, it looks pretty good. Most of the sources appear reasonable on first glance. Drop me a note on my talk page to remind me to hunt through the Anglo-Norman stuff on my shelves to see what else might be available? (I'm trying to remember if the Brut y Tywysogion mentions Arthur...argh!) I have so much on my plate, that I'm not likely to remember to do that in the morning (I'm about to head to sleep) if I don't get a reminder. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of New York hurricanes

    [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 created it several months ago, completely rewrote it, and I would like to prepare it for a FLC in the not-too-distant furture. The article has had one PR, which received no comments.


    Thanks, Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by RJHall

    [edit]

    It certainly looks comprehensive and well-cited, so good work there. I have a few comments that I hope are of some use.

    • Although it's not strictly necessary, you might briefly clarify some of the geography for your non-U.S. readers who may not be familiar with U.S. geography. For example, you can explain that New York and New England are states along the eastern seaboard of the U.S., the East Coast is the Atlantic coast of the U.S. and that Long Island and Manhattan are in the city of New York.
    • You are using spaced en-dashes where perhaps non-spaced em-dashes would be more appropriate. (I've seen objections during the FA process for just such issues.)
    • Could you explain what "New York has rarely been struck directly by hurricanes" means? Is that where the eye crosses the territory? What does "rarely" mean? Once a century?
    • You may want to avoid mixing past and present tense; something I've seen criticized during the FA process. For example, "A hurricane that is reported to have tracked parallel to the East Coast and impact New England and New York..." should be "impacted". "Several large ships crash into Governors Island as a result of powerful waves which are reported to have been generated by a tropical cyclone." -> "crashed". You might even want to use a consistent tense everywhere.
    • You're missing a period on the "August 19, 1788" entry. You may want to check the remainder of your punctuation.
    • Could you define what is meant by "deadly storms" in the article? I'm assuming that means those are storms that killed somebody in New York, but I think it needs clarification.
    • Would it be informative to list the number of hurricanes by category? At least for the period where they were rated.
    • Please run the page through a spelling and grammar checker then check for edit errors: "tress" should be "trees", for example.

    Thank you!—RJH (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    London Calling

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This article about The Clash's 1979 album has gone through a complete overhaul. I would like to nominate it for FA status in the near future and any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for balance, it might be a good idea to add some negative criticism somewhere in there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, but all the reviews available don't really have any. Some negative criticism can be found in the songs section though. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. If you do happen to come across any, feel free to toss them in. I also noticed a couple instances where two references were provided for non-controversial statements. My gut tells me you're trying to say something that's not quite hitting the mark of how it appears. For example:
      • The album peaked at number nine in the United Kingdom and was certified gold in December 1979.[4][16] The album performed strongly outside the United Kingdom. It reached number two in Sweden and number four in Norway.[17][18]
    In the first sentence, are you saying both source 4 and 16 each say the information in this whole sentence? Or are you saying that 4 applies to it peaking at number nine in the UK and 16 refers to it being certified gold in December 1979? Similar question for the second sentence. If it is what I'm thinking, I feel like it should be It reached number two in Sweden[17] and number four in Norway.[18] I could be wrong, of course.
    Other than that observation, this is a decent article. I'd consider formatting the footnotes a little differently, maybe use just "p." instead of "Pg." for page numbers. I'm also not sure if using the simplified referencing style for the "Green" source is that helpful, considering it's the only one done in that method... it took me a second to figure out it was in the "Further reading" section. You also might want to run through the text again for copy editing. One error I found was: Its lyrics comment on people who forsake the idealism of youth and urges young people to fight the status quo.[29]... subject/verb agreement says that it should be "Its lyrics... urge young people..." --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indopug

    [edit]
    • I'm not sure about the order in which the sections are listed; look at any other album FA. I'd prefer Recording, Songs, Artwork, Release, Reception and influence.
    • I don't you can use reviews that were written twenty years after the album was released and then say "The album received positive reviews from critics." The RS and AMG reviews would best be treated under a Legacy banner. The article sorely lacks contemporary reviews (1979-80) that would help gauge its impact then. PopMatters and Pitchfork can be completely done away with once you've found those old reviews.
    • It would be nice if you could get access to one of those books under the Further Reading section; it might help strengthen the article throughout.

    This is a very important album (9th most, according to Rolling Stone), so I think more research, especially of older sources, should be done to make the article comprehensive and FA-worthy. indopug (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Virtua Fighter (anime)

    [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. Needs an assessment since it was recently created.

    Thanks, Ominae (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I would assess it as a start class article, seems to be a bit above a stub though it needs a lot of work. Some points for improvement:

    • Expand the lead paragraphs per WP:LEAD to summarize the rest of the article.
    • There are no (zero) references for the main sections of the article (Plot, Characters, and Episodes - this last section is blank). Please see WP:V and WP:RS.
    • The whole plot and character sections are written from an in-universe perspective, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) about maintaining perspective.
    • Given the last point, I will say I have almost no idea what the plot is about and most of the character descriptions are equally confusing (if they even exist - a few are blank). What is Dural, for example? A robot or cyborg?
    • References need to give publisher, title, author (if known - i.e. reviews), and date accessed.
    • Needs a copyedit for grammar and proof reading for typos.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recycling

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've expanded this article significantly over the past couple of weeks, and now could really use some fresh perspective to see if it's going in the right direction and point out what more needs to be done. Thanks! --jwandersTalk 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Overall clear a lot of work has gone into this article and it is generally well referenced and written, with decent illustrations. Some specific comments follow:

    • Would the international symbol (Image:Recycle001.svg) be a better opening image?
    • Second paragraph of the lede is confusing and has a spelling error: Though analogus [sic], the composting of biodegradable waste—such as food or garden waste—is not typically considered recycling.[2] These materials are either brought to a collection centre or picked-up from the curbside, sorted[ extra space], cleaned and reprocessed into new products bound for manufacturing. This makes it sound as if food and garden-waste are "cleaned and reprocessed into new products". Watch for spelling errors and typos.
    • Per the WP:MOS, section headers should not repeat the title generally (History subsections, possibly also Import and export of recyclates section)
    • History section reference to Plato needs a citation - all attributions do.
    • History section has large gaps and is a bit US-centered - did people in Belgium (for example) really get "recycling hysteria" (very POV by the way) from the US Mobro 4000 barge incident?
    • Economics section - it is almost always better to cite specific people when presenting viewpoints, so Advocates of recycling argue that ... which is refrenced to the League of Women Voters would perhaps be better as something like Advocates of recycling, such as the League of Women Voters, argue that...
    • It would be helpful to give dates for specific articles cited (Tierney, etc.)
    • Common recylcables section is good but has too many photos - too much whitespace as a result.
    • There seems to be a large number of See also links - I did not check but these are not usually also linked in the article itself.
    • References are a mess - missing title for a book (ref 3), internet refs are lacking publisher and/or date accessed.

    Good start and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Bowl XLII

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Nominated for GA status a bit too soon. I'm hopeful this PR can help to get it to GA and maybe even FA status. Buc (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Overall quite detailed and readable, but has some issues with references (needs more) and POV language. Specific comments:

    • Third paragraph of the Lead seems way too detailed on the specifics of the plays - this is supposed to be a summary of the whole article (see WP:LEAD).
    • POV language in the Lead (needs a reference and perhaps quotes, or toned down): Then came perhaps the most enduring play of the game... (says who?) and completed an ugly pass
    • Host selection process section: Surely more can be said about selecting Glendale than that it has a warmer and drier climate than Washington DC?
    • New England Patriots section - does not identify team as AFC or NFC, has only two refs for five paragraphs. Refs are needed for all statistics and all extraordinary statements such as billed as one of the greatest teams in NFL history.
    • New York Giants section - one ref for four paragraphs. Awkward grammar such as Strahan and Toomer were the only Giants to play in the last Super Bowl the Giants played in, Super Bowl XXXV.
    • Is there a model article (GA or FA) to follow for Super Bowls? The list of TV broadcasters seems a bit much to me and could perhaps be its own subarticle.
    • I would add subsections (for the quarters?) to the Game summary section
    • The television commercials also seem a bit too detailed - another summary article.
    • Most of the references are good and give title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed for internet refs, but several need details - current numbers 11, 62 and 71 are just external links as refs (not even a title), 37, 38, 75 - 77 are just titles.
    • Bottom line - a very detailed article, but it needs more references, less POV language, to use WP:Summary style, and a good copyedit.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Holdstock

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

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

    I'm interested in feedback on NPOV, peacocking, formatting and wording. I am also curious to see if others view the article as start class and low importance

    Thanks, Npd2983 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4u1e's comments
    • "was born by the Romney Marsh in Hythe, Kent.". Sounds a bit odd - I'm guessing he wasn't delivered out in the marshlands? :) How about 'was born in Hythe, Kent, near Romney Marsh'. (note the wikilink for Hythe.) I'm assuming that being born near Romney Marsh is going to be significant later? If not, consider dropping it; it didn't really help me situate his birthplace.
    • Regarding schools, was Gillingham Grammar school his only school? Did he do his A-Levels there? Was he schooled before the age of seven?
    • 'honors' - UK English would be more appropriate for this article.
    • It'll look a bit odd, but perhaps expand and link B.Sc and M.Sc at first appearance, otherwise they are rather bewildering if you're not familiar with the system.
    • 'He now lives in North London' - stands on its own a bit. Presumably he has lived in London throughout? Can this be worked in more elegantly?
    • It would be interesting to know why he started writing, and why he eventually took it up as a career. Is there any material available on this?
    • I think I'm right in saying that Wikipedia house-style doesn't use apostrophes for decades (1970's etc.) - there's probably something in the Manual of Style.
    • 'Holdstock wrote a well received novella, The Dark Wheel' You'll need a citation for it being well-received. (I remember it fondly, by the way, although I'm not sure I'd want to read it again! Quite an astute move by Acornsoft, as it added depth to the game without any technical work being required.)

    More comments later. 4u1e (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Gets very listy towards the end. I suggest that Bibliography should be the last major section. Critical commentary (definitely) and Awards (very probably) should be re-written as prose. If you don't want to do Awards as prose, it could perhaps be combined with the bibliography by listing awards won by each book.
    • regarding citation: it's usually hard to justify less that one citation per paragraph, which the article is currently a little short of. I've tagged a few things that require citation, but there are probably more.
    • Why are there two bibliographies in the External links section? I'm not sure the mailing list is appropriate there either, check WP:EL for guidelines.
    • 'Mythago Wood was published as part of the Masterpieces of Fantasy series by Easton Press, a press known for selectively releasing collectible, fine leather-bound editions of works of lasting meaning, beauty and importance.' Reads like a promotional piece for Easton Press. Ditch it, or re-cast it as something more neutral like 'by Easton Press, who describe themselves as releasing 'works of lasting meaning, beauty and importance', with an appropriate reference. My vote goes for dumping it though. :)
    • Themes are mentioned briefly in the lead, but not again. I'd expect to see something fairly meaty on this in the body of the article.
    • Is there any material available on sales or popularity?
    • Are you sure you can justify having four fair use book covers in the article, none of which directly illustrate any point about the author?
    • Overall I'd say it's probably a 'start' class article, reaching towards a 'B'. Importance-wise, I'd go for mid (important within the field of fantasy writing), due to the awards received and long publishing career. Note that I'm not an expert in these areas, though. It's a neat and well presented article, but I think it needs more breadth to progress further up the quality scale.

    Hope some of that is helpful. If you want to, I'd like to hear your comments on Saruman, which has a peer review running two items up from here. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ipswich 2006 serial murders

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a detailed and well sourced article about a widely publicised series of events. I think the tone is appropriate, the information well sourced, and the article in general is an important event.


    Thanks, Blammermouth (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: It is obvious a lot of work and research has gone into this article and it is generally well written and referenced. Good photos too. Here are some more specific suggestions:

    • Please expand the lead section per WP:LEAD to be a summary of the whole article.
    • Victims section repeats much of the sepcific information in the first paragraph a second time in the paragraphs on each victim - perhaps the first paragraph could be more of a summary and more chronological (start with the disappearances, then finding the bodies) and also mention some of the details common to each victim. For example at least four of the vitims were found naked, none were sexually assaulted, several were found in water, at least two in a cruciform position, and all were drug addicts who were sex workers to support their habits.
    • The tone of the victims section and the photos are handled just right, well done.
    • Police investigation section - need a reference for the direct quote: At a 10 December press conference, detectives from the Suffolk Constabulary issued a warning to all women in Ipswich not to work on the streets, and said they had received offers of assistance from neighbouring police forces, particularly Norfolk, in their "hunt for the killer or killers".
    • Would the "Possible Lamplugh link" section work better as a subsection of the Wright biography?
    • I would make the Timeline into an actual table. The external links for locations are odd - you can add coordinates directly to Wikipedia or link the articles on the nearest locations. This may also be a candidate to be a subarticle (see WP:Summary style). Would it make sense to color code the vitims in the table to make it clearer (light blue background is first victim, etc.)?

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Halle Berry

    [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…

    Thanks, Vikrant 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to get all the awards cited to their proper websites. Most of the current sources are reliable, but the format should be more consistent. I would also like to make the tables more compact, potentially by trimming the notes in filmography, or careful piping to reduce the number of lines each row takes. I assume there will be some new content in a next few weeks. Once that gets stable, we might start thinking about FAC. Gimmetrow 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Velvet worm

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've just finished translating this article from the German 'featured' article - it's taken me nearly 10 months (lots of long gaps between short spikes in activity) - and I definitely think it needs looking over by some fresh sets of eyes. At the moment the article is very technical and could probably do with some more plain-English, particularly in the introduction. In the medium to long term, I'd like to try for FAC with this so pretty much any constructive feedback would be appreciated. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From delldot

    [edit]

    Nicely done. This article is very cool! Wikipedia is lucky to have someone like you who's able to do translations and willing to put so much work in. Some thoughts:

    • I think the lead should be longer, it looks like there's a lot in the article not covered in the lead.
    • Wouldn't Onychophora be italicized?
    • More images would make the article prettier and break up some of that long text. I especially want to see some of these orange, red, green, blue, gold or white and occasionally patterned with other colours worms! I also want to see a closeup of these claws, even a diagram would work.
    • Segmentation is a dab link. I recommend checking the article for others.
    • No need to link common words like cylinder (also a dab, btw) unless they're related to the subject of the article.
    • What does "unstructured body appendages" mean?
    • You should use a non breaking space between numbers and units like 2 cm. Also, aren't you supposed to use a conversion template like {{Convert}} for measurements like cm?
    • ..."with the average being about 5 cm..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." He recommends using a semicolon instead.
    • What is a growth zone?
    • "...exhibit no joints" you mean "have no joints"?
    • I like the phylogeny chart with the {{clade}} template, can that be done for the other ones that are made by putting a space at the beginning of the line? Or maybe an image? I think it would look better.
    • It looks like you've fixed the recapitulation theory problem that was brought up on the talk page, right?
    • The article needs more references. At the very least, after every statistic such as a measurement. The article is too long not to have inline references, a list of references at the end is not enough. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for guidance on this, or ask me for help.

    Gotta go for now, more to follow. delldot on a public computer talk 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More
    • "...resemble the claws of the feet, with which they are probably homologous." Can you explain homology in layperson's terms?
    • "They move backward and forward in a longitudinal direction..." I'm not sure what a longitudinal direction means here. Do they move side to side?
    • Another possibility for an image would be a diagram of the slime glands.
    • "...epidermis cells forming an internal skin..." Shouldn't this be "epidermal cells"?
    • "The cuticula is about a micrometer thick and covered with fine villi." I assume this is why it's called the velvet worm. You might want to mention this, if you can find a source for it.
    • "...enables the velvet worm to squeeze itself into the narrowest crevices." Maybe I'm just being a smartass here, but I'm sure there are crevices narrow enough that the worms could not get in. How about "very narrow"?
    • Respiration - another dab link.
    • "...the cuticula is not able to prevent water loss by respiration and as a result velvet worms can only live in microclimates with high humidity..." commas between independent clauses.
    • Wouldn't "villi-like" be "villus-like"?
    • "Moulting of the skin (ecdysis) takes place regularly, sometimes every 14 days, induced by the hormone ecdyson." I would think this sentence should go in the next paragraph, the one about moulting.
    • Why not split the Skin and musculature section into two sections: Skin, and Musculature?
    • For the first use of words that are likely to be unfamiliar to the lay reader, like nephridia, you should have a quick explanation of what they are (which can frequently be nabbed from the lead section of the article). Though if it would disrupt the writing, linking to the word can be enough.
    • "...filled with a blood-like liquid, in which all the organs are embedded; in this way they can be easily supplied with nutrients circulating in the blood." So do they have blood, or a blood-like liquid? Or both?
    • I noticed a couple places where you could reduce redundancy (which would be nice, since the article is longish). For example "have an influence on" -> "influence". Check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy for more ideas.
    • "the subsequent 'throat'" - I don't think subsequent is the right word here.
    • "This so-called 'uricotelic' elimination mode represents an adjustment to life on land and the associated necessity of dealing economically with water." When you're talking about evolution, I would recommend making that explicit.

    More to follow.

    As I said before, the article is very cool. It makes for a fascinating read, which is really saying something for an article about a type of worm! It doesn't have any of the problems with awkward or bulky wording I'd expect from a translated article. The #1 problem is the lack of inline citations, probably a deal breaker even for GA, unfortunately. But I'd go so far as to call the writing brilliant, and I doubt you'll have much problem after you've fixed the referencing thing. delldot on a public computer talk 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More
    • "In females, the two ovaries are joined in the middle and to the horizontal diaphragm." How about "joined to each other in the middle and to..."
    • "stored temporarily or for longer periods" doesn't really make sense since temporary doesn't necessarily mean a short time. Can you find a source for more precicely how long it can be stored?
    • "...it is not surprising that velvet worms are usually most active at night and during rainy weather." The article shouldn't offer commentary such as "it is not surprising that", or other stuff like "curious", "interestingly", or "it should be noted" (not that the article has the latter two). These phrases don't serve much of a purpose anyway and just make the writing bulkier.
    • Since the Distribution and habitat is kind of a more exciting section than the anatomy sections, you might want to move it up above them in the article. This would also help combine the anatomy and Locomotion sections, which are more closely related. However, you should follow recommendations of the MOSs for the relevant WikiProjects if they have guidelines for sections.
    • I don't think arthropods should be capitalized.
    • You might consider moving the Reproduction and lifecycle section to below the anatomy section, which ends with reproductive organs, for better flow. Some of the material in the former section may actually belong in the Reproductive organs section, and some is repeated in both.
    • "For defence, some species roll themselves reflexively into a spiral, while they can also fight off smaller opponents by ejecting slime." Also from Epbr123: "'While' should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link."
    • "Various mites (Acari) are known as ectoparasites, which infest the skin of the velvet worm. Skin injuries are usually accompanied by bacterial infections, which are almost always fatal." I guess the reader can infer that the mites cause the injuries, but you might want to make this explicit if you can find a source for it.
    • "varies quite strongly" - maybe "varies widely"? I don't know if variation can have strength.

    Gotta go again (sorry, I'm at work). delldot on a public computer talk 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More
    • "Maternal care is unknown" - maybe flesh out this sentence to make its meaning more clear.
    • When you have a choice between formal and common wording, go for common: "the majority of" -> "most".
    • "This probably represents the velvet worm's original mode of reproduction, i.e. both oviviparous and viviparous " Avoid starting sentences with this, since it's not always clear what this refers to. Also, I think you're supposed to avoid latin abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.
    • Per WP:DATE, spell out intergers from 0 to 10, except in the circumstances listed at that page.
    • You might want to split reproduction and lifestyle into a Reproduction and a Lifecycle section. That way, Lifecycle could go more toward the top, above anatomy, which is more dry. I think the fact that they can live to be six years old (?!) is interesting and might go better at the top (or you could include a sentence or two from this section in the lead).
    • I think the lead could do a better job of summarizing the article, and it would help with the technicalness that you pointed out. For example, reading along in the anatomy sections, you're like, "What? They have hearts?" You can help the reader by offerring summaries ahead of time, and that way casual readers can skip the more in-depth stuff. You could also rename the Structure section to Structure and anatomy and give a summary of the anatomy at the beginning of that section.
    • Sections I think the lead should cover more: Anatomy, Lifecycle, Conservation status. Really the whole article should be summarized in the lead. Most people would expect a longer lead for an article of this size.
    • In the lead, "they bear live young." You should change this to "some species bear live young", since not all do.

    gtg. delldot on a public computer talk 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More
    • Scratch what I said about separating Reproduction and lifecycle, there's not really enough lifecycle for its own section.
    • Amongst is another word that should be replaced by a less formal one: among.
    • If you'd be able to reorganize the article so that Phylogeny could come right after the Structure section, the article would probably flow better, since Phylogeny starts off by talking about structure and anatomy.
    • "...the Panarthropoda - i.e. the three groups collectively cover all descendants..." I think this requires an em dash (—). If you haven't already, I recommend looking over User:Epbr123#Style and prose checklist, I think that's in there.
    • "Simply-constructed organs" doesn't need a hyphen; simply is an adverb, so there's not the threat of the reader mistaking it as modifying the noun and changing the meaning (e.g. with (fast moving van and fast-moving van) Usually, words ending in -ly don't require hyphens in this situation (hyphen does a pretty good job of explaining this). There are a few other cases of unnecessary hyphens, some of which I took out.
    • There are some 'dubious' tags under the Lobopoda section, these should be fixed quickly. Here's where inline referencing is vital.
    • "...nature experimented with the most diverse and bizarre body designs..." I'm torn. It makes the writing more interesting, but it's not really accurate to personify 'nature' this way.
    • "...animals such as, for example, sponges..." I wouldn't think you need both "such as" and "for example". Does one add meaning that the other doesn't cover?
    • "Stephen Jay Gould sees this as a symptom..." He's dead, so past tense.
    • "...which also includes the various Lobopoda..." I think "also includes" is a little redundant.
    • " From cladistic analysis, a trend can then be ascertained towards stronger external segmentation and towards a ..." What? A part missing from the translation maybe?
    • Also fix the clarify tag in that section.
    • I would cut down the Phylogeny section a bit if I were you, it's a little long and involved. (Hint: You can do this by removing info you can't find references for.)
    • What are the little †'s in the Classification section about? Is that explained somewhere?
    • I also think the Taxonomy section could stand to be moved up, as it gives explanation for something in the infobox that's not clear throughout the article until you get to that section. (I admit, if you took all my moving sections up advice, everything would be at the top! Except the structure and Phylogeny sections.)
    • There are a couple more cases throughout the text where a hyphen is used when an em dash is needed.
    • References: Chapter titles aren't italicized; they're in quotation marks.
    • Can you find any literature reviews from journal articles? The references are all books, journal articles are really good sources (but don't use original studies, those are primary sources).
    • Does the "This article was initially translated from" thing really go under references? Might want to consult the MOS about this.

    Overall, like I said, really awesome work. My main points are that the lead should cover more of the article, the organization kind of jumps around and similar topics could stand to be grouped together more, and inline references are needed. If you ignore every single point in this review but one, add inline references. Many of them. That's really the only thing stopping this article from being a GA right now, IMO. delldot on a public computer talk 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Burger King

    [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 bring it to "A" status and want to know what needs to be done to improve it.


    Thanks, --- Jeremy (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatic review.

