Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2009

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

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to get some suggestions for what direction to take this article in, and am wondering whether if it meets GA criteria. I know the refs need some cleaning up and that there are a few "fact" templates around; I'm looking for suggestions beyond that!

Thanks, Skittleys (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination for peer review is premature, and has been archived. There is a major cleanup banner, and a large number of fact tags in the text. PR regulations (see WP:Peer review page states that articles should be free of cleanup banners. The regulations also state that the procedure "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." The necessary work to get rid of the banner and fact tags should be done before the article is re-presented for peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a very controversial AfD debate was closed without consensus, there are still many unresolved conflicts. I would like input on whether or not this page has any problems regarding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POV, and how this is best resolved.

Thanks, Triplestop x3 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a quick look. I must admit it seems rather unsatisfactory in the way it's put together, though I sympathize with the author(s). It's perfectly true to say that communists murdered far more people than Nazis, but they were so indiscriminate in their choice of victims that it usually doesn't count as genocide. Perhaps it should be changed to mass murder, with appropriate links. Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a platform for propaganda to me. It can't even document the meaning of the term it is about.

The references seem to be single-author theories which are then presented using weasel words to mask their origins. Nothng in the definition of "Laogai" supports equating it to genocide. The Cambodian attrocities were committed against Cambodians. And so on. There are massive problems of due weight.

What would people think of an article titled "Impressive Communist Achievements"? Or, "The Human Rights Atrocities of Capitalists"?

Almost all the sources are from the enemies of the countries described.

I'd vote to delete. Noloop (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is there anything that can be done to improve this article? Triplestop x3 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been immersed in articles that are similar in some respects: Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. In all these cases, the term itself is a politicized, propagandized bit of POV that may also have some legitimate use buried beneath the surface. I think the proper way to treat these subjects is to document what reliable, respected sources have said about the term--the phenomena it describes and the propaganda involved. See the opening sections of Anti-Americanism for a good example of a fair & balanced treatment of an inherently POV-term term. Listing alleged examples is a lot more problematic, and there is massive systemic bias, because all your sources will be from the enemies of these countries and 99% of your editors will be from opposing countries and probably with an axe to grind. Good luck. Noloop (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it stands the article does not qualify for peer review, which specifies no major cleanup banners. In any event, the peer review process is intended for "high quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Discussion as to how this article might be refigured or rewritten should take place on the article's talkpage, not here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambodian atrocities would legally count as genocide if it was a deliberate policy to reduce the population by mass killing, which has certainly been alleged. Peter jackson (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Historiography of Genocide, edited by Dan Stone (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), includes chapters on Stalin, Mao & Cambodia, discussing various scholarly views on whether genocide was involved. Looks like a useful starting point for anyone wanting to improve the article. Peter jackson (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to take this article to featured status in the hopes that it can appear on the main page on the team's 100th anniversary date in the first week of December. The biggest challenge is the prose quality, and overall flow. Any suggestions, of course are welcomed. Thanks! Resolute 04:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a comment by doncram In the intro it is stated that the team "was a founding member of the National Hockey League (NHL) and then later that "Less than two months after founding the NHL, the Canadiens' home rink ... was destroyed by fire in January 1918." The latter wording implies more, that the Canadiens were the founder of the NHL. Which is a little jarring to me as a reader, because of the name National Hockey League, for which I have the impression National refers to the United States. If the Canadiens founded it, they would have named it differently. So, anyhow, how major a role did the team have in founding the NHL? Perhaps state that it was one of _(number)_ teams that co-founded the NHL, upfront, so as not to overstate its role. doncram (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading further i see it explained that the Canadiens were one of 4 teams co-founding the NHL, and looking each of them up, i see all four are Canadian teams. So the National meant Canadian then. At any rate, saying that the Canadiens co-founded the National Hockey League with three other Canadian hockey teams (at a time when National meant Canadian) seems very relevant in the intro. I expect many readers will be from the U.S. and will not know that NHL refers (or referred) to Canada. doncram (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply removed the "less than two months after founding..." statement, as it seemed redundant. It is stated in the article body (National Hockey Association section) that the Canadians co-founded the NHL with other teams from Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa. It is thus implied there that "National = Canadian" in the original context of the league name. I'm not entirely certain that this is relevant enough for the lead, but it can't hurt either, so I'll note it. thanks! Resolute 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, well-sourced, well-illustrated, neutral, and stable. Not a hockey expert by any means, I have suggestions mostly about small prose issues and a few things related to the Manual of Style. Good luck with the pursuit of FA for this one.

Lead

• "was founded on December 4, 1909 along... " - When a full date like this one appears in the middle of a sentence, it gets another comma after the year; i.e., "December 4, 1909, along... ".
• "nearly relocating to Cleveland, Ohio in 1935... " - When a city-state combination like this appears in the middle of a sentence, it gets a comma after the state; i.e, "nearly relocating to Cleveland, Ohio, in 1935... ".
• "Less than two months after founding the NHL, the Canadiens' home rink... " - Since the home rink didn't found the NHL, it might be better to say, "Less than two months after the founding of the NHL, the Canadiens' home rink... ".
• "as well as 10 builders" - Should "builders" be linked to something or briefly explained?

Founding

• "they moved into a smaller arena that would reduce the visiting team's share of gate receipts" - Wikilink gate receipts?
• "and two teams that O'Brien owned in Ontario mining towns Cobalt and Haileybury" - Suggestion: "and two teams that O'Brien owned in the Ontario mining towns of Cobalt and Haileybury"
• "Gardner sold O'Brien on the idea of a team of francophone players" - Wikilink francophone?
• "not considered to be good enough to play with the top anglophone" - Wikilink anglophone? Or use "English-speaking"?

1910–1917: National Hockey Association

• "The two teams played a two-game championship series, with the winner being the team that scored more goals in the two games combined." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "The teams played a two-game championship series in which the winner was the team that scored the most goals in the two games combined."
• "The best-of-five series went the distance, with the deciding game held at Westmount Arena in Montreal on March 30, 1916." - Suggestion: "With the best-of-five series tied at 2–2, the teams played the deciding game at Westmount Arena in Montreal on March 30, 1916".
• "The now familiar red jersey with a blue stripe was introduced in 1913" - Suggestion: "The team's red jersey with a blue stripe was introduced in 1913".
• "destroyed its gymnasium and the Montreal Canadians lacrosse team failed." - Wikilink lacrosse?

1917–1932: Early National Hockey League

• "en route to a league leading 44 goal season" - Hyphens?
• "Defenceman Joe Hall died as a result of the flu on April 5, 1919." - Tighten to "Defenceman Joe Hall died from the flu on April 5, 1919."
• "Kennedy died in 1921; he had never recovered from the 1919 flu bug." - Delete "bug"?
• "star of the series, scoring a hat-trick in game one" - Wikilink hat trick?

1932–1946: Howie Morenz and Rocket Richard

• "His return to Montreal lasted less than a season, as Morenz suffered a broken leg in four places during a game in January 1937 after his skate caught on the ice while he was being checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert." - Suggestion: "His return to Montreal lasted less than a season. In January 1937, he broke his leg in four places when his skate caught on the ice while he was being checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert."
• "A benefit game held in November 1937 and raised $20,000 for Morenz's family as the NHL All-Stars defeated the Montreal Canadiens 6–5." - Missing word?
• "The Canadiens won only ten games, still the worst in franchise history." - It's a bit awkward to say "still" since that could mean almost anything. Does it mean "at that time" or does it mean "through 2009"?

1946–1967: The Original Six

• "people were arrested, 37 people injured, fifty stores were looted and $100,000" - "50" rather than "fifty" for consistency within the sentence
• "Richard, the first 500 goal scorer in NHL history" - Hyphen? "500-goal"?
• "trading aging stars to expansion teams for draft picks" - Wikilink draft?
• "the game was delayed 20 minutes" - WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line." Just to be safe, I'm inclined to add the nbsp codes to things like "20 minutes", "37 people", and the like.

1967–1979: Expansion era and the '70s dynasty

• Probably the more formal "1970s" is preferable to '70s.
• "following Soviet goaltender Vladislav Tretiak's 35 save performance" - Hyphen?
• "won 60 games in an 80 game schedule" - Hyphen?
• "The error resulted in a too many men penalty" - Hyphens?

1980–1996: Transitions

• "proved a turning point in the game as Montreal scored five third period goals" - Hyphen?
• "Another rookie, Brian Skrudland scored the game winning goal just nine seconds" - Hyphen?
• "They missed the playoffs in four of their next ten seasons and have failed to seriously compete for the Stanley Cup since." - It would be safer to say "through 2009" since next year might be different.

1996–present: New home and new owners

• "Present" is also tricky. It would be safer to do it this way: "1996– : New home and new owners".Or maybe "Since 1996".
• "The eighth seeded Canadiens upset the Bruins" - Hyphen?
• "who braved temperatures of −20 degrees Celsius" - This should be converted to Fahrenheit as well. I like to use the {{convert}} template, thus: −20 °C (−4 °F).

References

• It would probably be good to arrange the items in the "General" list alphabetically by last name.
• Bibliographic data for books generally includes the place of publication as well as the publisher.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well damn... that was some review! I appreciate the thouroughness, and will look into addressing these concerns in the next couple days. Thanks! Resolute 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be addressed except for the publication locations - that will take a bit to find out - and the hyphens on stats. The last article I took through FAC (Jarome Iginla), it was suggested to use non-breaking spaces. I'll have to figure which way I should go, lol. Thanks again, Resolute 02:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has every notable event covered in the career of a very notable footballer. I believe that it can be a Good Article with a few minor touches.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso

• I wouldn't say every notable event of his career is covered, the pre-Milan part of his career is severely under-represented. Eight years in one paragraph. Dynamo Kiev were imperious domestically and made waves in European competition while Kaladze was there, so sources for that period shouldn't be an issue.
• A €280,000 fee was enough to take him to the Ukrainian Premier League and Dynamo Kyiv in January 1998. - the Euro didn't exist in 1998.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FCs and ACs etc. are used inconsistently. Some clubs are referred to using them and others are not. If the intention is to use the full name on first reference, and then drop the FC on subsequent mentions, then double-checking is needed.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Georgia, however, have never qualified for the FIFA World Cup or the UEFA European Championship while Kaladze has played. - the last part is redundant, they have never qualified full stop.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid easter egg links like rossoneri, particularly if the target article has already been linked.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the veracity of the Yushenko allegation is in any doubt, which seems to be the case, it should not be present in a BLP.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaladze threatened to play for Ukraine instead of the Georgia national team - the ref mentions citizenship, which is entirely different. A player cannot represent two national teams.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The layout of the article is a bit "Here is a fact about Kaladze. Here is another fact. Kaladze was involved in event x." - there's little joining it together. This is not an easy thing to remedy, reading aloud can sometimes help.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just expanded the article significantly and want to apply for FA-status. There are some problems, however I am mainly concerned with the prose and organization.

Thanks, TechOutsider 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Laser brain's comments

Thanks for requesting a peer review, TechOutsider. You have a good start here, but to be quite honest, this article needs quite a bit of work. At the minimum, and in this order, it requires:

• Serious research of reliable sources to make it comprehensive. You've cherry-picked tidbits for each version, but you are missing serious information on the Issues/Problems and Reception for each release.
• Evaluation of existing sources to ensure the best sources have been used. You've used some weak sources, such a blogs and fix-it forums to source important information where a print or web source with an organized publisher and editorial process are needed.
• Research to find sources for various unsourced statements. Everything had to be sourced; it is not currently.
• Finally, a thorough copyedit from someone with a strong command of English. The prose is, frankly, quite bad. This should be the last step.

Below I've listed some sample problems, but it is by no means a comprehensive list. It is something to get you started on a serious worklist for the article. I would rate it as a solid Start-class or weak B-class article at this time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• The fair use rationale for your screenshots is extremely weak; it will not hold up at FAC. They illustrate the UI, but you don't actually discuss the UI in those sections. There would need to be critical commentary about the UI for those images to be appropriate.

Lead

• Why the banner? It's software that's been out for many releases—just because further releases are forthcoming doesn't mean you need that giant banner at the top. That seems to be more for software that's not released at all.
• The lead seems quite thin considering the length of the article. Recommend adding a concise release history and concise summary of critical reception, at the least.
• The third para of the lead is overly technical and badly written. Build numbers in the lead? You have at least one wikilink to a dab page (Mac); terms like "runs on" are too colloquial; "Windows computer" is imprecise, as is "Mac computer" redundant. A Mac is a computer. Much better would be "Symantec produces versions of Internet Security for PCs running Windows or MacOS." That whole para is a re-write.

Body

• "Norton's crossed-arm pose, a registered U.S. trademark, was featured on Norton product packaging. However, his pose was later moved to the spine of the packaging, and later dropped altogether." The one thing here you can cite to the source you used is that the pose is a trademark; the rest of it needs a different reliable source. This is also awkwardly written—it's strange to say his "pose" is featured and moved. Needs to be re-written to be closer to "the image of Norton's crossed-arm pose". Revise to eliminate the "later moved ... later dropped" redundancy.
• The first paragraphs before we get into the version history are odd. You give a brief history of how Symantec acquired the brand, and then there is an out-of-place paragraph about how users can upgrade, but it only covers recent versions?
• "Other functionalities include" No... not a word.
• Overlinking is present. For example, double-linking of "ZDNet" and "spam" in the same paragraphs. At the same time, some technical terms such as "AtGuard from WRQ" (?) and "packet" are not linked.
• "Adjusting the settings fixed the problem, however the process was complicated." What does this mean?
• "Parental controls are backed by a quality control team of 10 searching the web for inappropriate content. Found content is categorized in subject matter and placed on a blacklist of about 36,000 sites." Present tense, so this is still true of version 1.0? The blacklist remains at 36,000 even with 10 people adding sites to it?
• "A designed administrator can add blocked sites" Designed? Why would they add a site if it's blocked?
• "Administrators can block certain subject matters." Grammar.
• How is FBI Cooperation part of Reception?
• Your other sections under Reception are more "Issues" than they are Reception. They are not comprehensive, since the information you included is limited only to certain versions. Where you have sources, they are sometimes poor; for example, you cannot source the blanket statement that "Norton Internet Security (Windows versions) is criticized for not uninstalling completely" to the "Ask Dave Taylor" site where the hypothetical question is asked.
• You are lacking an true Reception section where consumer and critical opinions are aggregated for each release. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments. I am taking a Wikibreak currently. I will correct the problems as soon as I return next year. This is TechOutsider. 68.218.184.194 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's ready for FLC. Its maybe a bit over-cited and over-detailed, but I thought I'd err on the side of including stuff, so speak up if something seems too minor to include in the timeline. I only just created the lead section, but I'm still not really sure if what's there is useful.

Thanks, Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is a well done list. I don't have much to offer by way of content, but here are some comments about formatting, prose and other things that will make the FL process smoother.

• "This timeline of music in the United States covers the period from 1850 to 1879." Featured lists no longer begin with self-referential sentences such as this. See recently promoted lists, particularly List of pre-1920 jazz standards, for examples of more engaging starts.
• The lead needs to be expanded. Add a paragraph or two summarizing the list (trends, notable events, etc.)
• I don't suppose you have more specific dates for the events than the years.
• "Stephen Foster's "Old Folks at Home" is published; it will become his most popular and remains perhaps his best-known composition." Not sure why the future tense is used here.
• When you append "mid" to a decade, such as "Mid 1850s", you need to add a hyphen ("Mid-1850s"), because "mid" is a prefix and not a word.
• "It also uses special effects that will not become common elements in such pieces" "also" is unnecessary, and try rephrasing so that the word "It" doesn't begin two consecutive sentences.
• "# Virtuoso Norwegian violinist Ole Bull attracts an unprecedented 10,000 people to a concert in Memphis, Tennessee." Doesn't have a reference.
• The images need alternative text. See WP:ALT for more information.
• "Patrick Gilmore, an Irish American bandleader, debuts his band in New York; the ensemble's professional and grandiose performances will make it one of the most popular of the Civil War era." Another strange usage of the future tense; check throughout for this.
• Image captions that are not complete senteces should not have periods at the end. (Example: "Clara Louise Kellogg, a prominent American vocalist.")
• "featuring more than 11,000 performers - soloists, a choir, an orchestra" Don't use spaced hyphens for breaks within sentences; use a spaced en dash (–) or an unspaced em dash (—). Check for this throughout the article.
• The notation used for multiple pages inconsistent; sometimes "pgs." is used while other times "pp." is used. I suggest using "pgs." to be consistent with the "pg." used for single pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I'll look them over more fully, but I thought I'd explain the future tense. The entries are written in present tense, describing what occurred in which year. The examples you mention (and there are more) are all describing the relevance of the event based on things that will happen in the future from the point of view of the year on the timeline. WRT the Stephen Foster example, changing "will become" would imply that, in that year, "Old Folks at Home" was published and became his most popular composition - in a time of slow commerce and communication, that's doubtful, as it would take quite a while for the masses to acquire new sheet music, and in any case, I don't have a source that makes that claim. I do have a source that says that song is the most popular and best known of Foster's now (or, well, when the source was published, so in the modern era at least). The Gilmore example is an entry from 1859, well before the Civil War. In other words, the entry is marking an event that will not become notable until later, thus the entry is in the future tense. At one point, I was working on these timelines in the past tense, but that made things even more complicated and awkward; since some entries depend on things that occured prior to, or are notable based on things that do not occur until afterward, using the present tense is the only way to explain all the entries without resorting to awkward circumlocutions. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your reply. I still think the future is a bit awkward for an encyclopedic article. Perhaps you can rephrase to something like ""Stephen Foster's "Old Folks at Home" is published; it went on to become his most popular and remains perhaps his best-known composition". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, there. Cup 'o tea? Here's the deal: FA criteria + article. Please be ridiculously anal and point out anything and everything that needs to change to be ready for FAC. Much obliged, Rafablu88 09:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. I have suggestions about a few issues related to prose and the Manual of Style.

Lead

• Computer programs were extensively used to enrich and amend recorded takes, while a string sextet were hired to perform on some of the tracks. A Weekend in the City was crafted by chief lyricist Kele Okereke to examine life and leisure in modern cities by drawing ideas from issues such as drug abuse, sexuality, and terrorism. These themes are exemplified by the three singles: "The Prayer", "I Still Remember", and "Hunting for Witches". - Some use of passive voice can't avoided and in some cases it may be better than active. However, active is generally stronger and less wordy. Suggestion: The band used computer programs extensively to enrich and amend recorded takes and hired a string sextet to perform on some of the tracks. Chief lyricist Kele Okereke crafted A Weekend in the City, which examined life and leisure in modern cities by drawing ideas from topics such as drug abuse, sexuality, and terrorism. The three singles, "The Prayer", "I Still Remember", and "Hunting for Witches", exemplified these themes.

• "A Weekend in the City was generally treated as an important stepping stone for the band members in their quest for musical maturity and was included by The Guardian as one of the 1000 Albums To Hear Before You Die." - Another passive. Suggestion: "Critics generally treated A Weekend in the City as an important stepping stone for the band members in their quest for musical maturity, and The Guardian included it as one of the 1000 Albums to Hear Before You Die."
  • DONE, mostly. Some of the passive is needed I think.

Origins

• "player by using only guitar riffs" - Wikilink riffs?
• "several songs were critiques of the fact that most aspects of mainstream society cater to a solitary conservative view" - Even though this is sourced, it seems like a strange thing to say. Is this a fact? What are "aspects of mainstream society"? What is "a solitary conservative view"? At the very least, none of this is clear, and it seems highly suspect as a statement of fact.
• "that developed between the two parties whilst recording the demo song" - "While" rather than "whilst"?
• "Prior the studio sessions, Bloc Party listened to varied musical sources" - Missing word? "Prior to"?
  • DONE

Studio sessions

• "A makeshift booth was built around the back of the drum kit to reduce any sonic inference" - Wikilink drum kit?
• "The miking scheme was crucial... " - Wikilink miking"?
• "the sound was often processed further using distressors" - Should distressors be explained or linked?
• "Once the basic tracks were recorded, other unconventional effects were tried by the band and the production staff." - Flip to active?
• "Tong performed some rhythmic patterns whilst his kit was re-amped and the band often played sections improvised and live whilst a brick" - "While" and "while"
  • DONE

Promotion and release

• "A low-quality rip... " - Wikilink rip?
• "The photograph is an aerial image of London's Westway, with the road and the adjacent sports pitches lit by the sodium glow of street lamps... " - "With" is a weak conjunction. Suggestion: "The photograph is an aerial image of London's Westway that shows the road and the adjacent sports pitches lit by the sodium glow of street lamps..."
  • DONE

Content

• "The lyricists has noted... " - Lyricist?
• "Okereke has described him as a "cousin" due to their respective Nigerian mothers being good friends." - Suggestion: "Okereke has described him as a "cousin" because their Nigerian mothers were good friends."
  • DONE

Composition

• "Moakes has pointed that the original sound check of "Waiting for the 7.18"... " - "Moakes has said" rather than "Moakes has pointed"?
• ""On" is also a computer reworked live take." - Wikilink take? Hyphenate "computer-reworked".
  • DONE

"DVD"

• " 1. The Prayer 2. I Still Remember" - Single song titles in quotation mark here and in many places below?
  • My understanding is that music videos, live performance/DVD tracklists, etc. don't need quotation marks.

Other

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • DONE

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Will get cracking with these ASAP. Rafablu88 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all sorted apart from a few exceptions as per the replies above. Thanks again. Rafablu88 00:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because following re-writing it about a year ago, I would like to know what the best direction would be to keep improving this article. It is currently unrated in its most applicable project, but assessed at B-class in WP:ENGLAND, WP:UKGEO and WP:CITY.

Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncia preliminary comments: This article contains much interesting information. It is kept from being a good encyclopedia article by its lack of references and by a lack of balance in the coverage.

• The History section is extremely detailed but almost completely unsourced. The other sections are generally OK, although they could be improved by giving references for some of the unsourced statements.
• Roughly half the article is devoted to History (and Ancient History, at that), with a relatively small amount of information about what is interesting about the present-day village. The guideline WP:UKCITIES provides an outline (which this article generally follows) and lists topics that might be covered; you might find some ideas there for expanding the article. Some areas I would like to see more detail on are: Governance (called Administration in the present article), Demography, Economy (how do people make a living here - does everybody work at AWE, or do they sell goods to the AWE protesters and other tourists, or ...?), Media (where do people get their news?), Community Facilities (does the government provide any services? Is there a public library?).

I will post more detailed comments in a day or two. --Uncia (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncia general comments The overall structure and level of detail of the article is good, except for the two areas I mentioned above. Most of my remaining comments deal with very specific flaws, which should be easily fixable.

• There are many problems with the wikilinks. It would be worthwhile to make a special review of the document just to check all the wikilinks. There are several types of problems with their use in the current article:

• wikilink to wrong page or disambiguation page. The ones I noticed were: (1st paragraph) Reading links to Reading (process); Englefield link to dab page; Sparsholt links to dab page; Henry I links to Henry II of England; trinity of parishes links to the Christian trinity

• the article is overlinked; see WP:OVERLINK and WP:MOS#Wikilinks. Common English words such as thunderstorm and agriculture and monkey should not be wikilinked. There are several instances where both words of a phrase are wikilinked but the phrase is not, for example tin glaze and Lafarge Aggregates; this gives a false impression that we are going to learn more about the phrase.

• the article makes excessive use of wikilink piping, leading in some cases to Easter eggs (WP:EGG)). See WP:PIPELINK. Piping is intended to be used narrowly: to make the grammar come out right, or to suppress part of the title that is used for disambiguation but would not be used in prose. Some bad examples from the present article: Associated Electrical Industries Ltd links to British Thomson-Houston even though there is an article for Associated Electrical Industries; disarmament links to CND even though there is an article on nuclear disarmament. All of the piping should be examined critically.

• In several cases there's not enough context for a reader unfamiliar with the area to figure out what is being described, but many of these can be fixed by adding a word or two. For example, under Geography we read that "The village is located 1 mile (1.6 km) south of the A4". This would be clearer if it said "the A4 road". (I fixed this one.) I list further examples in the detailed comments. In some cases it would be enough to remove the piping and let the wikilinked article name show.

• How and when did Aldermaston change from an estate to a village? Reading between the lines it started out in the 11th century as an estate owned by one family and then was split up in 1939. It seems there must already have been a village there in 1939, but it had a single owner. I bring this up because (1) it is buried in the present narrative and should be made more prominent, probably by stating it in the beginning of the history section; (2) there's probably a more interesting story in the break-up than is told here: did the nature of the village change? did entrepreneurship take off? (The Calor award says there are 150 small businesses there, which seems like a lot for a village of 927 people.)

• Most of the things that are italicized here should not be; see WP:ITALICS.

• Most of the things that are boldfaced here should not be; see MOS:BOLD.

• WP:EL says in part: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." The Culture and Sport sections contain a number of external links.

• Two of the photos, File:1959089-Aldermaston.jpg and File:Aldermaston2006.jpg, seem to be the same scene taken 50 years apart. If true, it would be interesting to group these together and put them in the recent history area. WP:Picture_tutorial#Co-aligning shows how to do this. You would have to put something else in the infobox; maybe one of the notable structures such as the Hind's Head Inn.

• The photos stack up on the right-hand side; consider alternating them, see WP:Picture_tutorial#Alternating_left_and_right_floats. But be wary of sandwiching the text between photos, see MOS:IMAGES. There's already one problem with this at the top of Economy.

Uncia detailed comments I made a few corrections, please check these.

• "Lord of the Manor" needs to have a sentence or two of introduction: this term is not familiar to US readers, and it's not clear why we suddenly break off from Aldermaston and start talking about manors.

• needing context:

• History: "The property passed into Chancery": probably show the full wikilink here to Court of Chancery, also explain why the property went there (did Congreve have no heirs? did he die without a will?).

• Economy: Calor award: This is explained at Calor Village of the Year as a quality of life award, which the verdict referenced in the pull quote supports, but the pull quote itself does not support. I would keep the information in the pull quote, which is very interesting, but put it inline. Then please explain the quality of life bit. Also explain how many competitors Aldermaston came in ahead of; there are 1650 competitors overall, but Aldermaston won a regional award (what region?) and so did not best that many villages. There's probably information about this in the three sources that are given.

• needing clarification:

• History: "Last used in the 1860s, its unfortunate inhabitant burnt to death": unclear antecedent: is "it" the gaol or the pub? Also, did "it" burn too, or just its inhabitant?

• History: "Towards the end of the 1960s (exact dates vary)": "exact dates" probably should be "reported dates": if the dates were exact, they wouldn't vary.

• Geography: "(atop the water table)": this doesn't make any sense; the water table is where the ground water resides, deep in the earth, and anything on the surface of the earth is "atop" the water table.

• Geography: "As a result of the capabilities of the AWE surface water system, the destroyed wall was rebuilt": This doesn't make any sense; it says that the water system (a collection of pipes and pumps) somehow built a wall.

• Economy: AWE marches: This part is not clear. Was there just one march, or it done every year? Is there a celebration of the original march every year? What's the significance of the 50th anniversary?

• Economy: "Aldermaston parish is home to various sites owned by Lafarge Aggregates, prompting a number of protests." The way this is written, it is the mere presence of Lafarge that causes the protests. Is this correct? It seems more likely that particular actions by Lafarge cause the protests. The footnote does not support any of the claims in this paragraph.

• Economy: "Traditionally, Aldermaston has been associated with agriculture": what does "associated with" mean? If it means people used to farm there, it's not very exciting. Is there a special connection to agriculture? Was/is Aldermaston a leader in agriculture?

• Culture: "Aldermaston periodically holds a candle auction. It takes place in the Parish Hall, and the lot is a three-year lease of Church Acre field." It took me a while to decipher this paragraph. Would it be accurate to rewrite it as: "Every three years, a traditional candle auction is held in the Parish Hall to sell a lease on Church Acre field."?

• History: Is Philip Hardwick really a neoclassical architect? More to the point, is the new Court a neoclassical structure? Philip Hardwick and Aldermaston Court don't mention neoclassical, but I don't know enough about architecture to judge this. Adding references here would be good.

• History: Collier MacMillan Schools - the wikilinked article describes Collier MacMillan only as a publisher; is Schools correct here? Did they use the building as a school?

• Mention under Geography and in the lede that Aldermaston is close to London (the only English city that most people will know).

• History: July 2007 floods: {{Main}} is misused here; it should be used when a section summarizes a separate article. The best thing would be to integrate this into the narrative. If you really to call it out separately, use {{See also}}.

Hope this helps! The most important thing is to improve the sourcing. --Uncia (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Ah reckon' ah's listed this here article fer peer review to gits some of that there creative feedback from the ladies and gents of wikipedia. I aims to git me this article done up to GA status right proper-like or I ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

Thanky, Scott Free (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, although it has a long way to go to achieve GA quality. It has many, many small errors such as misspellings, misplaced punctuation, typos, and the like. The lead is not yet a true summary. It would also be a good idea to look for more diverse sources, if possible, since you depend so heavily on the Jack Kirby Museum web site. I don't know if you'll find any; it depends on whether or not these comic books were notable enough to attract many reviewers and book authors. Here are my suggestions.

I've added some more diverse refs. I wouldn't say that there's a heavy dependence on the Mendryk blog/Kirby site - it's mostly basic info available elsewhere that I relied on because the source was clearly-written and well-explained.--Scott Free (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead is pretty thin and could be expanded a bit to give a better summary of the whole article. Also, the Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs like the second one of the lead. Expansion would fix that problem too.
• "A combination of 'kid gang'... " - Double quotation marks are the standard rather than single; i.e. "kid gang". The single quotes should be replaced by double quotes throughout the article.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Careful proofreading would probably catch and fix many small errors. For example, citation 1 has been placed inside the ending punctuation but should be outside, and the last sentence of the "Creation" section lacks a period at the end of the sentence. There are small errors like this throughout the article.

Ran through a spell check--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional team biography

• MOS:BOLD generally advises using bold text for emphasis except in the first sentence of the lead, in heads and subheads (which are automatically bolded) and a few other special cases. For that reason, I'd suggest using italics rather than bolding for the character names in the "Fictional team biography" section.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dandy was a 'well-like kid with a ready smile... " - Typo? Well-liked?

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "His family history is explicited... " - No such word.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "She arrived at the ranch after the wagon her father driving was attacked by Indians." - Missing word?

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "But the acquienscence was only a pretense... " - Misspelling.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical analysis

• "More and more, the team was abandonning... " - Misspelling.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Delilah

• "The first story from issue #3, 'Mother Delilah' has been singled out as one of Simon and Kirby's finest." - Claims like this need to be sourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every paragraph.

fixed- --Scott Free (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "character from Destry Rides Again" - Movie titles should be italicized.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:QUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins." For this reason, the fancy quotes should be replaced by a blockquote.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those can be found. I like to use the "cite" family of templates, which can be found at WP:CIT. If you use them, don't mix them with the "citation" family of templates that are also explained and displayed at WP:CIT.

fixed- --Scott Free (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite a few of the date formats in the citations and external links are out of order. The pattern is yyyy-mm-dd, or you could switch completely to m-d-y. But mm-dd-yyyy and mm-dd-yy are not standard formats. Whether you choose yyyy-mm-dd (e.g., 2009-10-12) or m-d-y (e.g., October 12, 2009), WP:MOSNUM says to be consistent.

fixed - --Scott Free (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fort Apache links to a disambiguation page.

fixed--Scott Free (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great points, will need to get working on these - thanks for the help, Finetooth. --Scott Free (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. What I would do (and you don't have to) is: expand the lead, turn the "Fictional team biography" section into a "Plot" section that's prose and not a list, merge Creation into Pub hist section, merge Mother Delilah into Crit analysis section and rename Reception, get rid of the dates on the external links and make them more like "B & W image of main characters at SimonComics.com" Also the block quote in the MD section looks a little funny. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I think I was following some Comics Project guidelines on terms like 'fictional character biography' (I sort of followed the Boy Commandos article, so I don't know how much of those changes to make. I'll try something. Thanks!--Scott Free (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarky is comic featured article. You might check that out. Of course, so is Superman and Batman, and they all do their sections differently. I think Anarky is the most recent, though, so that's the one I'd look at. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks - that's a great article - it'll definitely help me with the formatting. --Scott Free (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded this article a lot and don't really have anything more to add so thought I'd see if I could make it a GA. I would also like feedback/help on things, the first is whether a piece of "trivia" is worthy of inclusion. In 1992-93, West Ham advanced from the prelim group on the toss of a coin after being level with Bristol Rovers on points & goals.[1] Two other things I think would be worthy of inclusion if true and they can be reliably sourced are that in the first three competitions one point was awarded for each goal scored and a modified version of the offside rule was used, both encouraging attacking football.^{Italian source (translated)} Also the same source and the RSSSF indicate that the 1976 tournament might have been the first to award 3 points for a win. Any opinions on these things, or other comments on the article will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Here's a few quick points to be going on with......

I see a lot of shortened team names, which should be written out in full. There's Wolves (should be Wolverhampton Wanderers), Derby (should be Derby County), Newcastle (should be Newcastle United) and Bath (should be Bath City). While teams might be colloquially referred to by these names, in an encyclopedia they should be shown in full -Done

The lead says that the competition was organised to compensate Swindon Town, but the body contradicts this and says that the tournament was formed after the first instalment of the A-I League Cup was a success, etc.

Yes I see what you mean, but this point is actually referenced. I can only guess that while the A-I League Cup was a one match super cup like event, this Anglo-Italian Cup was an actual tournament and more analogous to the Inter-Cities Cup, hence this also being compensation for it. I have references for both A-I & A-I League being formed to compensate Swindon, but obviously I can't put that in, so can you see a way round this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RSSSF page on the competition seems to suggest that both cups were set up as part of an overall scheme to reward Swindon. Presumably the powers that be decided to set up the A-I Cup at the start of the 1969-70 season to reward Swindon and then decided that just getting to take part in the tournament wasn't sufficient reward so they set up the A-I League Cup in which Swindon were guaranteed to get to the final, so to speak. That's OR of course, and to be honest I can't think how to better re-word the article to avoid, but as it stands there's a clear contradiction between the lead and the body, so it would need to be reworded to remove that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence of "professional era", you don't actually mention that under any other circumstances the League Cup winners got to enter the Fairs Cup, so to the casual reader it is unclear why QPR missed out -Explained

"income to pay player's wages" - apostrophe is in the wrong place unless only one player was involved -Done

Don't wikilink Swindon twice in the same paragraph -Done

"Swindon were 3–0 after 63 minutes" - word "up" is missing -Done

"the two nations best ranked teams" - missing apostrophe

Done, I think. Am I right in thinking the teams belong to the nations, so it is "two nations' best ranked teams"? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the match went into extra-time where" - extra time is not a place. It should be "extra-time, during which........" -Done

"as semi-professional tournament" - should be "as a semi-professional tournament" -Done

You note that during the semi-pro era there were several all-Italian finals, so it might be worth specifically stating that the final was no longer contested by the top team from each country

Done. All-Italian finals were only possible after the tournament went to a straight four team knockout format, I've hopefully clarified this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The competition was re-established in 1992–3" - should be 1992–93 -Done

Same for 1995–6 later Done

Hope those points help! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I think I've now either addressed or replied to all of them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a successful GA football writer do you have any further comments in that respect? Thanks again, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think you've covered everything, given that sources must be pretty thin on the ground...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on how to further improve it (at least to B-Class). I would especially appreciate any feedback from members of the United States military history , World War I and World War II task forces

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Bob Marley's Buffalo Soldier is going through my head as I write this. I think many of the same issues I found in the peer review for 93rd Infantry Division will apply here too, so sorry if these reviews seem similar. This is also an interesting article about an important unit, but it too needs a lot of work if it is to become a GA or even FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Warfare several of which might be good models, such as 13th Airborne Division (United States)
• The lead does not follow WP:LEAD and should be expanded to more than one paragraph. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the "Buffalo Soldiers Division" nickname is only in the lead.
• The major obstacle to this getting to GA or FA is that much of the article is unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Per WP:CITE the book sources need more information (publisher, date, pages). The one internet ref seems to be a dead link - it needs URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:V too
• The article is very list-y and needs a copyedit. If possible can lists be converted to text?
• I would add some background on the Buffalo Soldiers so the nickname and history of predecessor units is clearer.
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• There is a free image of Baker that could be used here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is probably the most thorough and best written article on any subject i've encountered in wp.

Thanks, emerson7 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think that this has quite a ways to go before it is ready to be rated a good article, let alone a featured article.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several Featured articles on cities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places that may be useful models (if a bit more populated)
• Per WP:LEAD the lead should be expanded so that it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Biggest problem I see with this article is a lack of references - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. The two internet refs need to be more specific - for example the USGS GNIS ref should be to this link. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The ref to the unpublished town history has a few problems - first off reliable sources must be published, second if a ref appears several times you can use <ref name = "blah">Ref text goes here</ref> then the next time you just need to use <ref name = "blah"/>
• The NRHP form is a reliable source and should be used as a ref.
• From looking at a map the city seems to be in the drainage basin (valley) of the Red River of the North, even though it is in the valley of a tributary - if you poured some water on the ground in Tenney and it flowed into a stream, eventually it would wind up in the Red River of the North.
• Article could use a copyedit in places.
• I would use the external link on the quilt as a reference - it has a lot of useful information (smallest city in the US as of 2000 census, etc) and also backs up much of the history here. The book on the Tenney Quilt would probably also be a great reference / source
• Just curious - what is the current population (6 in 2000, average age 61 - seems like there might be fewer people there now if trends continue). I have seen articles on declining population and communities disappearing in the Midwest and Plains - perhaps something like that could be cited here too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help determining how to divide the article. I was told to look at artilces like List of Aria (manga) soundtracks and that helped to some extent, but the problem is the Popotan franchise is much more diverse; first off the visual novel has multiple CDs for it and released as different types. Then there is a radio drama as well (and discography and albums doesn't appear to have a place for radio dramas, even ones with lots of music). Also there is one release that appears to be for the all three major media formats: visual novel, anime and radio drama so I'm not sure where that should go. Finally, a number of the songs were released in generally unrelated band albums for Under17 which charted so I don't know if and how to reference them, especially as the songs were released on multiple Popotan CDs themselves. Oh and also I'm not sure if I need/should list CD soundtracks that come with games and if {{Cite video game}} can be used to cite pre-order items for 1st print runs.

Should the article be split and can it be justified being split?

