Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Weather front

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is FA worthy, but I would like to get constructive critisism first. It went through an FAC two a couple of months ago, and I believe that I have addressed most if not all of the concerns.


Thanks, Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • citations in the lead
  • the first image could be a tad larger for ease of reading
  • caption of the warm front image could be expanded
  • same with the occluded front
  • the dry line image is very complicated, perhaps if it was larger or a simpler picture was located?
  • tropical wave formation image is very small also
  • the number of references are a little low for an article of this size, however I am aware that there are large sections of information cited to each reference, a larger bibliography would be ideal to verify information.

A good article, perhaps slightly reference light, and the bibliography could do with filling, however as it is well written and all the technical aspects are well done, I can't find too much to say, hope such commenets are helpful. SGGH speak! 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I'll work on those. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Julian, a lovely article, so I'll review definitely with FAC in mind...

  • I think (!) the sentence in the first image caption is complete so it needs a full stop.
  • Lead has "stratiform " without linking - could confuse non-experts.
  • Just as a question, is the symbology used to depict fronts universal? I am fully aware of 1 to 3 (in the image) in my British reports but never seen the others... The article does seem a touch US-centric so I'm wondering if it's worth taking some time to consider a world view if it's significant?
  • Not keen on the use of # in the image caption.
  • "Warm fronts are at the leading edge of the temperature rise" - "edge of a temperature rise"?
  • "half circles" - not wishing to nitpick but are they the same as semi-circles?
  • Occluded front main article template should be capitalised for consistency across your use of {{main}}.
  • Just a suggestion but perhaps it's worth generating a general weather map (or grabbing one) with examples of the warm/cold/occluded (etc) fronts and then, for each section, actually depicting what they look like on their own? Just an idea. Might be rubbish. Feel free to ignore...!
  • Lee trough is redlinked. For full-on FAC I'd suggest you write a stub yourself.
  • "Satellite view of the convection around a dry line. The Temperature in Fahrenheit at around 86 over the whole clear area but the dew point drop from the 60's, East of the brown line, to the 50', to its West." caption... surely Temperature is just temperature, but I'm not sure the rest of that sentence is English... "The temperature is around 86 Farenheit over the whole clear area but the dew point drops from the 60s, East of the brown line, to the 50's, to the West of the brown line." perhaps?
  • "upper level jet splits" should be explained - first instance of jet in the article.
  • "Hurricane Claudette (2003)," I'd pipe this to "Hurrican Claudette in 2003" and explain where it was geographically significant.
  • " trowals/occlusions" - what's a trowal? This is the only time it's mentioned...
  • "But not all fronts ..." - I would tend not to start a sentence with "But..."

That's all I have. I hope some of it is useful and please do shout at me when you go to FAC with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all of your very useful comments. I'll fix those, and I'll tell you when I plan to FAC it. Thanks again, Juliancolton The storm still blows... 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and about the front symbology, I am pretty sure that they are universal, but I'll double check. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from thegreatdr

[edit]

It is odd that I would have comments for this article, but I do. I have no idea where that dryline image came from. It doesn't use the right symbology, to start with. The image is a good example of a frontal boundary, but the boundary in the warm sector doesn't come close to fitting the dryline definition, which is an instantaneous drop of 25+F in dewpoint temperature. Why isn't the Bluestein definition still in the article (I hope I didn't remove it)? At the HPC, we'll use a broad 30F+ dewpoint change, since obs aren't concentrated in areas with drylines. Warm fronts are NOT at the leading of warming, they are on the backside of the warming (if that makes sense). In other words, warm fronts are positioned on the warm side of the temperature gradient, just like cold fronts are. I'm fairly sure I didn't have that wording in there when the article passed GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by BirgitteSB

[edit]

Sometimes the article forgets about the Southern Hemisphere (i.e. the lead). Some basic concepts probably need a little explanation here. For example, many times in the article the influences of "winds aloft" is discussed without ever explaining what wind aloft are. Try and give explanations without using a great deal of specialized terminology. (i.e. Warm fronts are at the leading edge of a homogeneous warm air mass, which is located on the equatorward edge of the gradient in isotherms, and lie within broader troughs of low pressure than cold fronts.) Also the flow of the whole article could be improved. You miss opportunities for easy transition by referring to concepts explained later in the article as if we already understand them. Sometimes this may be unavoidable, but focus on what you can do to make not rely on the latter concepts before they have been discussed.--BirgitteSB 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE close and archive the peer review, it's listed at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributaries of Larrys Creek

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a list of all 42 named tributaries within the Larrys Creek drainage basin. I plan to take it to WP:FLC after this peer review and would like feedback on all aspects of the list. I am particularly interested in the tables and their layout - should they all be forced to be the same width? Should there be headers on the small tables of tributaries of tributaries? I see this as a model article for future similar lists and would like to get it as close to right the first time as possible.

Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. This took awhile, didn't it....Ummm, let's see....You'll need a reference for the "clear-cut in the 19th century" (I can't believe you need another =D) The topic isn't the most notable, but good job! the_ed17 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Heh, my chance to help you...

Otherwise all good! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete comments: So…looks like you've gotten some excellent feedback, my comments are much more limited as yet. Here they are, for what they're worth:

  • I'd like to see a heading before the first chart like "Lower course." Took me a moment to understand what the different charts were -- had to scroll down and back.
  • On the coord template, two things. Neither is likely to be resolved here, but just because it's something that bugs me I'm mentioning anyway.
    • The repeated "globe" icon serves no purpose, clutters an already-full chart. If it can be eliminated in the chart, it should be.
    • I always wonder how many people actually click on the coordinates, and how many of those who do actually realize that the information presented there is useful (since it looks so generic on the first page you get to.) My guess is, VERY few in both cases. I wish something could be done about this, though I don't know what it is. I know this is very much outside the scope of your list, but I'm curious about your thoughts.
      • I have sometimes added an explanatory note to clickable maps (where you can click on a dot and it takes you to the article for that place). Perhaps an explanatory note would help - I personally like these linked coordinates as I use the USS topo maps and Google Earth via them, but agree if you don't know what they, they are not very useful.