    I have run the script and made the recommended changes. Could a human please take a look now? --- Jeremy (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peripitus

    [edit]

    A few comments - I've copyedited a bit at the start of the article

    • The bit in the lead on the number of stores and countries needs a time that this was true - it will date quickly (fiscal year 2007)
    • Add a note in the lead as to where it was founded.
    • Perhaps note which products failed in the US that were successful elsewhere.
    • Quite a few bits of redundancy or where copyediting is required - I've fixed a few (hopefully to the betterment of the article)
      • eg: When the company began, its menu consisted predominantly of hamburgers, french fries, soft drinks, and desserts. Beginning with the Whopper sandwich in 1957, BK has expanded the breadth of its menu by adding various non-beef items like chicken, fish, vegetarian offerings such as salads and meatless sandwiches; a breakfast menu; and non-soft drink beverages such as Icees, juices and bottled waters.
      • -> Burger King's menu originally consisted predominantly of hamburgers, french fries, soft drinks, and desserts. Beginning with the Whopper sandwich in 1957, the menu expanded to include non-beef items like chicken and fish, and vegetarian offerings such as salads and meatless sandwiches. A breakfast menu and non-soft drink beverages including Icees, juices and bottled waters are now included.
    • Some unnecessary POV injected in the article with phrases. Better to state the facts in some cases and let the reader determine if say: the offering was simple, the actions were socially responsible etc...
      • a socially responsible corporation
      • a simple offering of burgers, fries, sodas and milkshakes
    • Too much of the Products section starts .... In <year> X happened. It reads a bit as a dot point list and would be better as prose

    Overall a good read - Will try look for more tomorrow if time permits - Peripitus (Talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retiarius

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I intend to list this article at Featured Article Candidates, so I'd appreciate any comments on how to get it into shape to pass there. Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SGGH

    • The lead needs citations
    • "However, unlike the other types, based on military antecedents, the retiarius was themed..." in the second sentence of "history and role" I would change to "However, unlike the other types who/that were based on military antecedents, the retiarius was themed..."
    • "man-vs.-nature" the punctuation might need a re-work there.
    • citations 19 and 15 after the sentence "The fate of the retiarii is not revealed" need to be swapped to put 15 first, if this happens elsewhere in the article, the footnotes should ideally be in order.
    • Good use of citations throughout (apart from the aforementioned lead)
    • Glad to see you have avoided the recent tendency to have two-three sentence paragraphs, and have instead gone for the longer ones.
    • Citation 39, there is a space between the full stop and the citation, need to remove that and remove such gaps in any other instances (haven't seen any others)
    • could make a couple of the images a little bigger, particular the last one, the "mock gladiatorial fight" one.
    • Good use of image captions to carry information.
    • Reference system is all good
    • You may want to divide the references between websites and written sources a la Operation Camargue if you so wish, not a massive deal though.
    • Are there no more categories?
    • No more external links?

    All in all, a very good article, no major flaws that I can see style wise. Obviously I am not an expert on the topic so some commissions in the content may have escaped me. I cannot, however, find any big problems other than those listed above. SGGH speak! 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the detailed review. These are exactly the kind of nitpicky things I was hoping would be brought up. I've addressed your concerns with the exception of the lead and image sizes. It is my understanding that an article's lead is not supposed to present any information that does not appear in the body of the article (see today's Featured Article, for an example). Provided the body of the article is well cited, the lead need not worry with such matters. As for the images, the manual of style suggests leaving images at default size so that users' image preferences can take effect. As for categories and external links, I am unaware of any worth adding, but I am of course open to suggestions. Thanks again for your review! — Dulcem (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alastair Haines

    Note: The following comments were posted on my talk page. I have copied them here for convenience so that all peer review comments will be together in the same place. — Dulcem (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick comment on retiarius. Really excellent lead-in. Language is short, sweet and to the point, carrying plenty of interest, while remaining strictly encyclopedic and factual. The "effeminacy" and "skilled lovers" bits are fantastic, helpful human interest and cultural context; however they scream for citation. I don't doubt they're true, but I'd love detailed refs to the Latin authors, or at least to modern historians commenting on them. A footnote (after the punctuation following such claims) is what I'm used to looking for — and I often check them out — in my life, articles are just cover letters for the Bibliography, which is what I'm really interested in.

    I'll keep copy-editing, and give more feedback per peer-review shortly. The article is full of notable, verifiable content, expressed clearly and from a NPOV — exactly what Wiki wants to offer to readers. Thanks for your work (so far) ;) Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-correction here. I've read the rest of the article now, and I see what you've done. The lead is clear of footnotes, because everything is covered in the body. I like that style!
    I still think more evidence from primary sources needs to be adduced. For twentieth or twenty-first century historians to presume what might have been considered effeminate is all well and good, but many Latin writers were quite happy to speak their minds on such things.
    What I'm saying is:
    • article does clearly reflect solid, current expert opinions and cites these
    • it does summarize conclusions and arguments of quality available sources
    • but I think it lacks a little in reproducing the primary source, textual evidence its excellent secondary sources must cite themselves
    I want to hear more of what the Romans themselves said! ;)
    Well, that's my personal bias in reading history. I'm sure you appreciate the point. Anything further you could provide from your sources along these lines would make this fellow history-hungry editor happy. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More self-correction. I've done some research and I'm seeing that there's limited original text available, and what there is does seem rather focussed on Roman perceptions of sex and virtue. I've added some of the original Latin to the footnotes.
    I've split the equipment section into subsections, because there was quite a lot of material. It probably injures the dagger section, though I think it helps the others stand out. Personally, I think the equipment section should precede the "social commentary" section.
    It really is an outstanding article. I'll fiddle around a bit more (feel free to revert). Then I'll grab a set of criteria for Featured Article status, and write up how I see the article meeting those. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Alastair; thanks so much for the thorough read-through! I'm glad you were able to answer most of your own questions. Yep, there's little we know of the retiarii from Roman writers. Rather, most of our knowledge comes from mosaics, graffiti, archaeological finds, and modern re-enactments and experiments. I appreciate your copy edit. I may change a few things back here and there, but for the most part, I think your edits look good. (Specifically, I'm uncomfortable adding subheadings that create one-paragraph sections. I like to think that a new paragraph in these situations is enough to signal the reader that we've changed topic.) Please do let me know if you have any further comments, perhaps on the article's talk page or on the peer review page. Thanks again! — Dulcem (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Orange Box

    [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 hopefully identify the any issues with the article so it can proceed to FAC. Please bring forward any pointers or problems you may have with the article.

    Thanks, Sabre (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kobold

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've recently expanded this article greatly from it's stubby beginnings. I'm looking for any sort of feedback that would help the article make it through Featured Article Candidates. Also useful would be suggestions for more pictures (most of the ones used come from the same PD source). Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgot to add: I'm a bit unsure what to do about the "Media" section. Kobolds appear in all sorts of fantasy literature, video games, and role-playing games, but a long list of these seems unhelpful. I searched for some sort of third-party source analyzing how kobolds have been depicted in fiction, but I struck out. Any leads would be much appreciated. — Dulcem (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments:

    • A nice job so far and I think it is fairly close to FA, although there is some room for improvement. Make sure that any attributed statement is cited - for example here are two sentences from the end of the Origins and etymology section which need refs: German writer Heinrich Smidt believed that the sea kobolds, or Klabautermann, entered German folklore via German sailors who had learned about them in England. However, historians David Kirby and Merja-Liisa Hinkkanen dispute this, claiming no evidence of such a belief in Britain. Or the whole end of the Media section is uncited.
    • The images are nice, but I see that the three parchment colored ones are up for deletion on Commons. I would try to make the captions more consistent in length and tone - some are very short and could be expanded (the first one), others are very long (the Pompeii lares shrine).
    • Organizationally, there is a lot of repetition from section to section (I think Klabautermann is defined every time) and sometimes from one sentence to the next (example from Characteristics section: Local names for kobolds include Allerünken, Alraune, Galgenmännlein (in southern Germany), Glucksmännchen, Heinzelmännchen (in Cologne), Hütchen, and Oaraunle.[13][31][32] The Heinzelmännchen are a class of kobolds from Cologne,[32]...). I would print this out and go through it with a red pen.
    • The current sections are also fairly long and may benefit from being divided into subsections.
    • Following up on the last two points, I would also make sure that the sections were focused on their topic - by the time I got to Mine spirits and Water spirits I felt that I had already read much of the material. I do not know if it would make sense to have a brief characteristics section where the current one is and then have a specfic Characteristics subsection for each type (House, Mine, Water)? I would also try to get a better flow - some of the article seems choppy, just a collection of one story says they do this, another says they do that... sentences.
    • This needs a copy edit / proof reading - "Heinzelmännchen" is spelled "Heinzelmänchen" a few times and I noticed others - was reading for content and did not note specifics.
    • Could there be a Kobolds in popular culture subarticle? That would also be a place to put the inevitable "my favorite rock band has a song with a kobold in the lyrics" kruft.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow! Thanks for the excellent review. I'll try to address your concerns in the next few days. A few comments/questions, though:
    • The reason that the paragraph about Heinrich Smidt and the Klabautermann does not cite every statement is because all of that information comes from the same page of the same source (Kirby and Hiinkkanen 48–9).
    • Regarding the parchment-colored images, I'm really at a loss for what to do. Someone nominated them for deletion on Commons, but they are most assuredly public domain in the United States. From what I've seen, Commons deletion debates can sometimes drag on for months. Would it be best to just upload them to Wikipedia and bypass Commons (the PD-US template must exist for a reason), or should I remove them from the article pending their being kept on Commons?
    • I would weigh in on the Commons debate if you feel OK with that, leave the images here. If there is a US source of the same images, you could upload them again if they are deleted (or that info may sway the debate) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll work on the choppiness. It's difficult with folklore to not do the "This story says they do this, while this one says they do this" thing, since there is so much variation. I'll try to massage it more.
    • The popular culture section is not fully cited because some of the material is simply saying "This character is a kobold" and "Grieg wrote a piece called The Kobold", where those things are so integral to what is under discussion that no citation is needed. For example, it's the same thing as not needing a citation that Lassie is a dog. That said, the pop culture section is definitely one where I've struck out on sources. The only solution to beef it up is to write about where kobolds appear in pop culture with no third-party analysis, which I was trying to avoid. I've seen other FAs do this, so maybe there's hope. Incidentally, there is a kobolds in gaming article that acts much like the cruft-sink you mentioned.
    Thanks again! — Dulcem (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very welcome, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina Turner

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

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


    Thanks, Vikrant 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Biomedeng (talk):

    • Reference number 3 needs a space after it
    • The last paragraph of the lead section seems to be not quite NPOV. While these quotes may be used by some in the media they do little for the reader to help understand more about Tina Turner. It does not seem to add to the article, and in particular does not seem appropriate for a lead section which is supposed to be a summary of the article.
    • An overview section is redundant. I am not sure if this is covered in a wikipedia policy or not, but IMHO the texgt should be incorporated into the lead and the section removed
    • "... making her of many people who are both of African American and Native American descent" doesn't make sense/isn't needed. It is fine to give her racial backround but people do not need this additional information that other people are part african american and native american.
    • "The land for the school was sold below market value to the school trustees by Turner's great granduncle in 1889" doesn't really add to the article about Tina Turner
    • " By the end of the decade, Tina had discovered rock and roll..." this part of the sentence doesn't make sense...how does she "discover" rock and roll?
    • "A one-night gig at a small, predominantly-black supper club in the South could be followed in the same week by a show at a major venue in Las Vegas or a national TV appearance." needs a citation and isn't specific enough. See WP:AWW
    • "with an iron fist" and "While a fine musician" also seem to be weasel words/phrases
    • Maybe I missed it but it doesn't say when Ike and Tina got married
    • Several paragraphs have no citations at all
    • The Rotterdam handprints picture doesn't seem to go with the text of the section it is placed in.
    • References 47 and 48 have an extra space between the period and reference number
    • Not all references are formatted properly (i.e. need accessed dates for urls,...)
    • It is good to see some books used as references besides online refs

    Overall you need more references in a lot of places and the article could use a good copy edit. A few more relevant images would also be good if they can be found. Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SCO v. IBM

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article is complete in its current form - it is unlikely to change for a long time due to the process of law, I'm just unsure where this article needs to go.


    Thanks, outboxing (work • yada) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Phew - this is very detailed and obviously has had a lot of work put into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

    • Lead needs to be expanded to be a summary of the whole article and not just one sentence - see WP:LEAD. The current sentence plus the current Summary section would actually be a decent lead section with a little tweaking.\
    • SCO's claims sections - is there a reason these need to be bullet lists and not text paragraphs?
      • Some awkwardness, such as Computerworld reported Chris Sontag of SCO as saying: (how about According to Computerworld, Chris Sontag of SCO said:? Having a fresh set of eyes do a copyedit would help.
      • all Linux kernel developers have considered this to be far too restrictive, so none of them have signed it. needs a reference (extraordinary claims...).
      • SCO's major claims have now been reported as relating to the following components of the Linux kernel - when is the "now" here? Better to say as of 2008 or whenver it actually was meant when "now" was written.
    • Free software and open source community reaction section - needs lots more references. Open source advocates' arguments include: be specific - who holds all of these opinions? Why do they have to be bullet points and not text? Especially cite direct quotes such as SCO has often called themselves "The owner of the UNIX operating system." (and wouldn't it be SCO has often called itself..'?
      • lending credence to the idea that the lawsuit's primary purpose is manipulation of SCO's stock price. SCO Group's CEO Darl McBride has been the subject of particular criticism, because of his extreme statements to the press. Whoa - needs cited or taken out - very POV if not slanderous.
    • Similar problems to above throughout the rest of the article - lists instead of text, too many block quotes, under referenced, and POV.
    • References come after punctuation, i.e. not On July 31, 2003, the Open Source Development Labs released a position paper on the ongoing conflict[27][28],...
    • I thought See also was for links not already cited in the article?
    • References for internet sources need to ALL give title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.
    • Can't you find any pictures? Maybe Linus Torvald? Surely there is a free picture of IBM headquarters or SCO's building or even the courthouse?

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Imperial Manila

    [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 planning to submit this for GA, possibly FA.

    Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: If you are going to submit this to WP:GAN, please read the Good Article criteria, especially comprehensiveness. I think this artilce still has some distance to go before it is up to GA standards. Some specific suggestions for improvement:

    • I am not sure why this is notable - why should there be an article on a two-word phrase? The article itself needs to make this clearer - just because the phrase exists does not mean it is notable. My shoelaces exist (as do I) but there are not articles on them (or me).
    • The lead should summarize the article and not have anything that is solely in the lead (see WP:LEAD).
    • Could the section titles be more concise? Perhaps "Political usage" "Business usage" etc.? Or have have an overall section called "Usage" then subsections called "Politics", "Business", etc.?
    • The article needs more references and needs to be more specific in attributions. Examples:
      • The first quote from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo does not actually nclude the words "Imperial Manila". If she used them, it should include those words. If she did not use them, why is this quote in this article at all? Same applies to quotes in the other sections.
      • In the business section, give specific examples (quotes). Or here Advertising agencies in Metro Manila are also faulted for publishing print advertisements... say who faults them. Specificty is good and this applies to the whole article - attribute criticism to specific sources.
    • The article needs a copyedit for grammar and overall clarity:
      • What does this sentence mean, for example? It was because of the country's centralized government that provincial governments favor constitutional amendments for a shift to federal government, as well as supporting Arroyo and rejecting calls from Manila-based activist groups demanding for her resignation due to corruption charges particularly the Philippine National Broadband Network controversy.[3][4]
    • Couldn't there be pictures of Manila or the president? This needs images.
    • References that are there look good and seem to follow WP:MOS

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lobo (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 this article has been vastly contributed by anonymous IP users, and I cannot pinpoint what to do with this to improve the article.

    Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: The article is short and could be expanded, although I imagine waiting until the 25 episodes have all been shown would be useful. Some areas for improvement:

    • The article needs a copyedit for grammar and spelling. Please do not use characters like "&" for words like "and".
    • The lead needs to summarize the article and should not have material in it that is not also in the article itself (see WP:LEAD). I also think it should locate the series as bein made and shown in the Phillipines in the first sentence for context.
    • Story - usually this section is called "Plot". Needs to be written from an real-world perspective, i.e. from "outside the universe" of the show (see WP:IN-U). I found the plot very confusing and hard to follow - the Waya and Luna are mentioned in the second paragraph, but not explained until the fifth. We know Lyka and Noah knew each other as children in the second paragraph, but do not learn she thought he was dead then until the third.
    • Cast - is Extended Cast needed here?
    • References - very incomplete, internet refs must list the title, author (if know), publisher, and date accessed - please see WP:CITE and WP:RS too.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Madonna (entertainer)

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

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


    Thanks, Vikrant 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Biomedeng (talk):

    • This is a really good article. Very comprehensive.
    • I think you need to add references in a few more places. An example is: "Madonna has cited her Catholic and Italian background as major influences in her life and career. She has also noted on various occasions that her mother's premature death left a lasting emotional burden throughout her adolescence and adulthood. As an entertainer, Madonna has occasionally touched on these subjects in her song lyrics and visual presentation." If you are claiming she said something was her influence you need citations. The influences section seemed to need the most work, but some of the other sections about her music had facts which were uncited. I also noticed a citation needed in at least one place.
    • Some of the references are properly formatted, but some still have serious formatting issues that should be resolved (some do not have enough information to even understand where they came from).
    • The use of images in each section correlates well with the text.
    • The article is very long. Maybe too long. I am not sure if you should split it or not (maybe some more senior editors can comment on this).

    Overall I would work to add references, properly format the references. The text is very well written, so maybe you could get it back to FA status, but I think article length is going to be an issue with some people. Biomedeng (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rwanda

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very well written article compared to most African countries and I believe has a chance at FA and may be GA status already. I am looking for specifics about everything: image placement, sentence structure, citations...


    Thanks, §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Biomedeng (talk):

    • I am not sure about the IPA pronnounciation listed. Reference.com shows it as /ruˈɑndə/, but I am perhaps the last person you would want to ask about this. Still it seems to me that the two a's in Rwanda have different pronnounciation.
    • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article. Check out WP:LEAD. I think for this article the lead should be 3-4 full paragraphs.
    • The history section is too long for this article that is supposed to be about the country. There is already a History of Rwanda article which most of this information should be put and only summarized in this article.
    • At the end of rebuilding there is an external link instead of inline citation
    • While the text is easy to understand I think the article could bennefit from some copyediting. One problem is that most paragraphs are short (several one-sentence paragraphs). Also some of the sections just read like a list of facts rather than well-organized prose that flows well.
    • Administrative divisions section is just a list (needs more supporting text to explain)
    • I think the article could bennefit from more images. For example you should put some political figure in the politics section, maybe one of Paul Kagame. The economy section could also bennefit from an image.
    • The footnote in the infobox doesn't seem to be associated with any particular statistic in the infobox. If it is just a general comment then why does it have a 1 in front of it?
    • Some of the references could be reformatted to wikipedia style guidelines (adding accessed dates for urls, ISBNs for books). See the citation templates.
    • There are several places of unreferenced information, including some whole paragraphs without any references.

    I think with some more work (spinning off a lot of the history to the history article, adding more images and citations, copyediting) you should submit for GA status. Good luck. Biomedeng (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eva Cassidy

    [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 just passed the GA nomination and I am wondering what kind of improvement it would need to have a shot at FA status.

    Thanks, Onesixfivedottwoone (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SGGH

    My thoughts and suggestions:

    • Great infobox image
    • Take the commas out of the dates of birth and death, the preferences settings of each user enables the dates to be arranged either month then day or year month day etc, and if there are commas in the wrong place this can upset this. Each user will see the commas the way they have requested to, you don't need to add them into the text.
    Hi, thanks for the review. If I read MOS:DATE correctly, the current date format is compatible with the autoformatting as well.
    • First para of the lead needs cites
    • Cite Wake up to Wogam as a widely listened to show
    I found two sources for this.[10][11] Am going to add it to the main text to prevent cluterring the lead with refs.
    • In early life, cites [4][5] and [2] need to be ordered to [2][4][5], and this needs to be done throughout
    done
    • That citation needed tag needes to be filled.
    I can't find any sources to back that up. Will remove it.
    • One line paragraph at the end of "music career" could be merged with the previous paragraph.
    done
    • As with the lead, same comments apply to fully wikilinked dates in the prose
    • You don't need to refer to her as "eva cassidy" thoughout, after a while, "cassidy" will do.
    It reads strange to me to refer to all mention of her as Cassidy. I removed some but kept a few mention such as those at the start of some sections
    • bump up the image size a little.
    done
    • posthumous recognition section has a couple of very short paragraphs that could be merged.
    I combined the two paragraphs. But it still reads like a list to me. Not sure how to fix that.
    • Paragraph merge comment could apply to Unofficial releases and future film sections too
    Merged unofficial releases. Future film is only one paragraph.
    • Also increae image size of the "offending cover" image
    That's the actual size of the pic I uploaded. Will have to reupload another.
    • The accompaniment section is a bit out of context given where it is, perhaps merge into prose in the musical career section?
    Removed and added to navbox
    • popular media section, merge those tiny paragraphs
    done
    • possible reflist|2 that ref section
    It's already using reflist|2
    • References and further reading should be notes and further reading, or just refernces, with the refs under a sub heading of "notes" and the books under "books" as they are. I recommend the latter option.
    done

    Good article, hope those comments help. SGGH speak! 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again for the review. --165.21.154.88 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenacious D

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it has been GA for a while, and I feel that a bit of an injection of new blood could kick it into FA.

    Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I learned a lot about the band and enjoyed this article. It nees some polish to get to FA. I am not sure this really needs a peer review as much as just looking at the previous FAC comments and taking them seriously, but here goes:

    • Since the article has been through FAC four times, I would go through all of those comments as carefully as possible as make sure they had all been addressed. I would also treat the comments as examples and look for similar problems throughout the article. Examples of unaddressed issues from FACs:
      • Still lots of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and choppy writing.
      • Why did Gass initially feel threatened by Black?
      • Per WP:LEAD, all material in the lead should be in the article: the lead still says they formed the group in LA in 1994, the article does not say this explicitly.
    • I would also be very careful to only include material on Tenacious D in the article, currently there is a fair amount of stuff on the solo work of the two members that just does not belong here. Two examples, one OK, one not: Mentioning Jack Black's involvement in King Kong interfering with Tenacious D's plans / work is fine; Black has starred in a number of films himself including High Fidelity, School of Rock... is not. I think even here it would be OK to say that they had each appeared in films, some together, but keep the focus of the article on Tenacious D. Another example - Gass and Black's solo appearances in other group's music videos have nothing to do with the band.
    • Some things make no sense.
      • For example: Black and Gass, at the time respectively aged 16 and 24, met in Edinburgh, Scotland during the Edinburgh Fringe. Both were members of the Los Angeles-based theatre troupe, The Actors' Gang[5][6] which was performing Tim Robbins' play Carnage.[7] So they met in Edinburgh, but they were already in an LA theatre troupe? Which is it? Also, when did they meet (year and month)? Put things into context - how long after they met did they form the group?
      • Another example: The soundtrack was released just over a week earlier, on November 14, and reached number eight on the Billboard 200 in the U.S.,[33] number twenty-four in the UK,[34] and number fifty-seven in the US.[35] Did the album reach #8 or #57 in the US? If these are different charts, clarify.
    • There is some repetition of material. Since they have only made two albums and an EP (with 4 singles) and the albums, EP and most of the singles are already discussed above, having a separate discography section seems silly - just link to their discography list under See also.
    • Ref 63 (City Hall Lyrics) does not list full information (publisher, date accessed, etc.). I also am not sure this meets WP:RS.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point about the charts. I have fixed the discog page so I'll link to that. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how that error crept in. I think someone mistook the single POD for the album Pick of Destiny. That's sorted. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Bond (film 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…


    Thanks, Vikrant 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Ruhrfisch comments: I like what is here, but felt the article still could use some work and additional material to be more complete. Specific suggestions:

    • There are very few images - how about some of the different actors who have portrayed Bond?
    • The Lead is a bit short for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD
    • Development section seems to have major holes in its coverage - there are more words in the one sentence on the first choice to play Bond (The winner of the contest was a 28-year-old model named Peter Anthony, who, according to Broccoli, had a Gregory Peck quality, but proved unable to cope with the role.[5]) than there is about the iconic and first Bond actor (The producers turned to Sean Connery for five films.) with no mention at all of George Lazenby or Connery's return. Instead after one sentence on Connery we jump from 1961 to 1983 and to Roger Moore, who is first mentioned as already wanting to leave the series.
    • The whole non-EON Bond films matter should be better incorporated into the article - as it is most of the article is told chronologically, then we skip back to talk about Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again (and how did EON get the Casino Royale name back for the most recent, reboot film?).
    • I am surprised there is not a section on villains - some (Blofeld, Jaws) have been in more than one film.
    • The Reception section needs expansion - what do critics think of Bond in general? Which films were seen as best or worst by critics?
    • The whole Avengers part of the Influence on films and television section seems underreferenced and thus seems to possibly be original research - it also seems to have too much weight relative to its importance. How about the Bond films' influences on other popular spy series of the 60s and 70s and later (Man from UNCLE, Get Smart, I Spy, the Dean Martin spy movies (name escapes me), Austin Powers)? Other examples given are under refrenced (or not cited at all).
    • Video games section is on one game - surely there have been others?
    • References 5, 31, and 32 are incomplete.

    Again, I liked what I read, learned some things, and think this is a good effort, but it still has some major improvements needed. Hpe this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomorrow Never Dies

    [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…


    Thanks, Vikrant 07:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Overall a well-written, good article that seems close to FA standards. It may help to have a FA model article to follow (with the large number of Bond films, is one FA already?). Here are some comments for improvement:

    • Lead seems a bit short, and the "opened the same day as Titanic" nugget is not in the article, but should be (and should be sourced). See WP:LEAD
    • There are a few places that could use some polish / copy editing.
      • Need a word added here: M sends Bond to investigate Carver after Carver Media releases news with critical details hours before these have become [widely? publicly?] known,...
      • Run-on sentence: Bond captures Gupta to use as his own hostage, but Carver kills Gupta, claiming he has outlived his contract, but Bond leads a large battle against the crew and Stamper, and Carver is killed by his own sea drill after trying to kill Bond on his own.
    • Could this be made more specific: As had been the case previously, with no Ian Fleming novels remaining unadapted, an entirely original story was required.? i.e. somehow say which film (and give the year) was the last to be made from an original Ian Fleming novel?
    • Casting section has very short paragraphs - could these be comined? Also this sentence makes no sense (unless SPottiswoode also has his own insurance company): She reputedly wanted to perform her own stunts, but was prevented because director Spottiswoode ruled it too dangerous and uninsured.[15][16]
    • Ref 4 - is IMdB considered a reliable source? Ref 37 is partly broken (template).

    These are fairly nit-picky, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paper Dolls (film)

    [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 submit this article for GA, and possibly FA.

    Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No responses yet, eh? Well, a couple quick suggestions... first, you'll want to expand the lead as per WP:LEAD to around three paragraphs. I'd also suggest renaming the "Plot" section. It makes me question whether this is really a documentary or not. Also, look at your in-line citations. There are a couple sentences that are followed with two cites (I call it "cite-cruft") where it's not needed. Doubling citations really should only be for potentially controversial information - a DVD release date doesn't seem controversial to me. I'd also recommend you ask for a specific peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: (after edit conflict) Overall interesting and well done - I think it is pretty close to GA status. Some suggestions:

    • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD, for example the Reception section is not mentioned here at all, but the lead should summarize the article.
    • A copyedit is needed.
      • One example He urges her to learn Hebrew by reciting a poem written by Yehuda Amichai, while he basks in Sally's warmth and wit.[7] Since he (Chaim) has lost his voice, he can not be reciting it, but the sentence as written is unlcear as to who is reciting (Sally).
      • There are other places that need some polish / grammar corrections. In contrast, when the Paper Dolls were arranged for an audition at TLV—the largest nightclub in Tel Aviv—the booker instead relegated them as geishas who bow by the entrance and were described as "unprofessional" and "fit only for a bus stop".[9][10] This is a run-on sentence and not grammatical. Perhaps In contrast, after the Paper Dolls were hired at TLV—the largest nightclub in Tel Aviv—instead of performing on stage, the booker relegated them to a role as geishas. They would bow by the entrance and were described as "unprofessional" and "fit only for a bus stop".[9][10]
    • I have not seen the film so I do not know if the "plot" is complete, but it seems as if the description of waht happens in the film could be expanded.
    • Participants section - I would identify each of these people and explain their role in the film. Also explain why some died during filming.
    • Production - can more said on the 6 hour tv production this was made from? Was it also called Paper Dolls?
    • Relesases and Reception seem well done - perhaps identify the three Paper Dolls in the image (wearing newspaper dresses)
    • references 2 and 5 do not have complete information (all internet refs should have date accessed, publisher, author if known and title).

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Isko Moreno

    [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 planning to submit this article for GA, possibly FA.

    Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: The article seems too short for WP:GA, see comprehensiveness at What is a Good Article. More comments:

    • Lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD to summarize the whole article. Since the article is named "Isko Moreno", I would explain that is his stage name in the first sentence.
    • The whole "mature roles in Titillating Films" part seems to be censoring what he did - basically acting in soft core pornography. See WP:CENSOR.
    • Needs a copy edit, some of the language is awkward and could be polished: Being out of wedlock, he and his mother were often neglected financially.
    • More details needed - what has he done as mayor or as a legislator? When did he get married? Is he active in his political party?
    • Image would be great if one can be obtained.
    • Refs are OK - IMDB is not a reliable source, all internet refs need title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    José García Villa

    [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 planning to submit this for GA, possibly FA.

    Thanks, Starczamora (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: this is pretty close to GA or eventual FA as it is. Here are some more suggestions:

    • The lead should follow WP:LEAD and summarize the article, as well as not add any facts not in the body of the article.
    • Needs a copyedit, especially for punctuation.
      • I know he used commas in his poetry, but He was, awarded, the National Artist of the Philippines title... should read He was awarded the National Artist of the Philippines title....
      • Spelling is odd - some in quotes, so please double check those (copyedit and proof read). Examples He is known to have introduced the "reversed consonance rime scheme" in writing poetry,... should be "rhyme" (rime is a kind of ice). Or "The commas are an integral and essential part of the medium: regulating the poem's verbal density and time movement: enabling each word to attain a fuller tonal value, and the line movement to become more measures."[4] - the last word does not fit, perhaps it is supposed to be measured instead?
    • Early life, Personal and Death sections are all very short - could they be combined into a single section? Also tense is odd - in Death it says He also has three grandchildren. but he is dead, so he can't be present tense ("had", not "has")
    • Images are decent, references seem OK. Good article which needs a little polish,

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1995 Japanese Grand Prix

    [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 know how I can improve the article to get it to Good Article status. Can users who comment on the article point to things that could specifically be reworked or reworded in any way, or things that need to be explained in more depth. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by AlexJ

    Will get a full review done shortly, however during a glance over I noticed "Over two seconds covered the top ten cars in qualifying." which looked a bit odd. Is it particularly rare for the Top 10 to be covered by more than 2 seconds? AlexJ (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most qualifying sessions nowadays (probably not during Q3 due to the fuel levels), but during the Q1 + Q2, most drivers are covered by the smallest of tenths, with the top ten in a qualifying session probably covered by between eight tenths and about 1.5 seconds. I think it is notable that the gap was significantly big, however the qualifying for the previous race shows a gap of 1.6 seconds for the top ten. Should it be noted that the gap was that big because of the gap between Schumacher & 2nd place Alesi was very big (eight tenths)? D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Qualifying was nowhere near as tight back then. I don't think two seconds is an unusually large amount - sometimes the backmarkers were up to 10 seconds off the pace. Readro (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about 1995, but according to Autocourse in 1996 in 9 of the rounds the first 10 on the grid were covered by less than 2 seconds, and in the other 7 races, the gap was greater than 2 seconds. In most cases when it was less than 2 seconds, it wasn't much less. A gaps of two seconds doesn't sound particularly surprising in that context. 4u1e (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right. I've removed it from the text - as looking at a few other qualifying results for 1995 shows that the gap was also over 2 seconds for the top ten - I guess it just means that the field in terms of quality was more spread out back then. Should I now that I've removed that particular line outline the top ten, possibly saying "Coulthard was sixth, with Irvine seventh and ...... close behind in eighth"? D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From my research on Forti, I know that both their drivers were an average of over seven seconds off the pace of the fastest qualifier (Coulthard) for the 1995 season. I believe that the wide-ranging new technical regulations for 1995 which advantaged the teams with the greatest resources, the existence of several teams with very tight budgets (Minardi, Simtek, Pacific), and the appearance of drivers such as Jean-Denis Deletraz all contributed to the dramatic spread of time throughout the 1995 field. It's no co-incidence that the 107% rule was introduced for 1996!-- Diniz (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4u1e comments

    My usual random stuff:

    • 'the Constructors' Championship was still up for grabs' - this sounds a bit informal for an encyclopedia. The second part of the sentence ('consisting of...') sounds a bit clumsy, possibly because it's trying to cram in too much information. Perhaps 'the Constructors' Championship could still be won by either Benetton (on 123 points) or Williams (on 102 points), with a total of 32 points available from the last two races.' You'll need to work in which drivers drive for which teams later on, probably just by saying 'Williams/Benetton driver X...' or similar.
      • Yep, reading that back to myself makes the sentence sound quite long and with too much info in there. I've reworked the sentence, removing the bits about the particular drivers. Most of the bit of the drivers was outlined in other parts of the text, so I didn't add anything in particular. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a para break after 'a maximum of 32 points available.', as the topic changes there.
    • Is it worth mentioning that Magnusson replaced Hakkinen at the previous race?
      • I personally thing it's important to outline driver changes before the race to make the reader aware of who's first grand prix it was back after injury, and it's a key part of the event, that it was Hakkinen's first race back after his appendicitus (sp?) operation. Same goes for the Wendlinger bit, he'd been out for several months, so the reader should be made aware of his return. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Practice Session' (and similar terms) don't need to be capitalised.
    • I'd suggest spelling out '1st, 2nd' etc as 'first, second'. What do others think?
      • I heard somewhere that you should write first to twenty as letters and anything else after that as numbers (apart from 30, 40, 50 which should be letters). I was going to use that format, but didn't know what others would think of switching from one to the other. Should I do that (first-twenty: letters; anything after (apart from 30, 40, 50, 60) numbers)? D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the background section, it's not really clear what the qualifying process was. The last para in particular doesn't make it very clear that it refers to the final qualifying session.
      • Unfortuantely the 1995 Formula One season article page doesn't say anything about the qualifying proceedure. In fact do we have any Wikipedia articles dedicated to the structure of a race weekend? If not then... D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm - well there's some stuff at Formula One for the current system, but that won't help here. I think the format then was two hour-long free practice sessions, one on Friday, one on Saturday, followed by a single one-hour qualifying session on Saturday. Format for qualifying was simply fastest time wins, but drivers were by then limited to only 12 laps to do it in. Amount of fuel was free - so in effect everyone ran on the minimum possible. There was a warm up session on Saturday morning, probably an hour, but it might have been less. Can anyone else advise on this, preferably with a source! 4u1e (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a problem on many race reports should they get improved. It was a minor problem on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix article as I had to link the related session part to 2007 Formula One season. My next point will have to be discussed at WP:F1 for more opinions, but I personally think that there could be an article created called Formula One qualifying systems which outlines all the past qualifying systems. That could then solve our problem, simply by linking to the appropriate session. Obviously though that needs to be discussed before doing anything drastic. D.M.N. (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There was a tyre limit as well of 7 sets per car over a weekend. I also think that the warm up was less than an hour - more likely half an hour or 45 minutes I'd have thought. Readro (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've found sources for the timings - [12] and [13]. Can't believe I forgot about the two qualifying sessions! Also, it seems that there was a 1h 45m practice session on both of Friday and Saturday. Warm-up was half an hour on Sunday morning. Readro (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a slight tendency to informal language: 'Blundell had a smash', Alesi was 'a mammoth 8 tenths behind'. Probably best to avoid this. I know it makes the writing sound more interesting, but the interest of our work here should primarily come from the information content and clarity of the writing, not the 'colour'. Well, that's what I think anyway. In any case, you will find it difficult to defend language like this at GA or FA, where it will be perceived as supporting a point of view.
      • Yep, I see your point there. Most of the weasely type language seemed to be in the Pre-Race section when trying to describe qualifying and practice. Anyway, I've reworded some things to try and make them less weasely. I think I've got everything that seems weasely. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More comments later. 4u1e (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ' The drivers were allowed to take to the track four and a half hours before the race start for a thirty-minute warm-up session.' Presumably because of the damp track, but if so you need to spell it out and note that it is unusual.
    • 'Schumacher retained first place at the start, but Alesi was judged to have jumped the start' These two bits probably shouldn't be joined with a 'but' (hurr, hurr - he said butt...). 'But' is for joining things that contradict each other (I thought she loved me, but she did not...), which is not what we're doing here. Suggest 'while', because the two things happened at the same time, or possibly de-couple the facts altogether. 4u1e (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

    [edit]
    • There should be no wikilinks in the title per WP:MOS, also the article name should be used, not the official title
    • "afer" typo in the lead
    • "McLaren car" car is redundant
      • How? The user is introduced to the subject, that the subject mentioned (Hakkinen) is driver a McLaren car. Without those two words, the user wouldn't know. I'd prefer more comments before removing it. D.M.N. (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the German flagicon included on the fastest lap and podium section, but not the pole section in the infobox?
    • "at the previous round held at the Aida circuit." I would change this to include the grand prix as someone who is not familiar with F1 would not know what grand prix was hosted there.
    • "Drivers' Championship was wrapped up," sounds a bit like a news report change to decided
    • "There were two driver changes heading into the penultimate race. Having been in the Sauber since the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix, Jean-Christophe Boullion was dropped and replaced by Karl Wendlinger." I would mke this into one sentence so it flows a bit better
      • I personally believe that it is better in two sentences, otherwise in my opinion, you are putting two much information into one sentence without a full-stop. D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on a time" I would use "with a time..."
    • "The two Williams and Ferrari cars covered the remaining top six places, with the Williams cars of Hill and David Coulthard 3rd and 5th." this section reads uneasily I would revise it slightly to "The Williams and Ferrari's occupied the remaining top six positions, with Williams' drivers Hill and David Coulthard 3rd and 5th respectively."
    • "2nd practice session, also an hour and 45 minutes, on Saturday morning." change to "2nd practice session on Saturday morning, which lasted for an hour and 45 minutes."
    • "in the Jordan car" car is redundant
    • "Hill was third in the Williams, with Schumacher marginally behind Hill. The Ferrari's were fifth and eighth, with Alesi again in front of Berger." merge into one sentence
    • "pole-position" the article on pole position has no dash so I would remove the dash
    • "Schumacher clinched pole-position in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023.[2][13] This was Schumacher's tenth pole position of his career.[1]" merge into one sentence
    • "Blundell had his second crash of the weekend in the McLaren in Saturday Practice. The car was not ready for Saturday qualifying, meaning he never set a time, leaving him at the back of the grid." merge into one sentence
    • "with a race start time of 14:00 JST (GMT +9)." change to "with the race starting at 14:00 JST (GMT +9)."
    • "Alesi completed the top four, eight tenths behind Hill.[15] Twenty-two out of the twenty-four qualifies took the start." merge into one sentence
    • "Due to his crash in qualifying, Suzuki was unable to take the start.[16] Roberto Moreno in the Forti also never took the start as his car was suffering from a gearbox problem.[17]" merge these two sentences as well
      • Done, not too much info here, just outlining who never took the start.
    • "Due to the damp track, all drivers opted to start on wet tyres.[4] Schumacher retained first place at the start. change to "Due to the damp track, all drivers opted to start on wet tyres, with[4] Schumacher retaining first place at the start.
    • "constantly recording fastest laps - his first one was 1:54.416, use an em dash and there should be no spaces between the dash
    • "Alesi's progress was hampered a little" a little is redundant
    • "At the front, Alesi was continuing to lap faster than Schumacher even when the Benetton was on dry tyres.[17] He was only six seconds behind Schumacher when his Ferrari 412T1 suffered a transmission failure on lap 24." merge into one sentence
      • Disagree. It would not only make the sentence excessively long, but it would mean a huge amount of info is being complied into one sentence. My aim is to make this article a GA (then possibly FA), removing and merging sentences will not do that. D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Schumacher pitted for a second time on lap 31, handing the lead to Hill.[2] Schumacher put the pressure on after his second stop, setting the fastest lap on lap 33.[18] Hill pitted on lap 35, leaving Schumacher back in front.[2]" this section reads uneasily mainly due it not being one coherent sentence. Also I would change some of the prose to make it read easier
    • "The Williams drivers" drivers should have an apostrophe on the end of it
    • "beachi" typo
    • "Spoon corner" "Spoon Curve" be consistent
    • "Schumacher went on to his ninth victory of the season in a time of 1:36:52.930.[2][13][18]" really bad sentence I would change it to "Schumacher won the race after 53 laps, to claim his ninth victory of the season in a time of 1:36:52.930." and are three refs really needed to clarify this point?
    • "Twenty seconds" should be "20 seconds"
    The manual of style on numbers an figures states that words should be used from one to ten, and figures from there on so I would change it.
    • For the quotes you have in the post race section I would use the quote template:

    That's all, good luck with the article NapHit (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Homerun (film)

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I have finished writing this article and will soon take it to GAN. Any and all feedback on how I can improve the article is appreciated.

    Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dihydrogen Monoxide

    [edit]
    • "shares the same storyline" - it can't be identical. Perhaps "a similar storyline"?
    Addressed during our rewrite of the lead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This comedy emphasises" - you should specifically state what the genres are, before into plot detail, IMO
    Addressed, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I am surprised that this article does not exist. One day, I might write an article about all our disputes with our northern neighbours. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, can it redirect to somewhere on Singapore or Malaysia? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The link now points to Foreign relations of Singapore#Malaysia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Released in cinemas on 7 August 2003" - wlink dates
    All dates wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Neo and his wife were moved to" - you might want to name him in full here for those who skip the lead
    Changed by someone else. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newspaper titles in refs need to be in italics
    All newspaper titles in references italicised --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on a budget of S$1.5 million." - wlink currency
    All currencies wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Having earned $110 300 from sneak previews" - again, and later in sentence
    Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult" - no need for the redlink here
    Wikilink removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 7 August 2003," - wlink date again
    Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "released Homerun on 37 screens" - what does on 37 screens mean?
    Changed "screens" to "theatres". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In addition, one of Kiat Kun's" - in addition not necessary
    "In addition" removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "over the right to draw water from the kampung well.[1][13][14][15]" - do you need 4 refs for this?
    In my opinion, important facts, such as this, and the Golden Horse victory, should have multiple references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, but four isn't necessary. You don't need to have four reliable sources reporting one fact; that's just silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed one of the references, as it was over-used and only mentioned that fact in one sentence. The other references went into greater detail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "comparing Singapore’s disclosure of letters between the two countries to "revealing letters sent to one's girlfriend"" - you don't need to quote this, it's the same as the last quote
    Haemo says you're wrong. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 12 September 2007" - date (WP:DATE)
    Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Malaysian censors announced their decision to ban the screening of Homerun in Malaysia,[14][15][16] citing scenes which "are easily interpreted by some Malaysian audiences’ [sic] as containing political elements related to current issues".[15] Raintree filed an appeal,[14][15][16] " - do you need the 3 cites for both sentences?
    See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Best New Performer award with Wang Baoqiang of Blind Shaft.[24][25][26]" - does this need 3 refs?
    See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An interesting read. Hope to see a FAC in the not-too-distant future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your thorough review. I have addressed some of your concerns and will address the rest (and Delldot's) later. Now I have to rush to my Maths lecture. Junior college life is hectic! Unfortunately, I doubt you'll see an FAC in the not-too-distant future. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no hurry; good luck! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    delldot

    [edit]

    Very nicely done. I'll be incredibly picky here and you can ignore anything that's off base.