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for a split. There are no length issues. When List of One Piece video games was a FLC, it was required to add a bit of reception into the lead. Maybe something similar could be done here like adding surveys in which the CDs were featured such as the ones from Oricon.Tintor2 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the split not because of size, but content. Maybe renaming the article might help. Some of the stuff is about the radio drama which isn't a soundtrack really.
As for reception, other than the chartings I can't find any reception/impact, but I'll check around later.陣内_Jinnai 01:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the anime featured in North America? Maybe there is some comments regarding the music in reviews from the anime.Tintor2 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw commentary from 1 source. However, is that really appropriate in a listing of soundtrack albums?陣内_Jinnai 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I rethink it, maybe this article could be moved to "Popotan discography" although that could be discussed in the project. About the reviews thing, I think there is no other way to add critical reception since I have never heard that Japanese anime CDs were published in North America.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a discography though. Radio dramas and the like are explicitly not covered under discographies. I'm also not really sure what the difference is beyond soundtrack list and discography list as this isn't really "a study" of the soundtracks.
As for reception, yea, and that's while you note none of the best anime soundtrack lists do not have a reception, because no verifiable one exists. Check the WT:ANIME archive for some of the others as examples and you'll note none have any reception really.陣内_Jinnai 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have an English-language review of of the Aria soundtracks, but haven't gotten around to using it for reception (it's sourcing a production detail tho'). Our intent was to eventually incorporate it into the main series Reception, rather than the list of soundtracks. I believe I've also seen a review of one of the Azumanga Daioh soundtracks, but I seem to have misplaced it, and don't know where it would go. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Ah, the Azudai review was of the image song album, and it's being used source information about it, but not currently in Azumanga Daioh#Reception. There's no separate soundtrack list for that franchise. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know where on oricon I can search for any surveys? I have links to the album info thanks to another wikipedian, but no survey info. Still doesn't really address the issue with Poporaji or Under17's related media.陣内_Jinnai 20:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The polls are supposed to be in Oricon's official site, but I don't know Japanese.Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some blog entries (which probably won't pass WP:RS and release info, which I already have Popotan, Poporaji, Under17 Best陣内_Jinnai 22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In this blog there are two links for other two oricon pages. They seem related to the CD.Tintor2 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First one links back to the same page and 2nd is broken. Not a good sign.陣内_Jinnai 01:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I also took a look at Comipress and ICv2, but couldn't find anything.Tintor2 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unexpected, but I'm not thrilled by it. I wish there was more reception of the soundtracks available. Video game soundtracks generally fair somewhat better, even obscure ones for Japanese games.
Anyway, putting reception aside, can you help with some of my other questions/concerns?陣内_Jinnai 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is okay list CD drama here. Don't know if the manual of style of the project talks about that, but I find it suitable. By the way, I have seen that music articles like Music of Final Fantasy VII do not use cite video game template.Tintor2 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Looking at that maybe having the Under17 live tour and best of albums put into a legacy section might be best.陣内_Jinnai 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (sorry for the late reply).Tintor2 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well it looks as good as it can be knowing how limited the materials are. Concerning the Drama CDs, i agree that they could be merged with the rest of the CDs but it should not systematically done so. The main point is soundtracks are byproducts of a piece of work, an anime or a video game while Drama CDs are piece of works by themselves. If the Drama CDs are few and not much notable merging with soundtracks is ok but when there are a lot of Drama CDs and most ranked in charts keeping them apart should be discussed. Facepalm fact is fansubbers started to fansub Drama CDs so having summaries for Drama CDs may become in the future (yea, a variant of anime episode list or manga chapters list). --KrebMarkt 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There are 2 drama CDs for the set, neither of which themselves charted, but which had a song that charted on other CDs. So I guess then by that account it is okay to leave them as it is?

What about the visual novel soundtrack CD that came with the VN? Should that be listed?

And the Under17 related stuff should be mentioned in the legacy section then. Should i put track listings and/or add them to the table or just prose?陣内_Jinnai 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for legacy section. Now for inclusion in the table, it should depends on how much the albums are related to Popotan in terms of content. If it's strong add them. --KrebMarkt 07:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think too much. They are all complilations from various sources so none of them have any strong connection with Popotan or any other game/anime.陣内_Jinnai 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I added all the info to about Under17's related released to legacy. Neither Funta nor Osamu Tezuka have produced any other works with those songs on them. Also, is the formatting fine or not?陣内_Jinnai 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look great & shiny but that just my opinion. --KrebMarkt 07:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it at WP:FAC. Therefore I am especially interested in comments and suggestions on what needs to be done to satisfy the Featured article criteria. Thanks, bamse (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nev1 (talk · contribs)

• The images are good, I especially like the one in the infobox, however their layout will need a bit of juggling. From MOS:IMAGE, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two". Also, MOS:IMAGE discourages using a size larger than 300px, and although I understand it's because the maps aren't legible at smaller resolutions, it may cause a problem at FAC.

MOS:IMAGE specifies a maximum of 400px width (not 300px). Currently none of the images is larger than that. Only one image, the topographic map, is 400px wide. All others are smaller. As for placing left-aligned images under subsection-level headings, I don't see a problem of disconnected text at the moment. Please let me know if and where text and headings are disconnected. bamse (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the image sizes, I must have misremembered the policy (I thought it was because any picture larger than 300px would take up more than half the screen on a 600px wide display). The placement of the images will be raised at FAC, even if the text isn't completely disassociated from the subheading. The problem is mainly in the World Heritage Missions section, although there are a couple of cases in architecture. For example, mission layout where the image is directly underneath the heading. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I juggled a bit. Done. bamse (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recently, alt text became a requirement for FAs. It can be added to images by adding a "|alt=" field. Alt text is intended to give a description of what can be seen in an image for the visually impaired or users whose browser does not display images. More info can be found here.

I added alt-text to all images. Done. bamse (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the purpose of the reductions to assist evangelism, or was its assistance in the process incidental? The phrase "...into static communities known as reductions which allowed the missionaries..." implies it was a by-product. If the main purpose was to assist evangelism, I suggest something like "...into static communities known as reductions to give missionaries an effective means to enforce Christianity".

Rewritten by Truthkeeper88: "The missionaries employed the strategy of gathering the often nomadic indigenous populations in larger communities called reductions in order to more effectively Christianize them." bamse (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of "enforce Christianity" sounds like it was imposed by force, if this is the case it would be useful to provide details, such as what happened to those who did not convert. If not, "enforce" is probably the wrong word to use.

Removed "enforce" and reworked the paragraph. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a tense problem (comparing past and present) in the following statement from the article: "arrived in Santa Cruz de la Sierra which at that time was situated south of present-day San José de Chiquitos". Did San José de Chiquitos exist at the time?

No, San José de Chiquitos did not exist at the time. It was founded in 1698. bamse (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "...arrived in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, south of the future location of José de Chiquitos"?Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your suggestion. bamse (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's perhaps not relevant, but what was the reason for Santa Cruz de la Sierra being moved 250km?

It was moved because of conflicts with the Indians. Since Santa Cruz is not part of the Jesuit missions, I left out this information. If you think it is important I could add it to the article.bamse (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth mentioning briefly, something like "The city was moved 250 kilometres (160 mi) west in 1592 to its present location due to conflicts with the Indians". More detail should be unnecessary as Santa Cruz isn't part of the site. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned the reason, following your suggestion. bamse (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is meant by the term "department"? A wikilink should be sufficient to explain the technical term.

Not sure which of the "department" you mean. The first occurence of department is wikilinked to Departments of Bolivia. Should I wikilink all "department"? bamse (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the first wikilink to department. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1682, Fr. Cipriano Barace founded the first Jesuit reduction in Loreto in Moxos": was it the first Jesuit reduction, or just the first in Loreto? At the moment, the meaning is slightly ambiguous.

It was the first Jesuit reduction in Moxos and the first Jesuit reduction in what is now Bolivia. bamse (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten, but perhaps needs more clarification. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it: "...founded the first of the Jesuit reductions in Moxos, which was located at Loreto." It should be clear now that it was the first reduction in Moxos. I have doubts about the beauty of this sentence though. bamse (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, those situations can sometimes be tricky to explain without clumsy phrasing. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The following sentence is slightly confusing: "However, many had to be rebuilt due to fires, floods, plagues, famines, attacks by hostile tribes or slave traders". If it refers to the buildings, why would famine and plague require structures to be rebuilt? If it refers to the people and the structure of the mission, "rebuilt" may be the wrong word as it implies buildings rather than people.

Rewritten to reflect missions were either relocated or rebuilt. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to legend, José de Arce and Br. Antonio de Rivas set out in September 1691 to meet with seven other Jesuits at the Paraguay river to establish a connection between Paraguay and Chiquitos". What kind of connection, trading links? From the name section, I thought Chiquiots was the name of a group of people; it seems a bit odd to connect a geographical entity with a group of people.

Indeed, I changed Chiquitos to Chiquitanía. bamse (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Due to bad weather from the beginning of the rainy season, Arce only made it to the first Chiquitos settlement": what about the other people he was with? Rivas seems to be missing from this story.

I added Rivas to the story. Probably he was dropped before being lower in "rank" (brother vs. priest). bamse (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes the story feel more complete. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only the ruins of a stone tower survive not far from the village San Juan de Taperas": I assume this sentence refers to San Juan Bautista, but it needs to be made clear.

Edited by Truthkeeper88. It now reads: "San Juan Bautista is not part of the World Heritage Site, and only the ruins of a stone tower survive near the village San Juan de Taperas." The meaning should be clear now. bamse (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The War of the Spanish Succession from 1701 to 1714 resulted in a shortage of missionaries and instability in the reductions": were the missionaries recalled to Spain? Or did communication between Spain and her colonies suffer as a result of the war? Or was there a lack of funding? It's unclear how a war in Spain would affect religious activities in Bolivia.

One reason could be that many of the missionaries were Germans/Austrians/Swiss and therefore on the Habsburg side who lost the war. Am investigating this issue. Happy about hints concerning sources as I don't know anything about this war. bamse (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help with sources, Spanish history is something I know very little about (before I read this article, I didn't even know there was a war of succession at the start of the 18th century, let alone its effects). Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "By 1718 San Rafael was the largest of the Chiquitos missions with 2,615 inhabitants;[8] as a result, in 1721, Felipe Suárez and Francisco Hervás established the mission of San Miguel, as a split-off of the San Rafael mission": I don't see a causal link between the population of San Rafael (or the lack of missions built in this period that was mentioned earlier), so "as a result" seems out of place unless the reason is expanded.

The reason (which I agree needs expansion) was that San Rafael could not sustain such a large population. bamse(talk) 07:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added "... and could not sustain the growing population." bamse (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough to make the reason clear. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For what purpose did the Jesuits want to "secure a more direct route to Asunción than the road via Tucuman and Tarija that was used at the time"? Were the Jesuits involved in trade?

I haven't found a reference discussing the reason for finding a more direct route yet. The Jesuits were selling some produce from the Chiquitos missions to Upper Peru. I can see several reasons for finding a shorter rout: 1) uniting the Jesuits in Paraguay with the Chiquitos missions more closely (i.e. shorter travel time) politically. 2) reducing transport times (and risks), securing a route to the atlantic coast and therefore Europe. 3) trade bamse (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added: "...in order to link the Chiquitanía with the Jesuit missions in Paraguay." and a reference. bamse (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Jesuits were blamed for fomenting rebellion among the missions: is it meant that the missions were used to encourage rebellion or that rebellion took place within the mission? It's a bit unclear.

The missions were used to encourage rebellion. I agree, the sentence could be confusing and should be made clearer. bamse (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten by Truthkeeper88: "Because the Jesuits sympathized with the Indians, in Europe they were accused of "supporting the rebellion" which was problematic where the Society of Jesus was already under attack." bamse (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is meant by "temporal affairs"?

"temporal"= economy, politics and so on. Should another word be used instead or do you think that the phrase needs more explanation?bamse (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a different word would be useful as I wasn't sure what was meant and I'm sure other people might not. If you just say "economic and political affairs" that should be enough. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the sentence: "... where one took care of the spiritual needs while the other was in charge of all other  – political and economical – affairs of the mission administration." bamse (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Low quality" priests is a judgement and perhaps needs to be explained. Does the source describe them as such? If so, what led to the comment, and if not it shouldn't be included.

The source describes them as "poor quality". I added some information to explain what is meant by this statement: "In practice, the shortage of clergy and the low quality of those appointed – who often did not speak the language of the Indians and in cases had not been ordained – led to general decline of the missions. The priests broke ethical and religious codes, appropriated the major part of the missions' and encouraged contraband trade with the Portuguese." (text added in italics) bamse (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs a brief explanation of who Bernd Fischermann is and why his opinion is relevant.

I added: "..., an anthropologist who studied the Chiquitos Indians,..." bamse (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest adding the year of birth and death after Hans Roth's name so that the phrase "spent the remainder of his life until 1999" isn't used.

I think that this information (that Roth worked until his death on the restoration project) is interesting and I would like to keep it somehow in the article. If I understand you correctly it would get removed with your proposal. Maybe the phrase could be rewritten somehow!? bamse (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't so much mentioning that Roth worked on the project until his death (which I agree is interesting and should be included) but the way it's phrased. "The remainder of his life until 1999" doesn't sound right. How about "...who worked on the restoration with a few colleagues and many locals until his death in 1999"?

Rewritten as: "... who worked on the restoration with a few colleagues and many local people until his death in 1999. The restoration works continued into the beginning of the 21st century." bamse (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend using "internal layout" rather than "spatial distribution" as spacial distribution could mean the relative positions of the missions to each other, but the suggested phrasing is clearer that it's the actual missions.

Agreed, I changed "spatial distribution" to "internal layout". bamse (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a "modular structure"?

In my understanding, "modular structure" here refers to the basic building blocks that make up the settlement: plaza, church complex, houses. These parts are similar in all the settlements but were combined in various ways (different orientation of the church for instance) to produce distinct settlements. Does this make sense? Do you think the term needs more explanation? bamse (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some explanation of the term as used in the article would be useful. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the explanation was already present somehow in the lines following "modular structure", I decided to explain the term in a footnote: "Modular structure here refers to the basic building blocks that make up the settlement: plaza, church complex, houses. These parts are similar in all the settlements but were combined in various ways to produce distinct settlements." bamse (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The external link in the plaza section needs to be converted into a reference, and the statement it supports has the ring of original research; who says that's what the palms represent? A third party reliable source needs to be found for the statement.

The external link has been converted to a reference. I added a reference to the statement. bamse (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Out of the ten missions only in Santa Ana can the colonial vestige of the plaza be appreciated": this reads like a point of view and might need to be rephrased.

I rewrote: "Out of the ten missions only the plaza in Santa Ana was spared major changes and still resembles that of colonial times." bamse (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten again to explain "resemble": "Out of the ten missions only the plaza in Santa Ana did not experience major changes consisting as in colonial times of nothing more than an open space covered by grass." bamse (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The external link in the church section also needs to be converted into a reference.

Done. bamse (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At FAC, people will wonder why the first paragraph of the church section and the last half of the second paragraph from the same section are unreferenced (the same can be said for the location section).

I added the missing references. bamse (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the following sentence: "The walls were structured with cornices, moldings, pilasters and at times blind arcades" would decorated be a better word than structured?

Replaced "structured" with "decorated." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Schmid's letter from San Rafael in 1744 needs a source.

I added the missing reference. bamse (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Realizing the exceptional musical capacities of the Indians": this sounds a bit peacocky.

Removed "exceptional". bamse (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Jesuits used the musical lessons as a first step to the Christianization of the natives": I'm not quite sure how this follows, how was it intended to indoctrinate people? Were they taught hymns?

Music (by its beauty) helped to attract potential converts to change their life completely and to join the reduction and eventually become Christians. ([2]). This is also a major theme in the film The Mission. Later, after the Indian had lived some time in the reduction, also the singing and playing of religious music (i.e. the content of the lyrics) could have played a role in the Christianization. bamse (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely explained, could something to that effect be put in the article? Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that in the 1744 letter (see article) Schmid wrote: "We teach these people all these mundane things so they may get rid of their rude customs and resemble civilized persons, predisposed to accept Christianity." ("mundane things" refers to singing and playing musical instruments). Do you still think, that more explanation is needed? bamse (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The population in most of the mission towns has increased considerably over the past few years": could you be a bit more specific than "the past few years"?

I replaced this sentence with: " Between 1992 and 2009 the population of San Javier and Concepción has tripled and more than doubled in San Ignacio. In the other mission towns the population also increased albeit on a smaller scale." bamse (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the "Jesuit missions circuit" and its purpose?

I was wondering the same. Off the top of my head I would say it is a label used to promote tourism in the area. Will investigate further. bamse (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added "... – a marketing label to promote tourism –..." and as a footnote "Apart from the six World Heritage Missions, the mission of San Ignacio de Velasco is part of the circuit." to explain what the circuit is. Also capitalized "Jesuit Mission Circuit" bamse (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is responsible for the maintenance and preservation of the World Heritage Site? This sort of information could go in the today section.
• Are there any details about the proposal for listing as a WHS by UNNESCO? Such as who backed it. It would also be worth stating under what criteria the property is listed and when it was inscribed on the list.

I added some information on the criteria to the last section in the history section. The inscription year was already mentioned.bamse (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the depth and context given in the article, for example "Compared to their neighbours in Paraguay, the Chiquitos missions were spared from large-scale epidemics due to their remoteness and lack of transport infrastructure". I think the content is of FA quality and would be happy to see this at FAC. The prose perhaps could do with a bit of polish. I've copy edited what I can, but someone should take a look at it to make sure I haven't changed any meanings. I've tried to explain in the edit summaries why I've done something, but if there are any questions please ask. I'm not the best at copy editing, so more comments about prose may crop up in an FAC, but I think generally it's pretty good. There were a couple of idiosyncratic sentence structures and a little repetition, but that is mostly what I changed in my edits. Good luck when you take this to FAC, I'll have the page on my watchlist. This may seem like a lot to deal with, but if dealt deal I think it will help with the intended FAC. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your copy-editing (which did not change any meaning) and comments. Great job! I will go through the list and try to fix/add to the article accordingly. bamse (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some questions and comments above (is this the correct way to reply?); probably more will follow. bamse (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying like this is fine, it allows me to see which points have been addressed. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked in it for quite a wile now and I would like to know any improvements that can be made to it.

Thanks, El Johnson (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not meet WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded so it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article is mostly about the history.
• The article uses bold text where it should not - generally it is only for alternate names in the lead, see WP:ITALIC
• My Spanish is not very good, but the History section seems to be copied (and translated) from the official website. It is good to use reliable websites, but you have to put things into your own words - see WP:Plagiarism
• Article needs more wikilinks - for example Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Troy, New York could be linked.
• When using abbreviations, make sure to give the abbreviation in parentheses after the first use, so "Phi Lambda Alpha (ΦΛA)", for example
• The image licenses may be problematic too - for example File:Fundadoressigma.jpg is dated 1928, so it is still copyrighted under US law. I strongly doubt you took the photograph and thus are not the copyright holder. It might be able to be included as a WP:FAIR USE image, see also WP:COPYVIO
• Lists of notable people usually only include people who already have articles on Wikipedia and thus meet the criteria for notability
• See also is generally for articles that have not been mentioned in the article already
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Alpha Kappa Alpha and Alpha Phi Alpha are both featured articles and seem like they might be useful models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just been listed as a good article, and another editor has suggested that it might be close to the requirements for featured article status. Therefore, I would like this review to look for issues with the article meeting this criteria ahead of it being nominiated for FA status. Thanks --GW… 08:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram The article looks good to me. The early link to deorbit goes to Orbit (disambiguation) which includes "deorbit" in bold, but which does not directly define what "deorbit" means. Orbit is primarily a noun. "Deorbit" is presumably a verb, and the verb should be defined where the article links to. Hope this helps in a small way. :) doncram (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always use Wiktionary - see wikt:deorbit, which can be piped as deorbit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably the best way to go until an article on deorbiting spacecraft exists here, so I have changed the link. --GW… 08:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long on this. I think it looks pretty good, but still needs some work before FAC. With WP:WIAFA in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:ITALIC direct quotations should not be italicized
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• I can see this article being named something like "Deorbiting of Mir" - since the title is about the spaceship, could a bit more about it be added? When and where was it made? How much did it cost? What did the launch cost? I realize some of this might not be known, but I also imagine much of this is known for the class of spaceships.
• The article uses the name "Rosaviakosmos" for the Russian Federal Space Agency, but the article on the space agency does not contain this name (the logo uses the Cyrillic "Roscosmos").
• Could a map of the Pacific with a red dot where Mir crashed be added?
• Refs should be in numerical order, so fix thingsl ike Rosaviakosmos decided against funding the continued operation of Mir.[9][8]
• This might need a ref for FAC Launch was set for 06:56:26 GMT on 18 January.
• Are all the refs considered Relaible sources? What about current ref 3 (Jonathan's Space Page) for example?
• The most difficult criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. I think this needs a copyedit before FAC. A few examples (not an exhaustive list) follow:
  • From the lead: Launched in January 2001 after a short delay due to a problem with Mir, on 27 January, Progress M1-5 became the last spacecraft to dock with the station. I would give the exact date of the launch in this sentence. As it currently reads, "on January 27" is awkward and unclear (without the specific date of launch, it sounds like it could refer to the launch date too)
  • Or this could be clearer This had been followed by six more modules, launched between 1987 and 1996, all using Proton-K rockets, except one which was launched aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis.[3] perhaps as something like This had been followed by six more modules, launched between 1987 and 1996, five using Proton-K rockets, and one launched aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis in YEAR.[3]
  • I think it usually is clearer to go from the general to the specific, so I would start with Free-flights of Progress spacecraft typically lasted two days from launch to docking with Mir.[30] then follow it with Progress M1-5 took three days to reach Mir in order to conserve fuel for the deorbit burn. If it had launched on 18 January ...
  • I realize this article uses Britsh English, but the official name of the "Shuttle-Mir Programme" is spelled Shuttle-Mir Program

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I've started to work on addressing your issues, and I'll sort the rest out later. --GW… 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• With regards to the sourcing issue, I explained that in the GAN. I will try to deprecate any problem sources though. --GW… 14:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to make sure the list is as good as possible before its nominated for being featured.

Thanks, Suede67 (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About time! Any suggestions? Suede67 (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About time? Sorry, I don't respond to remarks like that. Find someone else to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? It was in complete good faith! I wasnt expecting someone would pick it up so late, I was getting nervous the 10 days would pass. Suede67 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood (see your talkpage). I will get to the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Suede67 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Not much to say, really. The information looks comprehensive and well put together. A few suggestions on the prose:-

• "Morrison left in 1995 - was he replaced?

His site says he "left due to a breakdown", so I'd say its unclear. I feel its better to say what the source says, rather than his site, as it could be biased. Suede67 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Under this name they released their first EP, Starfighter Pilot, under the Electric Honey label." I have repunctuated, but can you avoid the "under the...", "under the..." repeat?

 Done

• "Jeepster Records" or "the Jeepster label" would be preferable to just "Jeepster".

 Done

• Presumably, "in 1998" not just "1998".

 Done

• Parentheses unnecessary around "to Snow Patrol".

 Done

• "...as Eric Avery, who had a side-project named Polar Bear threatened to sue." Too cryptic. You don't say who Eric Avery is, or what you mean by a side-project. I suggest a reword along the lines: "...because American bass player Ed Avery, who was already using the name "Polar Bear" in a recording project, threatened to sue."

 Done

• Date of release for Final Straw?

 Done

• Clarify whether Paul Wilson replaced Mark McClelland.

 Done

• Give dates for Final Straw tour and Eyes Open release.

 Done

• Explain what you mean by "boosted by the success of Chasing Cars".

 Done

That is pretty well all I can find. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suede67 Comments: I have fixed all what you have suggested. But I do have a doubt though. The music videos section; there are 3 for which the director isn't known (in any sources for that matter). Will this be a problem in the FL nomination? Thanks for your review! I didnt think of those finer points that needed addressing. Suede67 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with the FLC process, but if you have tried every known source and have been unable to find references to the directors of these videos, I do not imagine this will affect the outcome. Just note it in your nom statement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your reply! Suede67 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is ineligible for featured list status due to it's limited subject matter.

Thanks, Alex Douglas (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, why are you listing this for PR then? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this article will be the main article in a featured topic candidate, Discographies of Young Divas members; part of 3(c) of the criteria. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Walsh's comments

I'm sorry to be brief here, but really, this isn't an article at all. The lead looks fine, but that's all there is. This will never be considered as a Featured Article Candidate because there is absolutely no body text. For comparison, please see Nine Inch Nails discography; that is an article. You'll need to do more research and actually write some things about the discography. Start at your local library and start going through newspapers and magazines. Will need to go beyond googling. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I don't think this was ever intended to be an article. See Alex Douglas' comment above. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some clarification then, because to me his comments indicate it's supposed to be an article: "this article will be the main article in a featured topic candidate". Am I misunderstanding? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to "article" in the general sense. This list was taken to featured list candidates, but failed as being too short. As per the featured topic criteria, any article that is too short to be passed as a good article or featured article/list must be submitted to peer review to ensure its quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Ah, I see. To Alex: In light of Dabomb87's comments, I would adjust my feedback slightly to focus on the part beginning with "You'll need to do more research" if you're interested in expanding the article. If there are no other sources, then you don't really have enough to stand on its own as an article. Usually, discographies are not broken out from the main article of the artist unless they are extensive (again see Nine Inch Nails discography as an example). This may be a case of trying to force a Featured Topic from little article that really shouldn't have been broken off anyway. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was referring to "article" in the general sense, it's a list; all discographies are lists. Thankyou for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (currently at GA status) for peer review because I think it is on the right track toward a FAC, and would like to expose it to closer scrutiny from other editors. I'm aware of the objection that there should be more images in it, but hopefully this is going to be fixed. So, the focus is now on the text; I also hope that this nomination might attract attention from an experienced (and willing) editor to further polish the article's prose.

Thanks, VVVladimir (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fascinating read. I am tweaking the prose a bit as I go, so revert me if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Montenegrin Littoral known better by another name? I have never heard of it...

I'm glad you like the article, thanks! Your edits are good, no meaning changed. I don't know if there is another name for Montenegrin Littoral in English. It is translation of Serbian Crnogorsko primorje. VVVladimir (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This - The ideal environment to fully carry out these customs is the traditional multi-generation country household. - sounds like a how-to manual, I will think of some way this can be worded better. Sorry I have been busy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there's no hurry :) VVVladimir (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that sentence: 1) vicinity and accessibility of woods; 2) presence of the traditional fireplace ognjište in the house; absence of that is the biggest obstacle to perform these customs (in fact, even in villages, only those who are really keen to preserve traditional objects and customs have that fireplace today - examples 1, 2, and 3); 3) though the 'multi-generation household' is not quite necessary to perform the customs physically, they are somewhat incomplete without the presence of several generations of the family. VVVladimir (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. Concept is good, some of these may need some tweaking but nothing jumps up. I will ask some others to have a look too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to expand a bit more on that :) VVVladimir (talk)

• The badnjak ceremony, originally performed only within the family, has gained a public dimension, too. - is unusually worded. I know what you mean this time but an alternative doesn't immediately come to mind. I will think more.

• Each particular celebration, however, has its own specific traits which reflect traditions of the local community, and other local factors - what are the other local factors? Just hangs there and is a bit vague. Can it be clarified? Or is it just better removed?

The factors like what prominent people in the community think how some details of the celebration should be performed, etc. No need to expand on that, I removed it.

As for the edit summary ("parallelly"?), Webster's Third New International Dictionary says: parallelly = in a parallel manner. Of course, any further prose polishing is very welcome. VVVladimir (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure what this means: "... the log is symbolically represented by several leaved oak twigs that can be bought at marketplaces or distributed in churches." I'm taking it to mean a bunch of oak twigs some of which still have leaves on them? Feels a bit vague to me though. Would two twigs be enough? One? Do all of the twigs have to have leaves on them? Are the bunches of twigs bound together in any particular way? Do they have to come from the same tree?

• "The Serbian Orthodox Church uses the Julian calendar, according to which Christmas Eve (December 24) corresponds to January 6 of the following year on the Gregorian calendar." My first impression on reading that was "So what?" The significance of that correspondence needs to be explained.

Thanks for your edits and questions. Since "a picture is worth a thousand words", here are couple examples of those oak twigs: 1, 2. I've added the adjective 'leaved', because the term 'twig' represents a small branch usually without its leaves, and the twigs that represent the badnjak should have leaves on them. It is usually one bunch of twigs that grew together on the tree, with the stem that connects them as a unit. Example 1 shows a common arrangement, where such a unit of oak twigs is bound together with twigs of European Cornel and several stalks of straw. I didn't intend to expand on this, but it might be OK to add something to that effect. On the photograph in the article one can see oak trees at a market; the saleswoman is there to cut a bunch of twigs for her customer.

I think that first picture would be worth adding to the article, as it certainly made things clearer for me. The caption could explain its arrangement and construction, as you've just done here. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be excellent if the picture could be used in the article, but I'm not sure that its copyright status is appropriate. VVVladimir (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote to add something to that effect, I meant text.VVVladimir (talk)

It would be worth contacting zelear to see if (s)he'd be prepared to release the image under a CC licence. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no experience in that, could it be done through some Wikipedia channel? VVVladimir (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. You'd have to do it directly through Photobucket. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only several Orthodox Churches, including The Serbian Orthodox Church, use the Julian calendar, so I wanted to give the precise timing of the celebration. While for most of the world Christmas Eve falls on December 24, for the Serbs it falls on January 6 (according to the Gregorian calender). Also, it's not necessary that all readers know when, or even what, Christmas Eve is at all. But if you think that that sentence is superfluous, it's no problem to remove it.

I think that's a really important point that needs to be made in the lead, and elaborated on a little later. With the article's wikilinks to Christmas Eve and Christmas Day—which almost everyone from the Western Church will understand to be December24/25—it's presently a bit misleading. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any other questions, I'll be glad to answer them. VVVladimir (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The origin of the custom is explained by events surrounding the Nativity of Jesus Christ." Need to either drop this from the lead or give a brief overview of what those events were. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to work on that... VVVladimir (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an improvement, though probably some more should be done in the lead. VVVladimir (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find the lead now? VVVladimir (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a big improvement. I'd be inclined to drop the opening sentence of the second paragraph now. I don't think we need "The origin of the tradition is explained by events surrounding the Nativity of Jesus Christ" any more. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that, and added a couple of details I think should be mentioned in the lead. VVVladimir (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To get through FAC, all of the images will need to have alt text. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. VVVladimir (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that in some places there's maybe a little too much detail. For instance here: "Upon entering the house the man approaches the fireplace, called ognjište ([ˈoɡɲiːʃte])." Is it really important that we know what the fireplace is called in Serbian? If it is, then why? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ognjište is the type of open fireplace characteristic for the Balkans, accompanied with characteristic utensils. Mentioning the name is not essential for the article, but I think that an explanation that it is similar to a campfire is important, because the logs may be rather long and could not be properly placed on the fireplace if it were enclosed. VVVladimir (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite get this bit: "This method is preferred over the cutting down, because the resulting badnjak has a so-called 'beard', the part of the trunk at which it broke off from the base of the tree." The method is preferred because it results in the badnjak having a "beard"? Why is a "beard" so sought after? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are available to me just state that the "beard" is preferred on the badnjak (but this applies only to some regions, where the pulling and twisting is custom), and don't explain why. The meaning of the "beard" could be guessed from the facts that the badnjak is regarded as an old mail personage (see "Interpretation), and the thicker end where it broke off is called its head. It enhances the log's comparison with an old man. It seems that the "beard" thing is of a very ancient origin. VVVladimir (talk)

I suppose you are familiar with the jaggedness of the place at which a raw wood snapped, with those protruding fibers that could be compared with a beard. VVVladimir (talk)

• I'm not sure I quite follow what's being said in the third paragraph of Bringing in and burning, which begins "In 19th-century Herzegovina ...". Is everything in that paragraph relevant only to Herzegovina, or just the bit about bringing in the logs on oxen? The sentence "The badnjak should not be jumped over or trodden upon" just seems to come like a bolt out of the blue as well. Is that a general custom, or just in Herzegovina? I think it needs a slight rewrite in any case, to avoid the "how-to" manual imperative. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The logs were unloaded and the oxen driven out through the back door" ends what is relevant only to Herzegovina. VVVladimir (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bolt eliminated now, at least partly? I included the Herzegovina case with the preceding paragraph (to which it thematically belongs), expanded on the straw and made a paragraph from that, and added to "The badnjak should not be..." and made a paragraph from that too. As for the imperative, these are those folk rules on what is a bad thing to do, which should be avoided in order not to draw bad luck or some revenge from supernatural forces on oneself. VVVladimir (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is shaping up nicely now, and I've got no further comments for this review. I also think that with a final copy edit run through it's just about ready for FAC. There's always going to be some criticism at FAC, that's the nature of the beast, but I'd be very surprised if anything came up that couldn't be pretty easily fixed. All in all this is fine piece of work that you have every right to feel pleased with. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Malleus, for your magnificent copy-editing. VVVladimir (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to allow for the greater representation of conservation- and cultural heritage-related lists.

Thanks, Joey80 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is your second peer review nomination for 4 September. The rules clearly state that one nomination per day per editor is permitted. I have archived this; please renominate it at a later date. I have likewise archived your second nomination for 3 September. The peer review process is short of editors and there is frequently a backlog of articles awaiting review. Have you thought of helping the process by selecting an article and reviewing it? Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because since there has never been a beauty pageant-related featured list. I chose the Miss Earth titleholder list since it is shorter than other pageant list, hence more manageable for the moment, as well as the fact that the pageant is relatively young (only started in 2001), hence, plenty of source materials unlike other pageants.

Thanks, Joey80 (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is your second peer review nomination for 3 September. The rules clearly state that one nomination per day per editor is permitted. I have archived this; please renominate it at a later date. I have likewise archived your second nomination for 4 September. The peer review process is short of editors and there is frequently a backlog of articles awaiting review. Have you thought of helping the process by selecting an article and reviewing it? Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This page was a featured article, but it was delisted over two years ago. Since Babe Ruth is the most recognizable historical figure in baseball, it is a shame for the Baseball project on Wikipedia that this page languishes. Whatever suggestions are presented will be followed.

Thanks, Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You appear to have made only one edit to this article. The article may need significant work to achieve a return to its former status. It is reasonable to expect you and/or others interested in the article to carry out a substantial part of this rehabilitation before bringing it to peer review. I recommend you withdraw and resubmit later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the request for a peer review needed to come from someone who already has contributed majorly. I was hoping to get a general baseline assessment before really going to town on this article. If you're sure that I should make more edits to it before asking for a peer review, I will withdraw. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a formal rule, but note that WP:Peer Review specifies that the process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." Although I and other reviewers frequently stretch that definition, we do think it fair that nominators should have done some of that work themselves, rather than using PR as a first stage in article redevelopment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, consider this one withdrawn. I'll nominate it in due time. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to take it to GA. I've modeled it to a similar GA article Mamoru Miyano.

Thanks, ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article looks very good. The only issue I find is the lead which should be at least two paragraph long per WP:Lead.Tintor2 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to expand the lead. I'm not sure if its good enough.... ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be expanded a bit more, but it is still good. I suppose you have already searched for picture, but could not find one free. Does one of the CDs show her appearance?Tintor2 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two Sphere singles (Future Stream and Super Noisy Nova) feature her on the cover (with the other three singers). I personally prefer the cover of Super Noisy Nova. Amazon~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think toothfine knows more about images than me.Tintor2 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems generally well-done but needs an image. You might be able to find a suitable fair-use image, or you might be able to convince Aki Toyosaki to release one of her images into the public domain. She has some good ones on her blog. Here are a few other suggestions for improvement.

Should I upload one from the cover of one of her single? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the sentences in "Acting career" are fine taken individually, I think it would make the prose more lively to vary the sentences a bit. All start with subject-verb in quick succession, and the verbs "voiced", "appeared", and "reprised" are repeated. Just flipping one or two of these would help keep the pattern from becoming monotonous. Example: "In Minami-ke: Okaeri, she later reprised her role as Yoshino."
  • Rewrote some sentences. Not exactly sure if I got is right. Not very good with this. :)

• I'd be inclined to merge the one-sentence paragraphs in "Musical career" with larger paragraphs.
  • Fixed.

• 'the "Don't say 'lazy' " single' - Is this correct, or should it be "Don't Say 'Lazy' "?
  • It is correct.

• "The opening and ending singles would remain on the chart during the week of April 27 to May 3... " - "remained" rather than "would remain"? Straight past tense is more direct.
  • Fixed.

• "Toyosaki, Hikasa, Satō and Kotobuki performed the insert song... " - Does "insert song" need to be explained?
  • Attempted. Not really sure if it's clear enough.

• "Later, Toyosaki would release a K-On! image song single... " - "released"? Also, would it be helpful to explain "image song" as well as "insert song"?
  • Fixed. Image song is linked earlier in the section.

• "She also provided the narration of a television advertisement for Bineck's performance... " - What does "Bineck's" refer to?
  • Fixed.

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • Got it.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to move it towards GA status. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,
— Ω (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article -seems to have all the facts and refs pretty much there, but I think if it is going to get to GA it will need some MOS and organizational cleanup. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Saturn V is a former featured article and Shuttle-Mir Program is a FA - these might be useful models
• The lead does not really meet WP:LEAD. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, and as a summary nothing important should be in the lead only - it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the CLV part and being named for Ares are only in the lead (as examples).
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but many of the sections do not seem to be in the lead - for example the Schedule, which makes it clear this will not launch with a human until at least 2014 is not in the lead, but should be.
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should not sandwich text, but this is done in the lead. Images should also be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower
• Article is generally nicely referenced but the first paragraph in "Role in Constellation program" has no refs and needs at least one. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• I am not familiar with spaceref.com - is this a reliable source??

  In my opinion it is, and it's used for references throughout articles dealing with spaceflight. Someone needs to actually begin a Spaceref.com page and add some references to it, is all.
  — Ω (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is used in other recent space FAs then it should be OK - reliability means more that they identify their sources and have editorial control than that they have an article here. For example, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but has its own article - see WP:RS Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Organizationally, I think it would make more sense to start by giving some background on the end of the Shuttle program and the need for a new launch vehicle (rocket). Perhaps giving some of the criticisms of the one size fits all approach of the shuttle would also be useful here, as they lead to the development of the different Ares vehicles (I and V). I would then give the history as Development. Then I owuld talk about the Design and then the planned schedule. To me it makes more sense to present the information in a more chronological order.