I'd offer more detailed feedback, but lists of this caliber are kind of new to me. I'll keep poking around, and let you know if I think of anything else. But, very nice, on the whole -- good work! -Pete (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for the helpful comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, glad to help. I never realized that about clicking on the globe…kind of illustrates my point about the thing not being as "visibly useful" as it could be! I'm so conditioned to believe that every image on a MediaWiki site just links to the Image:Blahblah page, I'd never bothered to click it. Great tool though, glad you pointed it out! (On the first one, I don't see how my phrasing repeats the article title, but…I also think your phrasing is just fine too.) -Pete (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strapping Young Lad

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've completely rewritten the article and expanded it in the last couple of months, hopefully it will be up to FA standards soon. Help me sort out any problems.

Thanks, Gocsa (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Strapping Young Lad/archive1.

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after doing much work flying solo, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz reached GA status and I want to enter it for A-class and later submit it for FA-class, but I'm not sure if I've done enough to get it there. I've squeezed out as much information as I could off of the internet, but there could be more waiting to be uncovered or some books that could have some information too. I would GREATLY appreciate if someone could tell me about some (if any) that I could use. Tips to add more info to the article would be greatly be appreciated as well.

Also, please use Support or Oppose and tell me whether or not the article meets A-class status. The decision will be made after all of the votes are counted when this peer-review ends. Thanks!

Opinion

[edit]

Thanks again, Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: First off, I think A class is usually decided by WikiProject reviewers according to project-based criteria, not some PR vote. You might want to ask on the relevant WikiProject talk pages for an assessment. As A class is usally substantially better than GA, I doubt this is there yet - see below.

I think this article is decent, and I learned some things about a TV film I did not even know existed, but it needs some work to get anywhere near FA status, so here are some suggestions.

  • The lead does not summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For example, the Reception, Soundtrack, and Merchandise sections are not even mentioned at all, and most of Distribution is excluded too.

-DONE

  • There is also material in the lead that is too specfic and not in the main article - why does the air date of It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie need to be in the lead of this article (especially when it is not mentioned at all in the rest of the article)?
  • The article needs to be written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. It might also benefit from more detailed comparisons to the book (on which it is said to be based) and the original movie, as well as other similar movies (like The Wiz, which is mentioned in passing).

-PARTIALLY DONE

  • Every section needs references, including the Plot and the Cast (which have none now). This is especially true at WP:FAC
  • Why is Miss Piggy identified for each character she plays in the plot section, but other major Muppets (Kermit, Gonzo, FOzzie Bear) are not mentioned here?

-DONE

  • The Merchandise section is very short - could it be expanded or perhaps combined with another section (Distribution?)

-DONE

  • Make sure all of the references are reliable - see WP:RS. I am not sure what counts for TV movies, but some of these seem questionable.

-DONE

  • Also make sure the refs are complete - the Entertainment Weekly web site is credited as EW, for example.

-DONE

  • Get a copy edit - prose is overall decent, but there are some places that need polish and a few typos / grammar problems. Examples but the positi[o]n was given to Kirk Thatcher. a short cameo (is there such a thing as a long cameo in a film), at least one place I saw with a verb problem (singular /plural).
  • It is often very useful to hae a model article to follow - there are many film and television FAs, so find one close to what you think this could be and get to work.
  • There are probably some print reviews of this from its original air date - go to a library and see if you can dig them up.
  • FA calls for comprehensive coverage - this seems very short as is and a lot of the material (plot, cast) is not from independent sources.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Kansas City Chiefs season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is very informative and broad. Just about everything is referenced. I think the Game Summaries might need to be re-done (I didn't contribute to those, instead I worked heavily on off-season, statistics, etc), but other than that, I think this article is great how it is.

Thanks for your time, conman33 (. . .talk) 06:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Wow, a huge article, I'll do my best to provide some useful comments!

  • Don't have links in the emboldened part of the opening sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Use the en-dash to separate scores so instead of 4-12, use 4–12.
  • Usually only a max of four paragraphs in the lead - consider merging some of the existing short paragraphs.
  • "leaving the door open" - reads a little journalistic.
  • Some of the lead is cited and some isn't. Be consistent. In general, statements in the lead will be expanded upon in the main body so the citations could all appear there.
  • Why three citations for a single (pretty minor) claim of when the schedule was announced?
  • "December 30th" - see WP:DATE for correct formats.
  • What's CBS? Remember that non-American non-NFL experts need to understand this.
  • Reiterating the fact that the scores, records etc should be separated by en-dash.
  • Roster needs a key so us non-US football experts understand what the acronyms all mean.
  • Free agency table needs a key for position and why are some Contract lengths given and some not?
  • Additions and departures could do with being either a paragraph of prose or a table, not just a lot of (effectively speaking) bullets.
  • Regular season table needs a key.
  • You've got about twenty or so dead links, see this link.

That's about it for me to start with. The match reports are a little over-jargoned too but that'd need to be copyedited by a non-NFLer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes simplex

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… We just got herpes simplex up to GA level, but it will need a good bit of work to progress to FA - and it's a topic that the general public find very interesting for obvious reasons! This article, therefore, should really be comprehensive to non-experts so please give comments on where things are not easy to follow. I would also like reviewers to give an idea of what they think is missing from the article, and how to improve on existing material. Things that I have noticed in other good virus articles include history sections, for instance.

Grateful for any feedback, big thanks, ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus

[edit]

Just a few comments on what is a well written and apparently comprehensive article.