    • Not sure whether award-winning needs a hyphen.
    I believe it does, but will ask my copy-editors. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haemo says having the hyphen and not having the hyphen are both acceptable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "shares the same" is redundant.
    Addressed during our rewrite of the lead (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to link to common words like shoe, only material related to the content of the article or something someone might need to look up, like a rare word or concept.
    The shoes are a key element of the plot. Though, if you insist, I can remove the wikilinks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not look like an Easter egg link, as the "Seperation" section of the Singapore in Malaysia article is about (you guessed it) Singapore's seperation from Malaysia. Perhaps I should modify the link to go directly to the "Seperation" section, instead of the top of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dihydrogen Monoxide also mentioned this in his review above; see my response to his comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Link changed, see my response to Dihydrogen Monoxide. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cinema is a dab link, so maybe check the article for others. Again, I don't know if you need to link common words like this, though this one is more related.
    Done. The link now points to cinema (place). I checked the rest of the article for links to disambiguation pages, but did not find any. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Every day, the cast woke up early to reach the filming location, exhausting themselves with the long commute and the many running scenes they had to shoot.[7] The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult;[1] moreover, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand due to the SARS outbreak." This is a very long sentence, and I don't know if the two thoughts are closely related enough for a semicolon. I'd use a full stop. Plus, that way you can avoid pesky mid-sentence refs. Also, I think moreover is one of those redundant words list at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy (also, also is another one :-P).
    Linking words may be redundant, but they are sometimes needed to make the sentences flow better. How about: "Due to the SARS outbreak, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand. The child actors' school commitments also made the planning of reshoots difficult." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the movie should be italicized.
    It was in all but two instances. Both unitalicised instances of "Homerun" have now been italicised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link full dates, e.g. 7 August 2003 -> 7 August, 2003. But don't link just years by themselves, except when it's relevant to the article (which is rare).
    Done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "then a record for a Singaporean film" maybe "at the time" instead of "then".
    Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kiat Kun and his friends strike a bargain with Beng Soon to play on the team using the other boys' football shoes, in exchange for helping the other boys cheat on their homework." This sentence is a little confusing, since it's not clear who the "other boys" are in the two cases, but I don't know how you'd fix it.
    In that sentence, the "other boys" refer to Beng Soon and his friends. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the "other boys" refer to Kiat Kun and his friends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed one instance of "the other boys'" to "their". Hopefully that should make it clearer who we are referring to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...kick Kiat Kun and his friends off the team." this sounds too informal. "For good" and "biggest" are others.
    Changed "kick...off" to "remove...from", "the agreement is eventually terminated for good" to "they eventually give up on reaching an agreement" and "the biggest" to "achieving the most successful". Are all of these fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite the bad blood between himself and Kiat Kun, Beng Soon decides to arrange a new deal with Kiat Kun, but under more onerous terms. Kiat Kun's initial joy turns to dismay when he realises that the shoes are too large." This is a little confusing, because the first sentence doesn't mention shoes. I guess the reader can infer that the new deal's probably also going to involve shoes, but you might want to specify. If it's basically the same thing, you could say "...renew the deal, but under more onerous terms."
    Done. Changed to "renew the deal, but under more onerous terms". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This concern is now outdated, as Haemo and I have rewritten the Plot section (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the rich boy feels slighted and threatens to throw the shoes away in a fit of pique." I think you could do away with "in a fit of pique", since the earlier part of the sentence made it clear how he felt.
    I removed "in a fit of pique" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This causes the boys to get into an argument..." You should avoid starting sentences with this if possible, since it's not always going to be clear what this refers to.
    Changed to "As a result, the boys get into an argument..." Is this grammatically correct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...but trips on a stone and finishes first, with Beng Soon ending in third place..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." He recommends using a semicolon instead.
    Changed the comma to a semi-colon and "with Beng Soon ending in third place" to "Beng Soon ends the race in third place". Is this fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unfortunately, he was sick..." Unfortunately sounds like the article is offering commentary, and I don't see how it adds anything. But might work. Also, my instinct would be to go for "he had been sick" rather than "he was", but you might want to see how FA articles on movies do it.
    I already started two sentences in the Plot section with "However" and used the word "but" five times in that section. Hence I used "Unfortunately" to avoid repeating words. Would you like to suggest a better word or phrase? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Scartol changed it to "Because he was sick..." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While Kiat Kun is running, Mrs Chew goes into labour, leading Seow Fang to run across across a long path littered with broken glass to find a midwife." maybe use forcing instead of leading here?
    Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Finally, Mrs Chew gives birth to a healthy little baby boy and Beng Soon gives Kiat Kun and Seow Fang new pairs of shoes before going to study in England." This last sentence is such a departure from the rest of the plot that I'd almost say to have it as a separate paragraph. On the other hand, short and one sentence paragraphs are discouraged unless you're really emphasizing something. Reading this sentence, I was like, "Whaa? I thought Beng Soon had just thrown away the pair of shoes he'd won out of spite. Why the change of heart?" This might just be a movie thing though. In other news, I don't think the word "little" is necessary here, unless there's something notable about his size. Plus, little is a little informal.
    Good point. I will see how I can tweak the sentence. By the way, I removed the word "little" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could probably cut the plot section down a little or flesh the other sections out.
    Haemo and I have rewritten parts of the Plot section; some of your concerns were also addressed during that rewrite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cast section is a little sparse. Could it be integrated into another section? Isn't all this information already in the plot section?
    The mentions of the actors in the Plot section are not referenced, while the Cast section contains a reference. I would make a longer and more comprehensive Cast section if I could find a reference for it (other than IMDB, of course). I Not Stupid achieved GA status despite having a Cast list similar to that in Homerun (film). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Singapore's situation in 1965 to that of 2003" sounds awkward because of the in/of use.
    • "as well as the threat of terrorism in the new millenium." I don't get this. How do the riots highlight that?
    To be honest, I am not completely sure. Perhaps the chaos and social unrest caused by the riots parellel those caused by terrorism. That tidbit is taken from a quote by executive producer Daniel Yun, which was published in my reference, a newspaper article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the deal Beng Soon reneged on" ends in a preposition. Sorry, just being picky here.
    • Some of the info under Political commentary isn't really commentary, it's just about stuff that's happening at the time. Maybe you could rename the section to something like "Political context", or "Political context and commentary" or something. I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, maybe discuss it on the talk page.
    That section used to be named "Political satire"; I remamed it to "Political commentary" as not all the commentary was satirical. Most of the allusions are not "context". Are you suggesting I change the name to the overly long "Political context, commentary and satire"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the last paragraph under "Political commentary", about the banning in Malaysia, might go better under "Reception".
    The Malaysian censors decided to ban the movie because of its political satire, not because it was a bad movie, so I think that the paragraph about the ban belongs in the "Political commentary" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Best Theme Song (拥有)" is showing up as two question marks on my screen. Is this foreign characters that I don't have the software for, or is it really two question marks? If it's the latter, what's that about?
    They are Chinese characters. Perhaps you should install the Chinese language pack. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In contrast, FilmsAsia reviewer Soh Yun-Huei panned its use of political satire, which she felt '[causes] the film to be devoid of innocence and replaced with a sense of agenda and manipulation'." You can probably do away with the in contrast. Also, you might be able to move the causes outside of the quote to avoid having to use brackets. Maybe change the tense to caused.
    I use linking words like "in contrast" to vary my sentence structures. If there is a better way to do so, please let me know. Changing the tense to caused would not help, as the tense in the review is causing, but I will consider moving the word outside of the quote. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some print refs have no author listed. Some refs have the date in parentheses and some don't.
    If the references do not have an author listed, it is because Factiva did not contain information about the author. Blame my copy-editor Haemo for the inconsistent positioning of dates; he was the one who helped me format the references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall, very well done. I told you I'd be incredibly picky :-P Definitely let me know if you have questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the thorough and picky review. I have addressed some of your concerns and responded to several others. A few of your concerns will be addressed when Haemo (my copy-editor) and I go through the article again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All but four of your concerns have been addressed. The rest will be dealt with when I next chat with Haemo on Google Talk. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, one more thing: I don't think it's necessary to link to the IMDB in both the infobox and the external links section. At least, medical articles aren't supposed to link to eMedicine in both places, which strikes me as analogous. delldot talk 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Commas added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Miranda

    [edit]

    Review by Jayron32

    [edit]

    Looks like lots of other have got here before me. I will try to add something new to the discussion. No particular order or importance on these fixes. Just adding them as I come across them:

    • My spelling isn't all that great, but run Satirises through a spellchecker. Isn't it Satirizes? Satiryzes? Maybe its right, but it looks funny to me... I could be wrong tho...
    • Also, is the film really satire? Not all political commentary or allegory is satire, which usually implies a humourous or absurdist slant on things. I have not seen the film, but if it IS satire, such analysis should be a tad more clear in the article.
    • The redlinks should probably be stubbified in some way. Most of these may be good articles, but consider doing a little cursory research to perhaps get at least one good reference and create a stub for each of them.

    Overall, the article is quite good, and I would consider it GA quality in its current state! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag of Singapore

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This article failed GA twice (although the article history erroneously shows three failed GA nominations). GA review Ncmvocalist's primary concern was that several sections were not written in summary style. A previous peer review was archived without receiving any feedback. Please point out other issues that must be addressed if the article is to attain GA status (and possibly FA status). Jacklee (the primary contributor) and I will work on the article when we have the time.

    Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by Jayron32

    [edit]

    Random thoughts, as I come accross them...

    • Consider a hatnote on the history section using {{seealso}} or {{main}} to link to the main articles such as History of Singapore and Founding of modern Singapore...
    • I am a little confused about the two sections "usage guidelines" and "use of the flag" seem to overlap and may be redunant in places. Also, it is confusing as to why there are two so similarly named sections; perhaps a less confusing way to organize this info would help.
    • Your references need some cleanup. The use of terms like "see above" and "ibid." and the like are not recommended, since future edits to this article may break the connection those references have with the main reference. A fully unambiguous means of citing the same reference multiple times should be considered. Consider divying up the references into a "General references" section, where the documents being cited are listed, and a "Footnotes" section, where you list the specific page references to the cited print texts. The "footnotes" section could also include single, one-off references to web documents or linked web journals or the like. You can also combine like references using the <ref name=XXXX> tag. Instructions on how to do so are found at WP:CITE and WP:FN guidelines. If you want to see how I have organized my references on articles I have worked to bring to FA, check perhaps Plymouth colony.

    The actual writing of the article seems quite well done. It is clearly comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. I think if you can fix the above problems, you may be ready for an FA run with this one. You may run into some of the more picayune silly MOS violations, I myself am no good at spotting those. Those usually come out in the FAC nomination anyways, and they are easy to fix. Good luck, and if you need any more help just let me know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments

    [edit]

    I looked it over and agree that it seems well written and illustrated and generally well referenced. I agree with Jayron's comments above, here are a few more thoughts. There are some fairly short sections / subsections that could probably be merged (this seems to be a common recent request at FAC - if you are not watching some FAC nominations already, it is good preparation to do so - and Flag of Germany is up right now). One example is Design, which is divided into two subsections: Elements and symbolism is only three sentences long and the following Dimensions and colour is only two sentences long. Why not just have one Design section?

    There seems to be a contradiction between the last sentence in the first part of the "Usage guidelines" section: The period when the flag may be displayed with minimal restrictions was extended in 2007 to a three-month period from July to September.[11][12] and the first sentence in the "Proper use and display" subsection Singaporeans, and government and non-governmental organisations may display or fly the national flag throughout the year to identify with the nation. Can it be displayed year round or just for three months a year?

    The only other comment I would have is to watch for too much repetition. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be able to get this up to FA soon. It failed a GA due to prose, but I feel that's the only problem, and it's almost gone with. In any case, I'd like a PR to see if any prose needs editing or tightening.

    Thanks, Will (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead needs in info about the Production and reception. Buc (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Not too much to improve here. I would try and make sure the plot section is told from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. For example, However, London was evacuated after the general populace fled in fear of a third consecutive attack, and only a few people remain... is unclear - what are the previous two attacks? This is somewhat addressed in the following continuity section, but that does not help here. I also am still not sure why the Captain of the Titanic killed himself. Refs look fine, language is overall decent. Hope this helps and good job, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

    [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 tried my level best to make it upto the standard of wikipedia
    • I have listed maximum possible citations.
    • I have worked really very hard
    • I want this to be one of the best of Wikipedia


    Thanks, Asikhi (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article - here are some suggestions for improvement:

    • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD
    • This article needs a copyedit as it has many typographical errors and grammar issues. Examples in Lead - since he is dead, shouldn't it be in past tense (He was, not he is); need a space between ")" and "or"; references should come right after punctuation marks.
    • In Etymology, is peace meant instead of piece, as a meaning of "Riaz"?
    • It needs many more references - for example, the meanings of the names in Etymology, or important facts and direct quotations in the Life section.
    • The article needs to be very careful to follow WP:NPOV - it seems to me to be more pro RAGS than anti, though it does present criticisms.
    • Internet references need to have title, publisher, author (if known), and date accessed (see WP:CITE).
    • I am not sure if the sources cited meet WP:RS or not - perhaps WikiProject Islam could help here? I do know reference 18, which claims to be "U.S. State Department Religious Freedom Report 2000" links instead to About.com, which is not a reliable source here.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Planet Relief

    [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 try and get this article up to FA status. If I do, that will result in a triple crown, having just pass GA and being on DYK. I was wondering if there are any ways to expand the article and improve it. It is hard, because it is about a television show that was scrapped before it was broadcast. However, any help would be appreachiated.

    Thanks, ISD (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article and well written. I ran the semi-automated peer review and added that - sorry it had not been done before. My main concern with getting it to FA status is how brief it is. There are some short FAs (see USS Illinois (BB-65)) but the true question is comprehensiveness of the article. The cancellation section is fairly well developed, but even here there is not much detail on who did what when at the BBC, just official statements and critical response. I think to be truly considered for FA it needs to have much more specific information from reliable sources. I checked on ref (#2) and it offers a few details not in the article ("London Eye, Houses Of Parliament and St Paul’s Cathedral" would have shut off their lights), so I would look more closely at your sources and see if you can find more. This source also has the logo (or at least a logo) which could be used under a fair use rationale. Are there trade journals on TV in the UK that would have more details, or perhaps an envirnmental journal / magazine? Sorry not to have more ideas, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Hoping to get this article to Featured List status. Concerned about readability, etc. Don't have any experience in that particular realm of Wikipedia, so any help is welcome. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: A very impressive list. Here are some comments:

    • I wonder why the poems are not in a sortable table (as the Tales are)? Perhaps the table would be too long if all the poems were in a single table?
    • The lead / introduction is well written, although I would tweak one sentence to read One of his most important works, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", was published in 1841 and was his first "tale of ratiocination",[1] today it is considered the first detective story.[16] (I think I kept the footnotes in the correct places).
    • The lead says he wrote one novel, but the list includes two, so perhaps the lead should read ..include many poems, short stories, and one [completed] novel.
    • I have seen lists where each subsection had a breif introduction - would it be possible to have a few sentences on his poems before that list, a few on his tales there, and a few on his Other works?
    • Illustrations are good. If you want another idea on using galleries in a FL, see List of Pennsylvania state parks as one example.
    • Finally, the internet references should list the date accessed.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Six Feet Under (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 believe that it's about time for a death metal band of such respectability and signifigance to get up to GA status. I've rewritten the page pretty much from scrap, and already it is much more informative and detailed. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    M3tal H3ad

    [edit]

    It's got a long way until it reaches GA, first thing i notice; *1995−1997

    Six Feet Under released their first album on - this is the first sentence of the history section. How was the band formed?, how did they meet?, who are the members of the band?, who plays what?, how did they get signed?

    • Add reviews from the albums, include the summary line of the review and the general reaction to the album
    • It contains POV such as "stands out as an impressive track on this release."

    The main thing is the article lacks detail and just covers what the band released, and original research of the style of the song. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, but still working on the POV stuff. Thanks! Dark Executioner (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Skeletor2112

    [edit]

    Good to see you focus in on an article! This one does need a bit of work, but it's a great way to become familiar with the GA/FA process.

    • The first sentence of the article should clearly assert what the article is about, so that someone unfamiliar with SFU can understand. Somthing like:
    Six Feet Under are an American death metal band originally formed as a side project.... ect.
    • It's gonna need quite a few more references and citations. Anytime somthing critical of the band is stated, good or bad, it needs a citation. We can't insert our opinions, even if somthing is widely accepted in the metal community,(like Metallica sucks now, ect) without a cite.
    • Like M3tal H3ad said above, its good to use quotes from professional reviewers, like Allmusic.com, or Blabbermouth.net For example, in the first paragraph, the line "However, the grooves and the distinctness of Chris Barnes' vocals were praised in reviews." should be accompanied by a citation that has a favorable review of Barnes' vocal style.
    • There are a few key points to try and hit with info on releases - release date(looks like most are there), critical response(a quote from a professional review is good), touring in support of that album(what bands, where, ect), chart positions(check out billboard.com), then any notable points, like controversies, band member changes, stand out tracks/hit songs, ect. Again, take a look at BurningClean's list, most of those articles include stuff like this for album release info.
    • Sentences like "Generally, this album received good reviews, though some disliked the band for it." use "weasel words", which should be avoided.
    • Even though the band has a acronym, its still best to use their full name in the article (Six Feet Under instead of SFU), but you can't say it everytime, so saying stuff like "the band" or "the group" mixed in breaks it up a bit.
    • Stuff like " The musicianship has also been improved; the guitar solo on "Waiting for Decay" is impressive, and even the drumming on "It Never Dies" is better than anything SFU had tried before." is not neutral... anything that asserts an opinion should come from a noted reviewer, with a citiation, ect. I know it is hard at first, especially when you are a big fan of the subject. Leaving out descriptive words is imperitive -neutrality is one of the most important aspects of article elevation.
    • The 2006-2008 section includes some single-sentence paragraphs, those should be merged into one single paragraph.
    • Once the article gets moving, it might be good to add a "Musical style" section, which uses references to describe the band's sound. Again, see BurningClean's list of metal article examples.

    Good luck, and let me know if you need clarification or help with anything! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I've received the most benefit from your advice, Skeletor. You're really patient with helping me with this thing and I appreciate it. \m/ I'm still working on making the article more neutral in tone, however. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Burningclean

    [edit]

    I would have basically stated everything these guys have but there are some other things I noticed.

    • The section titles, instead of years, could you list album names etc. just like most band articles. After the titles, if they aren't super long, then you could put the years in parenthese.
    • The citations should be formated. Here is what it should look like:
      • <ref name="(name of ref)">{{cite web| author=(author) |date=(when it was written or posted, should be in format of [[yyyy-mm-dd]]) |url=(web address) |title=(title of article) |publisher=(name of website you got it from) |accessdate=(when you added the source, should be same format as date)}}</ref>
    • Some pictures would be nice. Make sure they are free use.

    —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, but I would still like help on formatting some of the sources, if they have not been done already. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [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 polish it up to the highest standard possible.


    Thanks, Seahamlass (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hello Seahamlass, here are some comments which may help you on your quest for one of those little bronze stars...!

    • Per WP:HEAD, you should avoid over-capitalising, so "Early History" should be "Early history" etc.*: Done
    • Any chance of making the co-ordinates at the top of the page read in degrees, minutes, seconds with a N for north and W for west? I think you can modify it to be coords dms if memory serves...Sorry: Really sorry, can't work out how to.
    • The WP:MOS#Images recommends that you don't "squeeze" text between two images. With thirty images on this page, it's probably over-illustrated so try to avoid having images squashing the text.*: Done
    • "Chapel Lane" - why italics? same with all the other italics in the early history section, is there a good reason for using italics here? Reply: Sorry - thought I had to do that to street names, have now removed the italics*: Done
    • Curiously, despite my previous point, I would think that "Nafni+by" should be, at least, in quotations perhaps also italicised.*: Done
    • "October 17th" - October 17 or 17 October, but ditch the "th" - see WP:DATE.*: Done
    • Ref [15] is used twice for the quote, no need.*: Done
    • Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg you say you have written permission to use this. Does Wikipedia also have that written permission? *: Done Reply I have written permission for all the photos used. I'm happy to pass that on to Wikipedia, but not sure how to do that.--Seahamlass (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAF wasn't formed until 1 April 1918, so the fledgling RAF didn't exist in 1917...*: Done Changed to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service.
    • Argh, "WW1"? Generally British English would refer to this as the "First World War".*: Done!
    • "8 for World War Two" - "eight for the Second World War"*: Done
    • Ensure that image captions which are fragments don't have full stops and image captions that are grammatically complete sentences do have a full stop.*: Done
    • Does Wikipedia have permission to use Image:Navenbywitch.jpg?*: Done Reply Yes, I have an email from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, granting me permission to use it on Wikipedia.
    • Governance paragraph has several short paragraphs, could do with merging them to make the prose flow better.
    • Not sure of the style of these articles but in the topography section , I'm really not keen on the in-line link to geographical co-ordinates. Reply: I don't like it either much, but I have noticed in other peer reviews that editors have been told to put it in, so I think I had better keep it.
    • No spaces between citations please, so [36] [37] needs adjustment.*: Done
    • Not sure I understand your source for climate statistics, "Source: MSN Years on Record: 11"? Can you clarify?*: Done Changed and simplified.
    • "next 5 years " five years.*: Done
    • Can you link to something relevant for "Grade II listed" and be consistent with II-listed and II listed.*: Done
    • "It is allegedly ..." something like "It is claimed to be..." with appropriate citations would be more encyclopaedic.*: Done
    • Numerical ranges should be separated with an en-dash, not a hyphen, so "aged 5-15" should be "aged 5–15".*: Done
    • "rate was 3" - 3 isn't a rate, it needs a "per..."*: Done
    • "20.18 km" - use the convert template for the imperial-ists amongst us.*: Done
    • "now 47.9% do" - now? needs context, like, As of March 2008, ...*: Done
    • 1859/60 - 1859–60. There are others...*: Done - Several anyway!
    • "1832.[63]x " - what's the x?*: Done Random character removed!
    • Avoid bullet point lists in potential FA's when prose would be better.Fixed them.*: Done
    • Culture and community section could use some work on prose, merging paragraphs, reducing the over illustration.*: Done: Took out a couple of pictures, merged paragraphs, removed bullet points etc.
    • Shouldn't Under 11 be Under-11? Not sure myself...*: Done Looks better like this anyway!
    • "Tracey Duxbury " - again, why italics? *: Done Correcte - italics removed.
    • Trim the external links to those directly relevant.*: Done

    That's a good start for you. Let me know if you need anything more from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mangalore

    [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 know the current status of the article.


    Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some comments:

    • The image in the infobox should probably show an image of the subject. The current image is pretty, but not doesn't show Mangalore, just the ocean.
    • The History section should be expanded or rationalized. Currently it is dominated by how foreigners found the city and very little weight is given to the city's development over the ages. Currently, there is only one sentence about the city's history since 1800.
    • Try to find some more authoritative sources. For example, travel agencies are not the best sources for climatic data, but weatherbase is used in several FAs. --maclean 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Overall it is quite an extensive article and here's what i think needs to be done.

    • What is kadali fruit? Plese enclose the English name within brackets as well.
    • What does 'loral past' mean? Please simplify the language for ease of understanding.
    • Few sentences seem to have been directly copied from [[14]], yet there is no reference to this page.
    • History merely states a few travelers who discovered the city. An account of gradual development of the city would be better. A few sentences on what happens after 1800 are required. You could view featured articles like Kolkata for guidance.
    • "...makes it feel above ..." in Geography and climate section is a vague statement,not exactly factual.
    • Needs references in economy section.
    • Many sentences like "tiles made from red clay and baked, is used as roof" have wrong syntax. It should be "tiles.....are used..." in this case.
    • You could link PCPIR to Nayachar which defines PCPIR.
    • "During this tremendous growth phase, these banks spawned a whole generation of bankers from Mangalore across these firms from the top to bottom". - What does it mean?


    Comments by Editors of the Page

    Some comments:

    • The image in the infobox should probably show an image of the subject. The current image is pretty, but not doesn't show Mangalore, just the ocean.
    • The History section should be expanded or rationalized. Currently it is dominated by how foreigners found the city and very little weight is given to the city's development over the ages. Currently, there is only one sentence about the city's history since 1800.

    Done.

    • Replace the current Image in the infobox with an Image which shows details on the subject.
    • Expand the History section so that it includes development over the ages.

    Both these have been added to the To-do list for Mangalore. Soon, the editors of this page will do the necessary modifications.______Kensplanet (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Try to find some more authoritative sources. For example, travel agencies are not the best sources for climatic data, but weatherbase is used in several FAs. --maclean 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, All figures for climatic data taken from Weatherbase.


    Overall it is quite an extensive article and here's what i think needs to be done.

    • What is kadali fruit? Plese enclose the English name within brackets as well.

    Done. The word Kadali fruit means Banana-->>Kensplanet (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Old Sentence: This region, given away as a reward to sage Parashurama by Samudraraja, is well-known for its Kadali fruits.
    • New Sentence: This region, given away as a reward to sage Parashurama by Samudraraja, is well-known for its Kadali fruits (Bananas).======Kensplanet (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does 'loral past' mean? Please simplify the language for ease of understanding.
    • Done. The language has been simplified tremendously.
    • Old Sentence: It is the land of enchantment of Sahyadri mountains, where the great sages Kanva, Vysa, Vashista, Vishwamitra and other in the Loral past spent their days of meditation.
    • New Sentence: It is the land of enchantment of Sahyadri mountains, where the great sages Kanva, Vysa, Vashista, Vishwamitra and others spent their days of meditation.--Kensplanet (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Few sentences seem to have been directly copied from [[15]], yet there is no reference to this page.