  I adjusted the article's organization yesterday, more or less in order to start addressing this point. I'll probably add some more info to the Development section in general, soon.
  — Ω (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Captions could be clearer - for example, for File:SDLV rockets.jpg I would give the date of the figure and identify it as an early design to make it clearer that the current design is different

  Done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Aiaa2.jpg also needs a caption that makes it clear this is an artist's impression. The source is listed as "Douglas Yazell, Past Chair, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Houston Section, [email protected]" and the author is listed as "user:aaaf-wiki" (on COmmons) but the license is a NASA license. These do not agree and this will be a problem at WP:FAC (which I can see this getting to eventually) and might be a problem at WP:GAN

  I have resolved the author & source issues, and given the image a longer caption. Colds7ream (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid words like current or currently in the article as things can change - instead use phrases like "as of 2009" or "since YEAR"

  It looks like I took care of all of these.
  — Ω (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is still one (I just seached for the word current using my web browser): The upper stage of Ares I is to be built at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility, which is where the Space Shuttle's External Tank is currently constructed, and the former construction site of the Saturn V's first stage, the S-IC. [17][18] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better - keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to help it get to a GA, or a FA some day.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over this and it seems a bit abridged: missing are references to his Toyota Prius, his atheism et al. I wonder if there are interviews with MacFarlane where further detail can be culled.

Also, many of these references don't appear to be reliable sources:

• Navjeet Singh, "Download Family Guy Episodes", Los Angeles Chronicle March 27, 2008. "That one dog, Brian, walks upright, can speak, is highly intelligent and loves to drink as well."
• http://www.amazon.co.uk/Family-Guy-Brian-Griffins-Broads/dp/0752875779
• http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Brian_Griffin#encyclopedia
• http://www.wvah.com/programs/familyguy/briangriffin.shtml

--The lorax (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to see if there are some notable issues (apart from my poor grammar). One of my main doubts is the themes section since it is the first time I have written one and I don't know if it looks good. By the way, this series is very episodic, so there is no way to expand it.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments In my opinion, there's a difference between the theme of the story, which can point to an underlying social commentary and describes the setting, and the theme of the production work, which I usually call "style". What you have written here is something I usually consider as "style" since it provides commentary on the way Sorachi writes his stories. (There is the one comment about social inequality, but that it very minor compared to the rest of the section.) With that said, I think you provided a good amount of depth on Sorachi's writing style. You could probably combine the "Theme" section with the "Production" section into something called "Writing". (To me, "Production" sounds weird because you're focusing on the manga, which is a print publication.) After that, you can give it an overview again to pull out the parts of the section that describe the story's setting (like the social inequality) and recreate the "Theme" section. Arsonal (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem of merging these two is that themes is also composed of third-party sources. I thought of using production after seeing that most articles whose primary media is manga use them. However, I'm now thinking it could be changed to Development.Tintor2 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, maybe I read that wrong, but how does third-party sources hinder a merge? "Development" is a good alternative title. Arsonal (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging it to the creation would not be suitable since the third-party sources do not say what the author said. They are just meant to be an analysis of the series.Tintor2 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You could rename the section Style and Themes. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The "Themes and style" should just be "Style" since 90% of the section discusses the humour of the manga, which would be its style as opposed to its theme. The "Production" header should be something like "Conception" or "Conception of Gin Tama/the series" since it discusses how Sorachi thought up the manga. Suki Dakara 06:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while I think it is deserving of its GA status, it needs some more work before I take it to FAC. I'd like to see what else needs to be done with this guy so that it's as ready as it can be.

Thanks, Wizardman 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#1: picture. I've heard he gets out to presentations and stuff - surely someone could get a picture of him. Has anyone tried contacting him? I found a couple on Flickr but they're non-commercial. Maybe someone can contact that photographer and ask if they can change the license on one of those? Wknight94 ^talk 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about both the recent ones and am waiting for a response. I may ask about [3] too, only haven't yet since based on the photostream, I can't tell if the person has actually taken these photos. Wizardman 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wizardman 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Review - 1. Lead. Add the year that he was brought into the HoF. Clarify the time frame of the second paragraph. Alternate his name with "he" - you tend to bunch up a bunch of "he"s in a row or his name in a row. The third paragraph has "cleared", which might not be understood by a non-familiar individual. Also, use a few more compound sentences to spice things up - the last two sentences, for instance, could be bridge with an "and" instead of just declarative statement followed by declarative statement. 2. Early life and school. I don't see anything major. 3. Major league career. Washington seems fine. The one sentence paragraph in Breakout season seems awkward on its own. Fine a way to make the paragraphing more uniform. Same with Minnesota. 4. The personal life section seems awkward all the way down at the bottom and so small. Perhaps you should integrate it into the first section and rename it. 5. Tape measure. Move the second paragraph to follow the first so the intro doesn't dangle. Also, conform "one red-painted seat from the Met" with "The red chair". It took me awhile to find out a connection of the image with the text. Also, it is a little confusing how it is placed at the location of the homerun when it is inside the MoA. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Most concerns addressed, will finish tomorrow. Wizardman 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on what should be done to improve the article, solely in terms of content, since I usually make copyediting the final step for an article as the contents usually exhibit significant changes. What would you like to see in the article? What does not belong in this article, and should instead be moved to a sub-article/linked article? Thanks. Gary King (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Just noticed this had no feedback, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I know you only want content comments, but I can't help but mention that the lead does not really meet WP:LEAD (needs to be expanded - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way)
• I also note that the article needs many more references.
• The Growth section of history seems very fragmentary and sparse compared to the previous history section
• The Workplace and Digital natives sections are also very short and need to be expanded or else combined with others
• Perhaps more on the porn, gambling and gaming industries influence on the growth of the net
• The whole Dot-com bubble of the 1990s could be included
• There is no mention at all of the phrase Web 2.0
• Intellectual property issues and the Napster phenomenon could be included
• Distributed computing is not in the article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I spent today creating this page, and I'd like peer review prior to nominating this article as a featured list. Does the lead describe the topic well enough? Is there anything else that should be included as noteworthy (aside from the list of former Yankee players who coached, former MLB managers and future MLB managers)?

Thanks, Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a good start, I think it needs some work before it can be considered for WP:FLC successfully. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The article's lead does not meet WP:LEAD - it needs to be a summary of the whole article and my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of the former managers and future managers and former Yankees.
• The article does not have enough references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The use of bold (for current coaches) does not meet WP:ACCESS and is also a violation of WP:ITALIC
• Biggest problem I see with this is that the last three of the four lasts are needless duplication of the first list. Expand the first list so that it is a sortable table. Add columns for Former Yankee players, Former managers, and Future managers.
• I would also make it a sortable table so people could sort it alphabetically, or by dates, or by those who were former Yankees, etc.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a lot of FLs at Category:FL-Class Baseball articles that might be good models.
• Could you indicate what position(s) these people coached?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, these comments are very helpful, and I can make most, if not all, of these changes. I had wanted to list them all by position, but that may be difficult to do the further back I go, because records of positions coached get murky. Is it preferable to list the positions known while listing some as "positions unknown"? --Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a column for position and just list them as unknown. Since most of the data comes from the official Yankees website, you can have a "General reference", but my guess is the people who played / managed for other teams are not listed there (and so would need refs for that). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this artical has evoved many times and i want to known how to make it possibly a GA.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Liquidluck (talk)

• There are too many quotes in the Ambiguous sexuality section. Paraphrase some of them into prose. Read over WP:QUOTE.
• In the "Bertram" section, you mention Bertram is only seen in "these episodes", but do not list which episodes. If Bertram only appears in Emission Impossible, giving him an entire section may be WP:UNDUE weight.
• The Other appearances section reads like a trivia list. Change the list into prose.
• Is it possible to have a section title other than "Write"? I didn't check if that was a recent change/vandalism, but if it isn't, do make the title more descriptive- or change it to "Books", "Novelizations", or "Writing".

Hope that helps! Liquidluck (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) More comments:[reply]

• Many of the references are bare URLs. Make sure to use WP:Citation templates to source items.
• Although the "Other appearances" section is now in prose, it is entirely unsourced. Unsourced statements are bad, and unsourced quotes are worse. You can cite episodes using this template.
• Is there information related to Seth MacFarlane available? Also, a free picture of MacFarlane, if available, would be very useful. Liquidluck (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just cleaned up the article a bit, some comments:
Development

• Try to cite each sentence; don't place five refs at the end of a paragraph, the info is usually unclear and GA and FA reviewers don't really like ref bunches.
• The development section should contain info about the creation of the character, not the show.

Reception

• This section should contain info about the reception of the character, not the show.
• Try to seperate the section into three paragraphs (not subsections, paragraphs): Awards and Accomodations, positive reception and, if you can find any, negative reception. If a lot of critcs enjoy a certain aspect of the character, his voice for instance, you could create a seperate paragraph for that.

General comments

• Cite each ref!
• Don't use ISO for the dates and don't shorten month names.
• Don't just print texts in bold letters, films, tv series, and books etc. should be in italic.
• You can check other Family Guy GAs for possible refs.

All these comments could also be useful for the Brian Griffin article. That's all, good luck with editing.--Music26/11 15:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed until GA reviwe.
Thanks, Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already achieved GA status and I would like to know how far it is from being FA status, and what work needs to be done / what needs to be improved.

Thanks, Nrichie 28 (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Finetooth comments: This is interesting and broad in coverage but needs further work to achieve FA. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

• The entire article needs another careful proofing to catch and fix mistakes that can't possibly survive FAC. In the lead, for example, "Since it's initial theatrical release... " should be "Since its initial theatrical release... ". In the third paragraph, three incorrect "whom"s appear in constructions such as "forming a sexual relationship with the alluring torch singer, Dorothy Vallens, whom may be connected to the ear." That should be "... Vallens, who may be connected to the ear." Elsewhere in the lead, Lumberton is called "idealistic", but only people can be idealistic. Perhaps "idealized" is the right word. Other minor errors include shifts in verb tense from past to present within the same sentence. For example, the last sentence of "Critical reception" says, "During an online Q&A session with Ebert in 2007, he said he still feels bad for how Rossellini was treated, but said he should re-visit the film and that David Lynch is a good director." For consistency, that should be "During an online Q&A session with Ebert in 2007, he said he still felt bad about how Rossellini was treated but said he should re-visit the film and that David Lynch was a good director." The article is not riddled with error, but typos, grammatical errors, and odd verb tenses appear here and there throughout.

• The citation-needed tags need to be addressed. In addition, the last paragraph of the "Symbolism" subsection lacks a source even though the claims it makes are not common knowledge. The claim about the ear as symbol may be perfectly true, but it must be attributed to a reliable source to satisfy WP:V. Related to concerns about sourcing and attribution are the remarks about plagiarism made by User:Moni3 on the article's talk page. Have they been addressed?

• It's doubtful that four fair-use images are necessary for a reader's understanding of the subject matter.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The list in the "Current rankings" section could easily be rendered as straight prose.

• The "Current rankings" head is ambiguous in that "current" is not specific but changes with the passage of time. Something like "Rankings through 2007" would be better. Or give the range; i.e, "Rankings from 1999 through 2007" or whatever the case may be.

• In the "Casting" section, a sentence says, "Prior to his casting in this film, Hopper had experienced little success due to a phase of rehabilitation and thus had been featured in very few films; Blue Velvet successfully re-launched his career." This contradicts the statement a few sentences earlier that Hopper had achieved fame in films like Easy Rider. I think you need to specify a range of dates between Hopper's earlier success and his later success. In addition, readers will want to know what kind of rehabilitation Hopper needed and for how long.

References

• Citation 44 is malformed. Other citations lack access dates.
• Are things like sloth.org reliable sources?
• The date formatting in the citations need to be consistent to pass FAC. You can use yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y but not both.
• The abbreviations for page and pages needs to be consistent throughout.
• If you use "Retrieved yyyy-mm-dd" in one citation, it should not be "accessed yyyy-mm-dd" in another citation.
• Citation 54 has a dead url.
• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds four links that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the publishers of such major characters as Batman and Superman, it has potential to go all the way to FA. It needs some work, particularly with sourcing, so let's take it one step at a time. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana boomer

This article definitely has the potential to go all the way to FA, but needs quite a bit of TLC on its way there. As you said above, probably the biggest problem is sourcing, so let's start with that. The biggest thing to take care of are the various tags (at least 8 that I counted). Then go on to making sure that all specific facts, statistics and potentially controversial or likely to be questioned statements are referenced. You've been through the GA process before, so you probably know what to go through for that, then times it by 10 for the FAC requirements (in general). For places to look, I would suggest going to your local library (either a good public one or a university if you have one nearby), and using both their on-shelf collection and the inter-library loan system. I did a quick Google search, and in a short amount of time came up with these three books that looked like they might be helpful:

• The DC Comics Encyclopedia
• DC Comics
• DC Comics Covergirls

Also:

• Ref #2 (Comic Book Publishers) is an About.com search results page, which is not reliable; also, I couldn't find the information that it was supposed to be citing on the page.
• Web references should always include a publisher and access date, and a publication date and author when possible.
• The references section should probably either be linked to in-line citations or the links moving to the External links section or a Further reading section.

That's about it for the moment as far as sources go, because so much of the article is still uncited I don't think there's much more to say. However, as far as other parts of the article, here are a few more comments:

• The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four solid paragraphs are usually good. However, the last thing I usually write in an article is the lead, just because it's then easier to make sure it's a good summary without including new information.
• All of the one and two sentence paragraphs in the Logo section make it look choppy, and make it harder to read. Many of these should be combined.
• For FA, all of the images are going to need alt text, per WP:ALT. I'm not very experienced at writing these blurbs, so I'm not going to try to give you advice there :)
• There are a few dab links that need to be fixed before FA, see here.

Because major prose revisions tend to happen when major referencing is going on, I haven't done a thorough review of the prose. The referencing is the major issue in this article right now, and once that is addressed, I would expect most of the rest of the issues to fall into place fairly easily. I will be watchlisting this page, and please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this list has the potential to become a featured list, it just needs an extra set of eyes to go over it and check for mistakes and what not.

Thanks, NapHit (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

• General point: with over 1,000 words of prose, this is an article as much as it is a list. With an existing Tour de France article that includes a lengthy history, and several individual Tour articles, do we need the History section here? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the list, rather than draw attention away from it?

I included the history to try and give an overview of the winners historically, I think it should stay as it is different to the Tour de France article which focuses on the event and winners, this solely focuses on the winners. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article title: Just a thought – I didn't realise until I read the intro that "general classification winners" meant overall winners, and I wonder if a change in the title might make that clearer, e.g. "List of Tour de France overall winners" or even "yellow jersey winners."

Comment on comment: Not "yellow jersey winners", because before 1919 there was no yellow jersey to be won. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead
  • Need to fix a number of no-break spaces: 23 days, 20 years, 21 cyclists etc. See WP:NBSP (or look at this edit window)
  • Lead, second line: "along with" isn't right: suggest replace with "the others being..."
  • "Individual times to finish each stage..." → "Individual finishing times for each stage..."
  • "The course changes every year, but it has always finished in Paris and in more recent years along the Champs-Élysées." For a slightly better flow I suggest "The course changes every year, but has always finished in Paris, in more recent years along the Champs-Élysées."
  • "Lance Armstrong has won the most Tours; he won seven from 1999 to 2005 consecutively, which is also a record." Needs a bit of sorting out. Suggest: "Lance Armstrong has the most Tour victories, winning seven in a record sequence between 1999 and 2005"
  • "Armstrong has won the fastest Tour; he completed the 2005 Tour de France with an average speed of 41.654 km/h." → "Armstrong also has the fastest Tour victory, completing the 2005 Tour de France with an average speed of 41.654 km/h." Note: It is not clear where this information is cited to.
  • "Henri Cornet is the youngest winner; he won in 1904, almost 20 years old" → "Henri Cornet is the youngest winner; he won in 1904, just short of his 20th birthday." Note: Again, citation not clear.
  • "Firmin Lambot is the oldest winner, he was 36 years, 4 months old when he won in 1922." Replace "he was" with "being".
• History: I have not commented on this section, as I am not at all sure that it is relevant to this list.
• List of winners
  • Would it be possible to add a column showing overall distance and/or number of stages for each year, so that a better comparison of performances over the years can be made?
  • It's a bit of a waste to have a whole column headed "Notes" with just two entries. The column could be scrapped, and the note indicators placed against the names.
• List by nationality: Suggest change the order and headings of the columns to: Country|No. of wins|No. of winning cyclists. Otherwise the figures are a bit confusing.

The lists look well put together. I am not in a position to comment on their accuracy, but I am sure you have done your work scrupulously. If you can deal with the prose problems you have potentially a fine list here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they have helped a lot, I am just in the process of adding a distance column to the list, thanks once again, any chance you could go over the history section anyway? NapHit (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unclear what needs to be done to raise it to B standard or beyond.

Thanks, Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to return and say more. But do take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Featured articles to see some examples of good work. For example, City and South London Railway. My initial impression was that the Merseyrail article is vast and rambling. I would like to get a quick mental picture of the overall system, and did not manage to reach that. This type of article tends to become packed with detail and starts to resemble a directory. Even the City and South London Railway, while it starts well and draws the reader in, tends to get lost in excessive detail at some points. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am inclined to agree with the above remarks; the article does need some attention. I have done a bit of copyediting in the early parts, and have left detailed comments on all the early sections. Many of the identified faults are repeated in the later stages, and I hope my comments will be applied to improving these sections.

• Lead: I have copyedited this. I am not sure that it meets the MOS requirement (see WP:LEAD]] that the lead should be a concise summary of the whole article; this is something that will need to be looked at when this review is complete. Another problem relates to use of citations in the lead. Why are some facts cited, but not others? As everything in the lead should be mentioned later in the article, it is quite usual to have the citations there,in the main text, rather than in the lead. I am not sure why you have chosen to have three citations in the lead.
• The Merseyrail system
  • Section titles should not begin with "The" or "A", so this title should be "Merseyrail system". However, that is too much like the article's title. As this section is a brief overview of the system, I suggest that "Overview" would be a better section title.
  • The section should be written in proper prose (sentences and paragraphs) throughout. Bullet points must be avoided, as should single sentence paragraphs. I have copyedited and combined the first two short paragraphs; you should attempt a better prose flow in the rest of the section.
  • If the City Line is not part of the Merseyrail system, nor part of the Merseyrail franchise, why is it necessary to include information about it?
  • "Unlike local train networks in other British cities..." Do you have a source which supports this statement.
• History
  • Comments above, about avoiding single-sentence and very short paragraphs, apply to this section also.
  • The section is too short to be divided into four parts. I suggest you drop the fourth part as irrelevant to this article, snd combine the other three into a single prose section, unless you wish to expand the section into a detailed history.
  • "Core" and "nucleus" mean the same thing. The first and second sentences define the core/nucleus in different ways. Some rewording is advised.
• Lines: again, I query why you have a subsection devoted to a line that does not for part of Merseyrail
• Enforcement of standards: this is trivial stuff, not worth mentioning, let alone in a main section. I suggest you get rid of it.
• The franchise
  • I think this information belongs in the History section. If it is to be retained as a separate section, it should be moved to immediately after History, and named Franchise.
  • Dates (years, anyway) required for privatisation of British Rail, and for Aviva assuming the franchise
  • "...an initial 25-year period" Surely, just "a 25-year period"?
  • "vertical integration" - never heard this term. If what follows the dash is an explanation of the term I suggest you consolidate the sentence: "As a result of this isolation, the franchise-holder wishes to take responsibility for maintenance of the track from Network Rail.

I hope you find these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help to create a reliable article, such as this one. I also don't know how to make references.

Thanks, JozePedro (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article is just getting underway, so my comments will be limited. It's good to see someone adding material about Portugal to the encyclopedia, and I wish you success. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• To create inline citations, you first need to add a "References" section with a template such as {{reflist}} embedded in it. I've done this for you.
• To cite a source, you need to place a pair of <ref> </ref> tags immediately after the end punctuation of a sentence that includes a claim that you want to attribute to a reliable source. Inside the pair of tags, for Internet sources you need to add the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date (date you looked at the web site) if all of these are known. You can enter these by hand, but I find it easier to use the "cite" family of templates. You will find the templates at WP:CIT, along with a brief explanation. You can copy and paste the "cite web" template material into an article (between a pair of ref tags) and fill in the blanks. I'd suggest experimenting with citations, ref tags, templates, and Reference sections in your sandbox to get a good feel for how these things work. To help get you started, I added one citation to the site you mention on the article's talk page. Since I don't read Portuguese, I wasn't sure if the publisher's name was available at the site. You can add it if you know what it is.

• It's often useful to imitate what others have done. Especially useful is to look at featured articles. You'll find lots of featured articles about cities and towns at WP:FA#Geography and places. You can look at things in edit mode to see how other editors have handled certain problems. You can also look at these articles to get ideas about what kinds of material you might include; e.g., climate, geology, economy, education, transportation, and infrastructure.

• WP:CITIES has useful suggestions about city and town articles.

• Each article needs to be added to a category or categories to make it easier to find the article. After a bit of poking around, I added the category "Parishes of Portugal" to this article. If you click on the category link at the bottom of the article, you will now see Pousada de Saramagos in the list of parishes.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to take this to GA and possibly FA eventually, but I am worried that the Synopsis, production and reception sections are way too big. I need help in chopping them down to a more managable and acceptable size, but where they are still understandable and relevant.

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is even better than the last time I read it, but seems to still have some of the same issues from my previous PR. I was hoping someone else might review for a fresh perspective, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Since "Baghdad High" is an alternate English name and the one used in the only image shown, I would list it in the lead too (probably in the first sentence).

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I said this before, but I think there is too much detail in the second paragraph of the lead on the production staff (consulting editors?!?) and not enough on the boys themselves - just their names are given, but I think their religious backgrounds could also be in the lead, as well as something on how they only filmed at home and in school for safety. It might alos be worth mentioning in the lead the way they did not meet the boys until after filming was done, or had to get the videos delivered through third parties.

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The visual cards and Glowfrog Studios is only in the lead and also seems like it could just be in the text (if it is kep in the lead, it should be in the text as the lead is a summary of the rest of the article.

• I've removed this because it's not necessary in the understanding of the overall article

• Text could be tightened up in places - for example in the lead could it just be "Directed and produced by Ivan O'Mahone and Laura Winter of Renegade Pictures and StoryLabTV...? instead of adding they also directed it later?

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I said this before too, but direct quotes in the lead need to be cited, so all the direct quotes from reviews need refs there - see MOS:QUOTE and WP:LEAD

• I couldn't find anything at either pages which says this, WP:LEADCITE says "challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.". Since the Lead quotes are repeated again, are the cites absolutely necessary? I think cites look ugly in the Lead, so if that's the case I'll probably rework the paragraph and remove them. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see MOS:QUOTE on using logical quotations - unless you are quoting a complete sentence, the punctuation at the end should be outside the quotations.

• I'll have to look closely for these. Are there any specific quotes where this is occurring? Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the Synopsis could be broken into two or more parts - one could be a much shorter Synopsis which just describes the basics of the plot. If you had to tell the story of the film in a few paragraphs, what would it be? The rest could either be in a new section or two (not sure what to call it) or could perhaps be part of of other sections. For example the first two paragraphs are more sort of a background (about the school and neighborhood) and could be a Background section. The direct quotes need a ref and most of the things where the article discusses the film could be in a different section - for example the paragraph starting The documentary highlights the similarities and differences between Western and Iraqi children. is interesting but too detailed for plot synopsis. It should be in the article somewhere, as well as the next paragraph starting with The documentary also shows what the boys' families feel about living in Iraq. I am not sure if this would fit in the Production section (the gas siphoning incident and Saddam Hussein's execution are already discussed there). Perhaps if there are quotes from the producers / directors saying things like "we wanted show the similarities and differences...." then details from the film could be included there? Or perhaps some of the incidents could be used in the critical reception section as examples?
• I think the direct quotes in the Synopsis section also need refs (presumably to the film itself) and if they are longer than 4 lines, then the MOS says they should be presented with {{blockquote}}
• I do not really see that the article needs to have material removed. Did someone say to do this? I think that detail is good and useful in a article and this seems like useful detail and makes for an interesting read.

• MOS:FILM says summaries should usually be no more than 700 words, and MOS:TV says 400. Other than that, no. I'd like to get it down to around 7 or 800. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs a copyedit - for example is it "arte" or "ARTE" (both are used)? I read for comprehension (not to proofread) but I also found places with waht seemed to be missing words or slightly awkward phrases.

• Done the Arte bit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is better to go from the general to the specific - so for example in the Synopsis section, it now reads "At the end of the school year, the boys take their final exams. After failing all seven of his mock exams, Mohammed knows he needs to perform well, but worries about his lack of preparation. The boys must pass all seven exams to graduate. If they fail two or fewer subjects, they can take the exams again, but if they fail three or more subjects, they must repeat the entire final year. When the results arrive..." I think it would be much better to move the second sentence (Mohammed failing seven mock exams) after the current fourth sentence - this would explain the whole exam system, then say M failed seven practice exams, then go on to them receiving results.

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this owuld probably pass GA as is now (with some tweaks) and could be ready for FAC with with some reorganization and a good copyedit.
• The lead says it is a British / Iraqi coproduction, but the infobox says it is British - considering it was filmed in Iraq, this seems odd.

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The more I think about it, I wonder if the other new (sub)section could be called "Themes", perhaps within the critical reception section, where some of the Synopsis could be moved.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this article at least make A-Class or GA-Class. Not many Big Brother articles have achieved a high class and I would like to change that.

Thanks, ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article looks reasonably comprehensive, given the number of existing articles on individual series or other aspects of Big Brother. However, I believe much work is needed to bring the article to a standard approaching GA, particularly on the prose. Note: I have not read through every section with the same attention to detail.

• Lead: The lead should be a summary of the whole article, rather than a brief introduction to the subject. See WP:LEAD for more information. In the brief lead you have, the prose presents numerous problems:-
  • No punctuation in first sentence
  • "based on" repeated in first and second sentences
  • "24" would be preferable to "twenty-four", per MOS
  • "under constant surveillance with no privacy" is a tautology
  • "130 different people" - "different" is redundant
  • Likewise, "so far" at the sentence end seems unnecessary
  • "The HouseGuests compete for the chance to win..." Surely, they compete for the prize, not for "the chance to win"?
  • "Ungrammatical: "...until the last HouseGuest remains at the end of the season that can claim the $500,000 grand prize."
  • It is also unnecessary to twice spell out the prize details in full; the second reference could be to "the prize"
  • "Respectively", at the paragraph end, is redundant.
• Main series
  • "eviction night" mentioned without any prior explanation of what this means
  • "This led fans to dub her "the Chenbot," - to what does "this" refer?
  • "moniker" is slang, unencyclopedic.
  • "Tha announcer" should be specified as the program's announcer. I notice that in this brief paragraph the word "announcer" occurs six times. Such over-repetition needs to be avoided by rephasing. For example the last sentence: "The current announcer is Clayton Halsey and has been the announcer since season seven." (which is ungrammatical anyway) could be simplified to "Clayton Halsey has been the announcer since season seven."
• Other points: I think I have pointed out enough to indicate that the prose generally needs thorough revision. Other matters needing attention:-
  • Section titles should not be linked
  • Section titles should have text, not merely links to other articles
  • Whose choices determined the content of the "Controversy" section? In other words, why have these incidents been selected and not others? I would say, also, that some of the narratives for these incidents are anecdotal rather than encyclopedic, and have a strong POV feel.

I hope these comments will help the process of improving the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It looks like a lot of work has been done here. However, a Peer Review rule is that articles must be free of major cleanup banners. This aricle has a banner from May 2009, indicating lack of citations in the Music and music video section. Also:

• There are several "fact" tags within the text, and other parts which are almost devoid of citations. For example, the last paragraph of the Settings section has none.
• Images: The caption to the photograph of the cast appears to be a "deletion pending" notice. The other mages are all copyrighted and subject to non-free use rationales. Some of these rationales seem very weak - have you spoken to someone knowledgeable in this field who can advise you on this?
• THe lead needs to be expanded into a full summary of the article, per WP:LEAD

The article cannot be properly reviewed until the citation problem is resolved. I suggest you close the review and re-present the article when the major problem has been dealt with. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Brianboulton (talk) has summed up the PR position perfectly. As it stands a high B rating is fair, and the citation and image problems certainly needs to be addressed before any progress can be made on review. Best wishes. Bob (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done a lot of work on this article, improving the history of the company with multiple sources, discussing its heritage, current product offerings, and corporate structure. I believe this article could easily reach good article status, and hopefully eventually reach featured status. I would appreciate any help and advice you can give regarding useful information that's missing, copyediting, structure, style, and anything else you may want to comment on.

Thanks, AniRaptor2001 (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ricardiana

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

* What is S.p.A.? (you could explain in a footnote rather than cluttering up the lead)

• In general, the lead seems too short - only a para. for a quite long article. It should be expanded ... 2 or three paragraphs would be good.

Origin

* First sentence has a lot of clauses beginning with "in." Can you re-word?

• "Not wishing to continue in the farming life of his parents" - seems a little wordy. Could you say something like "not wishing to farm grapes"?
• That same sentence is a little clause-heavy. Can you break it up a bit?
• "Ferruccio's life turned tragic" - up to this point, you've been referring to him by his last name. Be consistent (and the last name is the way to go here, as you're not juggling different Lamborghinis).
• "Ferruccio's life turned tragic" - cliched phrasing.
• "Ferruccio would later cite his reluctance to race his cars on the basis that Tonino should not be exposed to the dangers of motorsport" -- non sequitur.
• Of course you will need to eliminate any "citation needed"s for this to become GA or FA.
• "Like many young men of his time" - really?
• "He also sought to move into helicopter building" ... "a helicopter..."?
• "the tiny Fiats he tinkered with" -- "had tinkered"
• "weren't up to scratch" - sounds too casual
• "secret the car away" - spelled secrete in the context, but I'm not sure that's the best word

1963-1964: First forays

* "dry-sump lubrication" - could you wikilink this? In general, it might be a good idea to comb over the entire article for car terms to wikilink for the benefit of less-informed readers.

• "wanted a well-mannered powerplant" - powerplant is confusing to me here, as it usually refers to a building.
• "with Bizzarrini not receiving" - this construction is not ungrammatical (see [4], but you will likely be told so if you take this to GA/FA. So, just so you know.
• "the centerpiece around which the Lamborghini story was written" - sounds too flowery; see WP:Peacock. In general, the article needs to be made a little less breathless and more neutral in its tone.
• "By 1963, Ferruccio had the people" - more switching back and forth between last name / first name. Also, "had" is a rather weak verb - could be "Lamborghini had acquired/assembled" or something along those lines.

1965-1966: Lamborghini arrives

* "such a vehicle would be too expensive and distracting from the company's focus" - violates parallelism. Could be "too expensive and would distract".

• "the engineers decided to instead fill" - in general, I'm not against split infinitives. This one, though, is awkward.
• "it was a high point in Ferruccio Lamborghini's life." - need a more specific word / phrase than "it"

1967-1968: Beginning of sales success

• "Lamborghini was establishing itself as a reputable automaker on a worldwide level." Sounds POV without a citation; also, it makes an awkward break between what comes before and follows after.

1968-1969: Difficulties overcome

• 'stating his mission as: "I wish to build"' - smoother as "stating that his mission was 'to build'"
• "problems with its fully unionized work force, among which the machinists and fabricators had begun to take one-hour token stoppages" - better as "among which was that"
• "Ferruccio Lamborghini, who often rolled up his sleeves and joined in the work on the factory floor, was able to motivate his staff" - needs a citation.

1970-1974: Ferruccio bows out

• "clean-sheet design" - can you wikilink this?
• 'with little consideration for fuel efficiency, (the 1986 Countach, powered by a 5.2-litre evolution of the V12 engine, had a 6 mpg city" - comma should come after parenthetical
• "Ferruccio remarried" - this is a surprise - I hadn't heard about his personal life for a while, making the transition rather abrupt, and I haven't heard about his first wife much, making the introduction of a second one even more surprising

1978-1987: Bankruptcy, Mimran, and Chrysler

• "the company entered bankruptcy in 1978, and the Italian courts took control of the company" - avoid repetition of "the company"
• "after paying out $33 million[Notes 3]" - Note 3, not notes

1990-1991

• Title of section should have a sub-title, as the others do.
• "the Diablo was the fastest production car" - do you mean the fastest in speed, or the fastest to be produced?

1994-1997: Indonesian ownership

• "In 1995, Lamborghini produced a hit, when the Diablo was updated to top-end SuperVeloce trim." - What is "SuperVeloce" trim? And, again, this is the kind of statement that just sounds too POV and needs more backing.

1999-2002: Audi steps in

• "and was named fittingly, for the bull" - need comma before as well as after "fittingly"

Present

• As last section ends with 2002, this section should be "2002 [or 2003] to present"
• "exotic and endearing" - more of this POV language. I've only pointed out a few examples, but the article needs to be proofread just for POV statements and for those statements to be either cited, re-worded, or removed.

Identity

• This section repeats much information already given earlier in the article. I'm not sure it's necessary.

Corporate affairs

• ditto.

Sales history

• Already marked as needing expansion. Will therefore need to be expanded before article can be GA or FA.
• Not sure that the map of Lamborghini's birthplace is necessary at all, but seems especially odd placed here

Timeline of ownership

• Another section lacking new information. Ricardiana (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

* Caption reading "Ferruccio, the father of Automobili Lamborghini" makes it sound like Automobili is his son.

• Caption reading "...a region with a bustling agricultural economy and the cradle of Italy's automobile industry" violates parallelism. Could be "the cradle of Italy's a.i., the region also boasts a bustling...." or something like that.
• Caption reading "It was the clutch problems he had with his Ferrari 250GTs that led Ferruccio to consider building his own cars" is wordy. In general, avoid starting a sentence with "it is." Here you could say "The clutch problems ... led...."
• Caption reading "The Espada was Lamborghini's first truly popular model, selling over 1,200 examples during its ten years of production" - not sure that "example" is the best word.

More later.... Ricardiana (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Lacking books, of which there are quite a few. This is a problem for one of the GA criteria, which requires that articles be broad in their coverage of sources. Ricardiana (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line = the article needs more references, particularly to books on the subject; POV statements need to be eliminated; repetition needs to be eliminated; more links need to be introduced, to help explain car terminology to non-enthusiasts; and the writing needs some work as well. Ricardiana (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great start, thanks very much! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, it's been very helpful. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Ricardiana (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the publishers of such major characters as Spider-Man and the X-Men, it has potential to go all the way to FA. It needs some work, particularly with sourcing, so let's take it one step at a time. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Another comics article from BOZ - many of my comments will be familiar as many of these articles have similar issues that need to be addressed to get to GA and especially FA. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD so that it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The lead could be four paragraphs long, but the current lead is only seven sentences and three paragraphs.
• Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be either combined with others or expanded to improve the flow.
• One of the biggest concerns preventing this from reaching GA or better is that the article has many unreferenced claims, with whole paragraphs and even sections without refs. Peer review is not generally a place to find refs - WikiProjects are better for that. Have you looked at Google Books or Scholar? My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Many of the existing refs do not have enough inforamtion. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Per WP:NFCC the article has too many fair use images (nine by my count). See also WP:FAIR USE
• The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead
• The lists of editor and imprints have no refs and in general lists should be converted to text wherever possible for better flow.
• Per WP:Summary style there should be a summary of the main article and not just a link (so fix things like the Video games section

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! :) BOZ (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been editing this artical for some time and i wish for it to become a GA some day. Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This sounds like an amusing episode, but the article will have to be improved substantially to have any chance at GA. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• I often find it helpful to see how other editors have constructed successful articles. You'll find a list of Good Articles about TV episodes at WP:GA#Live action television episodes. Booze Cruise (The Office), one of the GAs, has sections called "Production" and "Reception" in addition to a "Plot" section. The same is true for another GA, The Pilot (Friends), and I suspect if I looked at more I would see a pattern of including "Production" and "Reception" material. To satisfy the "broad in coverage" requirement for a GA, you'll no doubt have to include something about production and critical reception.

• To have any hope of making GA, you'll need to make sure that the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct. That is not yet the case with the existing article. For example, the second sentence of the lead is not a sentence, and the "Cultural Refrences" head contains a misspelling.

• All of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for citing web sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. I like to use the "cite" family of templates for doing citations partly because I can just fill in the blanks. You can find these templates at WP:CIT. You can copy-and-paste them into your sandbox to try them out, and you can insert them into articles between pairs of ref tags. It's OK to enter the citation data by hand too, but you need to include more than the bare url.

• Parts of the article lack sources. For example, the entire "Cultural references" section is unsourced even though it includes material that is not common knowledge. A good rule of thumb is to give sources for every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonable be challenged, every direct quote, and every paragraph. Claims such as "The Monday after this episode aired, the word "Shipoopi" was the most searched word on the web" are extraordinary and must have come from a source (or possibly are not true). You need to cite a reliable source for claims like this.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead doesn't mention "Cultural references" or "Censorship".

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it seems to me to be free of errors, but I want to be sure before I nominate this as a featured list candidate. I am asking for a review on behalf of myself and User:Remember.

Thanks, Jrcla2 ^talk 01:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has recieved an incorect rating.

Thanks, Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 11:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just reviewed another article nominated by the same user, so I thought I'd see what the issues were here - many are the same. As I mentioned on the nominator's talk page, peer review is not really for assessment, but this seems about like a Start class article to me. I will also note that peer review is not for articles with major cleanup tags, (this has three such tags). Anyway here are some possibly familair suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest problem as I see it with the article is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole paragraphs without a single ref
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Still a problem - I got as far as the first section after the lead (P86/P89 rolling stock) and it has no refs (ZERO) that I can see. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:CITE references generally come directly AFTER punctuation (no space), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Better, but I see abbreviations like DLR that need to be introduced in the lead, so The Docklands Light Railway rolling stock consists of high-floor, bi-directional, single-articulated electrical multiple units used on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), which serves the London Docklands region of London. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Whole article needs to be copyedited - cleanup information dumps like P86/89 Cars dimensions: track gauge 1.44m 4.7ft, body length 28m 91.9ft, body over coupler 28.8m 94.5ft, width 2.65m 8.7ft, bogie centres 10m 32.8ft, rail to roof 3.4m 11.2ft, bogie wheelbase 2.1m 6.9ft, track min radius 40m 131.2ft. [2] (at least it has a ref though)
  • This example has been fixed - the article reads better but could still benefit from a copyedit, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The {{convert}} template may be useful
  • I added one in the lead as an example - I stopped when I found that one, you can check the rest yourself, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Still a problem - searched for "px" and found a bunch of thumb widths with pixels set - it needs to be just thumb or thumb and upright (no pixels set) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also please do not sandwich text between images
  • On my monitor the first paragraph of the "B07/09 rolling stock" section is sandwiched between two images (only one). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid use of words like current - use things like "as of 2009" instead
  • A search on current still finds six matches (current or currently) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at it again as requested and have replied above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from decltype

I mostly agree with Ruhrfisch, especially regarding the lede. I know nothing about trains. The first sentence of the lede gives me no idea about what the "Docklands Light Railway rolling stock" is. In fact, the bolded part is a link to a completely different article. Okay, I can deduce that DLR is a railway, but I still have no idea what a rolling stock is, and it is not explained nor linked. Also, the lede is supposed to summarize the article, not provide a lot of information not found elsewhere. Hope this helps. decltype (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:EdJogg

Having seen the above comments, I have had a go at generally improving the article. I have not touched references, so these may still be at fault, and I have not spent long on the prose, although there were few glaring issues. Currently the article is still rated at 'C'-class. It would be helpful if someone can rate its current classification. Thanks. EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like a second GA review on this article, and as it waits in the queue, I figure it would be a good opportunity for a peer review.