Broad bits
  • Personally I don't like references in the lead - they often show that there is unique material there rather than simply summarising the rest of the article. Please consider moving the reference into the place with the same information in the body.
  • The article is too long at 102K, also resulting in a very long table-of-contents. At the least the Epidemiology section should be a separate article called Epidemiology of herpes simplex with a referenced summary left behind.
  • There is inconsistency in the reference formatting. eg: ref#130-134, 136-137 are bare weblinks, 138 has a template error.
  • I can't see anything in the article on the scientific progression of knowledge, leading to the current stage of affairs. Cannot see anything on when and how it was identified as linked with the virus. See eg: Acute_myeloid_leukemia#History
  • Should the heading Recurrences and triggers be Recurrence and triggers ?
  • a few words explaining what a primary infection is would be pertinent at the first use (unless it is there and I missed it)
  • I'd drop the whole Legal redress section. I feel it doesn't add anything useful to the article and, given the source of the references, it is likely not a world-wide position but is rather US-centric.
Specific issues

From reading through a few random sections

  • In the Disorders section the statement "...although recent years are seeing an increase in oral HSV-2 infections." is vague and dates fast. It's preferable to have something more concrete like "...although oral HSV-2 infection rates increased by <x>% in the last <y> years of the 20th Century".
  • There is some redundancy - eg: in the Disorders section , including fever, and sore throat, and painful ulcers may appear - appears to say the same thing more concisely. Rare occasions of reinfections occur inside the mouth - again appears to say the same thing. Oral herpes is spread by direct contact with an active sore in an infected person, for instance, during kissing -> Oral herpes is spread by direct contact with an infected person's active sores, for instance during kissing.
  • HSV-2 is the most common cause of recurrent viral meningitis called Mollaret's meningitis - should this have the words "a type of" inserted after "of" unless this is the only type of viral meningitis.
  • In the Bell's palsy section, first section needs a comma, possibly just after "nerves of the face".
  • The penultimate sentence and its predecessor in the "Orofacial infection" section) contradict each other. try Oral herpes is usually spread by direct contact
  • In the "Natural compounds" section, However, there is currently insufficient scientific and clinical evidence "However" is not needed and "currently" adds nothing unless there is a date noting when this refers to. Please look for all uses of the word "currently" and rewrite to either remove the word or add a date/year.
  • In the "Antiviral medication" section the sentence with by interfering with viral replication, effectively slowing the replication rate needs some work. It is unclear from the writing whether the drugs work by in effect slowing the replication or are effective at the slowing. If it's the "in effect" one then the word "effectively" can be removed.
  • Same section. There are several prescription antiviral medications for controlling herpes simplex outbreaks.... Are they prescription drugs worldwide or just in the US ? Please check through the treatment section as many parts are written from a US perspective and need consideration as to whether the information is applicable worldwide.

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Lemoine

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article a while ago and would like to get it up to FA status. I'm not entirely sure where the places in need of improvement lie, though, so I've brought this to peer review. Cheers, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hello Nousernamesleft, some comments...

That's about it for me. Hope these points help with your push towards FA! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to start the FA nom process but give editors one more look at it before I do. I think this article has solid bones, with some great citations. I am working on removing the last few unauthoritiative sources and will do so before I pass it up for FA nom, so please don't comment on those. Part of my request involved editors examining citation format, prose, spelling, and other style issues which may be of concern. I would appreciate anything you can give me on this. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

[edit]

Hey Daysleeper, certainly not an area of my expertise but I'm happy to provide general comments where I think the article could be tweaked...

  • "that fought with the Union Army" - could be ambiguous to fight with someone could read as in "to have a fight with someone..." - "fought on the side of the Union Army" perhaps?
Adjusted with "a regiment of the Union Army"
  • "Zouaves" - what does this mean?
Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Commonwealth " accordingly.
Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep citations in numerical order - you have a [4][3] at the moment, there may be others..
Question: If the citations are the same, I thought I could use the same citation name, thus only creating one entry. See citatin 11 as an example. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Response: Yeah, reusing them is fine, but reuse them in such an order that the citations appear numerically... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rechecked and it looks fine now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flashy Zouave uniforms " "fashioned in flashy uniforms" POV unless you can cite "flashy". Even then, it's probably worth a reword.
  • "fezzes " - link this to Fez.
Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've redlinked "Henry Willard" - do you expect him to have an article, i.e. is he sufficiently notable to warrant one?
He was a notable Washingtonian, who yes, I expect should or one day will have his own article. The hotel in question still exists and is one of Washington, D.C. finest. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early action has several short paragraphs, consider merging a couple of them.
  • " First Battle of Bull Run" needs linking in the "First Bull Run" section.
Linked --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " double-quick" - why italics?
My own added emphasis from several months ago. Removed to maintain nuetrality. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their foul conduct in camp" expand and explicitly cite I think!
  • You have a section heading "Draft Riots.." is Riot a proper noun here? If not then it should be lower case, as you have it in the main prose.
Draft Riots is generally assumed to be the name of the event, and the article maintains capitilization for both words. The only instance in the article in which I use the two words together is in the header, which I believe to be an acceptable usage. If another editor can find a described use to contrary, I will certainly change it. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been a slow move towards having a combined references section with subsections General (your References) and Specific (your Notes), possibly worth considering.
I will have to look at how other articles have done that; I'm not familiar with that style but will certainly give it a look. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have right now, I enjoyed the article a lot, let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Daysleeper47 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment - ensure you use the en-dash for separating page ranges in the citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article has been around for a very long time, has had two previous peer review, and has reached GA & A-class. It would be great to finally see it through to FA. I think the changes needed are mostly be stylistic, and I'll start patching these up. What I'm interested in here, is if anyone can identify any superfluous material as the article is rather long. It would also be useful if anyone can suggest ways to improve the flow of the article, as it seems a little disjointed to me. Any other comments about the article are also welcomed, of course!