    No. I don't think so. They have copied from Wikipedia. If you check properly, the site mentions
    Some pages may contain portions of text relating to certain topics obtained from wikipedia.org under the GNU FDL license--Kensplanet (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • History merely states a few travelers who discovered the city. An account of gradual development of the city would be better. A few sentences on what happens after 1800 are required. You could view featured articles like Kolkata for guidance.

    Done.

    • Replace the current Image in the infobox with an Image which shows details on the subject.
    • Expand the History section so that it includes development over the ages.

    Both these have been added to the To-do list for Mangalore. Soon, the editors of this page will do the necessary modifications.______Kensplanet (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "...makes it feel above ..." in Geography and climate section is a vague statement,not exactly factual.

    Done. It has been corrected. The corrected sentence is much more factual.

    • Old Sentence: However, a high relative humidity of more than 90% makes it feel above 40 °C (104 °F).
    • New Sentence: However, temperatures may rise up to 40 °C (104 °F) due to the high relative humidity of more than 90%.----->>>>>>>>>>Kensplanet (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs references in economy section.
    • Done. A to-do has been added for the economy section
    • Add more references in the Economy Section. Delete trivia from this section. Facts which cannot be proved must be deleted immediately.
    • Soon the editors of the page will fix this.--->>>Kensplanet (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many sentences like "tiles made from red clay and baked, is used as roof" have wrong syntax. It should be "tiles.....are used..." in this case.
    • Done. All such sentences have been removed.
    • You could link PCPIR to Nayachar which defines PCPIR.
    • Done. The below sentence has been added in the Economy section.
    • This will be the first Petroleum, Chemicals, Petrochemicals Investment Region (PCPIR) of the country, with similar PCPIR's existing at Nayachar in West Bengal, Panipat in Haryana and Achutapuram in Andhra Pradesh.--Kensplanet (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During this tremendous growth phase, these banks spawned a whole generation of bankers from Mangalore across these firms from the top to bottom". - What does it mean?
    • Done. This sentence has been deleted since it doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article.------Kensplanet (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mangalorean Catholics

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

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


    Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments:

    • Avoid POV language unless it is in a direct quote, example from the lead: Astonishingly half of them don't even reside in Mangalore, but still are extravagantly bonded to Mangalore culturally as well as traditionally. Both "Astonishingly" and "extravagantly" seem very POV here - see WP:NPOV. Also many places would not consider the 15th century to be "very recent" - why not just say their history dates to the 15th century and leave it at that. There are many other examples of this kind of language throughout the article that need to be cleaned up.
    • The lead should be a summary of the entire article - my rule of thumb is that if there is a section on a topic, it should be mentioned in the lead. Also all items in the lead should also be in the article - see WP:LEAD
    • Origins section-
      • Hard to see how a Catholic group from the 15th century AD traces its origins to 1000 BC - perhaps start by explaining Konkani and trace its roots to 1000 BC, then bring in other history leading up to 15th century and on to the present.
      • There is no real connection made between the first and second paragraphs in this section - the second seems to be the one with the relevant information (actually about Mangalorean Catholics), but it is completely unsourced.
    • History section - hard to see how this differes from Origins section. I have never seen a "This section is based on..." banner - please cite in the normal way with <ref> tags and give page numbers in the book. I also think the history section could be broken up into subsections (perhaps Origins could be merged as the first subsection).
    • Need references for all information - see example in Origins above or Names.
      • Need to make sure the refs cited meet WP:RS - one example I noticed was at least one cite to YouTube, which is not a reliable source.
      • Many of the references seem to be from Mangalorean Catholic groups' websites - third party sources are preferred and in some cases required.
      • I have never seen Notes and Bibliography as tables - please put them into regular formats (see {{cite book}} for ezample).

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Kensplanet

    • Avoid POV language unless it is in a direct quote, example from the lead: Astonishingly half of them don't even reside in Mangalore, but still are extravagantly bonded to Mangalore culturally as well as traditionally. Both "Astonishingly" and "extravagantly" seem very POV here - see WP:NPOV.
    • Done. The sentence Astonishingly half of them don't even reside in Mangalore, but still are extravagantly bonded to Mangalore culturally as well as traditionally. has been deleted.
    • Also many places would not consider the 15th century to be "very recent" - why not just say their history dates to the 15th century and leave it at that.
    • Done.
    • Old sentence: The history and existence of Mangalorean Catholics in Mangalore is very recent, just dating back to the 15th century.
    • New sentence: The history and existence of Mangalorean Catholics in Mangalore dates back to the 15th century.
    • There are many other examples of this kind of language throughout the article that need to be cleaned up.
    • Comment. I'll clean that up.
    • The lead should be a summary of the entire article - my rule of thumb is that if there is a section on a topic, it should be mentioned in the lead. Also all items in the lead should also be in the article - see WP:LEAD
    • Comment. I have taken a sentence from each and every section.

    *Origins section-

      • Hard to see how a Catholic group from the 15th century AD traces its origins to 1000 BC - perhaps start by explaining Konkani and trace its roots to 1000 BC, then bring in other history leading up to 15th century and on to the present.
      • There is no real connection made between the first and second paragraphs in this section - the second seems to be the one with the relevant information (actually about Mangalorean Catholics), but it is completely unsourced.
    • History section - hard to see how this differes from Origins section. I have never seen a "This section is based on..." banner - please cite in the normal way with <ref> tags and give page numbers in the book. I also think the history section could be broken up into subsections (perhaps Origins could be merged as the first subsection).
    • Comment. This will require some work and i am working on it.
    • Need references for all information - see example in Origins above or Names.
    • Comment. I'll provide more references from the Web.
      • Need to make sure the refs cited meet WP:RS - one example I noticed was at least one cite to YouTube, which is not a reliable source.
    • Done. Youtube references have been deleted. Hereafter, only reliable sources will be added.
      • Many of the references seem to be from Mangalorean Catholic groups' websites - third party sources are preferred and in some cases required.
    • Comment. As you have rightly said, third party sources are required.
      • I have never seen Notes and Bibliography as tables - please put them into regular formats (see {{cite book}} for ezample).
    • Done. It is now in the normal standard format.

    Treehouse of Horror V

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    This looks to be close to FA status. Hopful I can nominate it after this PR. Buc (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Buc (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was one of the older episode pages I did, but it does still look pretty good. The lead needs expanding for sure, and there should be some more reviews, consider it is often regarded as of the best ever. I'd probably get rid of most of the plot images as well. I'll see what I can find on Newsbank about the episode. Gran2 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give a small review tomorrow if I can, but I was wondering, why wouldn't Gran2 nominate the article, when he did most of the work on it? The article is also still a bit away from FA status. Hell, it doesn't even have all the commentary information in it. xihix(talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You basically answered your own question there. But what is commentary information? Buc (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really feel like listening to the commentary again. Why don't you give it a go? xihix(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wha...commentary? you've lost me. Buc (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    1. 4 fair-use images is pushing it a bit much. I'd reduce that to 2, or at max, 3. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. WP:LEAD - Waaay too small, not enough plot summary, doesn't really mention/summarize the other sections at all. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Great work so far, I will take another look, I think there are still a couple areas for improvement. Also, the Production section would be helped by including a free-use image of someone who worked on the production staff on this episode, perhaps David Mirkin or David X. Cohen, with a relevant caption about their work on the episode. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Query

    Did you make a note about this peer review and request comments/feedback here, at the talkpages for WP:DOH, WP:COMEDY, WP:US-TOON, and WP:TV ? Cirt (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah no respones. I think I'm just going to nom it since no one seem to be giving feedback. Buc (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All Blacks at the Rugby World Cup

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I'm not experienced at working on lists, especially ones like this. Any comments that can help me improve it to a FL would be greatly appreciated. - Shudde talk 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SGGH

    • Per WP:MOS I am fairly certain that it is advised not to wikilink the bold text in the lead.
    • The lead needs some citations, particularly "they have a poor world cup record compared to competing teams..." and the sentence that follows that about ranking.
    • A cite to the 2007 score against France would also be useful
    • The position section, is it possible to include who knocked them out (when they didnt win) and what the score was? And perhaps the venue? Certainly I think there should probably be a dash between the year and the position.
    • Obviously you will need a notes section to include the citations Italked about above.
    • I'm not sure of the layout of each year being 1987 with the link to that world cup right underneath it, but I can't think of a better way of doing it either to be honest.

    Hope those comments help! SGGH speak! 12:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The High and the Mighty (film)

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a comprehensive and thoroughly researched film article that is written in a neutral but encyclopedia manner.


    Thanks, Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    SGGH I suggest:

    • move citation one to the end of the sentence.
    • I would put the plot summary in the lead before the part about John Wayne and the oscars, which I would have at the end of the lead.
    • The image caption, (from a screenshot) is not, I don't think, necessary
    • "souls on board" I can't find a reason for this phrase other than it being a quote from something, couldn't it just be passengers? ahh I see now, but perhaps explain that at the first mention of "souls on board"
    • Passengers needs a colon after it
    • With each character name in bold, and each actors name not wikilinked, and with the text coming out straight after, it can be difficult in casual reading to pick out the actors names, perhaps highlight them some way.
    • From cite 4 in the plot section until the cast section there are no citations, you may have left something uncited that needs to be.
    • Good use of images
    • "Casting problems plagued the production" is there a cite for this or is it in the [7] citing the following sentence.
    • Bob Cummings, the "Bob" doesnt need the "" I don't think
    • risky "theme" concept project, again with the "" this is a bit difficult to understand, why the ""?

    The remainder seems fine, good stuff. Hope you find these comments helpful. SGGH speak! 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Komodo dragon

    [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 worked on this article for more than a year now, and I've found most of the information that I need. Besides some pending expansions, I'd like to request a peer review to find what I need to fix and check up with the *shudder* MoS. I have Andy's automated peer reviewer, but you can run it to check for stuff I may have missed.

    Thanks, bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Biomedeng (talk):

    • vomeronasal and Jacobson's organ link to the same artice, no need to link to both
    • I'd suggest putting an IPA pronounciation for Komodo in the first sentence to help people know how to speak the word
    • Overall there are a lot of citations, but some statements still are missing citations such as:
      • Because of their slow metabolism, large dragons can survive on as little as 12 meals a year.
      • As Komodo dragons mature, their claws are used primarily as weapons, as their great mass makes climbing impractical.
    • Several of the references are not formatted properly. Try to use the citation templates and include the website publisher. All urls need accessed/retreived dates.

    Overall this seems to be a rather outstanding article. The text is very well written and almost everything is cited properly. The images used the article also are very helpful to the sections they are paired with. I would work to fix the reference formatting and submit for FA status and see what people have to say. Biomedeng (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've addressed the first and third comments. I don't really think the second one is needed, though. I'm still working on the ref formatting. bibliomaniac15 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments by Casliber

    • Have a look at some other biology Featured Articles, generally, having a Taxonomy and naming section under the lead is good. All material in lead should be elsewhere in article, hence all the alternate names have to go somewhere too. An example of how I laid out one before is Common Raven - the section can have all the names, the Discovery section, and the Evolution and classification all there.
    • Not essential but highly desirable - making redlinks blue or removing them is helpful.

    Osijek

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Listing to get feedback on article and suggestions for how and where it could be expanded. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey, coming at this completely cold knowing nothing about the subject matter and not knowing where you want to take it (GA? FA?), here are my comments...

    • Center vs Kilometre, you have a mix of US and Brit English, I'd stick with Brit (since it's a European article, and we're closer than the US!)
    • The lead could be expanded, one para for an article of this length is insufficient, look for at least two more larger paras.
    • Governing party = caretaker in the infobox, this could do with a footnote or something as I don't understand what that means.
    • There are very few references throughout, for either GA or FA this will be a big problem.
    • " Its name Osijek comes from the Croatian (Slavic) word "oseka" which means "ebb tide" refers to the place of the ebb tide which was suitable for settlement." this is grammatically incorrect.
    • "Due to its past and its history within the Habsburg Monarchy and briefly in the Ottoman Empire and also due to the presence of German and Hungarian minorities throughout its history, Osijek also has (or had) its names in other languages...." reads clumsily to me.
    • Origins section is a little journalistic rather than encyclopaedic in tone.
    • "Life was thriving here in the Middle Ages, but only traces of that life can be found today because the Turks destroyed everything they found and made a town to suit their style." - this sentence is a great example of the need for citations - the claims here need substantiation.
    • Try not to sandwich text between two images. The article is possibly over-illustrated at the moment, if expanded then fine but right now the images somewhat overwhelm the page.
    • In-line references should be converted to proper references, I'd recommend getting to know the {{cite web}} template.
    • The manual of style suggests numbers below ten should be written in words.
    • External links really needs a major trimming, no more than three or four should be necessary for this kind of article.

    That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your suggestions. I've made a few minor changes so far and will work on rest at some stage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greater Manchester

    [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 gained WP:GA status thanks to a prompt collaboration from the Greater Manchester WikiProject team. The article is already well referenced and covers every topic set by WP:UKCOUNTIES. We are looking for any advice on ways to improve the article towards WP:FA status and with the wealth of experience the project has I am sure we can do it. Any input is welcome and we look forward to your comments. Thanks, ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krator

    [edit]

    From top down, some things I noticed. There's a lot of things, so I'll keep the in-depth copy editing advice to a minimum. This review is terribly subjective, judgemental and all that kind of stuff. Also note that some of my comments directly contradict WP:UKCOUNTIES. On the parts where my comments below contradict that guideline, I firmly believe the guideline to be wrong and I'll be prepared to defend my opinion :)

    Infobox
    [edit]
    • The list of members of parliament from the infobox is confusing and too long. Furthermore, the only actually interesting thing for the reader there, the distribution between C/L/LD, is not listed. Perhaps list that distribution in the box and link to the list somewhere? Perhaps here? Done ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 01:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The note 'no county council' belongs in the text body.
    • The NUTS and ONS codes don't really tell a non-technical reader much. It would be better presented in the body of the text. The fact that this area is a NUTS 2 area is of interest, for example, but escapes the unfamiliar reader's notice.
    • I find the numbered map at the bottom of the infobox confusing for it's purpose: showing where the areas are relative to each other. There is no technical reason why the names cannot be on the map itself.
    • I'd love an identifying picture at the top, as Infobox City does, for example (see Manchester for a related example).
    • The whole layout of Infobox England Country isn't fantastic, really. Infobox City looks better, for one. Not this article's fault, though.
    Lead
    [edit]
    • The lead fails to summarise the article properly. It focuses exclusively on information also present in the infobox and the governmental history.
    • Some things I really miss are:
    • What is the relevance and importance of this area, beyond being some arbitrarily defined bureaucratic government institute? I assume it must be the leading economic area in this-or-that branch of industry, the centre of some region, etc.
    • Some history on the formation of the area "Greater Manchester", beyond that some lawmakers made it. What made Manchester become "greater"?
    History
    [edit]
    • The last point from the lead continues to apply here.
    • I do not really see the relevance of the first paragraph of this section, except for the last two sentences: the information contained there is what I think is the key of what should be written about in the history section. Namely, the history of the conurbation and metropolitan area, as opposed to the region in the widest sense. What made these urban areas interconnect, and how did that happen?
    • After that, the focus is a lot on the governmental history of the institution Greater Manchester, rather than the metropolitan area Greater Manchester. Some of the information on the former could be moved to the Governance section. This is my key criticism on this section, and applies mostly to the final two subsections.
    • As an example on how to tackle the above, think of the history of some of the things listed under the transportation section, and how they came to be. For example, the creation of the M60 ring road must have been a major event in the context of Greater Manchester, as it precisely concerns the 'Greater' part of that phrase. Another area that is lacking in coverage is the industry in the region, arguably the reason why this metropolitan area exists at all.
    Geography
    [edit]
    • Geography of Greater Manchester is shorter than this section. AFD?
    • I suggest to merge the article Greater Manchester Urban Area as a subsection here. It's currently linked, but doesn't really need it's own article. Writing that "the urban area excludes some of the rural parts and includes this-and-that town in another county, and is used for statistical analysis" is enough, probably.
    • Excellent section. The satellite image isn't that great, though. Perhaps replace it with an image of the more 'outlying' areas of Greater Manchester?
    Governance
    [edit]
    • Excellent as well, with the suggestion that a lot of the more institution-focused material in 'history' may be condensed moved here.
    • Forget everything you know about the subject, then read the fourth subsection of this section without clicking on any links. How much did you learn? I find it difficult to grasp the information in this section without reading all linked authorities and other acronyms. A suggestion: instead of "The county runs this organisation which does this-or-that activity", write "This-or-that activity is ran at county level". For example, I really don't care about the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority, mainly because it's five long capitalised words which break text flow and make reading difficult. The fact that waste disposal is arranged centrally is of interest, however. Write about waste disposal, and link the words "waste disposal".
    Demographics
    [edit]
    • Good section, but what is the relevance of listed buildings that happen to be churches to demographics?
    • The sentences supported with reference 52 is both a copyvio and very questionable. Later on, the tower blocks in some suburb are said to be among the greatest in Europe as well. This, too, is questionable.
    • (a) None; removed. (b) That student business is an old chestnut. I've tracked down a paper that seems to nail it (in the negative); removed, but open to persuasion at talk. I've added a {{fact}} label to the Salford housing density bit, some editors have recently been working on salford articles, they may have a good reference to hand. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Economy
    [edit]
    Settlements
    [edit]
    • This section is really useful and should be moved up to form a subsection of geography.
    Transport
    [edit]
    • Please devote the first paragraph to briefly touching upon the main modes of transport in Greater Manchester, and place the institutional stuff I ranted about above after that. Then discuss these main modes of transport.
    • Highway#Quick_facts directly contradicts the Guinness world record claim for widest highway. It may be in the book, but it may be better to not list it if it's false...
    • What makes the bus network 'extensive'?
    • Transport by train isn't discussed at all.
    Note to project team: See here and here. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sport
    [edit]
    • Please give this section a thorough WP:PEACOCK checkup.
    • What is the consensus on what should be discussed at Manchester#Sports and what here?
    Places of interest
    [edit]
    • This isn't travel wiki, so please rename this section to "Culture" and throw out anything non cultural, and then we'll see.

    Hope this helps! User:Krator (t c) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of songs in Guitar Hero

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I would like to see what additions or changes would need to be made to promote this list to a Featured List, if it is at all possible. It seems to meet all the featured list criteria, but for nominating it, I'd like to see what others things. --MASEM 05:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey, not a bad start point, some things to consider before going to WP:FLC....

    • Any chance of any images for the page? I know it'd be difficult, particularly to justify fair use inclusion here, but worth thinking about.
    • The appearance is a little bland for me, have you thought about a table, perhaps with colouring, for each set of tracks?
    • I would expand the lead a bit, explain to the uninitiated what Guitar Hero is, how its played, the concepts, and then discuss the songs, and perhaps explain the categories (Axe-Grinders, Thrash and Burn... etc etc)
    • "(Winner of the "Be a Guitar Hero" Contest)" why capital W?
    • ditto for (Now known...)
    • Is Unused songs a correct title? They're locked songs really, I understand they may not be used in the game so I suppose it's ok...
    • Is ref 6 a reliable source? Looks like a forum...
    • Consider using the {{cite web}} template on all references.

    That's about it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the input, good to know there's potential here. We have done a table for the third game List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, so it's possible here. Thanks again. --MASEM 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Majesty

    [edit]

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because, quite simply, I wish to find out what else I can do to improve the article's quality.


    Thanks, Inf666 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Rightyho, some comments on where to go from here...

    • Expand the lead, take a look at WP:LEAD for advice. A single sentence simply isn't sufficient.
    • As per the warning templates at the top of the page, references are needed for this article to be anything other than a B-class article.
    • Minor manual of style issues such as the use of an en-dash to separate years (so, in the infobox, you should have 2002–present, not 2002 - Present...)
    • The article suffers a little from assuming that the reader is completely commensurate with the musical genre. I'm not, and find phrases like "hair metal" a bit confusing.
    • The subsection "Black Majesty" needs to be expanded and preferably renamed, it's a bit odd having the name of the article as also the name of a subsection of the article.

    That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hubert Walter

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC shortly, and welcome comments that might help with that goal. Thanks, Ealdgyth | Talk 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from MusicalConnoisseur (talk · contribs)

    [edit]
    • The years of some of these important events should be linked.
    • Some sentences may be a bit wordy; try removing some unnecessary words.
    • Some paragraphs may need to be separated or reorganized, so that each maintain the same main idea.
    • Some phrases need to be clarified, (e.g., in many ways, or had been instrumental)
    • "Hubert" is repeated a little too often. (Is it possible to refer to him by his last name?)
    • Dates such as "July of 1186" cannot have "of" in between, per WP:MOSNUM.
    • The first three paragraphs need a few more citations.
    • A few grammatical problems, (e.g., "...late twelfth and early thirteenth century" should be "...late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.")
    • Word choice may be reconsidered, for example, "...elected bishop of Salisbury shortly after the elevation of King Henry's son." (Could "elevation" be changed to "ascension"?)
    • Phrasing is a bit awkward at places. ("As well, he was made justiciar about December 25, 1193" should be "He was made justiciar circa December 25, 1193, as well.")
    • This is relatively minor, but phrases with "which" should include a comma before the "which"; conversely, phrases with "that" used in a similar context cannot include a comma before "that."
    • It may need further editing to conform to WP:NPOV. (e.g. "tender parting with his monks.")
    • It may be too colloquial in some places. (e.g., "butt of jokes")

    All in all, WP:MOS might be ultimately useful in helping this article reach FA class. March 16, 2008

    Sanja Matsuri

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I just completely overhauled the article taking it from a stub to hopefully a high quality article. I've been staring at it too long to get a constructive review from myself so I need some help!

    Thanks! Torsodog (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Some ideas...

    • "(present day Tokyo)" - this is related to Edo, not the whole of the previous clause, so perhaps it needs clarification.
    • " Kanda Festival and Sanno Festival" - any wikilinks available...
    • References should use the {{cite web}} template and not be raw URLs.
    • I'd suggest expanding the history section and making it less "in-universe" - for a non-expert it's difficult to go with it all...
    • Schedule section should be prose really rather than a bland table.
    • Not clear about the relevance of the external links, check WP:EL to ensure that the links really comply.

    Not much more to say, there's a chance for GA, but FA is a long way off right now... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Iguana

    [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 bring it up to FA Status. Before I go through that I'd like to be made aware of any shortcomings, etc. Thanks, Mike Searson (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RJH review

    [edit]

    Overall a fine piece of work. Nice job! Here are a few comments:

    • The lede section isn't really a summary of the article. Two of the three paragraphs focus on the conservation section. I'd like to see a more balanced introduction, per Wikipedia:Lead_section.
    • "Blue iguanas have excellent vision, which allows them to detect shapes and motions at long distances." What is "long" in this context? Can this be more precise?
    • Can the "Mating" section give some information about how mates are selected? Do they mate for life; just long enough to copulate; males build "harems", &c.?
    • In the scientific literature, are the units in SI or US? (See Wikipedia:MoS#Which_system_to_use.) It's a scientific article so it seems like SI should be the main units.
    • The first use of a unit (feet, m, inch, pounds, &c.) needs to be wikilinked. I think there should be a non-breaking space between the value and the unit for SI values.
    • The date fields in the citations have an inconsistent format. There are dates in the form "2/8/2007", "2005-05-23" or "May 26, 2004". Full dates should also be linked, thus: May 26, 2004.
    • The page could use some more images.