Thanks, Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're always short of reviewers and a bit pressed to keep up, would you mind withdrawing your request until after the GA process is over? At first glance, the article looks pretty good, and I'd be happy to review it then. Just give me a nudge when the time comes. Finetooth (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for about a year now, and I'd like to take it to FAC. It's bound to be rather rough around the edges, so all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 14 situation reports and 11 flash reports, ten sit. reps. and eleven flash for North Carolina and four sit. reps. for Virginia that you should incorporate into the article They're listed below

North Carolina

• Flash Report 1
• Flash Report 2
• Flash Report 3
• Flash Report 4
• Flash Report 5
• Flash Report 6
• Flash Report 7
• Flash Report 8
• Flash Report 9
• Flash Report 10
• Flash Report 11

• Situation Report 1
• Situation Report 2
• Situation Report 3
• Situation Report 4
• Situation Report 5
• Situation Report 6
• Situation Report 7
• Situation Report 8
• Situation Report 9
• Situation Report 10

Virginia

• Situation Report 1
• Situation Report 2
• Situation Report 3
• Situation Report 4

I'll comment on prose and other details later, still searching to see if there are more reports available. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll work on adding these in later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose

Lead

• Hurricane Bonnie was an extensively studied major hurricane that made landfall in North Carolina, United States, inflicting severe crop damage. - What's a major hurricane? How much was there in crop damage, how much in property?
• On August 22, Bonnie was upgraded to a hurricane with a well-defined eye. The storm peaked as a Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, and around the same time, the storm slowed and turned more towards the north-northwest. - This makes it seem that it reached Category 3 on August 22, which isn't true, it attained Cat:3 nearly two days later
• When added, put some of the relief funds and recovery efforts in the lead

Meteorological history

• On August 14, 1998, a tropical wave emerged off the west coast of Africa just north of Dakar... - What country is Dakar in?
• Deep convection slowly developed closer to the center,[4] and at 1200 UTC on August 20, the depression was upgraded into Tropical Storm Bonnie... - When was it upgraded to a depression? You seem to skip that key detail
• ...minimum central barometric pressure of 1001 mb. - add the conversion for the pressure in inHg
• ...which occurred with a substantial 15 mb drop in 8 hours - same as above

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll complete the review once information from the above links is added into the article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)n[reply]

Uninvolved and doubtlessly knowledge-less thoughts from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Per above, not sure what constitutes "major" hurricane...
• ... especially as you go on to say "... first hurricane, and first major hurricane..." without differentiating them to the non-expert.
• Do we need to link Africa? And it's a big place, could you be more specific about where the wave originated from?
• bulkhead and mooring appear to be dab links.
• "a hurricane with a well-defined eye" or "a hurricane, with a well-defined eye" - subtle difference, but do you get where I'm coming from?
• Peak wind in the lead says 104mph, infobox says 115mph.
• "Reports.. were reported." - reads poorly.
• "Africa just north of" - comma after Africa.
• General question - do the storm track images ever allow someone to work out where the start and finish points are?
• "Bonnie began to organize its broad circulation " - a bit too anthropomorphic for me. I know there are other examples of this, but this one seems the most extreme.
• "The next National Hurricane Center (NHC) advisory ..." - did I miss the first one?
• Would link anticyclone.
• "at 0000 on August 28" missing a UTC.
• You link Antigua etc but not the Virgin Islands in the same sentence. Be consistent.
• "North Carolina – Virginia " should this be a spaced en-dash or an unspaced en-dash?
• You'll need WP:ALT text for the images.
• "guardsmen" - I guess this is National Guard? Worth a link for us non-US, non-experts.
• If 2in is 51mm, shouldn't 10in be more than 250mm?
• "3,000 sq. ft." not converted and has a period after ft unlike all other uses of ft.
• 50 cm (20 in) - first time metric comes before imperial units.
• I would think "truck loads" needs a hyphen.
• Isn't 7in over 185mm, so should be rounded (if that's what's happening) to 190mm?
• "The storm displaced over 100 baby squirrels." - this is arguably my favourite sentence in the whole of Wikipedia.
• I'd prefer to see a leading zero in front of .2 in.
• The "tall cloud structure" image needs more explanation - presumably the red lines are indicative of height?
• MOS wants consistent date formats within references.
• Isn't USA Today a work, not a publisher?

Enough of my rambling, hope this is of use...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it's close to being a WP:GA but not there yet, and would like to know what else can be done to improve it. Thanks, Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

• Article length: the article seems very short compared with other sportsperson biographies that have reached GA or FA levels, but perhaps Bennett is simply not that notable? However, the article lacks even minimal personal infomation, and comes to a very sudden end. It does not have the feel of a fully comprehensive account, and I suggest you see what can be done to flesh it out.
  • I added a very brief post career section. Will look for more info to expand the article.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears to be written more for a sports magazine than a general encyclopedia. It contains words and expressions which are particular to football or baseball. While some of these are linked, the article should be reasonably self-contained, i.e. should be generally intelligible without reliance on links. Terms and phrases which I believe a general reader might stumble over include:-
  • "two-time"
    • Clarified.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rushing attempts"
    • Linked.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "named All–State"
    • There's no article on it, nor is there an easier way to clarify it. All-America could work but it's not really the same thing.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he batted .425 over four years."
    • Re-worded.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starting fullback"
    • Linked to starting lineup for "starting".--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had 32 rushes and 160 yards"
    • I don't see the sentence, must've fixed it before.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "work out"
    • Linked to NFL Scouting Combine#Pro Day.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "share carries"
    • Clarified.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "multiple running back injuries"
    • Clarified.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was waived on December 4, 2002"
    • Linked to Waivers (American football).--Giants27 (c|s) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was cut"
    • Linked to cut.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...recording 76 yards on four catches"
    • Linked.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that you add elaborate explanations for all these terms, but some thoughtful rewording would be helpful. For example, "he batted .425 over four years" could read "his batting average was .425 over four years"; "share carries" coiuld be "work in tandem" and the like.

• The general standard of writing isn't good, and could do with much polishing. Avoid abbreviations like "couldn't" unless it's in a quotation: avoid using "while" as a connector within sentences unless the second part opposes the other (e.g. in "In football he played wide receiver and was named All–State while in baseball..." the "while" should read "and"); avoid casual phrasing such as "like he did at". Some sentences are ungrammatical, for example "After suffering multiple running back injuries, the Giants became interested in re-signing Bennett..." reads as though the Giants had suffered multiple injuries. I won't go on, except to reiterate that the prose – and punctuation – need a lot of attention.
  • Fixed the mentioned examples. I'm very curious about the other errors, since I'm awful at recognizing punctuation errors.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like me to look again after you have addressed some or all of the above, please contact me on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to fixing these in the coming days or so. Thanks for the review expect a message when I'm done. Cheers,--Giants27 (c|s) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

• The article is better, but some problems remain. The biggest, which I don't see you can do much about, is that Bennett seems utterly unmemorable. The article reads like an account of a career that was pretty much a failure, and which ended prematurely.
  • I always seem to pick articles on people that have little to no online coverage.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not all the points I raised in the earlier review have been fixed; I have altered "couldn't", and made a few minor tweaks, but "rushing" or "rushes" still needs explaining – isn't there a football-related link that would be helpful here? The statement that he "had 160 yards" is completely meaningless to those who don't know how American football works, and must be explained.
  • Done.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there no dates (or at least, years) that can be given in his college career, to enable us to maintain an idea of the chronology?
• "On April 1, 2003, the New York Jets signed Bennett.[8] He was released on August 23, 2003.[9]" Don't either of these sources indicate some reason for this rapid release? It says in the lead (but not here) that he was released before the season began. Was it injury, or what?
  • Not rapid at all, quite usual actually. Mainly because he's been at training camp a few weeks and they clearly didn't like what they saw in practice and released him.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As there is evidently so little information I suggest the article have a simpler structure. "Early years" and "College career" should be combined, perhaps as "Early career". The pre-draft anecdote could be tagged on to the 1999-2003 paragraph, and the brief reference to his post-playing career absorbed into the 2004-06 section (which, since you say he didn't retire from football until 2007, should perhaps become "2006-07".
  • Done.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all I can come up with. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I’m hoping to get the article to GA or even FA status for 30 November 2009, the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Bold edits and commentaries are welcomed! And a good old copy-editing is also much needed.

Thanks, Peltimikko (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating, seems comprehensive, and is well-illustrated. It certainly has potential for GA and eventually FA. Although the prose is mostly fine, it stumbles in places, and it will need to be polished here and there. I fixed a few things, but it would be good if a copyeditor took another crack at it. Here are some other suggestions for improvement.

Proofreading

• Odd errors, perhaps second-language errors, occur here and there as well as ungrammatical constructions like this from the very last paragraph of the main text: "There has been also speculations did the Soviets really tried to occupate all Finland, or just strategic areas near Leningrad?" I fixed a few things like this as I went, but the whole article would be improved by a line-by-line proofing.

Lead

• "The Winter War (Finnish: talvisota, Russian: Зимняя война[14][15]," - Citations should come after the punctuation, not before, thus: "The Winter War (Finnish: talvisota, Russian: Зимняя война,[14][15]". I see others like this elsewhere in the article.
• "Because the attack was deemed illegal, the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on 14 December." - Generally, it's a good idea to either merge one-sentence orphan paragraphs like this with another paragraph or to expand them. In this case, I'd suggest merging with the one above the orphan. I see half-a-dozen orphans elsewhere in the article that probably should be expanded or merged.

War preparations

• "On October 5, the Soviet Union invited Finland... " - Dates like October 5 are not normally linked. They should be unlinked throughout the article.
• "moved westward to a point only 30 kilometers east of Viipuri and that the Finns destroy... " - Metric measurements should also be expressed in imperial units; i.e., 30 kilometres (19 mi). The {{convert}} template is a handy way to do these. I did several of these as I went, but there are more that need conversions.

Soviet order of battle

• "The Soviet forces were positioned as follows:" - Rather than making lists, it's often better to use straight prose. That would be easy to do with this list. The Seventh and Eighth could be one paragraph, and the Ninth and Fourteenth another if you'd rather not have just one giant paragraph.

Finnish order of battle

• "The Finnish forces were positioned as follows:" - I'd suggest turning this short list into straight prose.

First battles on the Karelian Isthmus

• "located on the Karelian Isthmus about 20-60 miles distant" - This range needs to be expressed in kilometres also, and, for internal consistency, the metric units should come first; i.e., x to y kilometres (20 to 60 mi). The convention is to spell out the primary units and abbreviate the secondary units.
• "After a forty hour barrage, the Red infantry attacked, but was repulsed with heavy casualties from the open ground." - Generally, numbers from one to nine are spelled out, and bigger numbers are expressed as digits. Thus "40-hour barrage" would be better.
• "but left 1,000 dead and twenty-seven tanks strewn on the ice" - This should be "but left 1,000 dead and 27 tanks strewn on the ice". Ditto for other numbers from 10 up in the article.

Weather conditions

• "The winter of 1939-1940 was exceptionally cold." - Date ranges like this take an en dash rather than a hyphen; thus: 1939–1940.
• "negative 43 Celsius degrees on 16 January 1940" - Temperatures need to be expressed in Fahrenheit as well as Celsius, thus: "−43 °C (−45 °F)". The {{convert}} template is good for doing these. You can see in edit mode how I did this one. The |0 at the end is the rounding number; 0 produces the nearest whole number; 1 would round to the nearest tenth, and so on.

Defense of the Mannerheim Line

• "The Finns had built 41 reinforced concrete bunkers in the Summa area, making the defensive line in this area was stronger than anywhere else on the Karelian Isthmus." - Delete "was"?

"Soviet all-out offensive on the Karelian Isthmus

• "Finnish artillery emplacements were under order to fire only against directly threatening ground." - Ground attacks, maybe?

Last days of war

• "at 11:00 a.m. Helsinki time" - Constructions like this one need to be held together with an nbsp code to prevent 11 and a.m. from being separated on computer screens by line break, thus: 11 a.m. WP:NBSP has details. Any digits and units that you do not want to be separated can be held together with an nbsp.

Small Finnish Air Force

• "In spite of losses the number of planes in the Finnish Air Force climbed to over 50 percent by the end of the war." - "Climbed by" rather than "climbed to over"?

Coastal artillery

• A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that might reasonably be questioned, every direct quote, every set of statistics and also for every paragraph. Two of the three paragraphs in this section are unsourced even though they include information that is not common knowledge. Ditto for any other unsourced paragraphs in the article.

Peace of Moscow

• "over 10% of pre-war Finland" - Generally, "percent" is preferable to % in simple cases like this. I'd suggest going through the article and changing all instances of "%" to "percent".

References

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
• In something like Kilin & Raunio, the word "and" is preferred to the ampersand unless the ampersand is part of an official title or company name.

Images

• Captions that are merely sentence fragments do not take terminal periods.
• Images should not overlap sections. You might have to make some of the images smaller, or perhaps you can move them so that each stays within a single section. Or you might reduce the total number of images.
• To become FA, the article's images will need alt text for readers who are vision-impaired. WP:ALT explains how to do these. They are not especially easy to do, but they become easier with practice.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed. Most issues improved per your comments. Peltimikko (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
An article about the first ever World Cup. A current GA, I've been expanding it with the eventual aim of taking it to FAC at some point in the future. I'm not in a particular hurry though, since my goal is to reach FA before the 2010 World Cup kicks off in June... Oldelpaso (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jameboy

I noticed a mixture of date formats (e.g. July 30 but 3 August). Not sure what the correct format should be (probably dmy), but in any case it should be consistent. --Jameboy (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and very good, and I think that with more work you should be able to get it to FA. I've done a pretty close line-by-line reading, and I've made quite a few specific suggestions. Most should give you little trouble, while a few are a bit more problematic.

Lead

• "FIFA chose Uruguay as hosts" - Two things. Should FIFA be spelled out on first use, thus: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)? Also, should "hosts" be "host" since Uruguay is singular? Or does Uruguay mean the team, which I guess is plural? Is the country the host, or is the team the host?
• "played in the Uruguayan capital Montevideo," - Add a comma in front of "Montevideo"?
• "Thirteen teams entered the tournament; nine from the Americas and four from Europe." - Suggestion: "Thirteen teams, nine from the Americas and four from Europe, entered the tournament."
• "The first goal in World Cup history was scored by Lucien Laurent of France." - Flip to active voice? "Lucien Laurent of France scored the first goal in World Cup history."
• "a crowd of 93,000 people" - I generally add an nbsp code to something like 93,000 people to keep the digits and units from becoming separated on computer screens by line-break. WP:NBSP has details. Just where to use them is partly a matter of judgment.

Origins

• "1920–1928 (in the 1908 Olympic Games and the 1912 Olympic Games the football competitions had been organised by the Football Association and the Swedish Football Association respectively)." - Since the material inside the parentheses forms a complete sentence in its own right, I'm inclined to add a terminal period after 1928 and then start the next sentence with a capital I; i.e, (In the 1908 Olympic Games and the 1912 Olympic Games the football competitions had been organised by the Football Association and the Swedish Football Association respectively).
• "The 1932 Summer Olympics, held in Los Angeles, did not plan... " Should this say the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not plan... "? The Olympics (games) can't plan. Adding the full name here would make the IOC abbreviation clear in the next sentence.
• "so football was dropped from the Games" - Lowercase "games"?
• "announced plans to stage a tournament independent of the Olympics, open to all FIFA members." - Suggestion: "announced plans to stage a tournament independent of the Olympics and open to all FIFA members."
• "A vote was taken, and the proposal was carried by twenty-five votes to five." - Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "The membership voted 25–5 to accept the proposal."
• "Uruguay also offered to refund the expenses of all participants." - I take it that here "Uruguay" means the country rather than the team. It might be useful to make the distinction clear in places where the two might be confused.

Participants

• "invitation to the Football Association" - It would be good to add the abbreviation here on first use, thus: Football Association (FA).
• "FIFA president Jules Rimet intervened" - Probably you could just use "Rimet", unlinked, since you fully identify and link him in the previous section.
• "This is the same vessel which took Jules Rimet, the trophy itself and... " - Three things. Plain "Rimet" is all that is needed. "Carried" might be better than "took". "Itself" could be deleted without harm.
• "It is at Rio that Balway was said to have learnt that his wife had died in France." - "Learned" rather than "learnt".

Summary

• "The thirteen teams were drawn into four groups, with all the games being played in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo." - "With" is often a weak conjunction. Suggestion: "The thirteen teams were drawn into four groups, and all the games were played in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo."
• "opening two matches of the tournament were the first ever World Cup games" - Delete "ever"? Or "first-ever"? Or "first World Cup games ever played"?
• "was the scorer of the first ever World Cup goal" - Delete "ever"?
• "Laurent later said: "We were playing Mexico... " - The quote should not be italicised. Since it is at least four lines long, it would be better set off as a blockquote without quotation marks. MOS:QUOTE has details.

Group 1

• "had to leave the field after twenty minutes" - For consistency, it would be good to use digits for numbers from 10 up; i.e, "had to leave the field after 20 minutes" with an nbsp.
• "and Laurent spent most of the match limping after a fierce tackle by Luis Monti." - Suggestion: "and Laurent, after a fierce tackle by Luis Monti, spent most of the match limping."
• "A total of five penalties were awarded during the match which was refereed by the Bolivian coach Ulises Saucedo, three of them controversial." - Suggestion: "A total of five penalties, three of them controversial, were awarded during the match, which was refereed by the Bolivian coach Ulises Saucedo."
• "The game which was marred by a brawl sparked by a foul on Arturo Torres by Monti." - Delete "which" to make this a complete sentence?

Group 2

• "Both matches their matches followed a similar pattern, a promising start gradually transforming into heavy defeat." - Delete "their matches"?
• "Against Brazil, where both teams had only pride to play for" - "When" rather than "where"?
• "side finally changed into an alternate kit." - Wikilink kit?

Group 3

• "when Plácido Galindo of Peru was dismissed against Romania" - Should "dismissed" be explained? Would "ejected" be more clear?
• "100 years to the day of the creation" - Sentences in Wikipedia articles generally avoid starting with digits. "One hundred years to the day... " would be better.

Group 4

• "which contained a significant number of new caps" - "New caps" needs to be explained for readers unfamiliar with the sport. It doesn't mean "hats".
• "Their first opponents, Belgium, were beaten 3–0." - Flip to active voice?
• "bemoaned the state of the pitch" - Wikilink pitch?
• "however, in 2006 FIFA announced that Bert Patenaude's claim to being the first hat-trick scorer" - "Patenaude's" on second reference, unlinked.
• "Paraguay beat Belgium by a narrow 1–0 margin." - Delete "narrow"?

Semi-finals

• The first paragraph lacks a source even though it contains information that is not common knowledge.
• "The American management made their anger felt to Jean Langenus but without appeal." - Why were they angry? Also, would it be good to make clear here that Jean Langenus was the referee?
• "a controversial offside decision" - Wikilink offside ?

Final

• "The final was played at the Estadio Centenario on July 30. Feelings ran high around the La Plata basin, dispelling any uncertainty as to whether the tournament had captured the imagination of the public. The ten chartered boats earmarked to carry Argentine fans from Buenos Aires to Montevideo proved woefully insufficient." - Not to put too fine a point on it, but the language in this passage makes me want to check it against the source. I can't do that because I don't have the Glanville book, but you might check to make sure the encyclopedia language doesn't too closely resemble the source language.
• Wikilink La Plata Basin?
• "many did not even make landfall before kick-off" - Wikilink kick-off?
• "at noon the ground was full" - Wikilink ground?
• "Carlos Peucelle latched onto a Ferreira through-ball, beat his marker and equalised." - Too much jargon for readers unfamiliar with the sport. "Through-ball", "marker", and "equalised" all need to be linked or explained. "Latched onto" is slang; "intercepted" perhaps?
• "Jules Rimet presented the World Cup Trophy" - Rimet.
• "Yugoslavia and the United States all undertook friendlies in South America" - Wikilink or explain "friendlies"?

Venues

• "it was the primary stadium for the tournament, referred to by Jules Rimet as a "temple of football"." - Rimet.

Notes"

• The date formatting needs to be either yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y consistently in the citations, not a mixture of the two.
• The abbreviation for a single page is "p" and the abbreviation for multiple pages is "pp". They are not interchangeable.
• It might help to simplify a bit by combining some of the references to book pages that are close together. The references to Freddi, for example, might be to Freddi, pp. 5–13. That would reduce the Freddi refs to a single ref with several superscripts generated by the ref = name device.

Images

• The images should all have alt text, and the alt text should precede the caption and should be preceded by the alt= parameter. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a wonderfully detailed review. I have implemented the vast majority of the suggestions. A couple of explanations:

• On the "suspicious" text (no offence taken), the first part is very different - a common theme between Glanville, Freddi and Goldblatt, made at relative length. is that the reaction of the public was a vindication of the decision to create the tournament and host it in Uruguay. That sentence is an attempt to sum up the tone the authors on the subject in one gulp. The second sentence is perhaps a little closer than ideal to the source - "ten", "boats", "chartered" "Buenos Aires", "Montevideo" and "insufficient" are all present in both. But then numbers and place names cannot be paraphrased or reworded, and I suspect a quote would be fragmentary.
• "Ejected" is pretty much never used in football vernacular, I've inserted a wikilink which ought to help.
• I think the Games in Olympic Games is always used in the manner of a proper noun, but I may well be wrong. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for a few months, and would like to get it up to GA. Thanks, Giants27 (c|s) 16:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim comments

Not close to GA status yet, I'm afraid.

• If a paragraph relies on one reference, there's no need for a footnote after every sentence. I've done an example edit for this, but it needs fixing throughout.
• Many, many one-sentence paragraphs and equally stubby sections.
  • Don't split the college career section. It can be written as one paragraph, but make sure that there is context and flow. Was he at college in 1995 to? When merging, tweak the wording, to something like "In 1996, Jackson moved to WSU ..."
  • You can do something similar for the NFL section. The section describes how Jackson didn't do all that much in the NFL so that's your paragraph topic.
  • Merge the second NFL section into the AFL one. A mention that he signed with <team> on <date> but failed to make the team in the applicable season paragraph.
• Please review the JS suggestions:
  • There's a contraction, didn't.
  • Numbers and their respective units need a non-breaking space between them ( ); again, I've done an example edit for this.
• Prose needs substantial cleanup.
  • "Jackson played basketball and in track and field as a long jumper and a triple jum, but didn't play football." --> "Jackson played basketball and competed in the long and triple jump portions of track and field; however, he did not play football."
  • "Jackson attended Washington State University in 1996 and 1997 where he was a letterman in football where he was a favorite target of college teammate Ryan Leaf." You have two "where"s. I don't really understand the last part about him being a target, so I guess it should be a separate sentence which explains the thought.
  • I haven't combed much through the prose of the AFL section. It's very stat-laden, and it seems that a part of the section should be cut and that information put into a stats table.
    • The snippet "His offensive explosion set a franchise record for most individual points in a game with 42.[1] Continuing his stellar season ..." caught my eye, that's somewhat sensationalist in tone for an encyclopedia.
• Doesn't look throughly researched—there are only five distinct references.
  • Btw, Ref 4 lacks a publisher.
• Have you searched for an image? Maybe there's something on Flickr or another existing image (maybe a team image or one in a game) may have Jackson in it and you could crop it out.
• Regarding the title, perhaps moving the article to "Chris Jackson (football)" would be more logical since he has played in three different codes of football?
  • See WP:NCSP#Gridiron football for the reasoning behind the title.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim_(talk) 01:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review, I'll look through your suggestions in the coming days and make the appropiate fixes. Figured it would be pretty rough which is why I requested the peer review.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article was reviewed just once since its creation, and was given a B-Class quality scale rating back in February 2007.[here.] The article has undergone a big change since then, including many improvements. I would love any guidance to improve this rating to a GA-Class or even an A-Class.

I do realise there needs referencing and general work for the "Satellite radio" and "Regular guests" sections of the article.

Thanks, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, though I think it would be more interesting if trimmed in places. Somehow the essence of the show gets lost in the details of what happened in what particular time frame. I'd be inclined to think about expanding the "Overview" section to include a description of the essential nature of the show and how it evolved over time. Then I might eliminate some of the detail in each of the chronological sections. For example, we are told in the 1979–80 section that "Although radio consultant Dwight Douglas advised against the offer, Wally Clark, general manager of "W-4", flew into Hartford to confirm the deal." Is this level of detail important? In the next section, 1981–82, we are told that "Because Stern was not allowed to say goodbye on the air, he presented a "farewell show" two weeks later on rival Washington station WAVA without Quivers." Is this detail important to a reader's understanding of the subject? What I'm saying is that the article as it stands includes unnecessary detail that slows the reader down and masks the more essential details. In the 1982–85 section, we read "The show's last broadcast on WNBC was on September 27, 1985, with the show being cancelled the following Monday on September 30. This followed a "Bestiality Dial-a-Date" segment on September 20, although relations between management and the show had been strained from the beginning. As per his contract, WNBC still had to pay Stern for the following two and a half years. Norris and Dell'Abate however, continued to stay for a short while, even hosting their own show, until they were brought along to WXRK in November." I believe this could reasonably be compressed to ""After a "Bestiality Dial-a-Date segment further strained a tense relationship between Stern and WNBC management, the show was cancelled. The final broadcast occurred on September 27, 1985." I'd look for ways to compress and trim throughout the article.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead doesn't mention the topics covered in many of the sections, and it includes material, such as the television show, that is not mentioned in the main text. I'd be inclined to re-write the lead to make it into a true summary mentioning the highlights of the whole article. I'd suggest doing all the compressing and re-organizing first, however. Even thought the lead comes first in the article, it's hard to get it right until the article is in something close to final form.

• In the "Overview" section, rather than limiting this to a single quote from a book, I think I would attempt a paraphrase and add further information to it, citing sources. To do this, I'd assume an audience of people who had never heard of the show and knew nothing about it. Somewhere in this overview, I'd want to include "shock jock" and "satire" and something about controversy and the FCC and the show's continuing popularity. If, on the other hand, you stick with the quote, it should be a blockquote without quotation marks or fancy quotes. See MOS:QUOTE for details. In addition, quotes like this should not have any of their parts wikilinked since the original material had no links.

• Many of the section heads and subheads seem too long to me. An example would be "1985–1988: Move to mornings, Philadelphia and Washington". Why not "1985–1988: Philadelphia and Washington"?

• Rather than using all-caps for SIRIUS, I'd suggest Sirius. Ditto for iN DEMAND, which appears in the lead. Ditto for things like "STERN PRODUCER FLOURISHES BY THE SKIN OF HIS TEETH". Title case is preferable even if the source uses all caps. The preferred form would be "Stern Producer Flourishes by the Skin of His Teeth".

• Bolding in the lead should probably be limited to the repetition of the article title in the first sentence. "Howard Stern on Demand" and "Howard TV" would then appear in italics but not bold letters.

• "and was on the air from 6:00 am to 10:00 am" - Time references like this are more succinctly expressed without the "00"; i.e, "6 am to 10 am. and should be held together by an nbsp code to prevent them from being separated by line wrap on computer screens. WP:NBSP has details.

• "After a year at WCCC, Stern decided to leave as he could not get a $25 raise that he asked for." - In the places in the article where you discuss salary, it would be helpful to specify salary per unit of time. Does the quoted sentence mean $25 a day, $25 a week, $25 a month?

• "The October–November 1980 ratings book showed that Stern, with his 1.6 share, trailed behind his competitors WRIF and WVMV with their 4.7 and 4.6 respectively." - I think it would be very helpful to include a brief explanation of how the ratings work and what the word "share" means in this context. Also, what do the numbers mean? What is the scale?

• "On September 4, 1984 Dell'Abate... " - Throughout the article are quite a few full dates that lack a comma after the year. It really should be "On September 4, 1984, Dell'Abate... ".

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and comments! Very helpful indeed. :)92.0.61.251 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i feel that is a good representation of the bands work and is well referenced and written. i still have a music video director to find i know, but please could anyone suggest improvements that could be made to the article before i take it to FLC.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:While this is a decent start, I have some concerns that this is even eligible for FLC. Regardless of that, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Number one concern is that this list os too short and thus does not meet the Featured List criteria, specifically criterion 3b: (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. (empahsis mine). This group has released one album with another on the way (plus five or six singles and their associated videos, see more on that below). I think the content is too slight and that all of this material could just as aeasily be included in the main article on The Saturdays. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria

with regard to it being too short, the recently promoted Duffy discography only includes 1 album and 5 singles and videos. although it does also include a small handful of other appearances as well, i'm sure i could find some of those for the saturdays. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several discographies that are FLs all given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies - the criteria for FLC have changed in the past year and there may be older FLs that do not have as many albums, but my guess is a discography article needs about 10 albums before it can be a FL.

as i said above, plus there are many more FL discographies which have only a handful of releases. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contradicts itself in multiple places - the lead says The discography of The Saturdays, a British pop group, consists of one studio album, five singles, and five music videos. The infobox lists two albums and six each of singles and videos. The article itself lists one album and six singles / videos. I know part of the problem is that an album is scheduled to be released in October, but the article needs to be consistent. I also think WP:CRYSTAL BALL would argue in favor of reporting that an album is planned for later this year, but I would not count it in the totals yet (as it has not been released).

i hadn't even noticed that, so thanks! Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The single "Issues" was released in 2009 according this list and its own article. The video was apparently filmed in late 2008, but was it really released before the single (the article lists it as 2008)? This seems like another contradiction (aren't videos released when singles are, to promote the song?).

the music video for Issues was released to UK music channels in december 2008 to raise awareness of the song, and the single was released in the first week of january 2009. so video 2008 and single 2009 is correct. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also looked at the article cited for Issues in the video - here. It says that Issues will be released on January 5, 2009. It does not name the video's director (which is what the ref follows).

oops! i didnt add that and forget to check it, my bad. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except for the different date noted in the last two points, the table for videos just repeats the names of the singles with a director's name added - could there just be a column added to the singles chart for video director and these lists could be combined?

thats what the music videos table for every single discography is.... Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example UK Singles Chart is linked twice in just the lead.

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose could use a copyedit - for example They released their fifth single "Work", on June 29, 2009 and [it] peaked at number twenty-two [on the] UK Singles Chart.[2] Try printing the article out and reading it out loud slowly (preferably after a week of not editing it).

something else i missed! thanks Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I highly doubt this list would get very far at FLC. Namely, the list is very small, and in all likelihood would be better suited as a section of the group's main page, rather than on it's own page. A similar thing happened a while back with the FLC of the Young Divas discography. So my only suggestion would be to merge the content back into the group's main page. All of the lead would be redundant, so really it would just be a matter of copy+pasting the tables over. Drewcifer (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as i stated above, the Duffy discography is of a similar size and passed not too long ago. So if that is long enough then why isn't this? makes no sense to me. why wasn't that merged? Mister sparky (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same. Duffy's discog has 25 separate list items, this one has 15. There is also a unwritten rule-of-thumb that most lists should be at least 10 list items to warrant a separate page. Though this list exceeds that, I have always argued that music videos are merely extensions of singles, so I wouldn't count them towards a total. Which brings this list's total down to 9. Like I said, it's an unwritten rule, and there are exceptions to these things, but I'm just trying to warn you of the type of comments that await you at FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't mean it to be in an argumentative way btw, was just questioning :) i don't see the point with merging it back into the band article as the next album is due out next month and another couple of singles are scheduled for release in the coming few months so was going to wait till then till it went to flc anyways. was just after any other improvements that could be made. Mister sparky (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make sense to wait for the second album to be released next month? That way there would be no problems with eligibility and the article would be longer. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats exactly what i just said above your comment... :p Mister sparky (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think waiting for more releases is definitely the way to go. Though I'm not sure one album (and maybe 2 or 3 singles?) would do the trick either, but it would be a step in the right direction. Drewcifer (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to allow for the greater representation of conservation- and cultural heritage-related lists.

Thanks, Joey80 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Flagicons shouldn't be used per WP:MOSICON
• Every field should be filled, even if its repeating because if the sorting feature is used in the table, rows that were once next to each other, no longer are.
• Date ranges should have an En dash between them, instead of hyphens, per WP:MOSDASH
• Each entry in the "Remarks" column should begin with a capital letter.
• The "Notes" section should have a 2nd level heading (== ==) and be above the "References" section.
• No blank lines between each of the individual notes
• There isn't a column indicating the reasons for listing

I noted that the 2008 list was also up for peer review. Most of the comments provided there were copied to here, and are relevant here, as well. If you find these comments useful consider reviewing an article listed in the backlog (which is how I found this article). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for the comments. Joey80 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while it's a new list I believe it has the potential to attain featured status. I know there are a few items missing sources yet but other than that I'd appreciate feedback with FL status in mind.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is definitely replaceable. Consider writing to one of the organizations that was involved - the Maine gay rights group often puts videos up on YouTube, I'm sure they could provide a pic of them working against a repeal. I'm also not sure domestic partnerships fall under LGBT anti-discrimination laws, those should be available to people regardless of whether they are single or not. Hekerui (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title does need to be adjusted to make clear that the article is only dealing with the US. Otumba (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Fascinating stuff. I have a few, mainly low-key issues.

• Say where Ann Arbor is, for the benefit of non-Americans
• "them" at end of second sentence is undefined. Suggest reorganize the sentence: "In response, opponents began organizing campaigns to place measures on their local ballots to repeal these anti-discrimination laws."
• In the lead the first repeal activity mentioned is that relating to the Miami-Dade ordinance. In the table, this is preceded by Boulder, Colorado, three years earlier. Shouldn't the earlier repeal be mentioned in the lead as the first of such?
• The "Oregon measure" needs to be clearly identified in the lead as "Measure 9", which is how it is referred to later.
• "proactively prohibit"? Not sure about the adverb usage here. The amendments sought to prohibit, not to "proactively" prohibit (whatever that means).
• "Oregon and two other states, Idaho and Maine, had initiatives..." Wouldn't "faced initiatives" be better than "had initiatives"?
• "...several municipalities within Oregon passed local measures." Unless I am misreading the table, about 27 localities passed repeal legislation. That is not within the definition of "several".
• "These amendments are listed here." That's a bit vague. Specify which table you mean.
• Ambiguous: "These ordinances also became targets of repeal efforts, with opponents having much less success." Opponents of the ordinances, or opponents of the repeal efforts?
• In the first table, some of the "outcomes" notes are a bit confusing. For example, "Defeated with 63% of the vote" presumably means "Defeated with 63% of the vote against repeal". There are other similar entries which need clarification.
• In the Oregon table, vote outcomes are given in a few cases, but mainly not. Any reason?
• Third table: again votes are indicated in one case but not the others.
• Last entry: It would be interesting to know what rights these couples will lose if repeal succeeds, as well as the ones they will retain.
• References: access dates:-
  • What are the access dates for refs 6 and 11?
  • A consistent format for access dates shold be used. See ref 21

I can't comment on the completeness/accuracy of these details, but it looks a sound piece of work. On the question of title, I suppose "US" ought to be fitted in somewhere, but the title is already one of the longest in the encyclopedia, so take care. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. Seems to be cosmetic/stylistic fixes for the most part, but to address the larger points:

• I don't talk about Boulder in the lead because, while it was first, it didn't seem to get much national play. It was a local story and treated as a local story. Whereas Anita and her hit squads were an enormous national if not international story, so leading with them seems the better choice.
• Vote outcomes in the Oregon table and elsewhere are included based on whether the sources I could find included them. If they did I put them in. If not I simply said passed or passed by whatever general margin (2-1, 5-1, whatever) was mentioned. For some of those Oregon ones, the only confirmation I could find was an overview story that included verbiage like "to date voters in Foo, Boo, Moo, Noo, Roo and Yoo have all approved ordinances". Strangely, in many cases there would be several sources in the days leading up to the election along the lines of "voters will face contentious issues in Tuesday's election" but then no source from immediately after the election with results would surface. I have a source (appendix for a research paper) that lists percentages for all of the votes but I am unable to confirm that the source meets WP:RS. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we want to improve this important article, which was a former FA.

Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 07:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Move the coat of arms somewhere else or remove. (at least out of history)
• I don't like the malgaadi img; also there are two road imgs.
• religion box is too wide.

Hometech (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim comments Nowhere near FA, and approaching but not yet near GA standards. I'll give some pointers nonetheless:

• Look over the FAR -- copyediting and citations are still issues
• While Goa isn't a country in its own right, I will suggest an article like United States as a good example to follow.
• The TOC is much too big (relates to FA criterion 2b). Make the subdivisions and flora/fauna section subsections of the Geography section; Transport & Tourism into Economy; Languages, Education --> Demographics; Sports, Media --> Culture.
• Needs copyeditng for flow (get rid of choppy sentences, get connection between them so they flow, as well as connection between paragraphs; see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for a guide to doing this).
  • The Architecture section contains a maintenance template related to tone.
  • Random example: "During March 2008 Goa was lashed with heavy rain and strong winds. This was the first time in 29 years that Goa had seen rain during March." --> "Goa experienced a heavy rainstorm in March 2008, which was the first time in 29 years that Goa had seen rain during the month of March."
• There are serious citations issues: many sections are uncited, or have one or two references and there are some [citation needed] tags. An excellent rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref (taken from Ruhrfisch).

Hope this helps, Maxim_(talk) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to put this article ultimately for FA review. I would appreciated some feedback on copy editing, image licencing and referencing. I would also appreciate feed back on the overall article...whether it is easy to understand and makes some sense. Thanks, Anish (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's review

The review will be not be in-depth, but will cover overview comments. I will read the entire article after I get more time to do so.