Thanks, Papa November (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments by RJHall

[edit]
  • Well, off the top of my head, the following organization suggests itself:
    • Move "Ecosystems" under the "Life" heading, since ecosystems can't exist without life.
    • Move "Beauty in nature" under the "Human interrelationship" section, as beauty is an intrinsically human viewpoint. (The section may need renaming.)
    • Group "Nature beyond Earth" with the "Earth" section, as they are two parts of a whole.
    • Finally, as an alternative to the current scheme, the first sentence of the article suggests a general organization. Why not "Natural world" and "Physical universe" as two of the primary sub-divisions? (The third being the Human aspects.) The "Physical universe" section could include Earth, the universe, matter and energy. &c.
  • The lead section doesn't function as a summary of the article. The second paragraph of the lead could almost be in a section by itself on Etymology and meaning. This could include the third paragraph as well.
  • The Earth section is okay as a discussion of the planet. But it needs to explain from the get-go what the section has to do with Nature.

—RJH (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments by BirgitteSB

[edit]

The lead does not properly summarize the article. However I think the difficulty is that the article is not very coherent, but rather a bit of a hodgepodge of topics. I looked through the references and you seem to lack a good general references on Nature. Rather you have many references which are good for the specific sub-topics, but do nothing to help you tie things together or to support the idea that X is a major topic of "Nature". I think you need to find some books that are acutually written to explain "Nature" (sometimes these very general topics need to resort to books targeted toward c 12 year-olds). Use the organization of such a general reference to review the organization and flesh out the first paragraph of each section, which should be about why X is significant topic of "Nature". Then it will be much easier to use those first paragraphs to rewrite the lead into a good summary.--BirgitteSB 18:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shots (TV series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because even though this show was short-lived, I believe it might be at least on its way to being a good article. If no more than to keep articles to a certain quality.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD to at least two weighty paragraphs.
  • "officially greenlit and given a thirteen-episode order " - very jargony.
  • "It is aired on Thursday nights on 10:02PM Eastern/9:02PM Central" - was aired I guess now. Plus check the time formats against Wikipedia:DATE#Times
  • Thursday repeated, no need for the second one.
  • Move references per WP:CITE to get them immediately after punctuation where applicable.
  • "effective October 25th" - check the date format vs WP:DATE.
  • "Despite the order of thirteen episodes," - confusing, could be discussing the chronological order...
  • Plot needs expansion, considerably. A plain quote is insufficient.
  • Axe the "Mr. x", and stick with plain old "x" - this is an encyclopaedia.
  • 18-49 needs an en-dash instead of a hyphen.
  • What's the point in a timeslot column when you've already said when every show was broadcast (i.e. thursday nights 10.02pm).
  • Season needs en-dash to separate, not hyphen.
  • Explain what Rating and Share mean.
  • Why was one of the ranks N/A?
  • Don't use in-line citations like " http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/" - use proper references.
  • Expand references to use {{Cite web}} with all its lovely benefits.

That should help a bit to improve to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stokes (footballer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want an outside perspective on how it can be improved.


Thanks,  Sunderland06  19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • Done Football (soccer) has now become Association football so when you get the chance, prevent the redirect.
  • Done Use en-dash for scorelines per WP:DASH
  • Add some information on his life before professional football.
  • Done Place citations immediately after punctuation where possible per WP:CITE.
  • Changed to, "their Fife rivals" "their bitter Fife rivals" - POV.
  • Done Merge short paragraphs - two sentences don't really make a para.
  • Remove the trivia section - flow the details into the main prose.
  • Done Ensure all dates are formatted per WP:DATE (so avoid things like 1st..)
  • Expand the references to include the accessdate= parameter.
  • Done Be consistent in the way you reference the BBC, you've got four different ways of doing it right now.

That should help! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd love for it to be a Featured Article one day


Thanks, Seahamlass (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The President (novel)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and has an active group of editors who could take it to FA: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem.

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this later today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the Background section, but I think a bit more context is needed in places - see WP:PCR. For example, from reading it is clear Estrada Cabrera left office in 1920 and faced trial afterwards, but exactly what happened is unclear - how was he forced to stand trial?
I've clarified this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward sentence, maybe break into two: Gregory Rabassa, a biographer of Asturias, also supports the notion that Asturias's fictional leader, the President, was shaped by Manuel Estrada Cabrera because of Austurias's personal observations of Estrada Cabrera, with whom he came into almost daily contact while working as legal secretary to the court that tried the dictator.[6]
This now reads:Gregory Rabassa, a biographer of Asturias, also argues that Asturias's fictional leader—the President—was shaped by Estrada Cabrera.[8] Asturias worked as a legal secretary at the court which tried the dictator. Rabassa confirms that that Austurias made personal observations of the ruler during this time as he was in almost daily contact with him.[8]--Mfreud (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have another go at this. I don't think we can have such short, staccato sentences the whole time! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the novel was published in Mexico, how did the political situation in Guatemala prevent its publication previously (presumably because the author lived there, but make this clearer please)
  • Plot summary needs more references - try for at least one ref per paragraph.
I have added a reference per paragraph, hopefully this makes the summary clearer.--Katekonyk (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward sentence: When Colonel Jose Parrales Sonriente, a loyal military man of the President, jeers "mother" at him,... perhaps When Colonel Jose Parrales Sonriente, one of the President's loyal military men, says "mother" jeeringly to him,...? Try reading the article aloud to find these.
This sentence is hopefully fixed.--Katekonyk (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear: Genero de Rodas returns home and discusses the event with his wife... Which event - the orginal murder or that of the Zany (or something else)?
I have clarified this event as the killing of the Zany.--Katekonyk (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not read the novel and had some problems following the plot summary. I would read WP:IN-U to make sure it is written from an out of universe perspective. Perhaps identifying some of the main characters more by their roles as well as their names would help (i.e. the General's daughter)?
  • Need a ref for The fact that the novel's title character, the President, is never named gives him a mythological dimension, rather than the personality of a specific Guatemalan dictator.
Done! :)--Mfreud (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean Mystery also abounds [as to] when and how he sleeps.?
This now reads: Mystery also surrounds the questions of when and how he sleeps--Mfreud (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholar Franklin..." is a strange name to use, also Scholar Hughes Davies - I would prefer Professor or Literary critic to "scholar" here.
I have changed both to literary critic--Mfreud (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Dictator novel section I would swap the first and second paragraphs to flow better
I agree, I switched it and it definitely sounds better.--Katekonyk (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • El Señor Presidente is repeated at least five times in the first paragraph of the Style section
I have changed a few of these to avoid this repition--Mfreud (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it clear to readers that the President's country is Guatemala or could it be any Latin American country? Either way, should this be mentioned?
it is both... is that okay?--Mfreud (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62