    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for taking the time to review it. I will work on the Lead(lede). I do not know how precise I can get on the vision, I'll look into it. They do not appear to mate for life, this is a tricky area as a few years ago these animals were on the brink of extinction. I'm a Yank, so the units are US, sorry about that; I'll attempt a conversion. I will take your advise on wikilinking the units and be more consistent on the dates. As for more pictures, I'll work on that...the animals I own are not pure but hybrids with Lesser Caymans and Cubans...pure bred specemins are only found in zoos and on Grand Cayman.--Mike Searson (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia review

    [edit]
    • Some of the sources are missing lastaccessdates; some are also missing publishers, examples:
      • Blue Iguanas get helping hand to recovery", April 26, 2005.
      • Hatchlings revive rarest lizard on earth", October 6, 2006.
    • There are also formatting issues in the lastaccessdates, examples:
      • Retrieved on 9 May 2006. (unlinked)
      • Retrieved on September 8, 2007.  (linked incorrectly)
        • I think I found all of these, apparently using "newspaper" in the template does not work?
        • I put in a request
    • It would be nice if the books in Further reading had ISBNs.
        • I stripped this out, everything in there was cited in the references so I removed it for redundancy.
    • External links might need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT; a comprehensive featured article will have covered everything in the text, so there should be little need for external links, each of them should be there for a defensible reason.
        • I culled the nonessential links.
    • Capitalization has to be worked out: the article title is Blue Iguana, but the first line says Blue iguana.
        • All sources were equally divided on this (literally) I went with Caps on each, same as birds.
    • I'm not certain on capitalization here ... and is a National Symbol of the Cayman Islands.
    • There are a few missing conversions, see {{convert}}, examples:
      • Females were found to occupy territories of 0.6 acres and males an average of 1.4 acres with overlap in common usage areas, indicating that the Blue iguanas chose to maintain a population density of 4-5 animals per hectare.
    • A few WP:MOSNUM mixups on spelling out vs. digits, examples:
      • Anywhere from one to twenty-one eggs are usually laid in ...
      • Individuals are aggressively territorial from the age of about 3 months onward.
    • Another hyphen instead of endash, but Brighterorange should pick these up:
      • Surveys in 2003 indicated a total population in the range of 5-15 individuals.
    • There is some incorrect punctuation in image captions, see WP:MOS#Captions regarding the difference in punctuation for full sentences vs. sentence fragments.
    • Run through the entire article for issues of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, example:
      • The program now contains only pure specimens, ...
    • Check wikilinking throughout, for example, certainly San Diego Zoo, in ...
      • the species by Tandora Grant of the San Diego Zoo's Center for Conservation and Research for Endangered Species (CRES).
    • See Giant Otter and Sea otter for recent FA examples that contain folklore or popular culture (can't remember what the section is called) interactions with humans.

    I'll ask Casliber (talk · contribs) and Marskell (talk · contribs) to peek in, as they've both written similar articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Sandy. I made a few of these changes and will implement more this coming week.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    It's a very fine article. I remember reading over it when I saw the GA nomination. Here's some things you might want to include:

    • What is the CR doing up in the taxobox? It leads to a StatusCritical template, but I don't know what it does.
    • The etymology of the scientific name is mentioned, but it would be great if the actual Greek could be provided.
    • I think the organization of the Anatomy and physiology section could be improved by moving the information about senses to a subsection.
    • The five nonprofit organizations mentioned in the lead could be stated more explicitly.

    Overall a very well cited and comprehensive article. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the Feedback!
    • CR is for "Critically Endangered", it was in the taxobox before I started editing and I've seen it on every other reptile article I've worked on.
    • I'll add the Greek...EXCELLENT suggestion!
    • Good suggestion, I'll make the change.
    • Will do!

    Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Falcon Scott

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a complete revision of an article which had in my view ceased to be a proper biographical article, due to some highly partial editing. I would welcome views as to whether the POV tag should now be removed, and any other suggestions about improving the article.


    Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been done Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also made a number of alterations based on the semi-automated review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments" Overall very well written, illustrated and referenced. Here are some nitpicks:

    • Lead: Identify Tom Crean in the lead (Irish explorer Tom Crean?). Otherwise lead seems fine and flows nicely.
    • Family background: From the testimony of his daughter Grace it appears... change to From the testimony of John's daughter Grace it appears... as "his" was unclear
    • Discovery: Could you give the distance to the pole in miles / kilometres too at , and this ended at the modest latitude of 82°17’S.[20]?
    • Terra Nova: Can you clarify / expand On March 17 Oates sacrificed himself? I assume it is some sort of "go one without me, I'll only slow you down" thing?
    • Glorification of Scott: per the MOS, I think the title of this section would be better as just "Glorification" (omit repetiton of thesubject of the article's name). I also made a small edit to fix a reference that was broken - please check that this is OK.
    • Several references either have a space after the punctuation and before the ref i.e. "end. [1]", or need a space after the ref and before the next sentence i.e. "end.[1]Start"
    • Seems to be NPOV to me - reports current attitiudes from both sides. Perhaps ask woever put the POV tag on in the first place if the article is NPOV?

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All these have been attended to, together with a few other refinements arising out of them Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenomorph (Alien)

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I'm giving this article an overhaul but am having trouble figuring out the right balance between "in-universe" and "out-universe" description. Would appreciate links to any GA or FA level articles on fictional creatures for inspiration. Thank you. Serendipodous 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some GA's you might find useful: Cyberman, Sarlacc, Time Lord.--jwandersTalk 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments:

    • The references to internet sources all need to give the title (not just the URL), publisher, author (if known), and date accessed.
    • I think the basic idea of WP:IN-U is that it should always be made clear these creatures are part of a series of works of fiction. Thus the sentence "Described by Science Officer Ash as "…survivor[s], unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality",[1] aliens are primarily predators." would probably read better as something more like "In Alien, the character Science Officer Ash describes the original alien as a "…survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality",[1] aliens are depited as primarily predators." Do not italicize quotations either (per MOS). I don't think every sentence has to make it clear this is in a movie or movies (or comic book or novelization), but probably every paragraph should.
    • I also think that even when explicit references to the films are not made, the wording should still be careful to avoid sounding too in universe. Make use of "depicted (as)", "shown as", "portrayed (as)" - i.e. Alien blood is [depicted as] an extremely potent acid...

    Hope these ideas are helpful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, March 17, 2008 (UTC)

    Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Article on the wife of Edgar Allan Poe. I'm hoping to apply for Good Article status on this soon. Certainly not a very lengthy article, but Virginia lived a very short life. I want to confirm if this is broad enough, and that all the information is relevant (i.e. the Appearance section in particular). If a hand can be lent in copy editing or in improving the lede, I would be much obliged. Also, I am referring to the article's subject as "Virginia" throughout and her husband as either "Edgar" or "Poe". I am most implied to use "Poe", hoping it is understood. Any comments on that? Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I think this article is basically at GA status already (with a few tweaks) and is pretty close to FA status. Nicely done. I took the liberty of copyediting the lead paragraphs and have some suggestions:

    • Per WP:LEAD everything in the lead should be in the article and vice versa, so I added a sentence on her appearance.
    • I looked at Fanny Imlay, a FA on a woman who died young best know for her association with a literary family as a model for the lead tweaks I made. Also following this, I think it is useful to put dates and/or her age into the article for context each time there is a new section. For example, it is not clear from the start when the scandal took place, or how old she was when she wrote the poem quoted.
    • The article is generally well-written, but could use a copyedit - I especially noticed many places where pronouns were unclear - For example in the sentence She often invited Osgood to visit them at home, imagining that she had a "restraining" effect on her husband, who had made a promise to "give up the use of stimulants" and was never drunk in her presence.[39] - the first she is Virginia, the second she seems to be Osgood, but the her of "her presence" is less clear (assume it is also Osgood). Have you asked at WP:LOCE for a copyedit?
    • I think the appearance section is fine.
    • On my computer at least, the family tree grey boxes are smaller than the text. The boxes either need to be made bigger or possbly removed (not sure what the purpose of the different shades of grey is).
    • Using Virginia and Edgar or Poe seems fine to me - there is at least one place where he is called "Edgar Poe" which made me check the family tree to make sure there was not another one (as opposed to Edgar Allen Poe). I think a little variety between Edgar and Poe helps the article (as opposed to always one or the other).

    The only real problems I see with this article would all be addressed in a good copyedit - hope this helps and nice job. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the review... some very helpful comments. I don't call him Edgar Allan Poe very often because, well, his name is Edgar Poe, not Edgar Allan Poe. I had difficulty with the graphic but I'll have to give it another check (by the way, the box shades are meant to show the direct line from Edgar and Virginia up to their common ancestry). I haven't put through a LOCE request because I just don't have the patience. I'll go back through myself and see what I can catch (and I'll definitely keep a better eye on the pronoun uses). Again, thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just used to hearing him described as Edgar Allan Poe (sorry to have used the wrong name above). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize... I'm not offended (nor is he, I would presume). His modern common name and the way he called himself just happen to be different. I'm not pushing an agenda, it's just how I tend to say it... it may make more sense in this context to use Edgar Allan Poe, to avoid the same head-scratching you experienced! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marion, Illinois tornado outbreak

    [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 asked for advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather and WP:METEO. Those who gave me feedback have said that I have done just about as much as I can. I really want to try to improve this article more, but I just do not know how. Thanks, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know its short, there is just not that much information out there that is encylopedic. Thanks, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: A map showing the counties affected would help (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky). This seems to me to be the kind of article that would really be helped by going somewhere (usually a library) with archives of the local newspapers for the communities affected - there are already two newspaper articles cited, but they seem to be 25th anniversary pieces. Also try to include more on the aftermath - was the National Guard called in? Was it a state or national disaster area? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would make a map of counties effected, but I have no image editing program, and I don't know where I should ask for this. Also, I'm afraid that I do not have access to Marion's library, I do have access to another Southern Illinois library, but they probably have less information than I already have. Thanks, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will see what I can do about a quick map. As horrific as it sounds, I would imagine even TIME, Newsweek and national papers like the NY Times would have coverage from 1982 at your local library. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The tornado or the library? :) Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Government of Kerala

    [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 coz, I’m the creator and major contributor to this article and not getting additional support. It was earlier created as Politics and Government of Kerala that I’ve moved to proper title and edited a lot, added images etc. Someone please look into this and try getting better to make it future FA.

    Thanks, Avinesh Jose  T  05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I learned much about Kerala I did not know before. A lot of work has been done here already, and here are my suggestions for improvement:

    • Per WP:LEAD expand the lead to summarize the whole article - I think if it is a section or subsection header, it should be at least mentioned somehow in the lead.
    • I think a map showing the location of Kerala within India would help for those who are unfamiliar with the state.
    • The article uses WP:summary style, but the section on the Governor and several others are too short in my opinion.
    • Many more references are needed - whole sections are unreferenced currently (Governor, Executive, Chief Minister, etc.). See WP:CITE
    • Some sections are very short and perhaps could be combined - for example Chief Minister and Council of Ministers.
    • I really do not have any idea what it is that the Council of Ministers does. I am also not clear on the role of the Governor versus the Chief Minister. For each section, try to make sure it answers the basic questions: who, what, why, where, when and how.
    • The article needs a copy edit for grammar, punctuation and general fixes. For example, under "State emblems" The state animal of Kerala is elephant and the government emblem has also two elephants in it. Other state emblems are, the state bird is Great Indian hornbill (ML:), state flower is Golden shower (ML:) and the state tree is coconut tree [4] could be copy edited to something like: The state animal of Kerala is the elephant and there are two elephants on the government seal (I would use seal and not emblem here?). Other state emblems are: the state bird is the Great Indian hornbill (ML:); the state flower is the Golden shower (ML:); and the state tree is the coconut tree.[4]
    • Internet references should have the title, publisher, author (if known), and date accessed. Make sure they meet WP:RS too.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nickel Creek

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recent good article, and I would like to eventually get it to FA status. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.


    Thanks, Thamusemeantfan (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dihydrogen monoxide

    [edit]
    • Lead should really be in a few paragraphs. Look at Powderfinger, Silverchair, etc. for a general model
      • It's really not sorted very well at the moment...
    • You don't need refs in the infobox
    • Refs that use web.archive should have this noted (using |archivedate= in cite web, etc.)
    • Early days: 1989–1999 section is also a bit jumbled up...
    • No more info on the first 2 albums?
    • Copyvio issues with that much quoting
    • "Critics responded favorably to the album, with All Music Guide giving it four and a half stars out of five." - don't use (plural) critics if you only cite one, and get a ref for that one
    • Is it possible to photoshop the date/time off the bottom right corner of Image:NickelCreek.jpg?
    • "Charles Spano of All Music Guide said that" - any non-AMG reviews?
    • A few short paras in the This Side: 2002–2004 section could be merged
    • "Sean Watkins stated that all three members were ready" - refer to him by surname, and no need to wlink
    I will unlink it, but I can not just use the surname because Sara Watkins is also a member of the band. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "planned the Farewell (For Now) Tour" - tours don't go in italics (a few others in the article...)

    Still needs a bit of work before FAC. Gimme a yell when you're done with this and I'll try to take another look if I get the chance. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Carpenters

    [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 more feedback on how I can better this article. I wish to get this to FA status, or at the very least, GA status.

    Thanks, Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 06:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I learned a lot about the Carpenters and have one of their songs going through my head right now. Obviously a lot of work has gone into the article, but it needs some polishing to get better. Specific comments for improvement:

    • I am a bit worried about NPOV as the article seems to be very pro-Carpenters. There is not a critical reception section as such (although there is the The "Pepsodent image" section). While criticism of the band is mentioned, it is not quoted and there do not seem to be any real critical responses to their music quoted pro or con. I would look at the currents FAs and find one or more to use as a model article - Radiohead is, but I am not sure that is the best model.
    • If their official group name was "Carpenters", why is this article called "The Carpenters" and not Carpenters (why isn't The Carpenters a redirect)?
    • Is the article a biography of the Carpenter siblings or is it about the musical group? If it is just about the group, there seems to be too much detail post Karen's death. If it is about the siblings, there seems to be too little detail in places (how long was Richard on Quaaludes? When did Karen start to have problems with eating disorders)?
    • Some details don't make sense - example at the end of the Trio and Spectrum section it says The new, yet temporary lineup for The Richard Carpenter Trio debuted on television on June 22, 1969.... After their television appearance, The Richard Carpenter Trio disbanded permanently, waiting to be picked up by a record label. then at the the start of the next section it reads Richard and Karen Carpenter signed to A&M Records on April 22, 1969 under the name "Carpenters". so when they were on TV the first time they were already signed to a contract, but after they were on TV they sat around and waited to be signed???
    • Watch for repetition. John Bettis' role as a composer with Richard is mentioned several times, for example, or getting out of Phys Ed and into band, or Wes Jacobs in the initial trio. A copyedit would help.
    • While the article is generally well cited, there are a number of places that lack citations: In the lead The Carpenters' melodic pop charted a record-breaking score of hit recordings on the American Top 40 and Adult Contemporary charts, becoming leading sellers in the soft rock, easy listening and adult contemporary genres. (extraordinary claims) or the whole last paragraph of the 1965-1968 section is uncited (which smacks of original research without a ref) or at least five paragraphs in the late 1970s section.
    • I would move the logo section into the "Carpenters" section (which could be organized by album)
    • References need to be cited consistently - internet refs need title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed - see WP:CITE. YouTube is not generally a WP:RS

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Metamorfoz

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has all the necessary information needed. Please consider that the subject of the article (musical album) was released in late december 2007, so this what so far could be collected on the subject and the article will expand as time passes. Please also note that the artcile was significantly expanded using the Hungarian version, which is a featured article in the Hungarian Wikipedia.

    Thanks, Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hello, some comments from me bearing in mind a possible push to GA and beyond.

    • Use the {{Cite web}} template for an enhanced and more uniform appearance for the citations. checkY Done
    • Perhaps worth stating in the lead that Tarkan is a Turkish singer, not a band or anything. checkY Done
    • I'd suggest "sixth" and "seventh", not 6th, 7th etc. checkY Done
    • Citations are best in numerical order - e.g. in the lead you have [3][1] so reorder them. checkY Done
    • " 25 December, 2007 " and "25th December", 2008" - be consistent and avoid "st" etc. checkY Done
    • "equals a diamond award" don't like that phrase, perhaps something like "gaining diamond certification"? checkY Done
    • WP:HEAD suggests not using "The" as in "The songs", "The album" etc. Just "Songs" "Album" is fine etc. checkY Done
    • "Tarkan denied all previous news" -what news? checkY Done
    • "this image has not yet been familiar for fans, which also justifies the title" reads strangely to me... checkY Done
    • The discussion over the songs is alright, I suppose, but borders on trivia really.
    • Per WP:CITE, avoid spaces between punctuation and citations. checkY Done
    • "hihg " typo - check the whole article for others. checkY Done
    • "TTNetMüzik" or "TTNet", or are they different? checkY Done
    • "the same exact shiny " exact is redundant here. checkY Done
    • "Then, according to the official website, he is about to perform " not great English. checkY Done
    • Criticism section should really be trimmed down and converted to prose rather than a bunch of bullet point quotations.
    • " don't know anything baout " - avoid "don't" - use "do not" and another typo... checkY Done
    • There's a mix of British and US English. Pick one and stick with it. checkY Done
    • "a short thanking note " again, not great in English. checkY Done

    In general it could do with a thorough copyedit (perhaps see if WP:LOCE can help) before it could be submitted at WP:GAN... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I will try to follow your suggestions. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HMS Cardiff (D108)

    [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 done a huge rewrite of it. I have aspirations to get it up to an FA class in the future and am particularly concerned over the format and layout of the article, MOS etc

    Thanks, Ryan4314 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Haus

    [edit]
    This article certainly meets the criteria for B-class and is quite close to GA-class. The only problem I really see is that the prose fails to flow here and there. I made a few edits that might suggest ways to improve the article's flow.
    A couple of structural suggestions. The "See also" section contains one item. Prior to pursuing GA status, I'd either add more or remove the section. The "Decorations/Awards" section suffers a similar problem, consider using the Ship honours= item in Infobox Ship Career.
    For citing the books you list under "Google Book Search," use {{Cite book}} instead. The info is available under the "About this book" tab, for example here. I'm sure there are articles you cited that could be handled better with {{Cite journal}} than with {{Cite web}}. But quite nicely done, overall. Cheers HausTalk 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou so much for contributing, I'll get to work on changing those refs now (erghh I hate it though, it's so repetitive), will I still be able make GA grade without a "See Also" section then? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My pleasure. You can absolutely make GA without a "See Also" section. Cheers. HausTalk 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two small items: I think #46, #47, and #49 all point to the same place (these are 3 different news stories on the same website), and "3000" needs a comma. After that, the only issues I have all under the category of copyediting. Here are a few examples of bits of prose that I think could be shined up:
    • Ambush , problems, Phalanx probably shouldn't be in quotes,
    • Counter-measure or Countermeasure instead of CounterMeasure,
    • "trails and weapon training programme" -> "trails and a weapons training programme"? (I'm not sure what you saw wrong with this, myself personally I think "trails" is a typo for "trials")
    • "There have been calls made by former Navy..." -> (something like) "Former Navy servicemen in Cardiff have called for the ship to be made into a local tourist attraction."
    • "Approximately an hour later[15]..." -> "Approximately an hour later...Scots Guards of the 2nd Battalion.[15]"
    • "Once the guards realised they were being targeted..." can probably be improved (What do you think of it now?)
    • "in the quadrennial NATO exercise, Strong Resolve" -> "in Strong Resolve, the quadrennial NATO exercise"
    • something fishy's going on at "fate; 50°49′07″N 1°07′50″W / 50.818486, -1.130644 her bell" (What do you think of it now?)
    Here's some copyediting advice that includes things like printing the article out, not reading it for a couple of days, and reading it out loud that will help a lot in spiffing up the language. Cheers. HausTalk 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's some great advice! So I'm gonna take a couple of days away from the article, then print it out, read aloud etc just before I rewrite/"flow" it, feel free to keep adding to the article as you guys see fit. Also I've asked Tom some interesting questions on his talk page here that I'd really appreciate if you guys could take a look at as well please. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. has anyone looked at the article with Internet Explorer? Is there a big space at the end of the Falklands section? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SoLando

    [edit]
    Excellent article (I was the initiator years before the policy/guideline structure that exists for articles had developed to the level that Wikipedia is now accustomed to - so I'm not necessarily culpable for its original state ;-). Anyway:
    • There are numerous skeleton paragraphs that could be consolidated. Prose flow would be improved by the elimination of these single-sentence paragraphs.
    • "Post Falklands War (1982-1990)" could be combined with the preceding section. Is there potential for expansion?
    • Some dates are unlinked. Dates should be linked (e.g. 24 January) to enable account preferences (see WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking).
    Have you done this Lando? I always get confused on this one, I know I have to link full dates but am not sure what day & month ones require it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs)
    Full dates (e.g. 23 January and 24 January 2008) are linked to enable account preferences for time formatting. Solitary months and years are, however, usually not linked (e.g. January and 2008). I've scoured the article for unlinked dates and didn't notice any. That issue would appear to have been resolved :-) SoLando (Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Awards" section doesn't seem viable as a distinct body of text. I suggest integrating the information with other sections and/or incorporating it into the lead.
    • "See Also" is redundant as the Type 45 is identified as a replacement in the main body.
    I've listed this peer review at MILHIST so there will hopefully be greater input. SoLando (Talk) 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TomStar81

    [edit]

    Well done, I enjoyed reading the article. I do have suggestion though: IMO, it would be better to place the terms first and then their abreviations, rather than having the abreviations and then the terms in parenthasis. I will take another read through this evening if the opurtinity to do so arises and see about adding additional comments then. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Charlton

    [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 lifted it to GA status and would like to raise it to A or FA status.


    Thanks, Littleteddy (roar!) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey, nice article. Some comments which may help elevate it toward A/FA status.

    • I think WP:LEAD would recommend around three paragraphs in the lead. I don't particularly like single sentence paragraphs, like the opening sentence of the lead, so consider merging the five paras you have there now into three.
    • Link Victoria in the lead.
    • "in getting Australia to adopt " reads a little clumsily to me...
    • Personal thing, but I would split Lambton, New South Wales into Lambton, New South Wales and add (NSW) afterwards so the acronym is well understood by the non-Australian readers.
    • You've linked the Australian Labor Party twice in the lead, no need for that.
    • I think the article, in general, is too segmented by the section headings. The sections themselves are relatively short so could be merged (with appropriate renaming of section headings).
    • Don't think you need the Australian Labor Party as a See also as well!

    I think for A-class you'll need to sort out the above but also expand the article a bit. I hope my comments have helped a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1947 Sydney hailstorm

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like some feedback on grammar, structure, and length, and whether this stands a chance at FAC.

    Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dihydrogen monoxide

    [edit]
    • Hailstroms fail WP:N ;)
    • Inactionable :)
    • Infobox image?
    • Erm, struggling. There's really no images available, except the ones I already have. I've added a barometric map from the day of the event.
    • The em dashes in the References section look odd
    • Changed to regular dashes.
    • Is the Damage section of the infobox for summarising injuries, or something else?
    • No, dollar amount.
    • Move images to Commons
    • You can - I'm hopeless :)
    • "presumed to be thunder," - might need a source for this statement
    • I've moved the reference forward.
    • "as "though [he] was back in the firing line overseas"" - need a source for the quote. Also per WP:MOS#Italics you don't need quotation marks and italics (for the whole article)
    • Ditto above for the reference. For the quotes, fixed, although I think it looks better the other way :)
    • "of the main Central railway station" - not sure if it should be capitalised...
    • You can tell you aren't a Sydney resident :) It is meant to be capitalised, but I can see why one may think otherwise

    As usual, nice stuff. Looking forward to FAC. No concerns re. length. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers, thanks for that. Will post my notes to yours tomorrow afternoon. Daniel (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shrewsbury

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it's of a fairly good standard, and relatively has lots of references, but I'm not sure how It can be made better. I believe it could be near GA standard.

    Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty close to GA to me, and not too far from FA. Here are some suggestions:

    • In the Lead, 9 miles should also be given as kilometres (per MOS). Done
    • In History, not sure if quotes here are needed (it was during the "late Middle Ages" (14th/15th Centuries) in which...) - if it is a direct quote, it must be cited. If not a quote, why is it in quotation marks? Done Just removed the quote, don't know why it was there!
    • Last two paragraphs in Geography are unsourced. Mileage from there to Wales is inconsistent with the lead. Done
    • Landmarks section - use of "you" seems unencylcopedic in The town is known as the "Town of Flowers" and this was the motto printed onto many of the signs as you entered the town on major roads... Done
    • Notable people section - Charles Darwin, a biologist and evolutionary theorist, one of the most important thinkers of the nineteenth century and one of the greatest scientists of all time needs a reference (extraordinary claims - cite is only to his birthplace). Many of the people listed here are unreferenced. Done provided ref for Darwin and other unreferenced 'notables'.
    • There is some repetition - notable people lists Shrewsbury School alumni, then the school section lists them again. Done removed from education section
    • Some of the pictures are laid out throughout so as to give a lot of white space - perhaps alternating images left and right would work? Done
    • All of the references from the internet need title, publisher, author if known, and access date. Mostly Done... Question- do I need to give 'publisher/work' for things like 'Shropshire Star website' where the publisher is 'Shropshire Star'. Doesn't seem much point to me. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of these are fairly nitpicky - hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the done symbols as space is very tight in PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh ok, sorry. :)Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for GA then. Thanks for your input!Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were an article in the Shropshire Star, then yes for title and publisher, but I think for just the newspaper website and GA, no separate publisher is OK. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hendrik Wade Bode

    [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 complete the Featured Article process. All sections are open to review comments. Please feel free to comment on any matter you may think needs attention.


    Thanks, Dr.K. (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I've had a first read through. It needs a bit of work to get it to FA.

    • tone - doesn't sound neutral, too much like a tribute
    • conversational, reads like an essay or magazine article
    • capitalisation - there is a huge amount of bad capitalisation, I would recommend you go through and check everything, particularly the links
    • remember that this is an article on Bode and not on the details of the things he worked on, these can be put into a different article if necessary
    • too many single paragraph / short sections
    • the table of patents is probably unecessary, these could be summarised in a sentence or 2

    I see that you have already disagreed on the talk page that the article is too conversational, I don't know if you changed anything then but it certainly needs some work along these lines now. If you really can't see this then let me know and I'll make a start. JMiall₰ 21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your input and excellent points. Yes I have changed a variety of "conversational"/"tributary" sentences. If you think others need improvement please go ahead. Same goes for the capitalisation problems. Fix as you see fit. You can also tag the sections he worked on and you think don't belong and I'll try to arrange a new article including relocating the patents. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, obvious that a lot of work has gone into it, but needs more work to reach FA. I agree with the comments above. The many short paragraphs and subsections break up the flow of the article. The initial image is expanded larger than its original size and looks grainy as a result. The internet references need to all have title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed - see WP:CITE. Sentences like this This provided engineers with a fast and intuitive stability analysis and system design tool that is as popular today as it was groundbreaking then. need to be referenced and probably toned down for POV, unless the wording is directly attributable to a reliable source. Also watch out for repetition - the story (Counting House) he wrote with his wife is already described in the Hobbies and family life section, so it really doesn't need its own section again at the end. Perhaps the patents and the works he wrote could be in a list subarticle (List of Hendrik Wade Bode patents and works?). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much Ruhrfisch. Great comments. Will be working on your observations. Feel free to work on the article any time. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image size is dictated by the infobox. Can this be changed inside the box? Dr.K. (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I have fixed it. JMiall₰ 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rongorongo

    [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 nominated it for a FA a month ago, after Jacques Guy and I greatly expanded and improved it, but retracted the nomination after a few comments suggested it was not ready. Those concerns have been addressed, and the article has been further expanded and improved. However, this is my first FA nomination, and I don't yet know the ropes.

    Thanks, kwami (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    cjll wright's comments

    [edit]
    A couple of initial comments, after a quick read-through:
    • a lot of the comments in the prior FAC nom are addressed, but there could be some more tweaking to do to satisfy pernicky folks. For example:
      • re 'consistency in citation/referencing', at the moment there's a mixture of Harvard-style intext cites (Smith 1990:123) and embedded cites/ext links, like so: [16]. The latter are "not particularly recommended as a method of best practice" according to that guide. I suggest the webpages they refer to are converted into expanded entries in the references section, and replace their appearance in the text with a Harvard-style inline cite, or maybe a footnote.
      • For the references section, I think it's probably best that each entry contains the same amount of identifying info. So where books are listed and you provide data such as publisher and location, then all listed books should have this data. Same for journals, etc. ISBNs, OCLCs, and DOIs and ISSNs where appropriate could also be usefully supplied.
      • When referencing pages, for consistency either prepend all with p. or pp., or leave unardorned.
      • You might consider imposing consistent formatting by using the family of citation templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc) for each entry on the references section, so the punctuation, field order, spacing &c. is the same. If for some reason you prefer the refs formatted and structured slightly differently (eg no brackets around the year), then need to manually check and format each entry the same way.
    Should be good now. Please let me know if I messed anything up. I've left in a few inline links which are more about connecting to an illustration than referencing.
    • Some other misc. comments:
    • Most of the individuals and scholars mentioned in the running text would be unknown to the general readership. Perhaps the first time they're mentioned, they could be briefly introduced eg "Russian liguist and eipgrapher Yuri Knorozov..."
    Done, pretty much, except for Harrison - I don't know who he is.
    • In the notes for the last line in the table of texts, does "A worn fragment. Fischer numbers it with tourist pieces" mean to imply Fischer considered it a forgery? Could be expressed more clearly.
    Yes, a forgery carved over an authentic tablet.
    • "In 1995 Steven Fischer announced that he had cracked the rongorongo code. In the decade since, this has not been accepted by other researchers..." I know that some of the objections are given later on, but perhaps there could some cites provided here for the assessment. Does it need to be qualified, the linked National Geographic article (tho' noting that NG certainly has its limitations as an accurate source) seems to give Fischer a pretty big rap, and claims support at the time such as noting "At a recent conference at Leiden in the Netherlands, Fischer's decipherment of the texts was given unanimous and enthusiastic approval by experts on Austronesian linguistics", and "Barthel..has given Fischer's discovery...his unlimited endorsement", etc.
    I'm trying to check in on this. It looks like New Scientist took Fischer rather uncritically at his word, and it seems that he's misrepresented other scholars, but I don't really know. I only know the opinions of about ten people who are working on RR, including Mayanists and computational linguists, and none of them accept Fischer (though they say he's a nice guy!)
    From what I've been able to find on Bahn, it seems he's a colleague of Fischer's, not an independent reviewer. Can't find anyone who knows if Bahn attended this conference, or if he went with Fischer's own often inflated description. (Fischer says he got a "standing ovation".) Notice that the conference is not even named, let alone referenced. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Knorozov try out his early computer-assisted decipherment techniques on rongorongo, or was that only the Indus Valley script - I forget. If so, might be worth mentioning, tho' I guess nothing came of it.
    I don't know.
    • 'Modern manuscripts' section: I find this whole paragraph a bit confusing, it's hard to tell without looking up elsewhere just what these MSS. are, who's trying to match up the calendars, &c.
    Yes, needs to be rewritten, but this is something I know almost nothing about. I'd almost rather leave it out altogether, but then people say that these are the key to deciphering RR.
    Commented out entire section as not really relevant. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Without an easy way for Hevesy to typeset rongorongo or identify the glyphs under discussion, it was not apparent that several of the rongorongo glyphs used in his comparisons were fabrications." Is the suggestion that Hevesy fabricated some of the glyphs (so they looked more like Harappan ones, I s'pose), but it went undetected since others didn't have ready access to examine faithful drawings of authentic ones? Or, was he misled/careless? The para goes on to in effect point out what should have been the implausibility of the rongorongo–Harappan connection while noting the idea had some currency in the 1930s. OK in retrospect, but was the antiquity of the Indus Valley civilization/script established in the 1930s?
    Needs rewriting. It may have been self delusion rather than fraud; it just wasn't possible for people to check. I'll need to verify the date estimates of Harappa at the time.
    I changed the word to 'spurious', which doesn't have the implications of fraud that 'fabrications' does. I can't verify which dates were estimated for Harappa when it was discovered, but it was clear from the archaeological context that it was old, whereas rongorongo was known to be contemporary. A matter of millennia regardless. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Horley (2005) has carried out a statistical analysis." But nothing about any results...?
    Reworded. His results were more parallel sequences among the texts, but it's still not possible to say with certainty what is allographic.
    That's all for the moment. I'll be offline shortly for a week or so, but will look to attend/review any other items that occur to me. And congrats by the way to Kwami et al who've contributed- I think it's a pretty fine and most interesting article as it stands anyway, with a fighting chance of getting thru FAC.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot, cjll! — kwami (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That should do it. Please let me know if you feel I haven't addressed some of your points. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, under 'fanciful decipherments', I added,
    Perhaps a dozen decipherments have been claimed since then, none of which have been accepted by other rongorongo epigraphers.
    I haven't referenced this, as that would required names, and two of the four contemporary decipherers (Fischer, Fedorova, Bettocchi, and Rjabchikov) have repeatedly added their accounts to this article, and I don't wish to antagonize them. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref'd, using the one scholar who is respected enough to trigger a rebuttal, Fedorova. — kwami (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi kwami, have now been able to re-review after your amendments noted above, thanks- those changes look pretty good to me.
    As for Harrison, there's a bit about him and his contribs mentioned on pp.60–64 in Fischer (1997), where he's described as an "amateur epigrapher". He appears to have been a council member on the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and written a couple of other papers. There's a James Park Harrison (d.1907) who was an ecclesiastical architect with a connection to the Darwin-Wedgwood family, but dunno whether this is the same person. No matter.
    Re Knorozov, I recall reading somewhere when researching for his article that he and a team at Novosibirsk (I think) pioneered the use of computer algorithms as an aide to epigraphic decipherment in the 60s/70s, but wasn't sure if they tried it with rongorongo. Anyways, it would just be of curio value if they did I guess.
    The article looks most impressive, think it's just about there for FAC. Nice work, and cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Butinov and Knorozov did a statistical analysis and concluded that RR couldn't both be true writing and encode Rapanui. I mention that under some additions to Pozdniakov, where it's most relevant. But that was back in the 50's, and I don't know what else they may have done. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4u1e's comments

    [edit]

    Random stuff:

    • The lead is probably too short for FA. WP:LEAD suggests four paras for a long article like this. Candidate topics for brief summary in the lead might include the historical record, form and construction, and perhaps a little more on decipherment. The current lead is a good brief summary, it's just that we're allowed to be a little less brief for an article of this size!
    Okay. That's been said by others. I'll try to get to it.
    Done. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The full name of the script is said to have been' Can we be more specific about who says this? I assume it comes from interviews with indigenes?
    I don't know. It's in Englert's dictionary, but I only have this part in English translation, which is why it wasn't included in the footnote.
    • After a little thought, I can see that it's consistent and logical, but be prepared to defend what some will perceive as a 'mixed economy' of referencing styles. If I understand correctly, you've used Harvard-style citations to reference information, with footnotes to elaborate on various points? It's an unusual approach, so may generate some negative reaction.
    • Suggest you link glyph at the first ocurrence, as likely not be known by many readers.
    Linked in the lead. Needed in the body as well?
    The lead and the main text can be viewed as semi-separate docs, so I'd recommend it.4u1e (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
    • 'contours of animate ... design' Meaning that they represent living things? Is there a more commonly understood way of putting this? (I've a masters degree (albeit in engineering!) and I consider myself fairly well-read. If I had to pause and think about it, it's likely others will.)
    Done.
    • 'see petroglyphs below'. Possibly use an internal wikilink here? (Some people really don't like 'see below', by the way, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.)
    I tried, but can't get the link to work. Done.
    • Should note 2 (Skjølsvold (1994), as cited in Orliac (2005) be inline Harvard rather than a footnote?
    Done.
    • 'and either face outward or to the right' This is mildly ambiguous; figures facing outwards could be facing the sides of the wooden tablets, rather than facing the reader as I imagine is intended. Perhaps say 'and either face the reader or to the right'?
    Done.
    • 'Easter Island had long been deforested of trees that size; analysis of charcoal indicates that the forest disappeared in the first half of the 17th century.' Being really picky, when had it long been deforested of trees of that size? Could this not just read: 'Analysis of charcoal indicates that Easter Island had been deforested of trees that size since the first half of the 17th century'?
    It was relative to Orliac. Changed to 'has'.
    • 'Also, if shark teeth are ever found that display wear from being used as writing instruments, they could give a more direct carbon date of the inscriptions.' While true, this reads as original research or speculation. It would be better if could be tied to a view expressed in one of the sources.
    Need to track this down.
    Moved to talk page for now. Hardly an essential point. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Designs include a concentration of chimeric bird-man figures etc.' Should the last two items in this list (roosters and canoes) be separated by semi-colons, as earlier items are?
    Done.
    • 'However, there is what appears to be a short string of rongorongo glyphs carved on the wall of a cave...' This is written as a contrast to the earlier part of the paragraph, but appears to be quite consistent with it ('Several of the anthropomorphic and animal-form petroglyphs have parallels in rongorongo...' Am I missing a contrast here?
    Reworded.
    • ' There are over 14,000 glyph elements total.' I would expect to see 'in total' here. Probably a UK/US difference, though.
    Done.
    • There's a certain amount of repetition about the Santiago staff, which seems to be introduced in full three? times. Check that it is only introduced once and it can simply referred to as I, the Santiago staff after this. Similarly for the snuff box.
    That whole section introduction is redundant. Reworded.
    • Are recto and verso widely enough understood, or do they need to be explained for Wikipedia's likely audience?
    Linked.
    • In the table of classic texts, some letters are bold and others are not. The difference seems to be in the quality of the artefact. Is this intended, and if so, should a note to that effect be added?
    Yes, that was the reason, but it was subjective. Made all bold.
    No wonder that passed unnoticed for so long! Actually, oars were also carved, but we only know the designs from early sketches of tatoos of oars on old people's backs - hardly enough to make a comparison. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The best published reference to the glyphs remains Barthel (1958), a fairly exhaustive and well organized list.' This appears to be the author's opinion, and so may raise hackles at WP:FAC.
    Changed to 'only'.

    Phew, that's a lot of comments, but it's all nit-picky stuff, nothing serious. Great article. I'll try and complete my comments later. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I'll be able to get to this later today. Meanwhile, what would you suggest instead of distinguishing references and footnotes? Is it normal to mix them all together? — kwami (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From looking around, most people use very few footnotes (by which I mean notes that expand on or explain what is in the main text), but a lot of citations. Personally I cite things using footnotes(!), and occasionally include notes in the same mechanism (see Brabham BT19 for example) That sort of approach seems fairly normal round here, see John Knox and Slavery in ancient Greece, both featured on the front page this week. Now, that's really no more logical than your approach, so I'm not saying you should change. Just be ready to be challenged! 4u1e (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look. Made the quickest corrections; the others will have to wait. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, easy enough to change if people insist. However, I hate notes like that, because you never know when you see the note mark whether it's merely a reference, or a substantial remark that's worth reading. — kwami (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - make yourself familiar with WP:CITE and WP:HARVARD before you go to FAC, people sometimes insist on things that aren't actually required. 4u1e (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got this response at CITE:
    I think this is fine. Many articles use different systems for explanatory footnotes and citation. Often, the cite.php system is used for citation and the ref/note template system for explanatory footnotes. For instance, see the FA Pericles. Your system is somewhat different, but serves a similar purpose of differentiating content footnotes from citations alone. This isn't to say that someone won't complain at FAC, but I think your method is well within accepted practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aliens (film)

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I have recently re-written this article in its entirety and hope to take it to FAC in due time. It's currently at GAC and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LuciferMorgan

    [edit]

    "Over 3000 people were auditioned for roles in the United Kingdom, although many were rejected." - Do you mean that the 3000 people were UK residents, or that auditions were held in the UK and actors of whichever nationality auditioned in that country? LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UK residents, thanks for spotting that out. How are you these days? :] M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I wanted to comment as this had not received much feedback. I read the article and was quite impressed, but here are a few suggestions for improvement. I like the current lead, but according to WP:LEAD it should be four paragraphs (for the length of the article). My rule of thumb is that if it is a section or subsection in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. I also noticed there are a number of units which are given as one system only (feet, tonnes) and should really be in both metric and english untis per the MOS. My last question concerns the references - if you are going for FAC (and I think it is quite close as it is), then some of the references do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Specifically there are a series of refs which are just a cryptic title: i.e. Ref 7 "57 Years Later - Continuing the story", also refs 12 - 15 and 18. My guess is that these are referring to chapters in a DVD on the making of the film, but that needs to be made much more explicit. Hope this helps - I don't have much more to say becasue I think it is very good already, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Veronica Mars

    [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 status. All of article needs reviewing. Thanks.

    Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article about a show I never saw. Some suggestions to improve it:

    • Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the whole article - this needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is that if it is a section or subsection header, it should also be mentioned in the lead somehow.
    • Organization is a bit odd - I would move the filming locations section before the fan reception - I would talk about the show and how it was made, then critical reception, then merchandise, then fans. Could the awards and top ten info be made into a "List of Veronic Mars honors and awards" and just summarized here?
    • It is often helpful to find a GA or FA or two to use as a model article for improvement - perhaps Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), which is a FA could be a model?
    • Some sections seem too detailed - since there are already episode summary lists, I think much of the who is sleeping with whom details could be left there.
    • Please read about "out of universe perspective" at WP:IN-U and rewrite the plot summary section. I have not seen the show and had real trouble following it.
    • Watch out for needless repetition - for example, the whole third season was cut from 22 to 20 episodes is presented at least three times, and the details on the story arcs that season are given twice.
    • References from the internet all need title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed - see WP:CITE

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Milian

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it really need to be improved. I hope to get it to GA status, but I can't do it by myself. Please look through and give me your thoughts!


    Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    That's a start for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not use graphics like "Done" to save space. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Saruman

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Peer Review requested with the short term aim of getting to GA. Particular concerns are any pro-POV for the topic and the dreaded in-universe perspective. Also, can anyone who's not a Rings geek understand this? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Overall well done and I must say this does one of the best jobs I have read on WP of presenting the subject from an out of universe perspective. Some comments for possible improvement:

    • Is it worth mentioning the other three Istari (Radagast the Brown and the Blue Wizards)? (thus do I betray my Rings geek status)
      • :) I've left it out because it seems off topic. There're hints of an interesting relationship between Radagast and Saruman, who seems to resent his lesser colleague, but I'm not convinced Wikipedia is the place to go into that. It comes from only two scraps of information, one in the text of LoTR itself and one in Unfinished Tales. 4u1e (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For "Date of death" in the infobox, would only died physically read better? Or perhaps physical death only?
    • The article is understandably sparse on images - would it make sense to have a Christopher Lee as Saruman picture in the infobox (that way the images wouldn't all be at the end)? Also are any of the Brothers Hildebrandt calendar illustrations suitable here (as fair use, obviously)?
    • One text box uses a footnote (ref 9), the other says "The Return of the King p. 363". I think the citation style to the LoTR books should be consistent, plus I think the Shippey reference in the text box should be referenced.
    • Would a line separating the quoted text and the notes in the boxes help, like an <hr> tag?
    • While this is quite detailed, not all the places where attribution is made are referenced or referenced properly. For example (not an exhaustive list):
      • last paragraph of Characteristics section - give some pages or chapters in Unfinished Tales?
      • these indirect quotes need refs Saruman is most often described by other characters as a traitor or treacherous; the terms are used by Gandalf, Elrond, Treebeard and even by Sauron's Orc Grishnákh. Gandalf describes him as proud, cold and scornful.
      • The first paragraph in the Charateristics section has two direct quotations without a reference immediately following the sentence they are in.
      • Treebeard's attitude towards Saruman also seems to be unreferenced.
      • Saruman's own appellations (Many coloured, the Ring maker) in the very last paragraph of the article need refs.
    • I think the style of the Notes must be consistent, crrently it is not. For example, J.R.R. Tolkien is referred to as only "Tolkien" in some places (ref 4, 5) and "Tolkien, J.R.R." in other places (refs 12-15), or omitted entirely as some works have no author listed ("Letters"). Meanwhile his son is "Tolkien, C." and Shippey is last name only. In the DVD commentary notes it is first name then last name i.e. "Fran Walsh". This will be a big problem at FAC if not fixed beforehand.
    • I think the biggest potential concern is that only one critic (non-Tolkien source) is cited on Saruman in the books. Surely other academics besides SHippey have commented on Saruman? For NPOV, multiple view points are needed.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly does - I'll get to work on them. I could really use some help on criticism from others - Shippey (whose stated aim is to promote Tolkien) is the only third party I've used, but I've not yet found another critic who actually says anything meaningful about Saruman. 4u1e (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know Tolkien criticism that well - not sure who else could be cited. Soryy, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Britney Spears

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring this article up to FA status. This article was recently a Feature Article Candidate, and it was failed due to two major reasons.

    1. It needs a thorough copyedit.
    2. Several phrases are cited with unreliable source(s).

    The committed editors of the article will take care the sourcing problems. I would like to ask peer reviewers to give it a copyedit. And please point out any other problems with this article you come across. I am most grateful for your help. Cheers! Oidia (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: Just so you know, peer review is more a place to point out problems than to fix them (the editors asking for a peer review are generally the ones who do the fixing or at least find helpers). Some suggestions and a reply to your statement above:

    • I will make some comments for suggested improvements, but do not have the time to do a copyedit. Have you asked at WP:LOCE? Since you already know this needs a copyedit, I will not point out errors that a good copyedit will fix.
    • I would go through the FAC and look very carefully at every comment and make sure it has been fixed. I would also treat the comments as examples and make sure the whole article was free of the problems pointed out (and not just fix any particular specific examples).
    • Be as specific with details as possible - surely a more exact date for her first single is known than Spears's debut single "…Baby One More Time", released in the end of 1998...?
    • Try reading the article out loud - do sentences like The tour's choreography generated much controversy and criticism, with the presence of young children in the audience.[60] really make sense (I think I can figure out what the intent is, but this is nowhere near the brilliant prose required for FA).
    • How is a red link to "Unreleased Material by Britney Spears (includes unreleased collaborations)" useful information for the Guest appearances section?
    • COnsidering fair use guidelines, are eight separate songs really needed for one article?
    • Make sure everything is cited properly - the first sentence calls her the "Princess of Pop (no close quote) but does not cite this, for example.
    • Some references from the internet (as examples, see current refs 23, 30, 31, 158 & 159) do not include all required information (title, publisher, author if know, and date accessed) See WP:CITE
    • There are a very large number of references so wherever possible please use the <ref name = "blah"> format for citing the same ref multiple times - see current refs 3, 4, 6-9 for example of this, or for duplicate refs see current 104 and 105.
    • Make sure refs meet WP:RS - is yahoo.com really a reliable source (current ref 17, cited 5 times)? See also the FAC concerns. I would agree that print biographies are probably very useful here, but do not seem to be cited much.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tropical Storm Charley (1998)

    [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 wish to nominate for FA shortly and would like to know what to work on prior to doing so.