• References:
  • I saw <ref name=herman27>Kuhn, Hermann (2001) p. 27</ref> written multiple times, the first occurrence should be as above. later ones can be simply <ref name=herman27/>.
  • Use "p. 10" for single page, "pp. 10-15 "for multiple pages.
  • "Dr. Bhattacharya, H. S." should be "Bhattacharya, Dr. H. S." (surname title first name)
  • ref 75-76 lack pp.
• WP:OVERLINK: terms like modern science, atoms, physics, molecules need not be linked as most people know what they are, also they are not much relevant to the religion article.
• Images: Can authentic Jain images be introduced?
  • Image in section "Reincarnation and transmigration" and "Maturity" show Hindus (not jains) with tilaks, the linga and the sadhu.
  • IMO, image in Causes of attraction and bondage, is a mismatch, not encyclopaedic and has a cartoony feel. Buddha is often shown surrounded by all the moha-maya, is Mahavira/jain saint also pictured the same way. Search for images like that
  • IMO, image in Release from karmas has too much black in the left bottom corner, what is it?

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images will always be an issue in Jainism as there are very few free images available.
• In section "Reincarnation and transmigration" and "Maturity" I have used images from Himalayan Academy as no such images exuist for Jainism. Since It depicts a concept that is similar in jainism, I have used it. Hope there should not be a problem here.
• The image in Causes of attraction and bondage was created by me with free cliparts as that was the only solution that I could see. What do you suggest, SHould it be removed or what?
• The black at the bottom is the karmic dust leaving the soul.

--Anish (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest removal of "Causes of attraction and bondage" image. Now you have explained I can see the dust, the interpretation of the "Release from karmas" image is not so explicit and would be difficult to grasp to a complete outsider.
• The Himalayan Academy images are OK as the concept is same, but Jain images would be appreciated. I would suggest search for Jain images, if possible. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what can be done about images.--Anish (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to the Jains, all souls are.." " the Jain texts " why is there a "the" before Jains?
• Check for WP:OVERLINK: 1 example: repeated linking of Jainism "In Jainism, karma is referred to as karmic dirt," besides repeat, things like "cosmos" need not be linked, as already [[Jain cosmology" is linked.
• "Morality and ethics are important in Jainism not because of a god", should it not be: "because of God"
• I see some spellings in IAST and some in normal English, I suggest common spelling like Krishna need not in IAST as " Kṛṣṇa", few will recognize Kṛṣṇa is Krishna.
• Wikipedia discourages honorific like lord: lord Māhavīra -> should be Mahavira (IAST removed). Add a short description of who Mahavira is like "founder of Jainism"

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage or non usage of “a” or “the” is on account of my grammatical limitation. Please do correct any such errors that you see. Same is the case in use of capital or lower case letters. Please assist in this.

Use of IAST and Diacritics. I feel we should use proper spellings as these are the standards used by scholars. If persons don’t understand Kṛṣṇa is Krishna, we call always wikilink it. The problem is Mahavira without diacritics is half baked spelling. Either it should be Mahaveer or Māhavīra. --Anish (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many people in the world are going to understand Kṛṣṇa is Krishna, see related discussion about use of IAST (Mahābhārata) against the common Mahabharata at Talk:Mahabharata#Move_back.

Common English spellings like Shiva, Ganesha are used in the title and as much as throughout the articles, not the IAST Śiva or Ganeśa, which though academic, are known to small group of scholars and readers of books written by scholars. The majority of common Indians will not recognize Śiva, they will recognize Shiva as newspapers, magazines use the common English spelling. It is a waste of time for a Hindu reader if a reader clicks on Kṛṣṇa, and finds Kṛṣṇa is Krishna. I suggest that common Anglicized spellings. Anyway if you disagree, it is OK, not a major FA issue, though a readability issue for non-IAST readers. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use the more common spelling in parenthesis after the fist usage, so "Kṛṣṇa (Krishna)" similar to what is done with abbreviations? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, or maybe vice versa: "Krishna (Kṛṣṇa)"?? More suggestions next week. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a brilliant idea. It fact all the difficult prakrit/ sanskrit words should have a meaning in brackets.--Anish (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do agree that the name of the article should be common English rather than IAST.--Anish (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: Images File:Destruction of Karmas1.jpg as well as File:Soul Attracting Karma.jpg seem to be collages, correct me if wrong. In the summary of the the image, write the source of each clipart/pic to avoid any doubts about copyright infringement. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you are right.....I have used cliparts available with Microsoft PPT to create this colage and used the PPT programme to add coloring and dots for dust. If you feel that these images will not pas muster or do not value we can delete these images from these articles. As it is you have done a good job on adding other images (Gold et all). I await your reply.--Anish (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be several paragraphs, not just one long one as it currently is. I usually write (or at least tweak) the lead last, after reading the whole article again.

I agree. I think once this article improves a bit more we will relook lead.

• This needs a ref Over the centuries, Jain monks have developed a large and sophisticated corpus of literature describing the various aspects of working of the karmas, the nature of the soul and the ways and means of attaining salvation. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

Agreed. I will look for references or reword it.

 Done

• The "Atomic theory" section does not mention the words atom or atomic or theory.

Maybe we can rename it as material theory. What do you suggest?

• One issue I found was that karma is usually lowercase, but is capitalized in at least a few places (such as Jains cite inequalities, sufferings, and pain as evidence for the existence of Karma. in the lead) This should be conistent (I assume lowercase)

You are right. Will lowercase it.  Done

• There are also what seem to be disagreements between karma (and karmic dirt) being treated as a singular or plural noun

Need to check what scholars treat it.

I have checked what scholars like Jaini and Dundas do. Karma is singular when it is referred to as a theory or concept or law. It is plural when it is discussed as material atoms or as different types of karmas. Done Made changes as per my understanding.

• The article should not use first person plural (we) as it is not really encyclopedic in tone (for example When these two components—consciousness and ripened karma—interact, we experience the life as we know it at present.[8]). It is OK when these are in direct quotes.

How about “the soul experiences the life” instead of” we” ?  Done

• WP:HEAD says that headers should avoid repeating the title of the article, so "Criticism of karma theory" could just be "Criticism", for example

OK  Done Changed and simplified the headings. But kept "Predominance of Karma" as it is as simply "Predominance" looks a bit odd. Any suggestion?

• Since some of the images are self-made, are the other images used in them also free? For example File:Soul Attracting Karma.jpg seems to have clip art in it, are these free? Or is the image of the Tirthankar in the upper part of File:Destruction of Karmas1.jpg free?

I have used cliparts that come with miscrosoft word and cliparts.org. I am not sure about its status on copyrights. I have written to some publishers to free up some images for Wikipedia. Hopefully, something will turn up.

• Could some of the images from the article on Jainism be adapted for use here? If there was an image of a temple or people meditating, could those be used here with a caption like "Meditation is one discipline which can be used for release from karams"?

An excellent idea. Will check up on it.

• Article is very list-y (especially towards the end), these should be converted to text where possible to improve the flow of the article.

You mean sections on modifications and release? Will it effect FA? To me it appears better if it is in list format.

• Needs a copyedit to smooth the prose in places.

I know it needs a serious copy edit. I am banking on tiger and Alastair for this. I have reached my limitation on language :)

• I will try to make more comments soon, but am closing for now. Must go listen to Karma Chameleon ;-)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit more - where people are named, I would identify them in some way (usually to say why they are being quoted), so indologist Robert J. Zydenbos is good, but who is J. L. Jaini? Things like "] K. V. Mardia, in his book The Scientific Foundations of Jainism, ..." are OK too.
• I would try and explain how the Modifications are supposed to be achieved
• Also if things are kept as lists, I would make them parallel in their construction - for example in the Modifications section only number 5 repeats the name of the modifcation (Saṃkramaṇa)
• I found the karma is like gravity argument made things easier to understand - could it be presented earlier in the article (or would that mess up the logical structure)?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm thinking this page is ready to be a featured list, but I could use a peer review to tell me what, if anything, needs to be fixed about this page first. Thanks, Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

• General: A featured list requires rather more text than this. The lead should properly introduce the various tables that follow. For example, a couple of questions immediately arise: who or what are the "Baltimore Orioles"? And what was the management arrangement before the appointment of the first General Manager in 1921?
• Organisation: Why are three different formats used for the three main lists? "Team owners" are shown in a plain chronological list; "General Managers" are shown, chronologically, in a tabulated list; "Other executives" are shown in an alphabetical, untabulated list.
• What are the unexplained complications which occur at the bottom of the Team owners list?
• Use of bolding for emphasis or highlighting is contrary to MOS
• In the General Managers list, the first column, according to the key, is "Number of general managers". Did these managers have official numbers, like US presidents, or are these merely the numbers for the purpose of this list? If the latter, the key should be changed.
• Why are the years in the General Managers table wikilinked?
• The figures in the "Win%" column are not percentages.

• Just a note: Presenting winning percentage as a three-point decimal is an accepted standard in baseball statistics, as well as fielding percentage. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What were the criteria for including officials in the "Other executives" list?
• Abbreviations such as "ass't" should not be used.

A fair amount of work will be necessary to bring this up to standard. I recommend that you carefully look at some the existing sporting featured lists, to get a better idea of the organization and presentation that is required with such lists. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Precedent shows that these lists could be merged into the managers list, a la List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners. Why not do that here? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working very hard on the article over the past week and would like some feedback as to whether people think that it's heading in the right direction and what improvements can be made. i know the lead still needs some work so if anyone could give any points of improvement for that it would be great. also, i'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the music video directors so help with that would also be great.

Thanks, :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discography at chartstats does not contain a chart peak for - or indeed even mention - five live EP. Do you have a citation for the charity aspect of December song in the lead? The sentence: "The former four all US number ones." does not contain a verb. "Sophomore" isn't a common term outside of the US; maybe use "second" instead. Maybe split the "Don't let the sun go down on me" sentence into two; the two "and"s make it awkward to read. He would have recorded three songs for the charity album. Hyperlink "Iraq War". You also have an open bracket in the last paragraph of the lead.

That's all the problems that jump out at me from the lead. Are you coming back to Gwen Stefani discography? It was fun but brief. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks for your comments! some of them dont apply anymore because i had to shorten the lead, but i've fixed the other ones :) anything else? and yes i'll be back :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks great to me: tables are well organized, references are formatted correctly, image has a CC license, and the lead is very well written. I find no faults. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's really close to Good Article status and I want to get a good analysis to help push it over.--The lorax (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments This important article looks a little disorganised at the moment. I think it needs some concentrated work if it is to recover its GA status, though I believe this is eminently do-able. Here are some general issues I noted after a first read-through:-

• Lead: needs to be expanded so that it is a summary of the whole article. At present the lead says nothing about the content of the film, its making, or its critical reception.

In a subsequent edit, I feel I've addressed most of these concerns.--The lorax (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no expansion of the lead. In this form it does not summarise the whole article, it merely gives introductory information. Everything of significance in the article should be touched on in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles should primarily be written in prose form. While the odd bullet-pointed list might inform an article, in this case several sections entirely or largely consist of lists. Most of this material needs to be converted to prose.

Converted most of the bulleted sections to prose.--The lorax (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the Awards section should be prosified. The list could be made into a wikitable. However, you must use a consistent date format for these items.Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the prose sections too much use is made of short and often single sentence paragraphs. The prose would read much better if this staccato feel was replaced with some natural flow.

This remains a problem in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Synopsis section is overdetailed. A synopsis is by definition a brief review. Here, we have too many examples; give us in a nutshell (couple of short paragraphs) what the film is about.

I was curious about this critique, since your previous observation was there wasn't enough detail? I tried fixing it up; I still think most of this should be kept.--The lorax (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are two quite separate matters. The lead as stated above must cover, albeit briefly, all the significant stuff in the article. A "synopsis" is by definition a brief summary. What you have written is more a commentary on the film than a synopsis of its content. If you want to keep this material, perhaps you should alter the section title to "Commentary"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article structure: It would make chronological sense if the "Origins/Production" section was first in the article after the lead. I don't like this section title combination; the two things are quite different, and should have their own sections.

I renamed that section Background -- that seems to consolidate both topics.--The lorax (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Political response section. The responses from educational bodies/institutions are not strictly "political". Was there a basis for the selection of these three examples? Also, the Wall Street Journal item looks out of place in the article.
• Dimmock case: Who was/is Dimmock, and why is he only mentioned once, in the final paragraph of the section bearing his name?

Added detail on Dimmock.--The lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism: It would be better to have criticisms of the film in an integrated "Reception" section in which both positive and negative reactions can be considered. The section looks out of place at the moment. By the way, what is a "believer scientist"?

Deleted criticism section and took what was the most notable review from that section and put it in Reviews.--The lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: many of your sources lack access dates. Of those that have access dates some say "retrieved", others "accessed" - there should be consistency. Where newspapers are given as sources the date of the quote should be provided. Were there no books worth consulting?

Done.--The lorax (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Impact on popular culture section reads like a list of trivia. Such sections are widely disliked in Wikipedia; perhaps this one could be dropped.

Removed.--The lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose: I am not making detailed comments on the prose at this stage, though I may do later if the above points are addressed. I did find some of the writing a bit dense and hard to follow, for example the section entitled "In the United States". As I said at the start, I think this is an importantv article and I hope that the necessary steps will be taken to bring it up to standard. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that a swift start has been made in addressing my concerns. I am not sure that I will be able to monitor all of the article's progress, but please leave a message on my talkpage when you think it's worth my taking another look. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back. I have added a few more comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been put into this article and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions that would help ready it for GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have looked at the lead, the Plot and the Production sections, doing light copyedits as I read through. Here are the points which I think need attention, or explanation. If you would like to respond to these I will complete a review of the remaining sections.

• Lead:
  • "...realizing that it dealt with the subject of street hustlers better than what he had written." This is not quite grammatical. It probably needs rephrasing along the lines: "...realizing that Rechy's treatment of the subject of street hustlers was better than his own."

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "...and went on to receive largely positive reviews from established critics like Roger Ebert and publications like The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly." There are several awkwardnesses here: "went on to receive" should be "received"; why say "like Roy Ebert" when you mean Roy Ebert, or publications "like the New York Times" when you mean the NYT? A possible rephrasing: "...and received largely positive reviews, from critics including Roger Ebert and those of The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly."

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am rather confused by "The film made over $6.4 million in North America, above its estimated budget of $2.5 million." I understand what the £6.4 million is, but what is this budget figure? If it is the estimated cost of the film, why are we comparing actual income with estimated cost?

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot
  • "Mike wakes up to being fellated by a client." This sentence makes no sense unless we know that Mike is a gay street hustler, which we are not told until the next paragraph. Bring forward the description of Mike.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "After his hotel encounter in Seattle..." What encounter? If it is the fellatio episode, this should be clarified.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Some qualification of Mike's gayness is necessary, in view of "While preparing to have sex with the woman, Mike..."

Could you clarify what you mean by this?--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Some prose link should be inserted to connect third and fourth paragraphs, otherwise the jump to Italy is too sudden.
  • "a posh restaurant" reads badly (too slangy). Perhaps "fashionable"?

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Production
  • Numerous confusions in the first paragraph. I have cleared up some through copyedits, but:-
    • "While editing Mala Noche..." Needs a date, also a word of explanation, thus: "In 19xx, while editing his film Mala Noche,..."

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • "...a source of inspiration for the character of Mike in the film." As the last film mentioned was Mala Noche, the sentence has to end differently.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • "Parker also had a friend named Scott but in the script Van Sant made him a rich kid." I work this out to mean that the real-life Michael Parker had a friend named Scott, a street kid like himself. For his film, Van Sant adapted the Scott character to that of a rich kid. Your sentence has to be rewritten to make this meaning clearer.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The Chimes of Midnight sentence would be best omitted here - it is dealt with in the following paragraph.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • (Second paragraph): "His script ended up becoming a literal restructuring of the Henry IV plays." Are these the words the source uses? In particular, did he say "ended up"? I have seen the film, and I know the Shakespeare plays well. There is a clear relationship between the film and the plays, but to talk of "a literal restructuring" seems wildly excessive. Please check again the words used.
  • Why did Van Sant think that the song was an appropriate basis for his film's title?
  • "Van Sant showed the script to an executive at 20th Century Fox who liked Shakespeare." What was this executive's reaction?
  • Most of this paragraph is well off the point; this section is entitled "Production" and the text should stick to that.

Perhaps you would let me know via my talkpage when you are ready for me to continue. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is almost ready for FAc. It just needs some polishing, and I hope reviewers can help me out.

Thanks, --Music26/11 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Mainly prose nitpicks, but more substantial concerns with the Plot section. I have done a bit of copyediting, too.

• Lead
  • "first episode of..." (rather than "for")
  • "It was first broadcast..." → "The show was first broadcast..."
  • Postponed for one week
  • "However, afterwards, he realizes he left..." Awkward phrasing and clash of tenses. Suggest: "Afterwards, however, he realizes he has left..."
  • "persuades", rather than "convinces"
  • "...his friend Jerry Seinfeld (Jerry Seinfeld)" would read better without the repeated surname, thus: "his friend Jerry (Jerry Seinfeld)"
  • "Starting with this episode, filming of the show took place on CBS Studio Center in Studio City, Los Angeles, California, as opposed to Desilu Cahuenga in Hollywood, California, where the first season had been filmed." The sentence is too long, and awkwardly phrased. I suggest "This was the first episode of the show filmed at CBS Studio Center in Studio City, Los Angeles, California. The previous season had been filmed at Desilu Cahuenga in Hollywood."
  • "The rest of the sets that appeared had been used on the show earlier." This needs rephrasing; "that appeared" isn't necessary: "The rest of the sets had been used on the show in earlier episodes."
• Plot
  • The redlink on Kolis should be on first mention, in the lead.
  • Suggest "after an emotional break-up"
  • The tense thing again: "he realizes that he has left..."
  • "In order..." is superfluous (and increasingly frowned on by the Wikipedia prose gurus). Suggest begin the sentence "To retrieve the books..."
  • "Jerry has to go on a date..." → "Jerry decides to go on a date"
  • "Jerry finds it hard to tell George he his dating her, but after hearing a story from his ex-girlfriend Elaine Benes (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), who confronted a man that did not greet her on the street, Jerry decides to tell him." This sentence will confuse anyone unfamiliar with the episode. It needs simplyfing, thus: "Jerry finds it hard to tell George he his dating Marlene, but after his ex-girlfriend Elaine Benes (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) tells him how she has just dealt with an awkward situation, Jerry tells George."
  • Overall, I think the plot section is a bit weak. This account misses some of the episode's nuances - for example, the episode had a certain circularity, beginning and ending in Jerry's car. I advise you view the episode again, and see if you can strengthen this section.
• Cultural references: I don't think anything in this section is worth keeping. None of the fleeting references you mention have any relevance to the story, and the Tony Bennett picture looks wholly decorative.
• Production: I have done some copyedits to the first two paragraphs. Also:-
  • "This was changed because Jerry and George's dialogue had nothing to do with a library." It was changed to a chiropractor's waiting room, which tied in with some of Jery's introductory stand-up routine, and also with a minor sub-plot about George's reluctance to pay the chiropractor.
• Reception
  • "Although Seinfeld would be considered a hit show by today's standards, NBC was disappointed with its ratings, and, after three weeks, put the show on hiatus." Can you explain what this means? Does it mean they suspended the show for a period of time? A plain language explanantion is better than a linked technical term.
  • "...and graded it with a B." The grading system they were using needs interpretation. How good is a B?

Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into this article and I am looking for suggestions and contributions to help get it ready to be evaluated for GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, broad in coverage, and generally well-done. The prose could use some more polishing, and I've tried to make specific suggestions about particular sentences. I've noted a few Manual of Style issues. A few claims about things that are not common knowledge lack sources.

Lead

• "Big Trouble in Little China (also known as John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China) is a 1986 American comedy/action film, directed by John Carpenter and stars Kurt Russell as truck driver Jack Burton who helps his friend Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) rescue Wang's green-eyed girlfriend (Suzee Pai) from bandits in San Francisco's Chinatown." - Too complex. Suggestion: "Big Trouble in Little China (also known as John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China) is a 1986 American comedy/action film directed by John Carpenter. It stars Kurt Russell as truck driver Jack Burton, who helps his friend Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) rescue Wang's green-eyed girlfriend (Suzee Pai) from bandits in San Francisco's Chinatown."

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although originally envisioned as a Western set in the 1880s, screenwriter W. D. Richter was hired to rewrite the script... ". - Suggestion: "Although the film was originally envisioned as a Western set in the 1880s, screenwriter W. D. Richter was hired to rewrite the script... ".

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The studio hired Carpenter to direct the film, which fulfilled a long-standing desire to make a martial arts film, and rushed Big Trouble in Little China into production so that it would be released before a similarly themed Eddie Murphy film The Golden Child, which was slated to come out around the same time." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The studio hired Carpenter to direct the film and rushed Big Trouble in Little China into production so that it would be released before a similarly themed Eddie Murphy film, The Golden Child, which was slated to come out around the same time. The project fulfilled Carpenter's long-standing desire to make a martial arts film."

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "It received critically mixed reviews which left Carpenter disillusioned with Hollywood and influencing his decision to become an independent filmmaker yet again." - Suggestion: "It received critically mixed reviews that left Carpenter disillusioned with Hollywood and influenced his decision to return to independent film-making."

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay

• "They had written a Western originally set in the 1880s with Jack Burton being a cowboy who rides into town." - "as a cowboy" rather than "being a cowboy"?

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The rapid-fire delivery of dialogue, especially between Jack Burton and Gracie Law, is an example of what the director is referring to." - This claim needs a source.

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

• "Russell wasn’t that interested in... " - Delete "that"?

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "he got a handle on the character... " - Slang. Suggestion: "he gained insight into the character... "

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "and liked the notion of having “never played a hero who has so many faults." - Suggestion: "and liked the notion of playing "a hero who has so many faults."

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects

• "said that there were no difficulties with their workload and that Big Trouble was probably their favorite film at the time, with the exception of Ghostbusters." - Boss Films is an "it" rather than a "they". Suggestion: "said that there were no difficulties with the company's workload and that Big Trouble was probably its favorite film at the time, with the exception of Ghostbusters."

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was shot with a special matting system... " - Should "matting system" be explained?

I have an article on the film's visual effects that I will incorporate some details and clarify.--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

• A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every unusual claim, every set of statistics, and every direct quote. The second paragraph of this section includes a lot of material that is not common knowledge, yet the paragraph is unsourced.

I am going to beef up this section with more info as it is pretty underdeveloped right now.--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to Chinese mysticism

• The "citation needed" tag needs to be addressed.

Reaction

• "grossed $2.7 million in its opening weekend" - WP:NBSP says in part, "Use a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... " It specifically mentions construction like $2.7 million". I added a few nbsps to similar constructions earlier in the article, but these and others still need them.

Merchandise

• "It was met by mixed critical reception. - Tighten to "Critical reception was mixed"?

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Big Trouble in Little China was released on a 2-Disc Special Edition DVD set... " - Should this be "a two-disc special edition DVD set"?
• Wikilink Blu-ray Disc?

Fixed--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Early release information has claimed that it includes an extended cut, this is untrue." - This claim needs attribution to a reliable source.

I deleted it as there is no credible claim of this to be the case.--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The date formatting in the reference section should be internally consistent, either yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y but not a mixture of the two.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is great! Thanks so much for taking the time to take a look at this article. You have given me a lot to work with.--J.D. (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images Just a quick note, you might want to add some Alt tags for the poster and screenshot in this article as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i've never submitted an article for Wikipedia before and am unsure of wheather or not the article in its current format meets the standards of a proper Wikipedia page. I am more than sure that the subject more than respects the notability aspect. I am not sure though if I added sections to the page properly or enough proper sections. Some things may require their own section, I don't know. All I know is this person is important enough to need documenting on Wikipedia. Any edits anyone wants to suggest is desired. Thank you in advance for your time and patience.

TimidObserver (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review only works for articles in article space, not in user space (which is why there are all of the red links up there). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am archiving this as the page in question has been speedily deleted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review i am looking for helpful tips in making this article FA standard.

Thanks, Tsange (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can you look into removing the deprecated template? I'm not sure if it should be removed, but it should be checked.
• You don't need to link to the publisher every time. Instead of "http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com", do "Liverpool World Heritage".
• I don't think the two last see also links are useful. It's like having a see also link to a "List of country" in article about a country.
• Needs copyediting:
  • "Liverpools' skyline has been built up mostly in the last 100 years, the Royal Liver Building held the title of tallest structure in Liverpool for 54 years until St. John's Beacon was completed in 1965. " I think you want a full stop instead of the comma. Hmm, and change to Liverpool's.
  • "...completed buildings and structures in Liverpool, this excludes buildings..." --> "...completed buildings and structures in Liverpool, which excludes buildings..."
  • "contributing to Liverpool's rise" --> "which contributed to Liverpool's rise" (remove noun plus-ing structure)
  • Liverpools' needs to be changed to Liverpool's. It's one city.
  • "however this record" --> "but this record"

Hope this helps, Maxim_(talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive completed the comments all except for the deprecated template as im not sure whether or not to remove it. Tsange ^►talk 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The tower of Liverpool Cathedral was completed in 1942. It was then, not in 1965, that the Royal Liver Building ceased to be Liverpool's tallest. The fact that the cathedral was not finished until 1978 is irrelevant. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is intended to develop into an article, it would be interesting to know the factors which influenced or determined the height of these lbuildings, i.e. any planning controls (maximum height) in place at the time, technological constraints (i.e. elevators, fundations...), etc. The skyline image suggests that there is maximum building height control in place stepping down towards the waterfront. In terms of wikitable layouts, alignig numbers to the right makes it always easier to compare the heights. Elekhh (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this happens to an important article on religious persecutions. I hope to elevate this to GA status.

Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 11:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to review this article and would like to get a peer review of any article which you have submitted here, then please contact me. :)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs some more work before it is ready for GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The main issue I see with the article is the language. The article needs a copy edit, and the organization could be improved in spots. In some places it uses what seem to be fairly POV terms. If these are part of direct quotations from reliable sources, then using them is OK in moderation, but as it is the article at least gives the appearance of violation WP:NPOV. I think that what was done to the Mangalorean Catholics was horrible, but the language used to describe should be neutral - letting the reader decide is much more effective than telling the reader what to think. Some examples of problems with the language follow (not a complete list):
  • I think the first sentence in the lead could be clearer - I would start the sentence with the captivity and not with Tippu Sultan. I think giving the exact dates (day and month) in the lead is a bit too much detail for the first sentence too. I would also provide context to the reader and make clear in the first or second sentence that this is in India (not everyone know where Mangalore or Canara are). Perhaps something like

  "The Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam was a 15-year imprisonment of the Mangalorean Catholics and the other Christians in the Indian region of Canara by Tippu Sultan, the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore, from 1784 to 1799.[1]" (the specific dates could be elsewhere in the lead)

   Done

  • WHen ranges of numbers are used, I would be consistent so just in the lead we have account of the number of captives differ ranging from 30[,]000 to 80,000. (I added a missing comma) but later in the lead it is a hyphen (when I think the MOS says it should be an en-dash) Of the 60,000-80,000 Christians taken captive, only 15,000-20,000 made it out alive as Christians.

     Done

  • POV with "stupendous" in the lead - It was a stupendous task for the British officers and the Roman Catholic priests to re-establish the community in South Canara.

    Done: Removed POV term and changed to "The British officers and the Roman Catholic priests helped the community re-establish themselves in South Canara."

  • Unclear - Hyder's army also consisted of several Catholic soldiers. This makes it sound like the whole army was a few Catholics - my guess is that the army had several catholic soldies in it, as well as many others
• Per WP:HEAD the headers should not start with "The" and should not repeat the article title or parts of it if possible. So for example, "The Mangalorean Catholic community" could be just "Background" or perhaps "Catholicism in Mangalore", and "Mangalorean Catholics under Hyder Ali" could just be "Hyder Ali" (we already know from the title this about the Mangalorean Catholics)

  Done

• I would add the dates to the table "Account of the number of captives"
• There are two relatively long lists (number of captives and churches destroyed) - could the churches list be converted to text? Two lists impede the flow of the article.
• The caption "St. Lawrence Church in Karkala was destroyed by Tippu" should make it clear that the building pictured is a more modern (re)construction
• Could the two Citicisms sections be combined as one? I also am not sure I get the Criticism of the Christians - we are told the horrible persecutions and death many suffered, then we get one priest in 1815 criticizing them and apparently in a way ignorant of their sufferings. Is there no other, more recent criticism? WHy is this notable (worth including here)?
• The two very long quotes in the Accounts of the Captivity section may cause trouble - this is an encylcopedia article and things aregenerally paraphrased with a few quotes

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more from Ruhrfisch

• Link words like lakhs and crore as most non-Indian readers will not know these. See for example The priests were issued orders of expulsion to Goa, fined Rs. 2 lakhs, and ... of capital punishment and a fine of 3 crore rupees.
• Problem sentence Those captives who refused to proselytize to Islam, Tippu ordered them to be tied to the feet of the elephants to be dragged and trampled upon them and to be mutilated in the most barbarous manner.[69] first off, proselytize is used incorrectly (someone who is already a Muslim could proselytize or try to convert others to Islam, the Christians refused to convert to Islam. Second, the word barbarous is probably another POV word to avoid or use as a direct quote.
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - Arthur Wellesley is linked twice in a section (and should probably be identified as the future Lord Wellington)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning this to nominate for GA, or possibly, as FA. I've cleaned some mess, fixed refs and citations, and added some facts especially expanding the article. Though the lower part is not yet fully finished, I want to know what weak points does the article have, or points for expansion. I am not very familiar with MOS, but MOS points are also welcome.

Thanks, JL 09^{Talk to me!} 09:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• " Filipino anti-Spanish people" - I think this would read better as "anti-S Filipino"
• "which was aimed" --> "which aimed"
• "sentenced to banished" --> "to be banished"
• "its discovery in 1896 that" --> I think a comma followed by "which" would be better than "that" here, in the interests of breaking up the sentence
• "The word "katipunan" (literally means association)" - when you give the meaning of a word in parentheses, you don't need to explain what you're doing; you can just put the translation in parentheses. Also, "came" in this sentence should be "come," as this is still true.
• In the rest of that paragraph, I'm not sure you need to give the name in three languages as you've already done that in the info box. maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you should repeat any of the info in the info box.
• I'm seeing switches in tense from present to past. If a statement is still true, it should be in the present tense. I'm not going to keep mentioning this, but this is a pervasive problem.
• "not later then" - I am not sure what this means.
• "to his sister the mother portress" - there should be a comma between sister and the
• "the wrong turn of history" - not sure what this refers to yet, and in any case it sounds too POV.
• "that started Philippine Revolution." --> "the Philippine"

Ricardiana (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (my apologies for the delay):

• "Marcelo H. del Pilar, another leader of the Propaganda Movement in Spain..." - too many clauses in this sentence.
• "La Liga dies, and the Katipunan rises" - doesn't need to be in italics
• The sections in the body of the article tend to be quite short - overly so.
• Paragraphs, too, tend to be overly short - sometimes only a few sentences.
• Avoid lists.
• "The Sanggunian also have its councilors, called Kasanguni, which, the number may vary through presidencies" - subject/verb agreement; also, the "which" is unnecessary. Can be "...called kasanguni; the number...".
• Although you list a number of sources, many paragraphs lack citations, primarily towards the end of the article.

I hope these comments are helpful. I apologize again for the delay. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ricardiana. Thanks for the grammar review. I've revised all what you advised here, and I think the article needs a lot of improvements, though.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've barely edited music articles before and therefore have no experience. I know it's a bit of a mess at the moment but I believe there is enough out there for it to be a GA. I want to get more GAs, preferably one that isn't a footballer.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is pretty brief. Ideally, there should be content on the writing, development, and recording of the song. Look at Hollaback Girl for an example of the kind of content to be included in a song article. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but I agree with User:DroEsperanto that parts of it are thin. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "The track debuted at #19 on Billboard's Modern Rock chart, and would go on to spend eleven weeks at #1." - "and spent" rather than "would go on to spend"?
• "The song was generally well received by critics with many regarding the chorus and the lyrics to be the highlights." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and passive voice is often too wordy. Suggestion: "Critics generally liked the song, especially its chorus and lyrics".

Writing and inspiration

• "The song was written by Rivers Cuomo as a reaction to a meeting with Geffen executives where the band was told they needed to record more commercial material." - Active voice is usually more strong and direct than passive. Suggestion: "Rivers Cuomo wrote the song in reaction to a meeting with Geffen executives, who told the band members that they needed to record more commercial material."
• This section is awfully short. Perhaps you could expand it by making more clear the connection between the meeting and the song. How, for example, do lyrics about Rogaine, the chipmunk effect, sunglasses, or other aspects of the song stem from the meeting or answer the Geffen complaint?
• "Why is the song called "Pork and Beans"?
  • No idea :(. My guess is that it's intended to be ironic as Cuomo is a vegetarian but I can't back this up. Spiderone 17:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be worth mentioning where the band is from and where it met with Geffen?

Composition

• "According to Cokemachineglow.com the song... " - Shouldn't that be, "according to David Ritter"?
• Should it be Oakley rather than Oakleys since it's a single company or brand?

Reception

• "Many reviewers were pleased with what they saw as a return-to-form to the sound of the group's earlier power pop sound, which was present on The Blue Album and Pinkerton.[15][16][17][13]." - When a group of citations appear serially like this, it's customary to arrange them in ascending order; i.e. [13] should be first instead of last.
• "In terms of chart performance, "Pork and Beans" is Weezer's most successful single in their 16 year career... " - Two things, a missing hyphen and a change in number. Shouldn't the phrase read "its 16-year career" since Weezer is singular? Ditto for other places in the article where Weezer is described as a "they"?

Music video

• "The video quickly became popular, reaching over four million views within the week and the most-watched video for the week." - Word missing? Maybe the sentence should read, "The video, which quickly became popular, reached more than four million viewers in its first week and was the week's most-watched video."
• "This wasn't without criticism; Liz Shannon Miller thought the new video lacked originality... " - It's not clear at first glance whether "this" refers to the rickrolling or to the video. Suggestion: "However, Liz Shannon Miller thought the new video lacked originality... ".

Images

• These will need alt text. WP:ALT explains how to do this.

Other

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.
• Citations 21 and 23 have dead links in them.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a relatively new type of article for me, so I'd be interested in other people's opinion as to my treatment of the subject matter. It was promoted to GA-status in July, and I'm toying with the idea of taking this to FAC in the near future, so any and all comments are welcome. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and informative and generally well-done. I have a short list of mostly minor suggestions for improvement.

• I'd suggest working something about Yellowstone National Park into the first paragraph and moving the last sentence of the first paragraph into a third paragraph that elaborates a bit on the final two sections, "Reception and publication" and "Legacy".
• "the Report proved influential for future preservation mandates and reports" - I don't think "report" gets a capital "R" on second and subsequent references. Ditto for "Board" in "The purpose of the Board... " and its companions. Ditto for "Advisory Board" in "The formation of the Advisory Board was historically important... " and similar uses.
• "et al.", which appears in the main text and references, needs italics because it's Latin.
• Because the text is rather dry, I'd look for ways to turn bureaucratic language into plain language as much as possible. For example, I changed "utilizing" to "using" in the "Reception and publication section", and I think the term "active management" would be more straightforward as "management". A fairly formidable sentence reads, "Touching upon other notable issues such as predator control and fire ecology, the Report recommended employing staff scientists who would manage the parks using current and ongoing scientific research, while also proposing that park management have a fundamental goal of reflecting 'the primitive scene... a reasonable illusion of primitive America' ". I think it could be recast as "Touching upon predator control, fire ecology, and other issues, the report suggested that the NPS hire scientists to manage the parks. One of their goals would be to preserve or restore 'the primitive scene... a reasonable illusion of primitive America' ". Or something like that.
• To reach FA, an article's images need alt text. WP:ALT has an explanation, and you can visit WP:FAC to see recent discussions about them.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Finetooth! I'll get to this soon. María (habla conmigo) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per suggestions; just waiting on feedback regarding the alt text. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text looks very nice; thanks. Just for future reference, it doesn't have to be quite that fancy; but I wouldn't abbreviate it now that you've written it. Eubulides (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, Eubulides, I'll try to be less verbose in the future. :) María (habla conmigo) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement - this already looks pretty good andclose to FAC ready to me.

• Per WP:LEAD If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. so the official name of the park should be in bold too
• NPS should be introduced as an abbreviation after the first use of the full name, so "National Park Service (NPS)"
• WP:LEAD also says to start the article with an image or an infobox. I think the picture of Leopold would probably be the best, or perhaps the image of the elk.
• I also wonder if the NPS arrowhead logo File:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg could be added to the article, perhaps in the Background section (especially if the elk photo is moved elsewhere).
• There is a free image of Sec'y Udall File:Udall.gif but the source info looks a bit sparse - could it also be added?
• Just curious, but were the parks really just run by the federal government At first, parks were run by the Federal Government.? Usually things are run by a part of a smaller branch - someone lives in the United States, but in almost all cases they also live in a state and a smaller part of the state.
• Isn't the NPS singular (a service / gov't agency?) if so this needs to be changed President Woodrow Wilson signed a bill creating the National Park Service in 1916, giving them [it?] the power "to conserve ...
• The official title is given / explained twice (once at the end of the Advisory Board and reporting section and again at the start of the Reception and publication section - it does not need to be both places (or does it?). I think it makes more sense at the first place.
• Is image the best word here? Would phrase be better? The memorable image of a "vignette of primitive America" drew popular attention from readers[21]...
• Would poison be simpler than toxicants in which restricted the usage of toxicants such as strychnine and sodium cyanide for predator control.[30] (per Fientooth's suggestion above)?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps a great deal, thanks! I've made all the changes you suggested, only I don't think Udall's handsome face fits in the article without squishing the text. The NPS logo image has a better description, so I've added that to the background section. María (habla conmigo) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs help that I can't seem to give it. In particular, the last section feels very sloppily organized to me, but I haven't been able to figure out a better scheme. I would appreciate any feedback on that or anything else.

Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems to me to be overall well done and pretty close to ready for FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I am puzzled by the timing of the creation of the character - the lead says Chan was created in 1919, but the article seems to imply a later date of about 1923 for the actual addition of Chan to the novel (though that novel was conceived of in 1919): He did not begin to write the novel until four years later, however, when he was inspired to add a Chinese American police officer to the plot... I also note that the novel was not published (so the public did not become aware of the character) until 1925. Perhaps if the lead sentence were something like Charlie Chan is a fictional Chinese-American detective created by Earl Derr Biggers in 1919, for a novel published in 1925. it would be clearer?