[edit]
  • The General Eusebio Canales section has no citations require citations
  • Avoid using weasel phrases, such as "Given Macune's assertions, it is clear that El Señor Presidente has been well received not only in its original Spanish form but also in its English translation."
I have removed the phrase "it is clear that" and the sentence now reads, Macune affirms that El Señor Presidente has been well received not only in its original Spanish form but also in its English translation
And I've changed this to the simpler "shows." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph "Reality vs. dream" focuses not on reality, but on fear. The final quote by Eckart is a shoddy attempt to connect the fear discussion to the reality discussion.
I have elaborated on why fear is important to this section, because it is also used to distort reality. I hope this makes it more clear why we focus on fear for the first paragraph because it is a tool used by the dictatorship to blur the lines between reality and truth and therefore we use it as evidence that reality and dream are blurred together.--Katekonyk (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hope and love" is a misleading title for that section. The analysis is unbalanced, as there is a disproportionately large discussion of hope compared to the discussion of love.
  • In the Nobel Prize section, it mentions that "he received a medal". Which medal?
This is not clear in the reliable sources we have read, I am guessing it is an honorary medal presented by the Government of Guatemala for his achievements, but since I cannot be sure or cite this, i did not specify. Is that ok? Or what can I do to fix it?--Mfreud (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try to find what the name of the medal was. If your sources are really as ambiguous as you say they are, there's nothing you can really do about it. Either way, I would back up the phrase "he received a medal" with at least two citations given its ambiguity.
  • Gregory Rabassa comes up twice within the article. The first time, he is described as a biographer. The second time, he is given the title of "professor". A concise description of Rabassa should be offered all at once. Also, if you choose to label him as a professor, you should include his field and university.\
Fixed, he is a biographer so that has been changed.--Mfreud (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the citations, "Magic Realism in Spanish American Literature" is listed as being retrieved on 29. A two-digit number is not a date format with which I am familiar.
I believe this is fixed now, the date was supposed to be March 29, 2008--Mfreud (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eckart's paper discusses both El Señor Presidente and Sara und Simon. If this paper draws connections between the two stories, or even the two authors, consider discussing this connection within the article.
What do you mean by this? Wouldn't discussing Sara und Simon on a page about the President novel be off-topic? Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean?--Mfreud (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title of Eckart's paper, as listed in the references, is "Latin American Dictatorship in Erich Hackl's Sara und Simon and Miguel Asturias's El Señor Presidente". Why was the paper written about the two books? If it was two separate discussions on two separate novels, then Sara und Simon is irrelevant. But if it discussed common themes or social impact between the two books, you should consider discussing that in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree that going into the comparison, while no doubt important for the article cited, would be losing focus here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "In the novel, rumors fly..." from The President. Not very encyclopedic tone.
This now reads: In the novel, rumors abound...--Mfreud (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Eusebio Canales finds himself forced to flee into exile..." from General Eusebio Canales. Very wordy and alliterative. Couldn't it just be "Canales is forced into exile"?
Done, thanks for the suggestion--Mfreud (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Camila is first rescued by Miguel Angel Face..." from Camila. Does this mean it is the first event in the book, the first event involving Camila, or the first time she is rescued?
I have removed the word first to avoid confusion and hopefully the sentence is clearer now.
  • The phrase "magic realism" occurs three times as "magical realism." I'm fairly certain the former is correct. Either way, it should be consistent.
Both are found, and are equally correct. You're right that we should be consistent. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerald Martin is referred to as a "literary critic" and later as a "Latin Americanist literary scholar". Which is it?
Both (and the two are hardly very distinct). I think the idea here is to avoid too much repetition. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asturias first wrote El Señor Presidente in response to the dictatorial rule of Manuel Estrada Cabrera, but thanks in part to the long delay in the book's writing and publication, as well as to the fact that it never names its eponymous President, by the time it eventually appeared it could equally be taken to apply to the subsequent regime of Jorge Ubico." A very long snake! Consider cutting it apart. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This now reads: Asturias first wrote El Señor Presidente in response to the dictatorial rule of Manuel Estrada Cabrera. Due to both the long delay in the book's writing and publication, as well as to the fact that it never names its eponymous President, many scholars have noted that it could equally be taken to apply to the subsequent regime of Jorge Ubico.--Mfreud (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can improve it. I've contributed a lot to the article - mainly census information and the infobox on the right but I don't edit that much on Wikipedia and I'd like to hear the opinions of others on the quality of this article. Thanks, ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador/archive1.

PFA Players' Player of the Year

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another potential FL nomination, please let me know if there's anything I still need to work on. One major question - do you think the article needs to be re-named to "List of PFA Players' Player of the Year winners" or some such? For info, there's pretty much no details available in reliable sources on other aspects of the subject such as how it came to be instigated, the trophy itself, the voting procedure, or anything like that. Anyway, I eagerly await your comments...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Consider linking union?
  • Why are clubs centrally aligned in the table?
  • "place each spring" is it me or does that sound a little American? I'd say takes place every spring... personal opinion though..
  • "and the winner of the award, along with the winners of the PFA's other awards, announced at " is announced?
  • What does FWA stand for? Expand it on its first use.
  • Oh, and while you're there, put (PFA) after your first mention of the expanded version.
  • Flags don't appear to sort properly for me. I've fixed the problem...
  • Presumably the award was a First Division award before the Premier League existed? Could you clarify that?
  • Force column widths in the breakdowns to be the same for all tables.
  • The non-cite web references need full stops.