    Thanks, TheNobleSith (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Very good article. Some minor points which may be brought up at FAC...

    • "morning of the 21," don't like that, just add the month again.
    • Del Rio links to a disambiguation page. On more than one occasion.
    • " and seven people died" - more like "were killed".
    • The storm path image, while it uses the {{storm path}} template, should still conform with WP:MOS#Images - I think it's too small at the moment. But I could be wrong!
    • "At landfall on the 22nd" - WP:DATE.
    • "6 hours later" six. But "six hours later" is repeated in quick succession.
    • "Prolific, sometimes record amounts fell over much of south central Texas and northern Mexico." is this cited?
    • Woodsboro links to a dab page.
    • " by flooding .[2] " remove the space.
    • "The death toll in Texas stands at 13, all drownings" - suddenly into present tense?
    • "1003 mbar." could be converted.
    • Why is Colin in bold?

    That's about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. All issues besides the image have been dealt with. I don't think its too small. Most articles with storm track images in that spot have them that size, including many GA and FA.TheNobleSith (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I may be wrong, it may comply with the MOS. However, just because it's used in other GA and FA it doesn't necessarily make it right! I'll double check what the storm path template is doing... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    However, just because it's used in other GA and FA it doesn't necessarily make it right! Good point. Stupid thing to say on my part in retrospect...anyway thanks for your help.TheNobleSith (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, well I've dug into the {{storm path}} template, it's very basic and shows that the thumb is being forced to 150px width. Current manual of style just mandates the use of thumb for landscape images (rather than selecting a size) and this means all thumbs will be displayed, currently, at 180px. So my gut instinct was right, it's a little on the small size. Now this is a Project decision really, I'm not going to change the storm track template, but I strongly recommend it adopts a purist approach to the manual of style. Then everyone's a winner! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Alright. I altered the px on the template, to match it with the MOS. Thank you for your help!TheNobleSith (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome. I hope all the other users of the template are good with the modification too! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Progression of British football transfer fee record

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I'm not sure whether I fancy taking this all the way to FLC, but a PR can't hurt....... :-)

    BTW I still think it needs a new title........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey, brave choice, I'd stay well clear of these transfer things, far too much speculation for my liking. Still, some comments on your fine work...

    • I know it's linked but it's worthwhile trying to explain in the opening paragraph what a transfer fee actually is.
    • "Transfer fees are not generally formally disclosed by the clubs involved, and discrepancies can occur in figures quoted in the press, for example Trevor Francis, regarded as Britain's first £1m player, was officially transferred for £975,000, but the generally reported figure was £1.18m, which included VAT, fees to the Football League and Francis' signing fee.[1]" - mega sentence with 7 delineating commas - I'd look at splitting this into at least two sentences!
    • I would consider expanding VAT before using it...
    • "Fees are shown at the level most widely reported." but each entry has one reference so I'm not 100% convinced that you can make this assertion.
    • Is it worth linking the £ to GBP just to be sure what we're talking about?
    • "Continental clubs " - a little familiar (I think I've said this in another review one time...!) - mainland European clubs?
    • Make ref column unsortable.
    • Consider a graph of fees - it would show the "unprecedented level of increase" in the 70s you refer to. You may have to be clever and make the graph logarithmic otherwise the early fees will disappear in the dust.
    • Consider a "2008 GBP" column if you can find out how to "inflate" historic values. That way we'd get an idea of how much Common would be "worth" today? Something like this may be of use? Just a thought mind you...

    That's about all I have right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cheers for the comments, I think I've address them all except the graph and the comparative column, which I'll look at later. And you're right, there's a huge amount of speculation involved in this topic, which is the main reason why I'm wary of taking it to FLC, for fear it just gets bogged down in "hey, I'm sure Steve Daley cost £1.42m" type commnents....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New York State Route 418

    [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 a FT article, and following recommendations from WP:WIAFT, it should get a peer review. Also following that, it will be unable to reach GA-class. I am asking for a Peer Review so it can be audited for quality.


    Thanks, Mitch32contribs 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments:

    • If it is so small that it cannot possibly get to GA, I think rating it as Mid-importance is too much (I would make the assessment Low importance).
    • The reference for length [1] also gives information on traffic volume, but this is not included in the article - why not?
    • Lead - I would rewrite the lead to something like this [places where I have questions are noted in square brackets]:
    New York State Route 418 is a 3.50 mile (5.63 km) long state route in Warren County, New York, running from the town of Athol (its western end is an intersection with Warren County Route 4) to the hamlet of Warrensburg (its eastern end is an intersection with U.S. Route 9). For most of its length the road parallels the Hudson River [are you sure? - the map says otherwise] and is also known as Stoney Creek Road, River Road and Richard Street. Other features along the route include Sugarloaf Mountain and The Three Sisters mountains. Route 418 is part of the original Dude Ranch Trail, which follows the Hudson River from X to Y.[3]
      • I note that Athol is a redirect to Thurman, New York, if Athol is an unincorporated community within the town of Thurman, I think it should say this instead. Since Warrensburg is both a CDP and a town, I would mention that - it seems to run through both the town and the CDP. See this map.
      • I spelled out "CR" as it was not clear.
      • As noted above, the Hudson River runs generally N-S here, while this route runs generally E-W, and a close look at the map in the article does not seem to indicate that the route runs parallel to the river for most of its length (a short distance in the western end, yes - the whole route, no).
      • I would explain where the Dude Ranch Trail ran from (both ends)
    • Is there a reason why the nearby town is "Stony Creek" but the alternate road name is spelled "Stoney Creek"?
    • Is there any more you can say about the Dude Ranch Trail - history, why it has that name, better route description (the source cited says it is a circle route - the article does not say that).
    • Anyway the map could be cropped to show the road better and not so much extra territory?
    • Do refs 3 and 5 meet WP:RS?
    • Why no mention of the Adirondack Park - Google Map ref shows the route runs through it for most of its length?

    Hope this helps, this needs some work still - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Masters Tournament champions

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I'm putting this list up for peer review, as I believe it will eventually meet all the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Als the numerous red links will disappear, as I'm periodically working on this. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey NapHit, branching into golf with this style of list. Very cool! Some comments.

    • Firstly a criticism levelled at me with one of the UEFA cup lists was I used pretty much only UEFA's website for the source. You've done the same here, so I'd suggest finding some alternative sources other than the primary source.
    • The images could do with being placed in chronological order down the side of the table.
    • I'm pretty sure each image's caption, as they stand, are fragments and, as such, don't need full stops.
    • "The Masters Tournament is a golf competition, which was established in 1934, " needs citation.
    • "a year ad returns it" typo.
    • " (-18)" explain this - 18 below par...
    • Centrally align the cells which have just a hyphen in them as well.
    • Why have 1965–1966? Just list them all out individually.

    That's about it for me. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeh WP:GOLF needs a bit of a boost so I thought a featured list might spark things into life, thanks for the comments, they've all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    30 Rock (season 1)

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new article and I would like some feedback on the work I have put into it. If feedback is positive, I plan to submit it for Wikipedia:FLC.

    I would prefare NOT to have an automated review please.

    Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Fruits Basket chapters

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I'm requesting a peer review to help clean it up before taking it to FLC, and my collaborator on cleaning up the Fruits Basket articles has declined to review it because of spoilers. In particular, I'm looking for suggestions for the formatting of the information about the separate English language releases, and either assurances that the volume summaries aren't too long or suggestions of how to trim. (My one previous manga FLC process, it was much easier to write short summaries.) As well as any other problems you might see.

    Thanks for any assistance.

    —Quasirandom (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SGGH

    I suggest:

    • Move citation [3] to the end of the sentence before citation [4]
    • If "Ultimate Editions" is a title it should be Ultimate Editions rather than in ""
    • A suggestion, perhaps some section headers as breaks in the listof volumns to enable quicker navigation? Perhaps every 20 volumes or something similar?
    • Statements in the plot sections which are more than a summary of the plot (i.e. theories on the meaning of events, on the mental attitude or a character, or anything that has been inferred from the story, ought to ideally be cited, I realise this may be difficult at times.
    • I'd chuck a "clear" template under the image, as on widescreen computers and lapops it runs over the list of volumes page break.

    All I can think of, hope this helps!

    Thankee. Stuff to think about -- especially the headers breaks, though I'm not sure how yet. For the fourth item, could you point to specific statements you see as being problematic? I tried to be careful for, for example, statements about mental states to only those reported by characters in their own thoughts. (Which is why it's not made clear why in volume 21 Tohru offers her hand to Akito, even though I'm pretty sure I know the reason -- but Tohru doesn't explicitly say or think about it.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I didn't find any, which is why my comment was more of a "if there are some" rather than "there are some." Or at least, if I didn't put that across, it is what I meant to put across :) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) may help with this article too. SGGH speak! 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah -- thankee for the clarification. I'll go through and double-check each statement to make sure it's patent in the text. (WP:MOS-AM doesn't yet have much to say about this type of article, aside from cross-referencing the newly created {{Graphic novel list}} -- this was my first time creating a list from scratch using that, thus my wobblyness.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse

    [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 since I'm tentatively looking towards a Featured Article candidacy. Issues which I'm most concerned with are comprehensiveness, style, and sourcing. Thanks, Haemo (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey Haemo, just some quick comments from me. I can't help with accuracy/comprehensiveness really as I'm not au fait with the subject but hopefully my comments will be of some use to you!

    1. Rename "History of the site" to "Site history".
    2. In the lead, I think it's worth stating what the Manor and the Schoolhouse actually are.
    3. Do you really think that trees needs to be linked in the caption?
    4. The co-ordinates at the top of the article are decimal which I find a little ugly. Any chance of making them into degrees, minutes and seconds?
    5. "1000-odd" not particularly encyclopaedic.
    6. "...1852 to 1856. [7]:47 "?
    7. Order citations numerically - right now you have a [2][1] and a [10][8] and a [9][8]...
    8. Do you need the "external links" co-ordinates link?

    Hope some of that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, thanks for the review. I've replied to the suggestions in order
    1. (+) Done!
    2. (+) I rewrote and expanded the lead.
    3. (+) I've removed the Wikilink.
    4. (--) The template seems to require that format. I'm not sure how to change it...
    5. (+) I've reworded this to "around 1000"
    6. (!!) I believe that's a template used to cite a specific page in a book.
    7. (+) Done!
    8. (--) The template (above) inserts that automatically. Should I just remove the template?
    Please do not use images / graphics (to save space) Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. --Haemo (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SGGH

    [edit]

    Hope I don't duplicate any points made above, I will try my best not to. I suggest:

    1. the last lines of the first paragraph of the lead need a cite
    2. end of the third para of the "site history" section, the cite before the dash I think it should move to after the comma after "altogether" as per the cite-after-punctuation style guidelines
    3. I agree with the above, I don't think the [7]:47 thing is correct.
    4. cite [12] at the end of the schoolhouse section has the same dash issue as the one I had just mentioned above
    5. Not sure if the coordinates can be inserted into the article with more finesse than just being plonked in the external links section like that, but I'm not sure what MoS says.

    Not many things for me to pick up on, a good article. Hope my comments help SGGH speak! 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. (+) Done!
    2. (?) I don't know; it looks wrong. I'm not citing "altogether".
    3. (--) The documentation supports it; but it's easy to change.
    4. (?) See 2
    5. (--) I don't know if the template supports it; just remove it? --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Passions

    [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…

    Article regarding fictional daytime drama/soap opera. Looking for ways to improve it.

    Thanks, Dougie WII (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments:

    • This article has many paragraphs and even whole sections which are completely unreferenced - if it is going to become a WP:GA (or WP:FA) it will need inline citations throughout. See WP:CITE and WP:RS and WP:V.
    • Since it is about a soap opera, please see WP:IN-U about writing from an out of universe perspective.
    • Most articles on works of fiction I have read list the plot synopsis first and the characters second. Since the Series history section gives many of the major plot developments, perhaps the plot section (Storylines) could be moved directly after it?
    I just deleted that section because it didn't provide a comprehensive plot summary and plot summaries are better represented in the individual character articles. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is generally useful to find a model article (or two) that is GA or FA and use that as a pattern to improve the article.
    EastEnders appears to be a good article to look at for those working on Passions. Since it's a British soap, I bet most American Passions viewers, like me, know nothing about it, so it helps put things into the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the show before reading the article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand the Comings and goings table in the charaters section.
    That refers to new characters/actors scheduled to join the cast or older ones leaving the show.
    • It is also not clear if the table on Noted guest stars could not be better presented as text.
    • Avoid repeptition - for example, the novel Hidden Passions gets its own section and then the information is repeated in the Product placement section, or the move to DirecTV is mentioned many times.
    • Generally decently written - I was able to follow most of the plot.
    • No information on critical reception.
    Working on that: Passions#Critical reception
    • The References given need more information - internet refs need title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed.
    • Any other images that can be added? Pictures of some of the cast members perhaps?
    • The early emphasis on paranormal plots is mentioned - could one or two specific examples be given (in context)? It already mentions opening a closet door to hell, but who did this and what was their reaction? Just curious.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you so much for all the tips! -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Pierce

    [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 know if any additional work is needed to bring it to FA status. A better picture is needed (and I have an idea for a graph if anyone has the capability of creating one), but I think I'm just about finished on the text.

    Thanks, MisfitToys (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Hey MisfitToys, really nice article. Some comments, plus I'm happy to volunteer to make a graph if I possibly can!

    • When using abbreviations, just make sure they've been explained beforehand so after Major League Baseball put (MLB) and before you refer to AL or NL, make sure you've mentioned American League (AL) or National League (NL), this way the article becomes more accessible to non-baseball experts.
    • Can't see a really good reason why not to put the [3] next to the [4] in the lead.
    • Are you sure "runnerup" is a single word?
    • "who he faced more often than any other team[5][6] – when the Yankees dynasty was at its peak;" I'd reword "who he faced more often than any other team when the Yankees franchise was at its peak;[5][6]"
    • "27-41" separate with en-dash. There are other instances, numerical separation by en-dash not hyphen. Applies to year ranges as well (e.g. in the infobox) and page ranges in citations.
    • "5th " etc - fifth etc. for below 10.
    • link first baseman for non-experts benefit.
    • "a remarkably unassuming presence" a little peacock phrased for me...
    • For FA, avoid contractions such as "didn't " - "did not" works.
    • "But those seasons also indicated his future brilliance" - really? citation? again, a little peacock, sounds like it's written by a fan.
    • Numbers below 10 should be written in words.
    • There's quite a bit of baseball jargon which either needs explanation or wikilinking for success at FA, so try hard to find suitable material for things like baseman, pinch hitter, reliever, shortstop, walking etc.
    • "clearly the ace of the pitching staff. " fancruft again.
    • "ERA " what's this?
    • Inside the numbers section could be rephrased more encyclopaedically, say, Stastical analysis?

    That's a starter for you. Let me know if you want me to help further, especially with any graph you may wish to have made up. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed a few of the things you suggested; runner-up appears to be a valid word: [17]. MisfitToys (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it does, but with a hyphen, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luís Figo

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    I've listed this article for peer review because i think that this is a good articule.


    Thanks, Sdrtirs (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]

    Indeed, a good article but plenty of room for improvement.

    • "considered by some second only to Eusebio as Portugal’s greatest player ever" in the lead. Without citation, and then not in the main article. This is WP:OR I'm afraid unless you can cite it.
    • Golden Boy in the lead points to a disambiguation page, and is never discussed again so needs citation and disambiguation.
    • "exceptional trickery " in the lead needs evidence otherwise it's too much of a point of view.
    • en-dash should be used for season separation, e.g. 1998–99 instead of 1998-99.
    • Be consistent with the way seasons are represented - use en-dash instead of slash.
    • Simply not enough references - seven for a player like this? I'd expect 70... Plus use the {{cite web}} template.
    • Avoid in-line linking like the link to antifigo.com.
    • The bullet point list of successes is not good - prose is generally the way foreward. However, the bogus struck through text should go no matter what!

    A lot of work to do before the article can progress, most importantly with referencing the claims in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I Need to Know (Marc Anthony 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 want that this article to be acurate, so I can be able to send it for the "Featured Articules list".


    Thanks, Jaespinoza.

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

    [edit]
    • Check out WP:LEAD, it suggests that an article like this needs much more than a single sentence in the lead section. Probably two chunky paragraphs would work ok.
    • WP:HEAD suggests not overcapitalising headings, so "Chart Peformance" ought to read "Chart performance".
    • First two paragraphs of "Song information" (which is a poor heading) need citation.
    • Ref [4] should be moved to the other side of the colon based on WP:CITE.
    • Ref's [14] to [22] should not have a space in front of them. I'd create a references column and place them (centrally aligned) in there.
    • The succession boxes (should you really want them) ought to be merged and are usually located at the bottom of the article around the external links section.
    • References should use the {{cite web}} template as fully completed in each case as possible - you have seven references which have the same title...

    That's it for me, it's quite a long way from being a featured article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver

    [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 worked on it to greatly increase its quality from a Start-class. Currently the article contains detailed and sourced Gameplay, Development, Story and Reception sections detailing the game's in-game storyline, its development process and deleted materials, it finish product, and its reception among reviewers. Images are used to demonstrate the article's subject, including an early screenshot, a screenshot from the finished game, and a screenshot to illustrate a point made by a reviewer. Citations are provided and more can be found.

    I think the article has greatly increased in quality and I honestly think, due to the high amount of coverage it has received, that with further work it could become a GA article. I'd very much appreciate any further advice on improving it.

    Thanks, The Clawed One (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dihydrogen monoxide

    [edit]
    • "not developed by Silicon Knights due to a legal battle during the game's development" - I think you should only have the really vital info in the lead's first para; leave the legal stuff to later paragraphs, perhaps.
    • Mention exact release date in lead
    • There's plenty of good VG FAs out there, but for the best one, look at Age of Mythology (then guess why I recommended it!) for a good guide to layout, etc.
    • Gameplay/Story sections should go first; before development
    • "Shifter never went into full development" - italics
    • "the rights for the Legacy of Kain series were subject to a legal battle between Silicon Knights and Crystal Dynamics" - why? What happened?
    • "Gameplay is Soul Reaver relies" - is --> in?
    • "time-activated switches - time does" - need a dash here - probably an em dash (—)
    • "and is the only weapon" --> "; it is the only weapon"
    • I'm sorry...I just can't read plot sections. So unless there's something really obvious I'll probably not find it. I'm sure other people will review that for you :)
    • Reception could do with a review scores table (see most VG GAs/FAs)
    • Also mention Game Rankings and Metacritic scores
    • Sort review section by gameplay/sound/gfx/etc., rather than by reviewer
    • "One reviewer noted the game's block puzzles are similar to the Tomb Raider series." - say who it was, and put series title in italics

    Hope this helps! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! The Clawed One (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Reception section has a way to go, but as a whole your suggestions have definately led to some massive edits. The Clawed One (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maynard James Keenan

    [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 (Wikiproject Tool) would like to bring this article to Featured status. In about three weeks, we've greatly expanded the article, which had four references. It's been totally restructured, a great deal of information added and now has 70 references.

    Thanks, Lara❤Love 05:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Relisted. Lara❤Love 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Maynard James Keenan/archive1.

    List of European Cup and Champions League winning managers

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

    This peer review discussion has been closed.
    Much like List of UEFA Cup winning managers, I've pushed this article from a simple list to one which is sortable, referenced and illustrated. I know it's chronologically reversed from the aforementioned list and I'd like to hear from the community which is preferred before changing one of them. I firmly believe this now meets the criteria required by a WP:FLC, so I'd like a quick review before I submit it there. Thanks, as ever, for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    hello Good article as ever but in the managers by nationality table it says two titles won by romanians it is actually 3 as one by steau bucharest and two by by person who managed ajaz. It is probably just a typo I would change it but am not good at sorting tables as it would mean that romania would go up in the table. But overall I think it passes FL status though. 02blythed (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

    [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 page needs to be individually audited for quality for this featured topic candidacy. Thanks, Will (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anything that can be expanded upon, any errors, things that should be cited, and WP:MOS changes. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One WP:Lead error is that the article title does not appear in bold in the first sentence. I agree that this might seem a bit unnatural in this case, and you may be able to argue that an exception could be made. Another detail that could be mentioned explicitly is that the 2007 awards are for shows premiering in 2006. Also, though it is included in the summary table, I think is worth giving the name of the winning episode in the main text as well.
    After all of that though, I have to ask if this topic really needs an article? I don't think it hurts to have one so won't go so far as to AfD it, but would point out that there's no yearly articles for even the Academy Award for Best Picture, no doubt the most prestigious entertainment award. While the winner and nominees are no doubt notable, isn't it enough to have them mentioned in the main Hugo short form article, the 2007 awards article, and the article for each nominated episode? If, on the other hand, something makes the 2007 short form award particularly notable, that's fine, but it should be mentioned prominently in the article.--jwandersTalk 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arctic Gnome wrote this on the featured topic candidates page: "This collection of episodes is a bit random, the only thing they have in common with each other is the fact that they were all nominated for the same award. I do think that there is potential in a featured topic structured like this, but the lead article would have to spend more time talking about the episodes themselves, describing what the 2007 nominees have in common with each other and how this batch of nominees is notable from other years' nominees." Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam

    [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…

    1. I have noticed a number of links and verifiable facts
    2. Notability and Neutrality
    3. Well-written
    4. A lot of hard-work

    Thanks, Falconkhe (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruhrfisch comments: I recently peer reviewed Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, so I know a little more about this topic than I would have otherwise. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

    • The article is currently tagged for notability concerns and needs to do a better job of demonstraating why this should be included in the encyclopedia.
    • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and should be a summary of the article. Nothing should be only in the lead.
    • There are a number of items in the article that seem questionable for inclusion: the list of first five members, the two lists of web sites (see WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a directory of web links).
    • In general, lists shiuld be converted to prose.
    • This article needs a copyedit as it has many typographical errors and grammar issues. I think "Voice President" should be "Vice President", for example, or "cast" should be caste.
    • The article is seriously over-linked. Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is linked six times just in the Lead, plus it is listed in the See also section (generally for links to topics not otherwise in the article)
    • It needs many more references - for example, the founding members names and the officers names are not referenced (there are no refs in the whole Organizational Structure section.
    • The article needs to be very careful to follow WP:NPOV - it seems to me to be more pro ASI than anti, though it does present criticisms.
    • Internet references need to have title, publisher, author (if known), and date accessed (see WP:CITE).
    • Many of the sources cited do not seem to meet WP:RS - perhaps WikiProject Islam could help here? These need to be third-party sources, not the movement's own website.

    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:47, March 15, 2008