Good point; I had completely overlooked that. I changed it to "created in 1923, for a novel published in 1925," since he didn't think of the character till four years after starting the novel in 1919. Ricardiana (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the Books section odd for a couple of reasons when compared to the rest of the article.
  • First, it does not state clearly how many Chan novels there are or when the series was finished / last novel was written (the films and other media are much clearer on this). Looking at the bibliography there are six books by Biggers, then four more later books, but these are not mentioned in the books section (that I can see).
  • Second, it has the criticism mixed in with the description of the novels, while the rest of the article has the critical reception separate. Would it make more sense to have a books section and a films section in the Controversy and criticism section.
• Per MOS:QUOTE watch logical quotations and punctuation - for example For the first time, Chan was portrayed on occasion as "openly contemptuous of his suspects and superiors."[30] should have the period outside the end quotation mark. If it is a full sentence, the punctuation can be inside the quotes.

Right. I'll double-check at some point, but I think those are the way the are because they are in fact the ends of the sentences in the original. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:HEAD subsection headers should not repeat section headers if at all possible - so can "Spanish-language films" and "Chinese-language films" be changed? Perhaps use adaptations as is done with "Modern adaptations"?

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still thinking about the cirticisms section to try and see how to improve it. Perhaps more attribution as to who thinks what?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruhrfisch - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the article, especially the criticisms section. It seems to me that there are several things that could be tried to organize it better.

• I already noted this, but the last paragraph of the books section is mostly criticism and could be moved to the criticism section. The first two paragraphs of the current criticisms section are all about the books except for the last sentence (quote from the actor who played number one son). So it seems like there could be a books section in Criticism without too much trouble. If there was any criticism of the 4 more recent books, this could also be included here.
• The next two paragraphs of the criticism section seem to be about the films mostly, so perhaps there could be a films section.
• As I noted above, it is unclear to me in many cases who the various quotes and criticisms are from. I think it would be helpful to identify the critics with a some sort of brief descriptive phrase (X, author of this book, or Y, professor of Asian Studies at that university, or noted film critic Z)
• It might also help to group the criticims or at least identify them by year. It seems that another way the criticisms might be organized is chronologically or even contextually. Some of the criticisms look at the works in relation to their contemporary society - the books were unusual for presenting an Asian in a more positive light than most, for example. The controversy seems to mostly be taking old films and judging them by modern standards.
• Finally, it might be useful to find a model article about a character or series of works and look at how it handles the criticism section. Not sure which to suggest though, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all this. I will try to work on your suggestions (and PR another article) over the next week. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on article content, in terms of are the topics covered satisfactory, is there any concern over general wording. Also I'd like feedback on the layout of the article. The sections I've chosen, etc.

Thanks, Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you aim for GA on the article, the article still needs a lot of expansion (perhaps threefold to fivefold) since private education business is over 23,000,000,000,000 won which takes 4 percent of South Korea economy and has a great influence in Korean society.--Caspian blue 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can only write to the sources. The bulk of english language sources about hagwons comes from the big korean newspapers. I spent a few hours coming through stories in there (a lot of overlap) and have included all the major news events that I came across. In order to expand it significantly we'd need a Korean editor willing to look at Korean language news articles, government sites (korean government sites that have english often only translate a very small percentage of the info), magazines, etc. and write content based on those. unfortunately I didn't come across any well known english language books about hagwons, other than a couple of bad pieces of fiction. A GA is a long way off on this without a dedicated Korean editor. I'm more interested in how it sits now.--Crossmr (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and a good start. I think the article would be improved by the addition of one or more images, perhaps of schools, and some statistics would be nice. How many hagwons are there in Korea? How many students attend Hagwons? How many teachers? What is their distribution; that is, are they found all over the country? How do these numbers compare to public-school numbers? What are the names of the biggest or most prestigious or most profitable hagwons? Can you give any range of figures, converted to dollars, for attending a hagwon? How much do the teachers make? Are charter schools in the U.S. like hagwons? Do any countries aside from South Korea and the U.S. have hagwons?

Lead

• "It is not uncommon for students to be enrolled in several hagwon of different subject areas... " - Since "hagwons" is used elsewhere in the article for the plural, this should be "hagwons".
• "Some in Korean society view hagwons and hagwon owners negatively because of their perception that these schools have caused economic issues for many families or been a factor in the disparity between the education levels of different social classes." - This seems to echo the first half of an earlier sentence saying, "The industry faces criticism because it is seen as creating an unequal footing for the poor and rich in Korea... ". I like the earlier sentence because it is more direct. You probably don't need both.

History and regulations

• "Henry Appenzeller founded the Paichai school... " - Where was it? Seoul? What does Paichai refer to?
• "At the time it was illegal to preach other religions in Korea." - Other than what? Or was all preaching illegal?
• "Although his main goal was to spread his faith, it was still used to learn English by Koreans." - Suggestion: "Although his main goal was to spread his faith, Koreans still used the school to learn English." What was his faith?
• "Through the years the government has relaxed the restrictions on private education by increasingly allowing more individuals and organizations to offer private education[8] until the ban was ruled unconstitutional in the 90s." - Tighten slightly to "Through the years the government relaxed the restrictions on private education by increasingly allowing more individuals and organizations to offer it. The ban was ruled unconstitutional in the 90s."
• "the government reversed its position 5 days later" - Usually numbers from one to nine are spelled out as words.
• "Along with this restrictions, hagwons also had to disclose their tuition amounts... " - "these restrictions" rather than "this restrictions"
• "as well hagwons caught running false advertisements would have their licenses revoked, and they were required to issue cash receipts." - This is not a sentence. Suggestion: "Hagwons caught running false advertisements were subject to having their licenses revoked, and they were required to issue cash receipts."
• "In July of 2009" - Delete "of".

English language instructors

• "The first teacher hired at the government run Tongmunhak... " - What is Tongmunhak?
• "However, due to the preference for having native English speakers teach English, many native English-speakers are still hired to teach at hagwons in Korea." - The "however" suggests that Hallifax was not a native speaker. Maybe "Because of the preference for having native English speakers teach English... " would be better.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it into a featured article.

Thanks a lot, Adam78 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This article is obviously the product of a great deal of dedicated work. However, there are basic issues of subject, length, presentation and referencing to be addressed.

• Subject: From the first paragraph of your lead it seems you are making an extended interpretation of "orthography". I am not a languages expert, but: "it includes the spelling of lexical words, proper nouns, and foreign words (loanwords) in themselves, with suffixes, and in compounds, as well as the hyphenation of words, punctuation, abbreviations, collation (alphabetical ordering), and other information (such as how to write dates)" - seems to go beyond the bounds of orthography, at least as I understand the word.
• Size/readability: the wordcount is around 10,500, not including the small print insertions or the bullet-pointed text. When these are added we have around 14,500 words, way above the recommended length for a Wikipedia article except in very special circumstances. Why does the article have to be so long? I know that most subjects can be expanded to almost any length, but there is already a long article Hungarian language. I would have thought that adoption of a summary style could have shortened the orthography article, which is basically about one aspect of language, to a fraction of its present length, and help the readability of what is a highly specialist article. An alternative to reducing the text might be subdividing the article - although perhaps this is already a split from the language article.
• Presentation
  • The device of interspersing the text with a small-print "problem" commentary is certainly novel, but is not within the style guidelines for Wikipedia articles. All text within the article should be in standard format.
  • A substantial part of the article, paticular in the later parts, is written in bullet points. This format should be used in articles very sparingly; most of this will need to be converted into straight prose.
  • There are too many short, often single-sentence paragraphs.
  • The lead does not conform to the requirements set out in WP:LEAD. The lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, not a brief introduction to the subject. General text should not be italicized.
• References:
  • None of the online references are properly formatted. For each, the minimum requirement is title, publisher and last access date.
  • Wikipedis itself cannot be a source for Wikipedia articles (see [23])
  • Apart from [241] there are no English sources. Is there no English scholarship relevant to the subject?

I am sorry if this all sounds rather critical but I believe that attention to these points, especially to that of excessive length, will lead to a better article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article went through a GA review in April and now I'm working on taking it to FAR. I would like comments mainly on the accessibility of the article for non-horse people, so thoughts on excessive jargon would be especially useful. Also any comments on alt text, as this is my first attempt at it...

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text looks fine to me! Also, I had (almost) no problem with jargon.
• I'm just reading the lead, and sometimes I'm not sure if the word "Icelandic" refers to the the island country or the horse breed. For example, does "considered horses by most Icelandic breed registries" mean registries concerned with sub-breeds of Icelandic horses, or registries geographically based in Iceland? Part of my confusion here probably stems from not knowing what a breed registry is. Is there a difference between a breed registry and a breed society? ...In fact, the fact that the Icelandic is considered a horse doesn't need to be in the lead anyway; it weakens the flow, it's already the first sentence of the body, and it's unnecessary to emphasize since "horse" is right there in the title. :-)
  • We've done some cleanup on the lead to hopefully make it more clear when the country is being discussed and when the horse. A breed registry and a breed society are the same thing, and I've moved the wikilink up to the first occurance to make this more clear. The point that an Icelandic is a horse rather than a pony is a rather key distinction with this breed, and it's something that IP's tend to like to edit war over - hence the repetition between the lead and the body, and the extensive referencing in the body.
    • Okay, this is largely good. I have a bit of a pet peeve with Wikipedia articles whose leads bend over backwards to prevent edit warring, as the results can become unreadable, but it's not so bad here. One regression though: "Horses living in their native Iceland have few diseases..." This phrase strongly suggests that there are other horses living in Iceland besides Icelandics, which I gather (below) is not the case. Perhaps you could mention in the lead that they're the only horses present, and then you could use the phrase "Icelandic horses" without fear of ambiguity. Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a phrase to the lead specifying they are the only breed.
• The lead, 2nd para, has a few too many centuries: 9th, 10th, 9th, 12th, 18th. It's a little hard to follow. Some of this detail can probably be saved for the body.
  • Removed one of the century references altogether and changed another one to a more specific decade reference. Better?
    • Yep! Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the Icelandic the only breed of horse present on Iceland? It's suggested as several points, but I'm not sure if it's ever spelled out.
  • It is the only breed, and I have said this specifically at the end of the history section.
    • Okay, this seems important enough to understand the context that I would put it in the lead section as well. See also above. Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it "horse fights" or "horsefights"?
  • "Horse fights". Fixed.
• I'm not sure why the "See also" section links to Fjord horse and Faroe pony. What's the relationship? Some short descriptive text would help.
  • Both breeds are similar to the Icelandic. Descriptive text added.
• In a few points the prose is kind of awkward. I made some changes here and there, but hopefully an experienced copyeditor can have a look. Other than that, it's pretty good! Melchoir (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks so much for the quick response and the prose review. I'll be working on these comments over the next couple days - real life jumped on me just when I thought I'd have time for this :P. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the suggestions. I've interspersed my comments with your above, and if you have any more thoughts, please feel free to drop them on here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, more comments inline. One more thing: in the new lead paragraph, every sentence after the first is some kind of compound: although, but, beyond, and, with, as well. This is tiring to read. A simple sentence or two, sprinkled in between, would help. Melchoir (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to split this up a little, although I may have only succeeded in making it worse. Prose is probably my worst area, so if you would like to take a chop at it, please feel welcome. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - I am resorting to nitpicking - check my edit summaries for making changes and I am doing mini-edits to allow for explanations. Trying to find ways to reduce repetition without losing meaning but is tricky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence - The Icelandic horse is a breed of horse developed in Iceland, and is the only breed of horse in that country. - the jarring of the two clauses bugs me, but I am currently stumped on how to rephrase.....

Thank you Casliber! I've tried to reword the lead a little bit to break up the first sentence. Check and see if it looks any better? Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not thrilled with seealso sections and would be inclined to develop "

• Islandpferde-Reiter- und Züchterverband, the association of all Icelandic horse-clubs of Germany" into a one-or-two sentence segment after "Almost 50,000 are in Germany, which has many active riding clubs and breed societies".

• Ditto with the two breeds mentioned - the link being parallel development (?)

The last tricky bit I can see is the early bit of Breed characteristics where 'source' is mentioned a couple of times. Looks awkward - if naming the source is not useful, then maybe phrasing in passive is better here.

Overall looking good, and worth a tilt at FAC soonish I'd hazard a guess :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. I've removed the two instances of "source" in the breed characteristics section, and integrated the links in the see also section into the prose. I have one more person that I'm going to ask to copyedit the article before I take it to FAC, so it should be there within a couple of weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, it's well on track. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because before bringing this up as a FAC I would like it looked over for prose, specifically one aspect is how to deal with the long paragraph in the anime review section. However some general help with cleanup and copyediting would be helpful.

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 18:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize in advance that I can't offer any direct copyediting help, but I will say that it definitely won't pass FAC without major work. The lead, which is all that most 1a-focused reviewers read, contains digressions, redundancies, unnecessary stub sentences, hard-to-follow structures, improper punctuation and other errors. I recommend that you shop this peer review around to interested parties, or even uninterested parties, and get a group of 2-3 copyeditors to work through the whole article. I'm making this ( fairly unhelpful) comment because I too often see extremely flawed articles go through peer reviews with flying colors, only to be shot down during FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Anywhere you suggest? I know the two wikiprojects this is linked to, WP:ANIME and WP:VG don't really have the copyediting ability and it's been up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for 2 months as that project seems dead.陣内_Jinnai 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guild of Copyeditors has never been and will never be useful, unfortunately. Even when someone takes your article on, the job is subpar, in my experience. While it is true that those WikiProjects are not known for quality copyediting, I have had success with WPVG copyeditors in the past. I recommend posting a link to this peer review on the WPVG talk page, since the topic is connected, and asking specifically for copyediting help. This page can also be helpful for locating copyeditors, but your results may vary. Contact anyone who looks promising and hope for the best. Another method is to dig through recently-promoted (or older) FAs and see who copyedited them, or if the main editor passed 1a solo. That one saved me on a previous FAC. VG FAs would be where to look first, since they get featured all the time. If that fails, look around through other projects and see if a non-VG copyeditor might help you out. Just contact anyone who copyedited those articles and seems remotely competent. Using this method, I just discovered that User:Jappalang, an accomplished editor, did impressive copyediting work on Giants: Citizen Kabuto, on which he was a major force in its promotion to FA. Start with him. I recommend trying all of these methods at once, though, because of the amount of copyeditors you'll need. That, and they take a long time to respond. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can post a request on WP:VG, but I won't hold my breath. It's connected with the project, aye, but only somwewhat. I've posted on MILHIST though due to it being a part of the project.陣内_Jinnai 08:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Should the "Impact" section have its own section? It might look better im the "Reception and Sales" section. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not "reception" or "sales" of the anime. It's citing the impact it had on the fansubbing debate.陣内_Jinnai 00:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still too short to be its own section. They hate stubby sections at FAC, so I suggest that you fix it somehow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not reception though, definatly not sales and it would be lost if it were just "merged" with a renamed reception, sales and impact. as it would be in the already longest section of the article. It really has no other place unless I merge it into the lead.陣内_Jinnai 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's fit for consideration for FA status.

Thanks, --occono (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall

• This is an excellent article to call a peer review on, because it's one of the highest-visibility pages in the encyclopaedia. Good call.
• Unfortunately, I should think that if submitted to FAC in its current state, it would fail criterion 1c because major parts of it are short of sources. Don't get me wrong, a lot of sources are cited, but they're concentrated in some parts of the article. The "politics" section, in particular, has a number of paragraphs with no sources at all, one after the other.
• It may also fail criterion 2b because of the length of the table of contents. A different structure might be preferable there?
• In order to pass criterion 3, for accessibility reasons, it's mandatory to add alt text to the images. See WP:ALT.

Comment: The nominator is not a contributor to the article (which has thousands of edits from multiple editors). The article is currently undergoing heavy work, and as such is not suitable for peer review at present. I am suggesting to the current active editors that the request for review be withdrawn until the article has reached a stable state. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all the points raised above - this needs many more refs and alt text. There are tricks for only displaying parts of the headers in the TOC that may be useful here. Here are some other general suggestions for improvement.

• The topic is so large that I think the article has to be pruned in spots of trivial clutter - for example, the various areas given in Geography, climate, and environment seem a bit much, especially when this is also covered in a note in the infobox
• Units need to be given in both English and metric units - the {{convert}} template is useful here. See things like The total land area of the contiguous United States is approximately 1.9 billion acres. Alaska, separated from the contiguous United States by Canada, is the largest state at 365 million acres.
• The sources used seem fairly random - I would expect on a topic like this that there are many top quality books that can be cited, but instead the article uses sources like Information Please and eMarketer.
• The hardest criteria for FAC for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. This needs a good copyedit to polish the prose.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review given that it seems really close to a FA class article. What can we go to get it there?

Thanks, The Squicks (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I love Big Bang and it would be great to see it as a featured article. I want to know some suggestion about the article from a netural viewpoint because, as of right now, it seems perfect to me :) Thanks, Taeyang (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Big Bang Fighting![reply]

• The article has a good amount of content. As far as improvements, the lead section should be expanded so the "Members" and "Awards" sections are represented. The "2009: Branching out" section needs cleaning up to combine all the one-sentence paragraphs into a nice, single (or two) flowing paragraph. The "Members" section has already been tagged, but I'll reinforce the point that virtually the entire section is unreferenced.Gongshow ^⊕ 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well and is interesting. However, it does not yet meet the minimum criteria for a Good Article, not to mention FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• All the tags need to be addressed. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every direct quote, every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every paragraph.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.

• I see quite a lot of bolding in the lower sections. Generally, bolding is used for heads, subheads, the repetition of the article title in the first line of the lead, and for a few other special cases. I'd recommend reducing the use of bolding except where it's absolutely necessary.

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. You can find a list of featured biographies of musicians in the list at WP:FA#Music.

• Several of the citations are incomplete. My rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those can be found.

• The section heads take a capital letter at the beginning of the first word but not the other words unless they are proper nouns such as someone's name. Thus "Korean Albums" should be "Korean albums".

• B I G B A N G 0 3 jumped out at me partly because of the spaces. It appears to me that BIGBANG 03 is the actual title.

• In the "Branching out" section, most of the paragraphs are quite short. Generally, it's a good idea to expand or merge such short paragraphs.

• Blogs and personal web sites such as YG Bounce are probably not reliable sources per WP:RS.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks a lot!! I'll get right on it! You are very helpful--Taeyang (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm driving this one towards FAC. It's already listed as GA, and I recently polished it. I want this entire process to be low-stress for all involved, so any kind of feedback is welcome. I'm particularly curious about these questions:

1. Does anyone have a strong opinion on the article title? I could speak at length on this choice, but I wonder what others' first thoughts are.
2. Could a volunteer who isn't shy about your real-world identity please contact Ball, Hill, and Bass and ask them to release the statistics on teachers for this question? (see "Teachers' knowledge" subsection)

Notices will be posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• a work of historical fiction suggests that al-Khwārizmī became the first to call 0 even during his arguments to the Caliph that sifr was a number. What is this doing in the history section? it's speculation.
  • True. However, it's not much worse than the other available reference. Would you suggest moving them both into the footnotes? Melchoir (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably; that would be better than a section on evenness of zero in popular culture ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Zero is even" should be at least a century older that 1849; but the way to check this is not to go back through primary sources, but to find a secondary source (not a popularization); that will be someone who has so thoroughly read the sources that his opinion that such and such a book is the oldest is valuable. Checking primary sources can prove that a date is too late, but not that it is too early.
  • 1849 is merely a conservative upper bound, used in the absence of better evidence. Possibly the prose could make this clearer. I absolutely agree on the ideal kind of reference for this question. Unfortunately, when I searched for a reference a couple years ago while researching this article, I came up empty-handed. Would you, or another editor, like to volunteer to look for a reference yourself? I'll gladly delay the FAC until you report back with your findings. There's no timeline here. Melchoir (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This page, from 1842, does, however, distinguish between zero roots, and an even number of roots.
  • Modern sources also often use such language, so I wouldn't say that it reflects the mathematical thinking of the time. Melchoir (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a special case of the question "is zero a number?"
  • Sure. Why do you ask? Melchoir (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it may be more readable to recast as two articles: Zero as a number and Evenness of zero; the Greeks should be explained at length in the first, but get even less space in the second than they do now; they could not have asked "is zero even?". (And in general, the reply "zero isn't a number, and therefore isn't even" belongs in the first article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I'm not sure what the relationship would be between Zero as a number and 0 (number)...
        I do think that this article should stay reasonably confined to parity, but of course some background information on "Is zero a number?" seeps in. I've tried to make sure it's as tightly scoped as possible already. For the Greeks it can get hard to separate because -- I think it was Aristotle who defined arithmetic as the science of even and odd? So they may well have viewed the questions "How far down do the numbers go?" and "How far down does parity go?" as the same question.
        Anyway, there's certainly a lot of general information on 0 that's left out; if you want to see for yourself, check out Levenson et al. Melchoir (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Replies inline. Melchoir (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else or anyone else...? Melchoir (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the prose and see if it may stand a chance at WP:FAC.

Thanks, Admrboltz (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The idea of doing an entire article on a single station is intriguing, and this station sounds interesting. However, the article in its present state would have no chance at FA. The prose needs a lot of work; the single image is unexciting; the map needs more detail, and the article is not comprehensive. Here are suggestions for improvement.

Infobox

• "highlighting the non revenue siding" - "Non" is not a word by itself. "non-revenue" would be OK. Also, what does "non-revenue siding" mean?
  • Siding wikilinked, non-revenue redirects to an airline specific article that is not helpful in this case sadly. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be helpful to show the two TRAX lines on the map and perhaps the Spring Mobile Ballpark and the university.

Lead

• "The station was opened in 1999, and is operated by the Utah Transit Authority, servicing the Sandy/Salt Lake Line, with service to downtown Salt Lake City and to Sandy, as well as the Murray/Midvale/University Line, a line which provides service from Sandy to the University of Utah campus." - Too complex. Suggestion: "The station, which opened in 1999, is operated by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). It is a station on two lines, the Sandy/Salt Lake Line, with service to downtown Salt Lake City and Sandy, and the Murray/Midvale/University Line, with service from Sandy to the University of Utah campus." Or am I misunderstanding? Language in the "Services" section makes it sound as though the station might not be on two lines. I find this confusing. A route map of the whole system might help clarify.
  • There is one set of rail that serves two different routes - the Sandy/Salt Lake line continues north into town, where as the University line turns east between Courthouse and Library stations. But between Courthouse > EOL (sandy) both routes run concurrent on the same physical rail. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The station is located northwest of Spring Mobile Ballpark, and is located along 1300 South, a major east-west route through Salt Lake City." - Tighten to "The station is located northwest of Spring Mobile Ballpark along 1300 South, a major east-west route through Salt Lake City."
  • Done. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Connections with local UTA buses are capable... " - I'm not sure what "capable" means in this context. Does it mean that buses stop at this station?
  • Yes, reworded.
• What is the meaning of People's Freeway? Providing context for the reader is almost always a good idea. Most readers know little or nothing about Salt Lake City.

History

• It would be helpful to include some of the history of the line. Readers from outside Utah are unlikely to know anything about the system.
• The existing History section consists of one paragraph with a lot of different ideas run together without logical connections. Perhaps each idea, if developed, could become a separate paragraph. That is to say, the sentence about the original opening could become a paragraph about the history of the line before the opening. The sentence about urban renewal could become a paragraph about the neighborhood and the station's relation to it. The sentence about the mural and the graffiti could be expanded to include details about each and about the training center. The sentence about Proposition 3 could become a paragraph about funding questions related to the station; it's not at all clear to an outsider what FrontRunner is or what it has to do with the station.

Services

• "Route 9, with termini at Ball Park TRAX and the University of Utah, route 248, with termini at 4800 West and Ball Park TRAX, and route 516, with termini in downtown Salt Lake and Ball Park TRAX." - This is not a complete sentence; it lacks a verb. The article could be improved by careful copyediting and proofreading.
  • Reworked that little section. I will go over the rest as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

• The one image is a little dark and doesn't show the mural or the station clearly. It should be possible to take a better one if you're handy with a digital camera.
  • Yeah, I can see what I can do. I only live a mile away from the station. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would [5] this serve better? --Admrboltz (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I’ve listed this article for peer review because I’m hoping to get the article to GA status. I'm wide open to suggestions that will help make sure the article is on the right track. Any feedback regarding grammar, style or content issues would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Gongshow ^⊕ 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is amazingly well-done. Well referenced, very well written, brilliant and engaging I might add. A very enjoyable read, and it's more than ready for GA status. Only one quibble, on the subject of the Flintstones image. I don't really see how that increases the understanding (see WP:NFCC#8 of the article -- about a song -- so I suggest removing it. Maxim_(talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the kind words and for the suggestion regarding the image. Fair point about contextual significance, it's been removed. Gongshow ^⊕ 04:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Maxim asked me to look over a few PRs s/he had done, so I read the article. I agree that this looks very good, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

• I think this needs a ref: R. Stevie Moore recorded a version of the song on his 1983 album, Crises.
• While I agree that it is hard to justify the fair use of File:BeauBrummelstones.jpg in the article as currently written, I think if a bit more were added to the text, the image might be OK to include.
  • I note the article on the Beau Brummels says they used an image of their animated appearance on the Flintstones on the back cover of their second album. I think this could be added to the article (and would strengthen the case for inclusion of this)
  • I also note that the cartoon images of the band seem to match the lineup as noted in the personnel section, so perhaps the caption could identify the musicians in their cartoon form (and would strengthen the case for inclusion of this)
  • I also note that the image shows the band in a very Beatle-esque way - the drummer looks a lot like Ringo, for example. Given the popularity of the Beatles, and all the commnetary of how the band tried to imitate / emulate the Beatles, I also think some commentary on this aspect of the image would help justify fair use.
• If the image is used in the article, the source and copyright need to be beefed up - right now it is just attributed to http://frederatorblogs.com but when I went there I did not see the image. I would try to get a web link that leads directly to a page incorporating this image, and it needs identification that it is from the Flintstones (I would identify the season and episode, as well as Hanna-Barbera Studios as the creator and probable copyright holder).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I think it is well-referenced and has the potential to become a Featured List. I would appreciate any feedback that other editors could provide. Thanks, Jameboy (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say thanks for the comments so far, I will try to respond to these in the next week or so. --Jameboy (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Maxim

Overall, it's a fine list, one which I would have submitted straight to FLC. A few pointers though:

• Can you do something with the awkward first sentence; it isn't engaging. Perhaps specify the more general location within England, so maybe change to something like ... located in West Bromwhich, West Midlands.
• Add a bit more info about the team in general (a few more sentences/facts won't hurt, f.ex. in what tier they play.) Something about the team's more recent history would add some context.

There isn't much more I could mention, as the rest is stats. If you expand the lead a bit, I could probably take a quick look at the quality of the new prose. Hope this helps, Maxim_(talk) 03:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Looks pretty comprehensive. A few suggestions/queries:-

• Prose: the semicolon in the final lead sentence should be replaced by a full stop.
• "Most substitute appearances" doesn't seem a very worthwhile record for inclusion.
• Most appearances table
  • Any reason why only the top 10 are recorded? Obviously there has to be some cutoff, but 10 seems a bit limited.
  • Are the substitute appearances in parentheses in addition to, or included in, the main apearance figures?
• Goalscorers: A bit of a medley of "mosts" and "firsts" I wonder if the "First league goal" is really worth listing as a record? Also, "Most goals in a season" does not distinguish between league and other competitions.
• Top scorers table: W.G. Richardson is credited with a goal in the "other matches" column, yet apparently he made 0 appearances in this category!
• International caps: the first entry has nothing to do with international appearances. I doubt, anyway, whether "North v South" matches in 1884 were that big a deal
• Transfers
  • Any reason for limiting fees paid and received to top 5?
  • Any reason for starting the progression table in 1921?
  • In the progression table, why has Kilbane got two fees against his name, and no citation in the Refs column?
• Points: perhaps a note could add that in all cases one point was awarded for a draw.
• Attendances: The "Away and neutral" attendance details seem somewhat limited. What, for example, were the highest away attendances for league and cup games? For the details you have, grounds where these attendances occurred should be mentioned.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Struway2

• Honours section is unreferenced.
• Whoever first invented the layout of the Most appearances and Top goalscorers tables should be shot, but that's not the fault of this article. Suggest putting any footnotes which apply to a table, such as Note D in the Other column, immediately below the table to which they apply, rather than in the general notes section. Save the reader a bit of effort.
• Flag usage is contrary to MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names.
• Various unreferenced: Goalscorers/First league goal, International caps/World Cup Finals ones, Progression of record/Kilbane, Managerial records section, Matches/Wins/English top division record, Matches/Defeats/Record Prem.
• Progression of record: sorting of fee column doesn't work on Kilbane fee.
• Decide whether you're calling it The Football League (as in Goalscorers) or Football League (as in Matches/Firsts). I prefer without the unnaturally capitalised The, but that's personal prejudice.
• Matches/Firsts: link friendly match to whatever that article's called at the moment.
• Matches/Firsts/First floodlit: Football League First Division should be just First Division.
• Should Bologna F.C. 1909 and FC Dinamo Bucureşti be displayed as something simpler, as English clubs are?
• I'd be tempted to combine notes ABC, but either way, change "now known as xxx" to "renamed xxx in 2004" or whenever it was.
• There must be a few of the records you could add a bit of light prose to, to liven up the endless tables.
• Didn't notice a date at which the records are correct.

hope this helps, and sorry it's taken me so long to notice it was up for PR. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to improve it to FA class, and I want to know what others think I should do to improve it to such.

Thanks, Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that I have made significant improvements to the article, and would like some imput as to how I can improve it further. It is my goal to improve the article to featured list status one day. Thanks, Decodet (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Comments' In general a good start. Here's a few notes:[reply]

• References need to be properly formated and give full attribution. I recommend using citation templates and filling out as many fields as possible. They do the formatting for you.
• I don't think acharts.us is WP:RS. Not sure about that.
• Chart columns should be home-country first (US), then alphabetical by english name.
• The "Singles as Sharpay Evans" sub header is unnecessary because it's already in a section called "As Sharpay Evans". In fact, I recommend against those sub-headers in general.
• Music videos directors need citations. No need for the notes section, since that's better left for the single's articles. Also no need for the albums column, since we already know that from previous sections.
• Add some general references. Take a look at Santigold discography for an example. Drewcifer (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! About acharts, it can be used as a source according to WP:CHART. I have not found references for 'Be Good to Me' videos directors so I removed the previous added names. Decodet (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in suggestions on how to improve the article in general. Namely, pointers on prose and organisation would be nice. I did a copyedit before requesting but there must be some more glitches that I missed. Somewhat related to the copyediting, comments on the general flow of the article (ie are there instances where the reader is left to wonder what's going on) would very appreciated. I decided not to use the general article format for a road because it's better suited for a highway then a residential street. Finally, while isn't obviously short, it's not very long, and I'm more than open to ideas on parts that could be missing or should be researched further. Comments outside these specific requests are more than appreciated, too.

Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 02:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and generally clear. I had a bit of trouble with the locations and directions, as I mention below. A map could be really helpful. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "Raymore Drive is a mostly residential street near Weston, Toronto, Ontario." - I'd add the country too, and to avoid "link bump", I'd suggest recasting as "Raymore Drive is a mostly residential street in the Weston neighborhood of Toronto in the Canadian province of Ontario.
• Wikilink footbridge?
• Wikilink abutment?
• "The flood washed away 39% of the street... " - Generally, 39 percent is preferred to 39% in simple case like this one and others in the article. Use an nbsp to keep 39 and percent together on line-break. Please see WP:NBSP if that doesn't make sense.

• Fixed. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

• "Raymore Drive and Raymore Park are located on area which was owned... " - "land owned" rather than "area which was owned"?
• It would be helpful to include a map showing the locations of the Humber River, the proposed canal, the Trent Canal and other relevant features.
• "Before the street curved along with the Humber, only the south side of Raymore Drive had houses... " - This is unclear. It might be helpful to use the "left bank", "right bank" conventions for rivers to make clear where the houses were. To do that, you need to specify the river's direction of flow through the neighborhood. By convention, "left bank" means the bank on the left when facing downstream.

• First point fixed. I haven't found anything showing how the canal would have gone, and I've added a bit more context. The last point can't really be fixed with a left/right bank conventions, but I've tried to clarify. I've also added a map of the street before the hurricane. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hazel

• The two sets of images create a text sandwich. If possible, it would be better to stack or re-locate the images to prevent this.
• "made landfall near the Carolinas' border... " - I would add "in the United States" for readers who do not know what "Carolinas" refers to.
• "Wikilink Pennsylvania?
• "the region had received particularly above-average rainfall... " - Delete "particularly" or give specifics?
• "and as much as 90% of up to 200 mm (7.9 in) of rainfall went directly into the waterways" - "percent" rather than %. Also, it would be good to make clear that this was additional rainfall from the hurricane.
• "a long-time resident believed that the water would not rise as high to endanger lives" - Suggestion: "would not rise high enough".
• "which led others to stay, in spite of warnings to the contrary from the" - Tighten to "despite" instead of "in spite of"?
• "In one case, a long-time resident believed that the water would not rise as high to endanger lives, which led others to stay, in spite of warnings to the contrary from the many other residents,[5] some who later waded through cold nose-deep waters to alert and rescue neighbours.[6]" - Too complex. I'd suggest the last part into a separate sentence: "Some later waded... ".
• "The bridge was eventually seized by the Humber's waters and became akin to a battering ram, which caused even destruction to properties." - Active voice is often better than passive. Suggestion: "The Humber's waters eventually seized the bridge, which became akin to a battering ram and caused property damage."
• "Entire homes were swept away by the water, later aided in part by the severed bridge." - Active voice would be more dramatic. Suggestion: "Aided by the severed bridge, the water swept entire homes away."
• "As a result of the massive flood, 366 m (1,200 ft)—39% of the 922-metre long road, as well as 14 homes, many with their occupants inside, were simply swept away by the Humber." - Suggestion: "The massive flood destroyed 366 metres (1,201 ft), roughly 40 percent, of the road as well as 14 homes, many with their occupants inside."
• "Owing the powerful torrent gushing down the Humber, many victims' bodies were never recovered." - Tighten to "Many victims' bodies were never recovered"?
• "The Army was called in... " - Wikilink Army?
• "Of the 81 Canadian casualties as a result of Hurricane Hazel, 35 alone lived on Raymore Drive." - I'd move this orphan paragraph up to merge with the bigger paragraph above it.

All fixed. I replaced the fair use image with a map based on the photograph. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Present day

• Rather than using words like "now" or "present day", it's usually better to tie the time down in some way. "Present day" means one thing today and something else 10 years from today. "After Hazel" might solve the problem in this case.
• "and a footing to this day remains in the park... " - Maybe "abutment" would be better since that is the word you used earlier. Or is the footing not the same as the abutment?
• "The park has an area of 29.2 acres... " - Needs a conversion to metric: 29.2 acres (11.8 ha), or you can flip these if you want to put metric first.

All fixed. I also added a present-day map of the area. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• Citation 4 uses a slightly different title than the equivalent in the Reference section, and it links to a general page rather than the specific one that might support the claim.
• Ditto for Citation 9.
• You might check the other citations to make sure they go to the intended target page with information that supports the companion claim.
• Citation 13 sounds like original research.

• Environment Canada changed its site layout recently, and I was fixing the links recently but I missed a few. For Citation 13, the claim is easily verifiable by looking at the images, as it's obvious both chunks of cement are the abutments. It skirts the letter of WP:OR, but I think it falls within the spirit of the calculations section. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

• The images lack alt text. Please see WP:ALT for details. These are not necessarily easy to do but make the encyclopedia more accessible to readers with zero or limited vision.
• Hurricane Hazel has a track map and other illustrations that might be useful here if the article gets long enough to accommodate them. Just a thought.

• There are so many images for this subject, so I previously created a gallery at Commons. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for such a comprehensive review. I've realised that OpenStreetMaps are CC-BY-SA, so are free to use at WP, and I'm editing a screenshot to illustrate the article. This may take some time. Maxim_(talk) 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Replied/done. Thanks so much again for the review. 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: The maps are a great improvement. Everything is much more clear.

Early history

• "proposed to build a canal between Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay" - It would be helpful to say "Georgian Bay on Lake Huron" for readers unfamiliar with this part of the world.
• "instead the Trent Canal, which links to Lake Ontario at Trenton, roughly 150 km (93 mi) to the northeast, was built to serve the purpose" - I think it would be helpful to mention the other end, Severn, and to say that it's also on Lake Huron. This and the addition of the location of Georgian Bay would make it more clear what the canal(s) were for.

Maps

• The maps make the situation much more clear.
• Captions would be a good idea for all three maps.
  • I use Simple skin and I hadn't immediately added the |thumb to show the captions because it won't center the image in that skin. I've filled bugzilla:20533 to try and get it fixed. AFAIK, it's good in IE (something that only works in IE... that's strange) and in other skins, but mostly importantly, Monobook, which is the default. Maxim_(talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for mentioning OpenStreetMaps. I was not aware that these existed.

Hurricane Hazel

• "and made landfall near the Carolinas' border" - "and made landfall near the Carolinas' border in the United States"?
• "The rise of the river was unprecedented and the residents did not evacuate, which led to the high death toll." - Since some residents evacuated, perhaps this would be better: "The rise of the river was unprecedented and some residents did not evacuate, which led to the high death toll."

After Hazel

• The caption says, "A new footbridge was built in 1995 to span the Humber, between Lions and Raymore Park." - What is Lions? It should probably be briefly explained with something like "the Toronto neighbourhood opposite Raymond Drive". I'm just guessing at what Lions means; I don't actually know. Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Just a note WRT the last caption, Lions is a park too (Lions Park), so I put "Lions and Raymore Parks". Hope that's clearer. Thanks again so much for the excellent review. Maxim_(talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it need gramatical improvements.

Thanks, Felipe Menegaz 00:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim comments The quality of the writing isn't that bad at all—in fact, I've done some tweaking, but to be honest, I really don't think it's an issue. Some other comments:

• Would it be possible to get lessen the amount of lengthy references strings (more than three)? They are distracting and they really make the article appear bigger than it really is, which brings me to my next pointer.
• You've split many sections into subarticles, but 3471 words on a single bid to seemed somewhat overwhelming for four main sections and a lead (which would be eight sections in total). Part of this problem is the 195 references (cf. Quark, with about 400 more words but 30 kB less total article size). I think the paragraphs are also quite fat (ref strings partially to blame), so as a whole the article could use some more summarizing.
• Not really critical, but the See also at the end is awkward. You seem to have merged the See also section (which goes usually goes above refs, btw) with external links. Again, the presentation isn't that bad, but some links like the BBC and Reuters are not useful. Since it's an Olympic bid, I'd remove the FIFA link, too.
• Now, if you're going to go to FAC with this, their latest stylistic requirement is the use of alt text, so you'll need to add it if you're going that route.