But otherwise it's FL quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

SummerSlam (2000)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a lot of content, and it may need peer revisions to be enhanced and in the future be nominated for GA.

Thanks, TrUCo-X 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Sugesstions

Comments

  • Don't wikilink months/days when no year is present. Ex. September 4 should just be September 4, but it can also be written as September 4 1999. I think I fixed every time that happened, but it is a good thing to know for the future.
  • "However" appears 28 times in the article. That's after I changed a few instances...you've got to think of a better word or change it up somehow. The repetition makes for a very boring read.
  • "Back and forth action" appears seven times. Same thing applies here.
  • Some of your sentences run-on FOREVER. I tried to fix some of these, too, but there are so many places in the article where this happens. For example, the first sentence "On the August 3 edition of SmackDown!, Triple H and his wife, Stephanie McMahon, along with Kurt Angle, were booked in a Six-man tag team match by Commissioner Mick Foley, against the Dudley Boyz (Buh-Buh Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley), which Triple H, McMahon, and Angle won, however, as Triple H left the ring, Angle and McMahon hugged in a victory celebration, which frustrated Triple H, thus the beginning of a Triple H-Angle feud." That could easily be broken down into two or even three sentences. Rule of thumb...if the sentence takes up more than two full lines, then it probably too long.
  • Another thing that reads awkwardly is when it says something along the lines of "he performed ______ move into a pinfill, thus he won the match." It's too wordy. Saying "he performed _______ move into a pinfall to win the match" eliminates the extra clause. Fixing these instances will also help with the run-on sentence problem.

I have to go to a meeting in a few minutes, but I'll look over it again later and try to help some more with the awkward sentences. Nikki311 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had planned to check back in...I've just been busy with school stuff. Anyway

  • The howevers are much better now. A good phrases to use instead is "Despite this,...". That way you can mix it up.
  • Instead of "back and forth action", you can just say "they fought" or "the two men fought until..." or "neither man had the upperhand until...". I hope this gives you some ideas.
  • I finished cleaning up the run-on and awkward sentences for you. Take a look here to see the changes I made, which may help you avoid the same problem in the future.
  • A problem I overlooked before is that some of the ref numbers are out of order. That needs to be fixed.
  • Lastly, I think the article could benefit from at least one picture, if not more. The big blocks of text look daunting and might keep someone from reading the entire article or reviewing it, for that matter. Pictures make people happy.

Hope that helped. Nikki311 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howmet TX

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
(Listed under two headings because it really covers both sports and technology)

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to go to GA with it, but want some aid on a few things. First, I'm not sure if I've overused some of my sources, and can possibly eliminate the inline citation in a few places. Second, some measurement conversions have been left undone, and I'm unsure if I should keep them this way or convert them as well.

Also, any other suggestions will be more than welcomed.

Thanks, The359 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Like it a lot, some minor comments.

  • FIA - for some non-experts it's unclear what this organisation means, perhaps expand before using the acronym (although I know you have to have a vague grip on french...!)
Done
  • In the lead, perhaps worth clarifying which competition the car won its races in?
Done Specified that they were Sports Car Club of America events.
  • Front on image has a fragment for caption so remove the full stop.
  • "...to win over the public or to win at Le Mans respectively." - respectively? Not sure that's needed.
I was meaning to imply that the Chrysler Turbine that I mentioned first was a street car for the public, hence trying to win over public demand, while the Rover-BRM was a race car attempting to win Le Mans. Hence, both cars failed to "win" in their respective areas.
  • Probably worth providing a context for the individuals you introduce, like Parnelli Jones - it helps a non-expert understand the background.
Done
  • Put citations in numerical order (you have a [4][3] right now).
Done
  • Any reason Mk. 9 is in bold?
Not particularly, just that the car could sometimes be refered to as a McKee Mk.9, so I figured it could be bolded like the car's proper name. Removed it now however.
  • "Group 6 formula" - this doesn't make a lot of sense to the non-expert again. Consider linking or expanding.
Done Tried expanding it a bit to be easier to understand. Would link if we had the much needed article on it...
  • Expand SCCA before using it as an acronym (and add (SCCA) after the expansion).
Done
  • "Now that the Howmet TX was proven to be a capable competitor" - reads a little original reasearch-esque!
Tried to make it a bit more factual. Merely saying that it was proven a winning competitor after it had already won one event.
  • "The fuel system was not able to give the car full power" - rephrase - fuel systems provide fuel, not power surely? I know what you're saying but this could be reworded.
Done Clarified.
  • Goodwood festival image caption is a fragment, remove full stop.
  • A wider range of references is recommended, you have lots of citations in the article but most of them point to the same article [1]...
I've been looking for some, but unfortunately a lot of sources just seem to repeat the same thing. I'll keep looking though.

Hopefully some of this will help on the way to GA/FA. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much, your review is helpful. The359 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiggles

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because the last time it was nominated for featured-article status, it was suggested that a peer review be done on it. I'd like to see this article improved and successfully brought up to FA. As this article's main editor/contributor, I've followed every suggestion made in its two previous candidacies.