Hope this helps, Maxim_(talk) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

• All references are necessary because each of them completes a part of the text. In my opinion all are important.
• As I said, it would not be prudent remove references. At the same time, I think that is not a good idea summarize the text, since all extraneous parts were eliminated. It is impossible to extract more information.
• Done.
• All the images need to have an alternative text?

Thank you for the comments, you helped a lot. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks good. For alt text, ask at WT:ALT as I'm really not familiar with it. Maxim_(talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments mostly on the images I noticed that many of the images seem to have little connection with the article or their caption (except that they are of Rio). As examples

• The image of Sugarload and a cable car has the following caption Rio de Janeiro was chosen by the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) as the national postulant city to the 2016 Summer Olympics, in September 1, 2006.
• Or File:CopacabanaPavement.jpg says nothing about Copacabana, but instead mentions governmental and local support
• The ferris wheel image connection also escapes me, though the next two (of people) are good
• File:Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic banner.jpg is a red link
• The fair use image File:Rio de Janeiro bid project for the 2016 Summer Olympics.jpg needs to clearly explain what is being shown in the image (my guess is that it is Barra da Tijuca, but I am not clear if it is of actual facilities or of planned facilities)
• I like the maps and think I would include File:Rio de Janeiro bid map for the 2016 Summer Olympics.svg in the article itself (not hidden in a box).
• The hardest criteria for most articles at FAC to meet is a professional level of English and this needs a copyedit before FAC - see WP:WIAFA For example (picked at random) what is an "apart-hotel"? Also is this about the IOC or the soccer tournamanet? There will be 49,750 rooms to meet IOC requirements,[149] of which some 1,700 are located in apart-hotels in the city and more than 13,000 in hotels throughout Rio de Janeiro and the soccer tournament host cities.[150][151]
• Spell out numbers below ten per the MOS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies All images have connection with the article. The captions are refering to the text, while the description of the images are in alternative text (WP:ALT).

• The first image (left) shows the symbol of the candidature, the Sugarloaf mountain, which was the inspiration for the official logo.
• The second image (left) shows where the Evaluation Commission was accommodated, subject displayed in the section.
• The third image (left) shows the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Big wheel, as part of the bid's concept.
• The fourth image (left) shows the artistic concept of the proposed rowing venue to be located at the Rodrigo de Freitas Lagoon.
• Right-aligned images fixed.
• Added link for Apartment hotel. There will be 13,000 rooms in hotels throughout Rio de Janeiro and the football tournament host cities (Brasília, Belo Horizonte, Salvador and São Paulo). See Football_at_the_Olympics#Venues.
• Fixed numbers.

Thank you for the feedback! Regards; Felipe Menegaz 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that - I think many people look at the images before reading the article, so the caption should also clarify the connection between the image and the article. Please see Wikipedia:Captions too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the work of World Monuments Fund to be featured more and in preparation for the release of the 2010 version this fall season. I have created this article and developed its format. This is the first time I'm requesting a peer review, and hope that feedback will be positive. I'm currently working on re-formating the other listings of similar nature to this one.

Thanks, Joey80 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

• Flagicons shouldn't be used per WP:MOSICON
• Every field should be filled, even if its repeating because if the sorting feature is used in the table, rows that were once next to each other, no longer are.
• Date ranges should have an En dash between them, instead of hyphens, per WP:MOSDASH
• Each entry in the "Remarks" column should begin with a capital letter.
• The "Notes" section should have a 2nd level heading (== ==) and be above the "References" section.
• No blank lines between each of the individual notes
• Not really an issue, maybe more of a personal preference, but I'd retitle the "Remarks" column as "Notes"
• The quotation is nice, but is the yellow color necessary. Personally, I typically like to use the {{Rquote}} for pull-quotes.

I note that the 2006 list is also up for peer review. The comments provided here would probably be useful / relevant there were copied there as well. If you find these comments useful consider reviewing an article listed in the backlog (which is how I found this article). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for the comments. Joey80 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I was asked to submit a peer review for this article in order to fulfill one of the requirements of the Featured Topic of which it is a part. The game won't be played until December, but because someone raised a concern, I'm obliged to submit it here. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:PR stipulates that peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". A very brief article about a game that won't be played until December does not meet this requirement. I don't know who told you you were "obliged" to submit the article, but I think the nomination is premature, and it would be better to submit it when the article is in its developed form. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right too, but in order to satisfy a comment at WP:FTRC, I was asked to list it here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FT? states that "Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." In this case, this article cannot be good or featured because it is about a future event, however it needs including in the featured topic in order for the topic to be comprehensive (the rule is, an article has 3 months from its date of creation to be added to the topic), and hence the best way to ensure the standard of the article is high enough for inclusion, whilst recognising it cannot become a GA, is to get it peer reviewed. This has been a requirement of featured topics for about a year and a half now, and there have been dozens of articles peer reviewed to meet this requirement. It has helped maintain standards for featured topics - rst20xx (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that this is difficult to review because of its limited scope, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the Selection process and site selection are not mentioned in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• The logo shows both the ABC network (which is mentioned in the infobox) and Dr. Pepper, but neither of these is mentioned in the article currently.
• I think of 2004 and 2005 as the mid 2000s - see In the early 2000s, the conference underwent an expansion to add three former Big East members: the University of Miami[1] and Virginia Tech in 2004,[2] and Boston College in 2005.[3]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review on behalf of the people who have been working on it. I don't think it's far off a GA and I'm just looking for advice on jargon and stuff like that.

Thanks, Spiderone 08:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments (briefly):

• First, were the main editors consulted before the article was brought here?

• Yes they were, on the talk page Spiderone 15:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be me. But by no means is this article mine, purely because I'm not experienced enough to know everything to do on here. Tony2Times (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is very short. It should be expanded to become a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD
• Even in the short lead that exists there are several issues:-
  • "Gloucester, Gloucestershire" is clunky. Try "Gloucester, England"

But that's where he's from. Tony2Times (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the early life section to match Paul Collingwood. This usually happens for footballers but I see a few cricketers such as Harbhajan Singh and Kevin Pietersen have the birth place in the bracket. Which is preferred? Spiderone 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Too many commas in first sentence. Those after "batsman" and "Essex" should be deleted.
  • I assume you mean Cook became the first Englishman to score seven Test centuries before his 23rd birthday?
  • "...and has subsequently been the youngest Englishman to reach 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 runs" This reads as though he reached 1,000 Test runs after scoring his seven Test centuries, which isn't the case. Needs rewording.
  • The "also" in the final lead sentence is redundant.

I've rejigged and expanded the lead so that all of these problems are/should be gone. Now let's see what new problems my ramblings have created. Tony2Times (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-lead issues: I haven't read the rest of the prose, but I noticed the following:-
  • Hyphens used in headings (2000–2006 and 2008–2009) should be ndashes (as demonstrated here)
  • The bar chart showing Cook's Test batting performances only goes up to early 2008, and is thus out of date. It should either be updated, or dropped.
  • The "Performances against each opponent" and "Centuries" tables need to have some defined timeframe. At present this shold be "as of end-August 2009", but this may need frequent updating as Cook's later career unfolds.
  • References: The Wisden almanack needs full details of editor, publisher, location of publisher, date of publication and ISBN code. Note that the 2004 Almanack was published in 2005.

Removed the Wisden reference as everything is all sourced online now, requested updated bar graph. Do the tables need time qualifiers if they are up to date? Tony2Times (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above are a few more or less random points needing attention. If I have time I will try to extend my review Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FA at some point. The article was previously deleted and has a somewhat tumultuous history, so please read through past AfDs before commenting on the scope of the subject matter. There is one obvious error in the text, which I will correct in the future: the page numbers on the Malone citation don't come from the published piece but instead come from an earlier draft. I would also like some feeback on the non-free image in there. I am beginning to think that it isn't necessary but I would like some image to go along with the text.

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article about a topic I knew almost nothing about. WHile this seems fairly close to ready for FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think the lead image is OK. I was wondering if an image of a person playing could be added (which would just be someone sitting at a computer, I guess). Or since these objects aquired via DKP are as prized / valuable, is there fan art of a magical item tat could be added (under a free licence)? Here is my drawing of the enchanted armor I got from the Black Dragon's lair...
• Biggest MOS problem I see is use of quotations. First off the article mixes single quotes 'like this' and double quotes "like this" when MOS:QUOTE is clear that double quotes should be almost all direct quotations (single quotes are for a quote within a quote). Second, there are a large number of single words in quotation marks, which seems odd to me. I would look at each one and decide if it really needs to be in quotes. As one example of many, why does the word "prices" need to be in quoptes in Setting "prices" in DKP for specific items can be difficult, as analysis of a particular item can be subjective and laborious.[14]?
• Second MOS concern per WP:HEAD is that the headers are not supposed to repeat the article title if at all possible - I would change things like "Mechanics of a DKP system" to just "Mechanics" and I would also change things like "Zeo sum DKP" to just "Zero sum"
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but most of the types of DKP systems are not explicitly mentioned in the lead
• There are also several places where I think more context could be provided for the reader. See WP:PCR These are:
  • I would make it clearer what a guild is, and perhaps also what a boss is - I know the term boss only from PRs of a lot of game articles and it took me a while to figure out what a guild is and how it works. I think these could be one or two sentences, probably in the Origin... section
  • I would also give an example of in game currency (presumably my warrior needs a new shield and buys one for x gold coins). My guess is that currency is known in-universe, but DKP are not (just bookkeeping for the players, but the characters do not say "Well I have X DKP so I am better than you".)
  • I used to know something about Dungeons and Dragons a long time ago - I would also mention Experience points and how they (presumably) differ from DKP - again this could be quite brief.
• I mostly read for comprehansion and the language seemed decent, but I did notice a place or two where DKP (plural, points) is referred to in the singular (DKP is...)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for featured list but need to work out the kinks first. Treat this review as if it were a featured list nomination.

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll treat this like an FLC, as you wished:

• "…city provide year round connections…" I think "year round" should be hyphenated
• "…to the deep rural areas…" I don't think "deep" is needed
• "…from the south to the north." Take out both "the"s; their redundant
• "It is closely rivaled…" I don't think "rivaled" is the right word
• I'm going to stop the prose review, because I think it needs attention from a better copy-editor than I. Ask a good writer you know to do a thorough copy-edit before FLC.
• The ALT text for the first image needs to be improved; try describing it to someone who's never seen it.
• In the "Comments" column, some entries have periods while others don't. Be consistent.
• All of the references need to have last access dates (add "Retrieved on 2009-08-29" to all of them, assuming they still all work). Mm40 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome stuff. I'll make the changes suggested. I do request leaving the whitespace between entries in the table. It helps me in finding individual entries to make changes (And I'm fairly certain that it doesn't effect the article itself outside of the edit tab). Thank you :)

- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead
  • Per the rivaled comment, describing the 2nd longest road reads like padding
  • "roadways"?
  • "the ... roadways of the city provide year round connections to the deep rural areas of the region" ... an uncomfortable admixture of city, area & region; at best you must decide if this is a city or a region, at worst decide if the sentence is necessary at all.

• King's Highways
  • "highways (7, 7A, 7B, and 35) and one freeway" What's the difference between a highway and a freeway? We need either links or definitions.
  • "Like the rest of the province" Per comment above, now its a province already?
  • "with the green maple leaf shield" surely "with a green maple leaf shield"
  • "Highways 7 and 35 occupy 83.8% of the highway kilometres with 140.0 km (87.0 mi) of road between them." -> "Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads city/region/province [delete as applicable ;)]" (they do not occupy; some are freeways)
  • "The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) consists of:" -> "The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises" - and lose the colon
  • "southern corner of the city" - are you sure you mean city - is its use consistent with other uses of the term? Should it be region / province?
  • "an alternate route of Highway 7" probably should be "an alternate route to Highway 7"; even then I don;t entirely like it but cannot right now think of better.
  • "the heart of Lindsay" probably "the centre of Lindsay" - heart is highly idiomatic
  • "Though generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane are scattered along the highways. The city's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length.". Consider adding links to Single carriageway, Passing lane, Dual carriageway
  • "downloading"? - you mean they've been recategorised as city roads? You need to define this term.
  • "6 were transferred to the responsibility of the county". Good grief. Now it's a county.
  • "renumbered mostly as their equivalent county road numbers." -> "renumbered, most being assigned their equivalent county road numbers."
  • "The removed highways consisted of" - you could probably lose this sentence altogether & move the colon back to "equivalent county road numbers:". If you want to keep it, we need to know why these were downloaded a sentence or two ago, and are now removed.
  • re: the list of roads. The article talks about them being renumbered "as their equivalent county road numbers", but only one of them appears to have been renumbered - the rest retain the same numbers. I'm confused. You must assume others will be too. And when you say "as their equivalent county road numbers" I presume you mean Kawartha Lakes and not Victoria, but because of the lack of number changes, I'm really not sure. Think of this as some sort of road accident along the numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario article ;)
  • "Victoria County contained 11" ... "6 were transferred ". What happened to the other 5? I ask this because later, in Secondary highways you say "Victoria County, which was renamed to Kawartha Lakes" and I'm thinking, well if they are one and the same geographic entity, what happened to the other five roads? Did they just get de-numbered, or what?

• Secondary highways
  • "Victoria County, which was renamed to Kawartha Lakes" Why do we learn that only now. We've already dealt in King's Highways with the fact that we got a bunch of roads from VC. Lets say all was have to say about VC there.
  • "Secondary highways, but King's Highways. Why have the level 3 titles got different case for highway - capital and lower case.
  • "The city of Kawartha Lakes contains no secondary highways. Victoria County, which was renamed to Kawartha Lakes on January 1 2001,[6] contained 3 secondary highways". SO VC had three, and KL has none, but the roads still exist and have been given new KL numbers ... so in exactly what sense does KL have no secondary highways. Have the roads been given a lower designation than that of a secondary highway? If so I think you should make this clear.

• City roads
  • "There are 44 numbered city roads in Kawartha Lakes, numbered mostly between 2 and 50, with the exceptions of Road 57" I think might be better as "There are 44 numbered city roads in Kawartha Lakes, 43 of which are designated in the range 2 to 57, and the remaining as road 121...
  • "There has never been a Road 1 or Road 13". There are some other numbers missing in the 2-50 range, if only 43 of the numbers are taken up. Care to explain them, or explain why you are only explaining one of them?
  • "Including overlaps". What's an overlap? I honestly don't think I know.
  • "the routes of the city roads cover 743.3 kilometres (461.9 mi) of roadway" Aaaargh. I think you mean "The total length of city roads LK is". It was just too flowery a way of putting that nugget of information across.

There is more, but I've just mistakenly deleted my next five or so notes & so need a cup of tea. Remember this is pedantry of the highest order; don't be discouraged, it's really very good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to continue:

• King's Highways (table section)
  • "Route #" wraps even at the enormous resolution of my monitor
  • Column 1 sorts idiosyncratically. Once you hit the sort button, you get 35,115,7,7a,7b, and hit it again and you get 7b, 7a, 7, 35, 115. You cannot get back to 7, 7a, 7b, 35, 115. That's probably bad. Not sure what to do about that.
  • Don't like the Kawartha Lakes Highways title to the table. Why is it linked? From a format point of view, it looks poor (whether linked or not.) I don;t know what the MoS for this is, but comment that on my big monitor, the eye has to move a long way from the section title to the table title and the the cell 1a ... I'd kinda prefer things to be left justified & find the centre justification bogus. But you might check MoS tables for more, or find an FA with tables and see how it does it.
  • Centre justify the icons in column 1
  • Link Trans-Canada Highway
  • All of the sort icons in the table except the one at the top of column 1 cause the page to scroll up to the top. Not sure why that it. Definitely broken, though. (firefox 3.0.13 on XP)
  • "Note: All King's Highways, with the exception of 7B, pass through the region from one end to the other". I don;t like the word end, but have no suggestions. It jars because an east-west road passes through the region from side to side?
  • I'm having trouble integrating the end-to-end concept with the map. I'm expecting to see four highways (7, 7A, 7B, and 35) which go end to end = 8 points of intersection with the boundary ... I can count only 6 intersections (and even then I'm not sure what exactly the road going off bottom right is doing - what's that 90 degree bend all about? Whatever, the map and description do not seem to correlate. My bad. Except for 7b. (Highway 115 is the fourth)
  • "Formerly concurrent with Highway 35B". What does that comment mean?

• City roads (table section)
  • "The following is a list of numbered city roads in Kawartha Lakes..." Why do we get a paragraph of explanation here when we did not for King's Highways, above?
  • "are signed with the standard flowerpot shield symbol as most regional and county roads in Ontario." -> "are signed with a standard flowerpot shield symbol as are most regional and county roads in Ontario."?
  • "Towns are ordered by where the route encounters them (either from the south to the north or from the west to the east)." You have gone in two sentences from describing an attribute of the roads (they have flowerpots shield symbols) to describing an attribute of the table, without pause. The solution is probably to move the flowerpot sentence up to the City roads description section ("There are 44 numbered city roads in ...")
  • You can then say "In the Communities column, towns are ordered by..."
  • You need to repeat this message, presumably, before the King's Highway table
  • "Route #" wraps
  • Icons do sort properly, though.
  • And all other sort buttons work
  • However, the icons are all but unreadable - I find it very hard to distinguish the very tiny gray on gray font.
  • Not happy that the icons are easter egg links to pages, some (most?) of which have not been written. New users will be quite surprised to find themselves bounced unexpectedly to an invitation to write an article
  • If there are penalties for irrelevant column sorts, that on Communities might win it. You are sorting on the first community in the list ... how useful is this?
  • Comments column: "where it is the boundary line between Durham Region..." -> "where it forms the boundary between Durham Region..."
  • Comments column: "Cofferdam". Check out Cofferdam. Is it one? Previously it was a Causeway
  • Comments column: "one of only two numbered roads to span the city from east to west". Again, city, region, province ... consistency please
  • Comments column: "Concurrent with Kawartha Lakes Road 17 for 1.1 km". Again, I'm uncertain what concurrent means ... presumably that one stretch of road has two road-number designations. Probably needs some more explanation somewhere
  • Comments column: That led me to think about concurrency and the maths in the article - how is it affected. Do we really have 910.4 k of numbered roads, or is there double counting in the 167.1 k of king's highway and 743.3 k of city roads?
  • Comments column: "(Including its terminus)" - lower-case the I
  • Comments column: "Follows the southern boundary of Victoria County". I thought VC had been abolished, and or that CoKL was the same shape / covered the same territory as VC. I sense dissonance again.
  • Comments column: "not referenced by city map". Which city map - ours, above, or someone else's.
  • Comments column: "but is signed as well as being marked on several maps". Clumsy sentence.

• Pictures & captions
  • Can support wikilinks, e.g. to Mitchell lake
  • I have a problem with the legend on the File:KL Road Map.svg image ... difficult to read at 200px wide and expands only to 251px wide if clicked on ... still hard to read. Oh, maybe scratch that. Click it again and it's huge. Shame the image you see on the image page is not larger; I don;t know what control we have over the sizing of PNGs.
  • Why a lower case c in the city of... part of the map legend?
  • Image:Hartley Road causeway.jpg|thumb|200px ... I think the MoS advice is, do not set hard widths unless you have very good reasons for over-riding user's preferences. Preferred image width is user-settable in Preferences.

I think that's it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I am confused myself with the whole city/county/region/area thing. The land is an area or region, and the political municipality WAS a county before 2001, and is NOW a city. So, for example, the downloading of roads to the municipal governments in 1998 was to the county of Victoria, and not the City of Kawartha Lakes; For a short while, the roads were "county road x". Should I only use city, or should I use the correct term depending on the time frame? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a municipality which has the name city of KL ... so definitely not a region, area or province. I think I would try going with municipality for the CoKL days, and County for the VC days. I'd steer clear of city unless you can provide enough context, such as City of Kawartha Lakes. Hope that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I know it's not a province... that was probably a mistake. So in the article I should refer to it as the municipality of City of Kawartha Lakes? I'm not sure if the name of it is "City of Kawartha Lakes", or if its the city of "Kawartha Lakes". City documents never make it expressly clear. The 'C' is generally capitalized and thus I'd assume it's the former. In some sentences, it reads strange when including the "City of" part, as opposed to just "Kawartha Lakes". Most of my mistakes are the effect of writing that whole article in one sitting. I'll respond here when I've gone through and fixed things up. Thanks again! ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Okee dokee. I've now made it down to the Secondary highways part (Lots to go). I've clarified the city/county/area/region/province thing a bit I believe. There are two things, however, that I needed to discuss with you:

1. "**re: the list of roads. The article talks about them being renumbered "as their equivalent county road numbers", but only one of them appears to have been renumbered - the rest retain the same numbers. I'm confused. You must assume others will be too. And when you say "as their equivalent county road numbers" I presume you mean Kawartha Lakes and not Victoria, but because of the lack of number changes, I'm really not sure. Think of this as some sort of road accident along the numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario article ;)"
   • I'm guessing removing "renumbered" makes that more clear... They were renumbered from, say, Highway 121, to Victoria County Road 121, and then Kawartha Lakes Road 121.

The sentence is Prior to 1998, the now dissolved Victoria County contained 11 King's Highways. As part of a province-wide "downloading" of highways to municipal governments, 6 were transferred to the responsibility of the county of Victoria and renumbered, most being assigned their equivalent county road numbers.

Q1. Is "Victoria County" something different than "the county of Victoria". (Sorry - this is a new question, based on rereading the sentence to arrive at an answer to your question.

Perhaps a solution is to say something like "given new Kawartha Lakes designations following the prior Victoria County numbering system, with the exception of XYZ which was renumbered PQR"

Hope that helps some. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. They are the same, by the way. Both uses are very common and used interchangeably, but I will try and use only one term to keep it consistent and less confusing (Victoria County). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; but then in the sentence we're discussing, above, it should presumably read 6 were transferred to the responsibility of the county of Kawartha Lakes (my emphasis), rather than 6 were transferred to the responsibility of the county of Victoria --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange situation... If you skip out the middle-man, that works, but in all technicality they were transfered to the county of Victoria, then transfered to the city/municipality of Kawartha Lakes. I think when it really comes down to it, all that middle stuff is better saved for a Victoria County article, and this article would get along better just looking at what the municipality is called in current times. Is this ok or would it be skimping on necessary details? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest: Prior to 1998, the now dissolved Victoria County contained 11 King's Highways. As part of a province-wide "downloading" of highways to municipal governments, 6 were given new County of Victoria designations following the prior Victoria County numbering system (with the exception of Highway 35A which was renumbered County of Victoria Road 8). Upon the renaming of County of Victoria as Kawartha Lakes, they received Kawartha Lakes designations with unchanged numbers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Secondary highways, but King's Highways. Why have the level 3 titles got different case for highway - capital and lower case.
   • "King's Highway" is a legal term used in government documents. Secondary highway is not. Should I capitalize 'highway' regardless?

No. I've added the phrase "termed King's Highways" to denote that this is some sort of official term. It could be changed to "denoted by Act of Parliament 'King's Roads'" (if that is the case) but then that begs a citation for the legislation (or for some government document that makes the King's highway case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I sourced there... There was definitely some act passed in 1930 to change them to that name, so I'll see if I can find it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... This is interesting... and confusing. From Provincial highways in Ontario

The term "the King's Highway", first adopted in place of "provincial highway" in 1930,^[1] has been deprecated since the 1990s, and the old signs were replaced circa 1993. Currently these highways are again designated "provincial highways"^[2] or "provincially maintained highways"^[3] by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. The Highway Traffic Act, amended as recently as 2006, still refers to them as "King's Highway". Both terms are sometimes used within the same regulation as the older term is phased out.^[4]

I'm going to add that directly in there. Since it mentions that the terms are used interchangeably in the HTA(2006), I shouldn't have to change everything to "provincially maintained highways", right? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be inclined to handle it with a link, such as this. And that's all the explanation of the term you need to supply. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I'm pretty sure I've dealt with everything up to the end of the King's Highways section, so moving down the list now, I have so far done the edits up to the last section. As for some of the sorting links going to the top, that seems out of my control (It does it for me too on FF 3.5.3 on OSX), and would be a problem with sortable tables themselves. Th odd thing is that the latter table works fine. However, I have made it sort the highways in the correct order and centre justified them. I'll have a chance to get into the city roads table later on, but probably won't be done for another 24 hours. Let me know if I've missed anything above the city roads table (I'm pretty sure I've gotten it all or removed the info that was questionable). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like I had the time tonight. I've gone through all the suggestions and made the changes. Three things that I have comments/questions for:

• Image:Hartley Road causeway.jpg|thumb|200px ... I think the MoS advice is, do not set hard widths unless you have very good reasons for over-riding user's preferences. Preferred image width is user-settable in Preferences.

The main problem is that it becomes a blurb at a small size... I'm pretty sure the default size is under 200px.

• Why a lower case c in the city of... part of the map legend?

Other changes in the article (I'm pretty sure completely) now refer to it as Kawartha Lakes. The 'city of' merely indicates it is a city, and is the same title used on MapArt titles (Which are essentially the unofficial roadmaps for at least southern Ontario).This is my alibi for not wanting to fix the image if possible

• Comments column: That led me to think about concurrency and the maths in the article - how is it affected. Do we really have 910.4 k of numbered roads, or is there double counting in the 167.1 k of king's highway and 743.3 k of city roads?

This is one of the things I try to explain further up in the prose for city roads. Both the 910.4k and 743.3k are figures that are double counted through concurrency as I reached them by adding up the individual lengths which I aquired by measuring distances in google maps between points that I referenced to an official map. I'm not sure whether that is a huge or massive violation of WP:SYN. However, I see no harm in presenting the figure along with mention of how that figure was obtained. Thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know what could be done to improve its quality; hopefully someday it could be a Good article.

Thanks, Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage: Add sections on
  • language usage, popular uasge like " (to)2", "ur", "teh (the)" "s_>z"etc [6][7]
  • the article seem cat-centric: also talk about dogs etc
  • Are there other popular themes like Ceiling Cat and Basement Cat?
• Dates need references; eg "The domain name "caturday.com" was registered on April 30, 2005."
• "while others don't" is spoken English, not written.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating and amusing. I think it has GA potential, but it needs more work to get there. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead is more like an essay introduction than a summary of the main text. A good rule of thumb for leads is to include at least a mention of each main text section and not to include anything that is not mentioned in the main text. I'd think about mentioning the early cat-card people like Frees in the lead as well as parodies and off-shoots and anything else that is added as the article expands. It's often a good idea to re-write the lead when the rest of the article is finished.

Format

• I'd suggest combining the two short paragraphs at the end of the section.

History

• The citation-needed tag for Henry Pointer should be addressed. The information must have come from somewhere, but where?
• "The word "Lolcat" is attested as early as June 2006... " - Is "is attested" the right phrase here? Perhaps "was used"?
• "Their popularity was spread through usage on forums such as... - Tighten by deleting "through usage on"?
• "The News Journal states that... " - Specify the city and state of the The News Journal?
• "Ikenburg adds that the images have been... " - Who is Ikenburg?
• "The first image on "I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?" was posted on... " - Title case is preferred even if the source uses all caps; i.e., "I Can Has Cheezburger?"

Offshoots and parodies

• It would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on LOLCODE. The one-sentence orphan paragraph is a bit of a teaser.

Ceiling Cat and Basement Cat

• The project to translate the Bible into lolspeak might also be expanded. How is such a project possible? How far have they gotten? What does a well-known passage look like in translation? Would a selected blockquote be good here?

Images

• The images lack alt text, designed to make the images accessible to readers with visual impairments. They are not especially easy to do at first but are worth doing. WP:ALT has details.

Other

• The dabfinder that lives here finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• Citation 1 has a dead url.
• Citation 20 is incomplete. Ditto for Citation 10 and others. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those can be found.
• Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources. In this particular case, they might sometimes be, but it would be better to replace citations to personal blogs with citations to published media such as newspapers, magazines, and books. Speaking of books, it would be good to track down at least the one on Henry Frees and any others that touch on this subject and to cite them, where possible, instead of personal blogs and web sites.
• Newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

I believe it has the potential to be a GA article, with reliable sources, etc. Please help me review the article in order to achieve a GA status. Thanks, Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks pretty good so far. It's very well-referenced, but could use a real thorough copyediting job. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "in conjunction to" --> "in conjunction with"
• "the latter one who produced..." --> "the latter who produced"
• Cyrus's --> Cyrus' (keeps consistent w/other Miley pages)
• "marked 'change' for Cyrus." (How so?)
• "The Time of Our Lives reached the second position..." (I'd merge this sentence with the next paragraph)
• "including her controversial Teen Choice Awards one which sparked controversy due to what appeared to her pole dancing" --> "including one at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards which sparked controversy due to what appeared to critics to be Cyrus pole dancing"

Writing and development

• "After being featured several projects for the Hannah Montana franchise, thus including Hannah Montana: The Movie and Hannah Montana 3," (sounds awkward to me, maybe something like) --> "After recording (five? seven? ten?) albums for the Hannah Montana franchise,"
• "the youngest Jonas stated" (who's that? Nick?)
• "New producers include the men responsible for lead single and title track, Dr. Luke and Claude Kelly" --> "New producers include Dr. Luke and Claude Kelly, who worked with Cyrus on the lead single and title track."
• "meanwhile incorporating past ones" (such as? I'm assuming John Shanks, but I'd suggest) --> "Returning collaborators include Grammy-award winning producer John Shanks, who produced Cyrus' hit single 'The Climb' earlier in 2009.'"

Music structure and lyrics

• "Cyrus has stated in she enjoys songs by Spears in reality." (stated in what?)

Wal-Mart partnership

• "only via American stores from the company and its internet sites." --> "available in stores and at Walmart.com."
• "due to an error." (what was the error?)
• "for her and designer Max Azria's, of apparel house BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP Inc., Miley Cyrus & Max Azria." (unsure what is trying to be said; also, BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP Inc. links to disambiguation page)

Critical reception (expansion; any other reviews?)

• "though describing the ballads" --> "though he described the ballads"

Chart performance

• "Issue dated September 12," --> "For the week ending September 12, 2009,"
• "on the on chart selling 62,000 copies in a single week." --> "on the chart, selling 62,000 copies."
• "up 146%" --> "up 146 percent"

Singles

• "it was released early on July 29 for airplay." --> "it was released for airplay on July 29."
• "it also became her fifth U.S. airplay effort" --> "it also became her fifth single to reach the U.S. airplay chart" or --> "it also became her fifth single to reach the U.S. Pop Songs airplay chart"
• "With this position, Cyrus tied for highest debut of 2009." (which position? number two debut on the Hot 100?)

Promotion (appears to have several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs; I'd either combine some of the paragraphs or expand them)

References (Citation 37 goes to a dead link)

Those are some of the issues that caught my attention upon first glance. I hope this helps. Keep up the good work. Gongshow ^⊕ 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for all those extremely helpful comments, did almost all of them. Cyrus' is incorrect, it is not in plural (so those other pages would need to be changed). And the youngest Jonas is refereed to a such after his first name is mentioned. THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THE PAGE!!! -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because first of all, I have actually edited this article, and plan to do so again. ;) These modules were the first ever produced by TSR for Dungeons & Dragons and have achieved an iconic status. If Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and (quite possibly) Ravenloft can make FA, then I know this one can too. What do you think we can to do take it there?

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems to cover the subject pretty well. I found the "Reception" section especially interesting; the reference to Colbert is a nice touch. I have a few suggestions, mostly minor, some of which might make the article a bit more transparent to readers who have not played these games.

Lead

• Would it be helpful to say where the games were published as well as when?

• TSR was based on Lake Geneva, Wisconsin - would it help to say that in the lead though? BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. My thinking was that readers might want to know if it had a U.S. origin or maybe a British origin or something else. Maybe it would only clutter the lead. Could it be added smoothly to the "Publication history"?

Possibly - I'd have to give that some thought. :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd think about unlinking "fantasy" in the first sentence to break up the "link bump" sequence. It's a pretty common word.
• I don't think anything should be bolded in the lead except the repeat of the title in the first line.
• "They earned a 9/10 overall rating from White Dwarf magazine in 1978, with the reviewer noting that it was impressive that Gary Gygax found the time to write them while also working on the AD&D rulebooks." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Suggestion: "In 1978, they earned a 9/10 overall rating from a White Dwarf magazine reviewer, who was impressed that Gary Gygax found time to write them while also working on the AD&D rulebooks."
• "Gary Gygax found the time to write them while also working on the AD&D rulebooks." - Spell out as well as abbreviate "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) rulebooks"?
• "White Dwarf also reviewed the re-released G module series in 1982, giving it a 10 out of 10." - If "G module series" means the three modules, perhaps the third sentence of the lead should include the abbreviation, thus: "All of these modules (the G module series) were produced for use... ".
• "which consisted of the three modules combined together with the four subsequent modules... " - Delete "together"?
• "which consisted of the three modules combined together with the four subsequent modules in the GDQ series" - What does GDQ stand for?

Plot summary

• The "citation needed" tag should be addressed.

• That will be either cited or removed by the time we go to FAC. :) BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Chief's treasure room contains a map of the glacial rift... " - Lowercase "chief".
• "The second level is also made of obsidian rocks... " - Wikilink obsidian?
• "This module is twice as long as the previous two: sixteen pages instead of eight." - Would it be helpful to briefly explain the meaning of "pages" in this context?

• Not sure what you mean. The significance of the number of pages? Just that it was double in size compared to the previous two, I guess. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books have pages, but a module, as I understand it, is a piece of software. Are the individual screen displays called "pages"? I'm not sure what a "page" of a computer game refers to. Finetooth (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a D&D module for the pen and paper game is a book - thus the significance of the number of pages. :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• "Turnbull was impressed that Gary Gygax was able to find time to write them while also creating AD&D's rules" - Probably "Gygax" is sufficient since his full name appears in the lead and again later.
• "The maps did not contain a scale, which he assumed was 10 feet per square." - Convert to metric as well?

• It's weird that Turnbull is British, but he assumed in feet rather than metres. :) (Of course, the game has never been converted to meters, as I understand it.) BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "One of the traps in the first module is unclear on what triggers it." - Suggestion: "It is unclear what triggers one of the traps in the first module."
• "Turnbull's most major criticism was that the adventure was aimed at parties of too high a level. Summing up, he said "No DM should be without them, for even if he never gets a chance to run them, they are a source of much excellent design quality." - You can't add an explanation to the quote itself, but would it be helpful a bit earlier to add the abbreviation after "dungeon master"? I'm assuming that's what DM refers to.
• I notice that in the Colbert quote, the words "frost giant", "fire giant", and "storm giant" are lower-cased, which is how I would write them since they are generic rather than formal titles. I wondered about the initial capital letters on similar words like "Jarl" in "There are also polar bears; pets of the Jarl. After defeating the Jarl... ". I think these should be lower-case (jarl) except when part of someone's formal name; e.g., Jarl Grugnar. There might be a few more of these that I missed.

General

• I usually find plot summaries to be the least interesting parts of articles that include them. I find that true of this article. The further I went, the more interesting the article got. "Critical reception" was the most interesting. I don't know if there's a cure for this, but I think the plot summaries could be shorter, perhaps collapsed into a single section with no subsections.

• The plot summary for each individual module is already considerably shorter than what we might normally include (see the two module FAs I linked to in the opening paragraph at the top of this page), though I admit that all three taken together is a bit long. We'll see what we can do, but we might not be able to trim much out without making it too much of a skeleton. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need alt text, meant for readers with visual impairments, to survive FAC. Since you have only one image, this shouldn't be a big problem. WP:ALT has details, and you can review some FAC discussions to see how other editors are handling the alt text.
• Are any statistics on sales available? Did these modules make anybody rich?

• Don't know, we'll see what we can find. Information like that might be pretty scarce, as I doubt TSR ever posted sales figures where anyone but an industry insider is likely to find. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in a field that interests you. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very helpful. I fixed most of it; if you respond to my other questions we'll see what we can do! BOZ (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would want to improve it into a better artical and maybe some day a GA.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, broad in coverage, and appears nearly ready for a successful run at GA. However, I notice a tendency toward over-complex or run-on sentences in a few places, and I have other suggestions related mostly to Manual of Style issues.

Images

• Images need alt text. WP:ALT has details.

Sourcing

• Adding so many multiple sources for simple claims like the following seems unnecessary and creates page clutter: "He died at the age of 28,[5][6] from an accidental "toxic combination of prescription drugs."[13][14][15][16]"

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of all of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about Ledger's personal life, trouble with insomnia, difficulties with the press, and so on. You might need to reduce the fraction of the lead devoted to awards and to increase the fraction devoted to the missing sections. For an article this long, a four-paragraph lead would probably be fine.
• The phrase "toxic combination of prescription drugs" shouldn't be wikilinked inside the quotation marks. A workaround might be to add (combined drug intoxication) in parentheses after the quote. WP:MOSQUOTE says in part, "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."
• "casting a shadow over the subsequent promotion of the $180 million film" - WP:NBSP suggests holding together combinations like $180 million with an nbsp code to prevent the parts from being separated by line break on computer screens.

Family and personal life

• "first all-boy victory" - It isn't clear at first glance what this means. My first thought was "Why didn't any girls make the team"? Perhaps the cure would be to add "a boys school" to Guildford Grammar School a couple of sentences earlier.
• What did Guildford Grammar's team do to win the challenge? What production? What kind of team?
• "with former child star, actress Mary-Kate Olsen" - I'd unlink "actress" in this sequence because it's a common word that needs no explanation and because unlinking it would prevent "link bump".

2000s

• "After Brokeback Mountain, Ledger costarred with fellow Australian Abbie Cornish in the 2006 Australian film Candy, an adaptation of the 1998 novel Candy: A Novel of Love and Addiction, as young heroin addicts in love attempting to break free of their addiction, whose mentor is played by renowned Australian actor Geoffrey Rush; for his performance as sometime poet Dan, Ledger was nominated for three "Best Actor" awards, including one of the Film Critics Circle of Australia Awards 2006, which both Cornish and Rush won in their categories." - Too complex. I'd suggest breaking this up into two or three simpler sentences.
• "To prepare for the role, Ledger told Empire, "I sat around in a hotel room in London for about a month, locked myself away, formed a little diary and experimented with voices — it was important to try to find a somewhat iconic voice and laugh. I ended up landing more in the realm of a psychopath — someone with very little to no conscience towards his acts"; after reiterating his view of the character as "just an absolute sociopath, a cold-blooded, mass-murdering clown," he added that Nolan had given him "free rein" to create the role, which he found "fun, because there are no real boundaries to what the Joker would say or do." - Too complex. I'd at least replace the central semi-colon with a terminal period. Also, Wikipedia generally does not put spaces around the em dashes.