Thanks, --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

List of national instruments

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm planning on bringing this to FLC soon, and I'd like to get feedback. A few things to ponder:

  • Should I strictly use only images and sounds that are representative of the tradition in question? For example, there are similar, if not identical, instruments listed for Sakha and Tuva - neighboring regions of Russia, but we have a picture of only one; I used the same picture for both because I'm fairly certain that any differences between them are indistinguishable or nearly so from the photograph, and because it's better to include a photo than not, even if it's not the perfect images. Similarly, the "guitar" and "accordion" listed for several countries, and I've done my best to include the most useful possible photos, but most of the images of guitars on the Commons (and elsewhere) don't even say where the instrument is from. Even if there is a difference between the Argentinian guitar or accordion and other such instruments, I suspect that, in practical terms, many Argentinians probably don't use "Argentinian guitars" or accordions. But then we come to the Serbian/Macedonian/Yugoslavian gusle, and the issue becomes closely intertwined with nationalism and such, so I haven't used the picture of the Serbian gusle for the Macedonian entry, though as far as I am aware, there is no difference between the Serbian and Macedonian gusles. Sorry if all this is confusing, but I'd like to get feedback, and I'd be glad to change it to whatever rule there is a consensus for.
  • Some of these instruments are described as a "national instrument" in a historical context. The Bavarian zither reference is from 1954, for example, and the Pipil carimba is from 1878, the Indian veena is from 1905, the Swiss alphorn from 1827 - these are old, obviously, but the list also includes purely historical national instruments, like for ancient Greece and Egypt. I considered adding the year the instrument was called a "national instrument", but I worry that that would be original research-like, in the absence of a source documenting that an instrument is no longer considered a national instrument. Any thoughts?
  • I thought it would be interesting to make a little chart showing the number of different kinds of instruments by region - so you could look at it and easily see that there are six chordophone national instruments in Europe, for example. But that might be considered original research too.

Thanks, Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks good to me, quite detailed and good refs. Some hopefully useful comments follow:

  • I think the current photos are OK - I can understand not using some if it would cause controversey. You can also add more specific images as they become available in the future. The explanation in the lead about photos is good.
  • I would use the actual name of the scholar here: Some scholars have pointed to the "influence of intellectuals and nationalists...
  • I would add the words "Hornbostel-Sachs number" to the "Intrument" column caption.
  • I would add the word "Image" to the "Other names" column caption. I would also not sort this column.
  • Since the list is called "national instruments" what about those entries that are not a nation (African American, Arab, etc?). Should there be a note of the nations involved if this is not clear already?
  • Where there is no image or alternate name, I think the backgrond should be white - the tan color is distracting.
  • The references are so small that I think they are nearly illegible. I would make them larger.
  • Finally, I would make it clearer in the lead how these were chosen as "national instruments". What were the general criteria used? Did it have to say in the source that the X is the national instrument of Y?

Hope this helps, this is an interesting list. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronic

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for afew weeks now and have improved it to GA status, but I would appreciate a review to help me develop the article to FA class. Any advice would be helpful.


Thanks, Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hey, nice article. Some comments that may help it on its way to FA...

  • " The album was named after a slang term for cannabis. " in the lead isn't cited nor is it expanded upon in the main body.
  • Same for "The album cover itself is a homage to Zig-Zag rolling papers. "
  • Hmm, "8 million" - probably "eight million" since numbers below 10 are generally written out.
  • Infobox "June 1992 at Death Row Studios; Mastered at Bernie Grundman Mastering; Mixed at Larrabee Sound Studios" - why capitals after semi-colons?
  • "established him as one of the biggest rap stars of his era. " - says who? Needs to be cited or it's WP:OR.
  • Same for the launching of all those careers - according to whom was the album responsible for this?
  • " (e.g. The Beastie Boys)" - don't like this, try " ...for example, The Beastie Boys,..."
  • "The singles "Fuck Wit Dre Day" and "Nuthin' but a "G" Thang" are in best-selling video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, on the fictional radio station Radio Los Santos." needs citation.
  • Why are "Explicit Lyrics" not just "Explicit lyrics"?
  • "TIME magazine" can be linked. Do it the first time, not the second. And be consistent with italicising it.
  • "Critical Recognition" - per WP:HEAD should be "Critical recognition".
  • "1985-2005" use en-dash here.
  • " making it a classic album" - this probably needs quote marks or something because it's only classic in the eyes of the magazine.
  • Looks, to me, as if there's a space between [27] and [28] - get rid of it!
  • Be consistent with UK or U.K.

That's enough from me! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have it become a Featured Article one day.


Thanks, Gary King (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Contest

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try and promote it to featured article status, making it the first Seinfeld related article to do so. It has just been promoted to GA status, seemingly with no problems, so I am not sure which parts need to be improved.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Some thing that may help...

  • Reduce choppy opening sentences in the lead, FA will demand good (if not "brilliant") prose.
  • I know you've linked out to the Nielsen rating but I still find "13/19 rating" confusing - what does it really mean?
  • Ref 19 has a rouge ].
  • Ref 14 has Sienfeld.
  • Ref 13 has rogue "

But beyond that, nothing much to add, it's in good shape! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: overall a good article but needs some work to get to FA status. Here are some hopefully useful suggestions:

  • I would look at WP:IN-U and make sure that the plot and other descriptions are written from an out of universe perspective. There are several television episode articles that are FA and they may be useful as model articles here.
  • I always think for an article about a television episode it is useful to have an introductory paragraph or two giving the major characters and any useful background For example, I believe the reason George is caught by his mother is that he still lives at home, right? Or the virgin character is introduced in the previous episode - put things like this into context for readers who do not know as much about the series or episode.
  • Since the episode itself does not use the word masturbate, I would use more quotations from the script/episode to convey the cleverness of the script here. For example, what does George say when he says he was caught? This is already done when Kramer's exit from the contest is described.
  • I would also mention "master of my domain" in the lead as it is a fairly common phrase now (see this New York Times Op Ed piece headline [1], for example).
  • Looking at the references, I was very surprised to see refs 21-25 are all to Wikipedia articles (and am amazed this passed GA with those refs). References to other episdoes should be referenced to the DVDs or other reliable sources. Please see WP:RS. It certainly would never get through FAC with these refs.
  • I think there had to have been some reviews of or commentary on the episode from 1992 (when it originally aried) that could be cited here.
  • I think more could be said about including a real person (JFK Jr.) as a character - was he the first real person used this way in the series (Steinbrenner was too, but later)? Also how they showed him (only his arm, not really him), plus reaction at the time.

Overall an informative article, but needs some work to reach FA. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Henderson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are trying to get the article listed as a Good article. I'm specifically concerned about the section Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes but would also like a general review.