Directorial work

• "Ledger created and acted in a music video set to Drake's recording of the singer's 1974 song about depression "Black Eyed Dog"—a title "inspired by Winston Churchill’s descriptive term for depression" (black dog);[71] it was shown publicly only twice, first at the Bumbershoot Festival, in Seattle, Washington, held from 1 September to 3 September 2007; and secondly as part of "A Place To Be: A Celebration of Nick Drake", with its screening of Their Place: Reflections On Nick Drake, "a series of short filmed homages to Nick Drake" (including Ledger's), sponsored by American Cinematheque, at the Grauman's Egyptian Theatre, in Hollywood, on 5 October 2007. - Too complex.
• "Ledger's final directorial work, in which he shot two music videos before his death, premiere in 2009." - Premiered? Or maybe they haven't yet. Do you know the month or the exact date?
• "the Woodroofe video for her cover" - Wikilink cover?

Sleep difficulties...

• I'd remove the spaces from around the em dash in the quote at the end.

Death

• "At about 2:45 p.m.... " - Times expressed as digits and "p.m." or "a.m." need to be glued together with nbsps.

Memorial tributes and services

• "Verne Troyer, who was working with Ledger on The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, at the time of his death, had a heart shape, which is an exact duplicate of a symbol that Ledger scrawled on a piece of paper with his email address, tattooed on his hand in remembrance of Ledger because Ledger "had made such an impression on [him]." - Too complex.
• "Later that night, his family and friends gathered for a wake on Cottesloe Beach.[27][111][113][114][115][116]" - Does a simple claim like this need six sources? I doubt that this and some of the other claims in this and the subsequent section need so many serial sources.

Federal investigation

• "as it resulted in: "shock and confusion" about "the circumstances", the ruling of the death as an accident caused by "a toxic combination of prescription drugs"," - Unlink words inside direct quotation.

Controversy over will

• ""While Ledger left everything to his parents and three sisters, it is understood they have legal advice that under WA law, Matilda Rose is entitled to the lion's share" - Unlink WA. Ditto for all linked words or dollar signs or anything else in direct quotations later in the article.
• If for any reason you decide to shorten the article, I think this would be the section. It seems a bit gossipy and speculative in places. For example, "may have fathered a secret love-child" and "could split his multi-million dollar estate" fall into the category of gossipy speculation. It's the sort of thing the tabloids thrive on, but they can say anything about anybody by using words like "may" and "could". Most of this speculation comes to nothing. Does it belong in an encyclopedia? If the love-child actually appeared and won half the estate, that would be a different matter.

Posthumous films and awards

• "Ledger's death affected the marketing campaign for Christopher Norans's The Dark Knight (2008)[17][64] and also both the production and marketing of Terry Gilliam's forthcoming film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, with both directors intending to celebrate and pay tribute to his work in these films.[148][65][64][149]" - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Suggestion: "Ledger's death affected the marketing campaign for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008)[17][64] and also both the production and marketing of Terry Gilliam's forthcoming film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Both directors intended to celebrate and pay tribute to his work in these films.[148][65][64][149]"
• "In February 2008, as a "memorial tribute to the man many have called one of the best actors of his generation," Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell signed on to take over Ledger's role, becoming multiple incarnations of his character, Tony, transformed in this "magical re-telling of the Faust story,"[152][153][154] and the three actors have donated their fees for the film to Ledger's and Williams' daughter." - Too complex.
• "On 11 December 2008, it was announced that Ledger had been nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture for his performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight; he subsequently won the award at the 66th Golden Globe Awards ceremony telecast on NBC on 11 January 2009 with Dark Knight Director Christopher Nolan accepting on his behalf." - Another awkward use of "with" as a conjunction.

References

• I don't think you need to add the .dot com data to citations like "(Variety.com (Reed Elsevier))". I've never seen anyone add these to the citations. They are already embedded in the url, and they create a confusing double nesting of parentheses.

Other

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds a wikilink to "immunity" that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.
• The link checking tool that lives here finds four dead citation urls.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article and I'd like to get feedback on what additional work is needed to prepare the article for a featured article candidacy now that one major issue, the lack of images, has been addressed.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting and generally well done, but I think it needs some work, mostly on language and providing context before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The prose could be titghtened in several places I noticed - for example the first sentence might read better as Post Oak Mall is a regional shopping mall owned by CBL & Associates Properties and located in College Station, Texas. or even as Post Oak Mall is a regional shopping mall in College Station, Texas owned by CBL & Associates Properties.
• The second sentence could also use a tweak Construction on the mall began in summer 1979 and it opened business on February 17, 1982. I would either say "opened for business" or just "opened on February..."
• Missing verb? The first four anchor stores in the mall [were?] Sears, Dillard's, Wilson's, and Foley's.[5]
• Should be neither ... nor or either ... or ...becoming the seventh Sonic in Brazos Valley, and the only one that does not have either a drive-in nor drive through option.[24] (i.e. only one that has neither a drive-in nor drive through option.[24]
• There are several places that need to provide context for the reader better - see WP:PCR. For example
  • I would add the year of the second phase opening to the lead
  • I am guessing in the lead that It also houses a small food court, two restaurants, a bank, and a nightclub. is the current state of the mall - if so I would clarify it is "As of 2009" or perhaps "As of Spetember 2009". There are other places where a date could be added for clarification like the Stores section
  • Who is Anuncio? A breif explanation would help
  • Did CBL develop / build the mall originally or did they come in later?
  • I think it would help to briefly describe the location of College Station in Texas, relative to Houston, etc.
  • What is the relation between CBL and Bealls? See With the exception of Bealls, the mall's anchor stores are independently owned, separate from mall ownership.[1]
• I would make this a new paragraph David Gwin, the economic development director for College Station, is working with the mall on a possible $8.5 million renovation project ... Also since this is a US article, I do not think that US $ needs to be linked here.
• Math does not add up 1985 + 20 = 2005, but A local staple, The Curiosity Shop, moved into the mall in 1985. After being a featured store for twenty years, it left in August 2002 to move to a larger location.
• Apparent internal contradiction In 1985, J.C. Penney became the sixth anchor... but in the next paragraph it says Steve & Barry's became the mall's sixth anchor store, and its first without an exterior exit... Huh?
• I thought the whole second paragraph of the Anchors section was a bit unclear
• 36 acres needs metric (hectares presumably)
• Link Texas A&M

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review (and sorry for the delay in response). I've done some rewording of the confusing areas noted above to try to make them clearer and to add context/clarification where needed. For the question on Bealls, I can only presume its the same as the other stores, with only the other anchors noted being separate units. Fixed the internal contradiction on The Curiosity Shop (I think it was trying to say local staple for 20 years, not just at the mall, but that was superflux anyway). Also fixed the contradiction on the anchors and hopefully cleared up that paragraph some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I reread it - is there any explanation as to the name of the mall (why was it named Post Oak Mall?).
• I also note that the Beginnings section says J. C. Penney, relocating from its Manor East Mall location in Bryan, became the fifth anchor store in the mall.[3] but the Anchors section now reads Bealls, became the fifth anchor when it opened a second location in Post Oak a few weeks after the mall's opening.[3][18]
• In an attempt to better understand the sentence With the exception of Bealls, the mall's anchor stores are independently owned, separate from mall ownership and considered "stand-alone" builings.[1] I read ref 1, which does not mention Bealls at all. Instead it says The buildings that house Sears, Foley’s, J.C. Penney and the two Dillard’s stores are considered free-standing and are privately owned and taxed separately. Since the source does not mention Bealls, I think it is OR to say (as the article currently does) With the exception of Bealls, the mall's anchor stores are independently owned, separate from mall ownership and considered "stand-alone" builings.[1] It might be that Texas or county law is based on having a separate entrance and if you can find a source for that, then this might be OK. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no sources have explained why the name Post Oak. My guess would be the nearby geological feature the Post Oak belt and the prevalence of that variety of tree in the state as "Post Oak" seems to be a popular name, but nothing sourcable. Fixed the conflicting history and I've removed the statement. No idea why only Beall's was not mentioned, and since never did see any other details on it, not sure how relevant it may be? All of them have separate entrances except the Steve/Barry's now closed location :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it might be OK to include a sentence just saying what a Post Oak is, perhaps with a ref here. Not claiming it was the reason why they named the mall that, just saying what a post oak is (I was not sure when I read the name). It could just be that the Bealls was an error of omission by the reporter. I think the sentence could be paraphrasing what the ref does say - perhaps something like Both Dillard’s locations, Foley’s, J.C. Penney, and Sears are independently owned, separate from mall ownership and considered "stand-alone" buildings for tax purposes.[1] Does that work? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added back with the rewording (and a bit of tweaking...curious to see if that is still the case now). For now, I think I'll leave out Post Oak without knowing for sure it refers to the tree and isn't just something that sounded cool together. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me - would it make sense to "add as of 2004" (or whenever the news article was)? I am fine with leaving out the explanation of what a post oak is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the year (and moved it down to after when the second Dillards location is mentioned) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how the current article is, how it reads, if it is too much or too little, if it should be broken down or in any way improved. It is currently a good article and would like it to become a featured article. Any comments or suggestions are welcome on improving the article.

Thanks, ASOTMKX (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

Ongoing. Comments soon to appear. SGGH ^ping! 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong lead - but "famous", could that be quantified/qualified/changed to a direct quote from a reviewer?

 Done the word famous has been removed, no quote from a reviewer could be found. ASOTMKX (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple of two/three sentence paragraphs that could be merged.

 Not done

• File:Tiesto444.jpg, needs more detail on its source.

 Done the image has been removed and three new images have been added that have adequate copyright information. ASOTMKX (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The discography section, that these are headings makes the formatting a bit odd. Perhaps format the headings such as Video and Other albums with bold text rather than headings, or perhaps a table.

 Done changed discography section from headings to bold text. ASOTMKX (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Hole Records doesn't need to be see also'd as its linked in the article.

 Done Removed Black Hole Recordings from See also section. ASOTMKX (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not cite Bebo as a reliable source, even if it is his page. Tripod might be questionable too, but I don't know what consensus on it is.

 Done bebo and tripod removed ASOTMKX (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few primary sources which ought to be supplemented with more secondary ones.

 Not done

• I don't know if his myspace, twitter and facebook are suitable external links, IMO.

 Done removed all three external links as well as the youtube and last.fm links. ASOTMKX (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some long periods without citations, particularly in the biography sections.

 Not done

• "A wax sculpture of Tiësto was placed behind a turntable where Madame Tussauds visitors can mix Tiësto's music together with the man himself and he also won an Edison music award in the Best Dance category.[38]" Two unrelated statements in one sentence? Make sure a copy edit is done, as always.

 Done Split this sentence up and clarified the second item. ASOTMKX (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dennis Waakop Reijers-Fraaij" is mentioned on the talk page as being a possible coverage gap. If this is the case, please address. If not, ignore :)

 Not done

• A general double check on all references, and a bit of a copy edit. On a couple of occasions two words are used where one will do, but its just a minor prose change.

 Not done

• Three of the images need their captions expanded to more than "tiesto in 200_" to give them some content and tie them into the article.

 Done Got information for one, removed the other two images until more information could be found out about them. ASOTMKX (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these ideas help. FAC will grill any remaining copy edit problems. Good luck. SGGH ^ping! 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! ASOTMKX (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have based this article/list on the current FL List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons with the hopes of having it achieve similar status. I have developed this list from scratch within the last week and would like any advice on what needs to be done to improve it. I have tried to make sure it is well sourced and thorough. Any advice would be appreciated. Especially to ensure that I have maintained neutrality.

Thanks.?NMajdan•talk 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I don't know anything about college football, so please excuse me if some of my suggestions are off-beam. Here goes:-

• Text
  • "as part of" could be simply "in"
    •  Done Done.
  • "Oklahoma has played their home games..." - "has" and "their" do not go together. Either "Oklahoma have" (better still, "The Sooners have...", or alter "their" to "its".
    •  Done Don't understand this change, but changed it regardless to "The Sooners have played their..".
  • Second para, first sentence; something of the same has/have issue. As the sentence begins "The Sooners", then "have is the required verb form. There should also be tense consistency. I am not sure whether "claim" is the best word - "secured" would be more– accurate. So the sentence should read: "The Sooners have secured seven national championships, have recorded 42 total conference championships, have twelve undefeated, untied seasons, and have the longest winning streak..." etc
    •  Done When referring to national championships in college football, "claim" is probably the best word. I restructured the opening and split it into two separate sentences.
  • "The program is the most successful program..." Apart from the awkward repetition, what exactly does "the program" refer to? Is this footballspeak?
    •  Done Clarified: The Oklahoma football program...
  • The formulation .761 is not a percentage, which would be 76.1
    • Sports (in the US) almost uniformely use the format ".999" when referring to percentages.
  • "...first real coach..." - "real" is somewhat vague. First professional coach?
    •  Done
  • What is a 9-1-2 record?
    •  Done Wins-losses-ties. Clarified this in the first instance.
  • "22-year" needs a hyphen
    • I have a non-breaking space. I guess I don't know when to use non-breaking spaces and hyphens.
  • "Also during Owen's tenure, Oklahoma became...." - "Also" is not required at start of sentence.
    •  Done
  • "...three national championships in 1950, 1955 and 1956 including a stretch of 47 straight victories which began in 1953 and ended in 1957." The championships and the 47 straight victories are distinct and separate achievements – one does not "include" the other. "Three" is redundant since you give the years. Therefore: "...national championships in 1950, 1955 and 1956, and a stretch of 47 straight victories which began in 1953 and ended in 1957."
    •  Done
  • "...but they returned to the national title picture following the hiring of Barry Switzer in 1973." As phrased, needs an "only" before "returned". Or you could replace the "but" with an "and".
    •  Done
  • "similar" ? "similarly"
    •  Done
  • Choppy, underpunctuated prose in the last two sentences of third paragraph. Suggest amend to: "Switzer began similarly to Wilkinson, with eight consecutive conference championships and national championships in 1974 and 1975. He added Oklahoma's sixth national championship in 1985."
    •  Done
  • Last paragraph: Untidy beginning which I suggest is rewritten as follows: "After a decline that lasted more than a decade, Oklahoma again won the national championship in 2000, after coach Bob Stoops had been hired the previous year. By then Oklahoma had joined a new conference that combined the Big Eight Conference and four Texas schools of the Southwest Conference."[9]
    •  Done
  • Last sentence needs tweaking. Suggest: "Through the 2008 season, Oklahoma has compiled an overall record of 788 wins, 300 losses, and 53 ties, and has appeared in 42 bowl games, most recently in the 2009 BCS National Championship Game."[13]
    •  Done

• Main Table: Generally neatly done.
  • What is the status of the two polls to the right of the table, which provide what are called "final rankings"? Who are in these rankings? Why are Oklahoma ranked 11th in 2006 and 8th in 2007, with seemingly identical playing records for the two seasons?
    • I think those questions could be answered by visiting the wikilink. They are human polls so it is subjective. If two teams have both lost two games, but one team's losses have been to weaker foes while the other's was to strong foes, then the pollsters would rank the latter team higher.
• Conference championship game results: these could be presented more neatlt in the form of a short table.
  • That would require me to remove to the links from the main table. Is it worth it?
• MOS issues:
  • Non-breaking spaces: See WP:NBSP.
    • I thought I had used these extensively.
  • A punctuation pedant might object to the use of mdashes in the table to indicate blanks
    • No objections were made in the FL candidacy of the list I based mine one. I will address that if it is raised.
  • Page ranges (e.g. 24–31) should use ndashes not hyphens.
    •  Done

That's about it. As I shan't be watching this page (far too many on the list) please call my talkpage if you have queries or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips.↔NMajdan•talk 17:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this list to FL quality. I have put a decent amount of work into it, and would appreciate any feedback that I can use to further improve it. I used List of counties in New York as a model since it is a FL. Thanks,  JUJUTACULAR  23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikilink FIPS Code the first time its mentioned.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Update the Population to the 2008 Consensus in the FIPS external links--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Compare your list with List of counties in Alabama which was recently featured. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Why is there empty space under the images?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Expand the lead 2X.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done with 1-5.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  23:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. The {{Missouri County Labelled Map}} should have a caption.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You can leave this for later.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Use http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/missouri_map.html as a reference for the Population header.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. The last paragraph in the lead is badly written, please rewrite.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I believe it is more concise now, reads better. If there's anything specific I can change, let me know.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. You have to find information about what the former county names were named for to fulfill the comprehensiveness criteria. If the information is not available add N/A or Unkown or NA ... to the center of the Named for column--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I checked an additional source, and could not find any additional meanings for the former names. If two web sources and two book sources do not have the information, perhaps it is lost. I have formatted it like you described.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Why is it "Named for" and not etymology?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done This is what was used in List of counties in Alabama, but I agree that 'etymology' should be used for consistency.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. The etymology header has 4 references. I'm not sure if this is OK because it's not easily verifiable. Only if the reference is used throughout the this column would it be OK to have the reference at the header. However you need to provide inline citations for "Index to Politicians" cause I'm not sure what it's used for, you need to specify the pages you used of the books and provide inline citations as well. After this the list can be nominated for featured status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Index to Politicians" was only being used for the etymology information for Audrain County, so I moved the reference there. The other three sources are being used throughout the column. I do not have the book sources on hand (they are in a library that does not allow them to be checked out), but as soon as I can get to them again, I will add the page numbers.

    Since those three etymology sources ([8], [9], and [10]) are being used throughout the column, do you think that inline citations are necessary? Each of them simply contains a list of the counties with etymology information, and they each say about the same thing.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inline citations are imo necessary for book pages since different book pages are used and it would make it easier to verify the information if the book pages are listed. In any case you can now list the list for FL on Wikipedia:FLC since it meets imo the current featured list criteria.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted. Thanks for all the help.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I've listed Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising for peer review, because I've recently been making a lot of edits to it, trying to get it to reach WP:GA (from the Start-Class it was when I started editing). It is currently a B-Class article, which is one rank shy of GA, and I wanted to know what kinds of changes and edits I would need to make to make this a Good Article.

Many thanks! ♥ichi 16:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, Sturm is linked to a gaming wiki, which might not be good for a GAN. So I think you should un-link it. That's goes the same for Andy in the "New Features"' image caption. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the content? Links are one thing, but I'm slightly more concerned about the content right now. ♥ichi 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a game I have to admit I have never heard of, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the Sept 11 incident is only in the lead, for example.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but I am not sure the modes (game play) are in the lead
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Nintendo is linked twice in two sentences. In general links should be once in the lead, once in the text (first appearance) and in the infobox.
• Explain abbreviations before they are used - for example GBA needs to follow "Game Boy Advance (GBA)" the first time that appears
• Much of the article is nearly unintelligible to me - I think this is because it needs to provide context for the reader and also needs to be written from a out of universe perspective throughout - see WP:IN-U
• The language needs a serious copy edit - there are places where it is ungrammatical. For example Generally, the player can win by rout the enemy by defeating all of the enemy's troops, or by capturing the enemy's headquarters. It should be "by routing the enemy" and routing an enemy means defeating their troops, so it is needlessly redundant. Another example In both modes, players can customize the match by picking a map (including custom maps) and by changing map settings, such as fog of war, and the funding properties provide.[6] - I literally do not understand what "and the funding properties provide." means here - is it supposed to e provided?
• Four fair use images might be seen as excessive under WP:NFCC
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 125 FA video game articles at Category:FA-Class video game articles that surely include many good models. I note the FA Turok: Dinosaur Hunter has only 2 fair use images and a much shorter game play section, for example.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Ruhrfisch's comments about trimming the "Gameplay" section and the number of images. File:AW2Map.png and File:Aw2box.jpg are the most informative, and such image types are often found in video game articles. File:AW2Cannon.png, however, doesn't add much more than File:AW2Map.png. I'd remove the cannon image because the info it conveys can be adequately described in the prose. Keeping File:AW2World.png is probably pushing it, but it might be fine for a GAN depending on the reviewer. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I initially listed this article under Biography Peer Review, but due to a comment on my talk page regarding the inactivity of that project, I have relisted it here. The following is the description I used on the Biography PR:

I was hoping to get this article to a GA status, or maybe even a FA status. Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Arts says "Due to the extremely large number of pending nominations in this category, nominators are advised that it may take a long time before a review begins. You may still add your nomination, but if you just want comments directed at improving the article, you might want to try Peer Review first." Therefore, I was hoping I could get some feedback before getting it officially reviewed. Additionally, myself and another user believe it is already B-class, but due to a dispute (see here), it is listed as C-class, falsely, I believe. Regardless, I was hoping to get some feedback and ideas to improve upon an article I have worked hard on and believe to be in pretty good shape as it is. Thank you very much for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a couple thoughts:
  • I think the lead needs to be expanded to talk about her career after YouTube. 1/3 of the article is about her career after YouTube but there's no mention of it in the lead.
  • All images are fair use, so that's good. I do think the caption for the second image is too long. I feel descriptions that long should be put into the body of the article. I would suggest stating something about how the picture is a screen shot of Jessica in her role as Bree. Something short and description of the picture itself rather than the impact of the show. WP:CAP
  • Most of your references look like they're in the right format but several are missing retrieval dates. References 5, 24, and 26 are formatted incorrectly. Reference 28 needs a volume and issue number. This sentence ---> The idea concerned her at first, as she was afraid the project was pornography, but she was convinced otherwise and agreed to partake needs a reference.
  • The career section is choppy. It doesn't read as smoothly as the personal life or YouTube sections. There needs to be a flow to it. There's more information about Jessica's career here with links to where they got the information. Perhaps if you had more material to put in the career section, achieving the flow that's missing would be easier. As long as you use the proper citation format, those links they have could serve as references for the article here on wikipedia. If you feel the information is useful, integrate what's stated there (rather than copy and paste—that would be a copyright violation). It's looks like you tried to put her various acting jobs in chronological order and I can appreciate that. Here's an good example of a featured article candidate whose information is in chronological order.
  • Try to avoid jargon like scatologically to describe a movie WP:JARGON. I honestly don't even know how to say it. I would suggest taking the adjective out all together or using another word.

Hope this helps. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. I have only done a first look through your comments, and may be editing my thoughts after going through them again, but here were my initial responses to what you said.

1. I have been having a lot of trouble with the lead. Even after reading WP:LEAD three or four times, I can't figure out what else to add. The lead does say "Her YouTube fame skyrocketed her to national attention, where she was able to use her newfound celebrity to win roles in various other movie, television, and web-based productions." which is about her post-lonelygirl15 fame. Do you think it needs to be longer than that? If so, can you maybe help me figure out how to expand it?
2. I shortened the caption on the "Bree" image, thanks for the suggestion.
3. I will try to find retrieval dates, but some of them were retrieved by people other than myself. Can I use today's date as a retrieval date if I can still use the links today, or do I need to go back and find the date the people added them to the article? I'll fix 5, 24, and 26. Unfortunately, I do not have an actual physical copy of the Jane magazine article anymore, so I do not have access to the volume or issue number. Are they necessary (in all of my university writing classes, I was told to only fill in the info you knew and that would suffice, but I am not sure what the policy on Wikipedia is)? Additionally, the sentence about pornography is cited by the reference after the following sentence. I didn't think I needed to cite two sentences individually if they use the same source. Is this mistaken? UPDATE: I added accessdates for today for all of them, since I checked the references today (13 & 28 are not showing up, I'm not sure why because the information is there). I also fixed 5, 24, & 26. So aside from the Jane article, which I don't have access to anymore, I believe I covered all of this.
4. I can take a look at the flow of that section and try to incorporate some of LGPedia's references. I'm not entirely sure how well I will do at that, but I will definitely try! UPDATE: I tried to improve the flow of the section. How does it look now?
5. I have removed the term scatalogically. I didn't realize it fell under WP:JARGON, thanks for pointing that out.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to review the article and to read my thoughts! --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post-YouTube section flows much better and your references look better as well. The new retrieval dates are fine. A date in general is necessary so that when someone wants to fact check an internet source they can use the wayback machine to do so. About the pornography sentence, in general it's a good practice to reference statements if they have the chance of being challenged. Although the reference in the sentence after validates what was said in the sentence before, this isn't clear. By saying it's not clear, I mean people only know that a certain references counts for the statement it immediately follows. They wouldn't know that it counts for multiple sentences but there's a certain way to format sources so that you can reference them twice. I didn't know how to explain how to format them so I went ahead and did it myself. Look at this pages history to see how I did it. UPDATE: found it WP:REFNAME

About the lead - I suppose you could say something like this (my changes are capitalized) --> Her YouTube fame skyrocketed her to national attention [PERIOD] SHE was able to use her newfound celebrity to win roles in various other movie, television, and web-based productions INCLUDING A RECURRING ROLE ON THE ABC SERIES GREEK AND A SUPPORTING ROLE IN THE 2007 FILM I KNOW WHO KILLED ME. Something like that. That way her career after lonelygirl15 is referenced in some way. Gbern3 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

I'd like to eventually nominate this article for GA status- although I'm not sure I can, seeing as it is an article on an unreleased film. Still, I feel I've covered available information well and the article may meet WP:WIAGA #3 in that way. At any rate, feedback on the article's issues (style, prose, grammar, content) would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Liquidluck (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just wanted to say that you would not be able to have this article promoted to Good Article status until the film is released. Reception information is a critical part of coverage for a contemporary film like this. At first glance, the article appears to be in very good shape, so if you can add reception information upon the film's release, it would be a solid GA candidate. I will try to come back and review this article, although I just found out about PRs for four other film articles. If you have not, it may be worth reviewing the guidelines to see best practices for writing film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering that question! Take your time, but I look forward to reading your comments if you can return. Liquidluck (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment; the turtle image should be right-aligned per MOS:IMAGE because it disconnects the text from the header. Great work by the way.--Music26/11 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article has Miley Cyrus repeated all over the place. Ex: "Tish Cyrus, Miley Cyrus's mother, serves as the film’s executive producer.[1] Miley Cyrus herself chose the name "Ronnie" for her character. The plot of the film and novel remained secret throughout development." It should be changed to only "Cyrus." -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! I used Miley Cyrus there, next to Billy Ray Cyrus, and in "Miley Cyrus and her family" in order to avoid confusion over which Cyrus I was referring to, but I think I reworded the phrases so that it wouldn't be confusing or use "Miley Cyrus". Liquidluck (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has grown quite a bit (around 15 KB) since I nominated it, has new sections and images, and has changed formats, so if you have already looked at the article and found nothing to comment on, would you please look again? Thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was rated as a "start class article," and many people wanted me to write it, so I want to meet their expectations.

Thanks, Iliada 13:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The rating as Start class seems very reasonable to me - please see here which says that a Start class article is An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.
• Article needs more references, for example the Early life and Family sections have zero refs and the whole article has only four sources. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The lead is currently only one sentence and needs to be expanded. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• I would list his books in a bibliography section
• The song needs a fair use rationale - see WP:FAIR USE
• The images might need better information or licenses - for example the bust is a work of art and it might be copyrighted (not sure if Greece has freedom of panorama or not). IF so, then it needs a fair use rationale too. The historic black and white photos might need an WP:OTRS ticket (the claim to have been released by the family, but the may need an email from the family saying this.)
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This has gone through 2 FA nominations in the past few months and failed both, mainly because of my poor prose writing skills. With that in mind, I'd hope that the prose of the article would be the focal point of any review, so I can get it up to FA status.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: After reading your comments and the ones from the last try at FA, I did quite a bit of minor copyediting, especially in the lower sections. I think if you go through the article again, you can probably find groups of sentences that could be varied by changing the structure of some of them. For example, at the beginning of the "Montreal Canadiens (1923–34)" section, the first seven sentences start with the same subject-verb pattern: "Morenz arrived", "He made", "Morenz finished", "The Canadiens finished", "Morenz scored", "The Canadiens then played", "They defeated". The eighth sentence starts in a different way (thank goodness), but the ninth returns to "He scored". Any sentences (or phrases or individual words such as "Morenz") that echo each other so many times in a row tend to make readers nod off, and I think that might be what happened to the reviewers at FAC. It shouldn't be terribly hard to fix this. Just look for blocks of text with repetitive sentence patterns and vary the pattern by recasting one or more sentences in the block. For example, the fourth sentence of the block mentioned here might read, "Finishing first in the league for the first time in five years, the Canadiens faced the Senators in the playoffs for the NHL championship." Note that I also tightened that fourth sentence by trying to say the same thing with fewer words. In general, that's also worth doing, and I'm sure you can find a few other places where things can be said more efficiently. I don't want to go overboard with my changes, so I'm leaving these decisions to you. If you can vary the sentence patterns (or phrases or individual words) a bit more and tighten a bit more, I think you are apt to succeed at FAC. Here are a few other suggestions.

Lead

• "In 14 seasons in the NHL he placed in the top 10 leading scorers 10 times." - Rather than repeating "in 14 seasons", it might be better to say "During his NHL career, he placed... "
• "Morenz died from complications of a broken leg... " - I'd break the second paragraph in two and start the third paragraph with this sentence. A three-paragraph lead would be fine for an article of this size.

Early life

• "After starting in goal... " - Does this mean "after starting as goaltender"? Not every reader will understand the jargon.
• "Morenz became a forward" - Wikilink forward?

Montreal Canadiens (1923–34)

• "Morenz finished the 1923–24 season, his first in the NHL, with thirteen goals and three assists in twenty-four games." - I'd suggest using words throughout the article for numbers from one to nine and digits for anything bigger unless a sentence, like this one, has a mixture of the two groups (smaller than 10, bigger than nine). In such cases, I suggest using all digits. Suggestion: "Morenz finished the 1923–24 season, his first in the NHL, with 13 goals and 3 assists in 24 games."
• "As Morenz was not playing to his previous level, reports of the Canadiens wanting to trade him began appearing in Montreal newspapers." - Rather than repeating "not playing to his previous level", you might just begin the paragraph with "Reports that the Canadiens wanted to trade him began appearing... ".

I hope this helps get the article over the hump. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and made some changes. I looked through and tried to create some changes, so I'd be interested to hear what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is an existing GA, and when it got to that level I fully intended to plough on to FAC but for whatever reason never got round to it. I'm going to try and have a go now, but wanted to know what might yet need fixing before I take that step. I thank you in advance for your time.....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one qualm: the sentence She held recording sessions with the Three 6 Mafia in September 2006[...] she hoped these collaborations would come to fruition in the future is too long. I think four lines is too long for one sentence. I suggest splitting it in two. Love, love, love how you presented both positive AND negative reviews of Kala. Based on the everything written in the article previous to the critical reviews section, I wouldn't think there would be any negative press. This contrast shows neutrality which is important when writing wikipedia articles. Formatting for your references look great. I like all the tables, the infobox is thorough, all images are either CC or fair use, and the lead summarizes the article very well. Good job ;-) // Gbern3 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that this seems pretty well done, but here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

• In the "Composition and recording" section, the first paragraph says ...and meant that she and Timbaland were unable to collaborate. but the second paragraph says The album features guest vocals from Afrikan Boy, The Wilcannia Mob, and Timbaland, ... (and the lead mentions Timbaland working with her too).
• The last phrase in this is awkward "Boyz" and "Bird Flu" use urumee drums from the gaana music of Tamil Nadu, revisiting the old Tamil folk music which M.I.A. knew from having lived in Sri Lanka, and then worked on further in Trinidad in a soca environment.[7][16][17] Could the sentence be split?
• The word territories is odd in The Japanese edition featured three extra tracks not included in other territories.[24] could it be other nations? other versions? other releases?
• Ref 70 appears to be in japanese - I think the language needs to be indicated as a part of the ref in cases like that.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done apart from the first one. I think what happened was that she wanted to get Timbaland heavily involved on a number of tracks but in the end his involvement was restricted to one brief vocal performance. I'll double check this and think how best to word it when I have a little more time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that the current infobox does not follow WP:Albums standards. Check Wikipedia:Albums#Professional_reviews to see how it follow in suit currently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll fix that too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we want to elevate this article to FA status. This article is already a good article, a demoted FA, and a failed FAC. Comments on comprehensiveness, prose, will very much be appreciated.

Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive and is certainly interesting and well-illustrated, and I think you are getting close again to FA. However, a close reading down through the "Civic administration" section convinces me that to succeed at FAC, you will need the help of a copyeditor who can work through the sections below "Civic administration" and also to look for things that I might have missed in the earlier sections. We are too busy at PR to do complete line-by-line copyediting of every article, though I gave it a pretty good shot to the point where I ran out of time and stopped. You might find a copyeditor listed at WP:PRV to help with the rest. In any case, here are my suggestions.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." While the existing lead reads well, it doesn't mention several of what might be considered important points. A good rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention climate, civic administration, politics, transport, utility services, culture, education, or sports. I don't think anyone would object if you added a fourth paragraph to the lead.

Captions

• Captions that consist solely of a sentence fragment don't take a terminal period. Captions consisting of a mixture of sentence fragments and complete sentences take terminal periods at the end of each fragment and each complete sentence. Captions consisting solely of one or more complete sentences take terminal periods after each. I fixed one of these in the infobox, but I see others that need fixing further down in the article. For example, "The Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, formerly known as Victoria Terminus, is the headquarters of the Central Railway and a UNESCO World Heritage Site" is a complete sentence and needs a terminal period. On the other hand, " 'Mumbai' written in Marathi at the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower." is a sentence fragment and shouldn't have a terminal period.

History

• "Pleistocene sediments found along the coastal areas around Kandivali in northern Mumbai by archaeologist Todd in 1939 suggest that these islands were inhabited since the Stone Age.[23] It is not exactly known when these islands were first inhabited." - It might be more logical to reverse the order of these two sentences.
• "were excavated in the mid third century" - "Mid" can't stand by itself as a word.
• "Some of the oldest edifice in the city built during this period... " - "Edifices" rather than "ediface"?
• "The Pathare Prabhus, one of the earliest known settlers of the city," - "Among" rather than "one of" since this refers to more than one person?
• "as part of Catherine's dowry to Charles" - Wikilink dowry?
• "Following the transfer, Bombay was placed at the head of all the Company's establishments" - Lowercase "company's"?
• "Following his defeat, almost the whole of the Deccan came under British suzerainty," - Should this be Deccan Plateau for readers unfamiliar with Indian geography? Should it be wikilinked?
• "As the capital of the Bombay Presidency, it witnessed the Indian independence movement, with the Quit India Movement in 1942 and the The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny in 1946 being its most notable events." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "While the city was the capital of the Bombay Presidency, the Indian independence movement fostered the Quit India Movement in 1942 and the The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny in 1946." Or something like that.
• "The past two decades have seen an increase in violence in the hitherto largely peaceful city." - This statement seems a bit odd in view of the many attacks on the city in earlier centuries. Maybe the word "hitherto" is too broad.

Geography

• The rounding of some of the numbers in this section looks a bit off. For example, " spans a total area of 437.71 km² (169 sq mi)" gives the square-kilometers to the nearest hundredth but rounds the square miles to the nearest whole number. Since the total area may change from time to time, it might make more sense to round the square kilometer figure to 438 and say " spans a total area of about 438 km² (169 sq mi)". That has the additional advantage of being easier to read. Alternatively, if you use five significant figures for the metric units, you can use five for the imperial units by changing the rounding parameter from 0 to 2, thus: " spans a total area of 437.71 km² (169.00 sq mi). I'd suggest looking at all of the other figures in this section with the rounding or significant figure questions in mind. Rounding to the nearest whole number makes more sense, I think.
• "with elevations ranging from 10 m (33 ft) to 15 m (49 ft)" - The primary units should be spelled out, thus: 10 metres (33 ft) to 15 metres (49 ft). If you use the {{convert}} template, it will automatically add the correct spellings, abbreviations, and prevent units and digits from becoming separated on computer screens by line-wrap.
• "up to magnitude 6.5 on the Richter-scale may be expected" - Delete hyphen and wikilink Richter scale?

Climate

• "Mumbai has a tropical climate with seven months dryness and peak of rains in July." - This should be re-cast to make clear which seven months are dry. Something like this might do: "Mumbai's tropical climate varies between a dry period extending from X to Y and a wet period peaking in July."
• "constitutes the south-west monsoon season" - Wikilink monsoon on first use rather than later.
• "June and September, the south west monsoon rains lash the city" - Unlink this one and hyphenate south-west for consistency.
• "3,452 millimetres (135.9 in) in 1954.[122] The highest rainfall recorded in a single day was 944 millimetres (37.17 in)" - This section has rounding and sig fig questions also. The first pair is OK if you want to give four significant figures, but the second one (944 and 37.17) uses three sig figs for the millimetres and four for the inches. It would be more accurate to round 37.17 to 37.2.
• "The average total annual rainfall is 2,146.6 millimetres (84.51 in) in the Island City, and 2,457 millimetres (96.73 in) in the suburbs." The first pair here uses five sig figs for the millimetres but only four for the inches and four each for the next pair (which is being compared to the first pair). Since these numbers are averages that change slightly with each passing year, it would be more accurate (and easier to read) if you rounded them to "about 2,150 millimetres (85 in)", etc. Each of these statistical claims bears close examination to decide whether it's better to give a precise figure, as it might be in the case of a single historical record-setter, or a rounded figure, as it might be in the case of a yearly average subject to fluctuations with the passage of time and of doubtful meaning when expanded to the right of the decimal point. Thus, it would seem more accurate to say "The average annual temperature is about 27 °C (81 °F) rather than "27.2 °C (81.0 °F)". I hope this makes sense.

Economy

• "The port and shipping industry is well established, with Mumbai Port being one of the oldest and most significant ports in India." - Suggestion: "The port and shipping industry is well-established; Mumbai Port is one of the oldest and most significant ports in India."
• "The centre of the Hindi movie industry, Bollywood is the largest film producer in India... " - Needs a comma after Bollywood.
• "the finance boom in the mid-nineties and the IT" - Wikilink and spell out as well as abbreviate IT, thus: information technology (IT)?

Civic administration

• "An Assistant Municipal Commissioner" - Lowercase "assistant municipal commissioner" since it is being used here in a generic sense. Ditto "councillors", "municipal corporations", "district collector", "deputy commissioner of police", etc.

References

• Citation 4 is incomplete.
• Citation 97 has a dead url.
• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds a link that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---