Thanks, User:calbear22 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • dont need to bold the name in the early years section
    DONE (someone else)
  • some of these one line paragraphs need to be merged
  • do the same for these short para is the 1993-2000 section
  • you might want to expand the image captions into more descriptive ones than just what is happening in the picture.
  • the section "illeism, malapropism..." etc. MoS states that there should not be wikilinks in section headings/
    DONE
  • references section should be "notes" and then underneath ideally ought to be a references section listing books used (a la Operation Camargue or Mozambican War of Independence)

Not many points to make because, simply, it is an excellent article. Good stuff SGGH speak! 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple done... Timneu22 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazare Ponticelli

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while it seems pretty short at the moment, most of the important aspectects of said person's life have been covered and it is very well sourced. I want to see what I can do to the article to make it a GA or FA (my first!)

Thanks, Editorofthewiki 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with it and all the best. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hello, nice article, a few comments to help it on its way to GA at least.

  • "the last surviving documented French" - I think it'd be better as "the last documented surviving French..." Done
  • Wikilink French Army. And perhaps Italian Army as well. Done
  • Be consistent and stick with First World War, don't slip into "World War I"... Iwanted to add a bit of variety to the article and not make it sound choppy, so I think they should stay. Feel free to remove them, however.
  • "which partook in the World War II effort " - "took part in the Second World War..." - and in what way? Explained further down in the work section.
  • existance should be existence. Done
  • You should add in the first paragraph that he was Italian... Done
  • Ducale or Docale - be consistent. Done
  • Link paper boy. Done
  • Second para of early life/military career is choppy, lots of very short sentences. I think I fixed it up to good enough qualit, but feel please tell me if I missed something and I'll be on it.
  • the Austrians links to Austria - could link it to their Army? Done
  • Awards in the infobox shouldn't just refer to the section of the article. Removed awards section and placed in infobox. Done
  • "he returned northwards and began working with the resistance.[2] Ponticelli continued managing the company until 1960" - these two sentences don't flow together well. How about this:
    • Ponticelli continued managing the company there until his retirement in 1960?
  • "Ponticelli lived with his daughter in Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France" - provide a temporal context for this. I'm sorry, what is a temporal context?
  • "second-to-last soldier" - "penultimate French veteran of the First World War"
  • " WWI" - never use this! Stick with First World War. Done
  • "though information on other survivors is not known." - could get confusing - no other members of his family I guess this means? How about:
    • though information on other surviving relatives is not known?
  • Fix the redlink to Le Monde. Done
  • Can you cite his awards? Done

Hope those comments help. Give me a shout if anything's unclear. All the best The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE This is now a good article. Editorofthewiki 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Virginia achieved Good Article status last year, but didn't receive a thorough line by line review. Two previous requests this year for Peer Review also went without any human review. Third time the charm? This article is quite close to FA, but where else does it need work? Where are more references needed? Which topic are too lengthy and which too short? How does it read? I think the article on a whole can be shortened, but which paragraphs can be broken off without damaging the readability? Even if someone could review a single section or subsection that would be an exemplar for the rest of the article. Thanks for your help, Patrick Ѻ 14:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia/archive3.[reply]

History of Norwich City F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another stepping stone towards a FT about Norwich City F.C.. The Rambling Man and I have tried hard to avoid POV (having an Ipswich fan working on this has helped) and recentism... article is slightly tilted chronologically, but only because most of Norwich's most notable achievements have come since 1972.

Greatly appreciate constructive criticism. Thanks, Dweller (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Norwich City F.C./archive1.

Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after an earlier version was reviewed in January 2007 many of the issues raised were left unresolved and the article seemingly set aside by its then active editors. I have prepared a thorough revision of the article, using the earlier review as a guide but not as a checklist. I would particularly appreciate comments on structure, MoS and POV issues, clarity and accuracy.


Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm getting through it slowly. Looks pretty good so far, but I don't like the chronology of the loss of the Endurance and the sledging pulls of the boats. For anybody not paying careful attention to the dates it appears that all the sledging was done after the Endurance went down. I think you need to move the final loss of the Endurance to the correct place in the chronology and make more of the movements between the camps and the ship. Yomanganitalk 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on this. Meanwhile, can you explain the introduction of Robertson Island in the "Camping on the ice" section? It and Snow Hill Island are two separate places. There is no mention Of Robertson Iisland in South or any of the expedition histories I've got here. Also, the sentence doesn't make sense as it stands:"...Shackleton intended to march the crew to Robertson Island;Snow Hill Island, the base..."

Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robertson Island is mentioned at least in Caroline Alexander's Endurance where Shackleton is quoted (though probably second-hand), and possibly South with Endurance. The sentence now gives the 3 possible destinations separated by semicolons as there was additional information on two of them which made commas confusing: ...Robertson Island; Snow Hill Island, the base of Otto Nordenskiöld’s Swedish expedition in 1902–04, where emergency stores were to be found; or Paulet Island, where Shackleton knew there was a substantial food depot. Needs reworking if it isn't clear. Yomanganitalk 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear, now you've tweaked it. But Robertson Island should have a citation, as the other islands do, and I don't have the Alexander book. Can you give a refce? I have now adjusted the chronology re the abandonment/sinking. Incidentally, above the image in the lead is a set of co-ordinates. How did they get there - they're not part of the article? More importantly, assuming that they represent the position of Endurance at abandonment, the latitude needs correcting by 5'. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added (incidentally your referencing format for the sources isn't consistent). The co-ordinates where probably added during an ill-conceived campaign by a currently banned user to tag nearly every article with co-ordinates regardless off whether they were about a static feature or not (I was a big fan: see Talk:The_Proms#Location_coordinates and Template_talk:Locate_me#Templates_gone_mad). I've removed them. Yomanganitalk 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timeline is much clearer with the rearrangement. I think it is ready for FAC - the ref formats need tidying up and there are probably some minor MOS issues, but a friendly reviewer will no doubt sort those out. I'm sure Sandy won't mind if you have two running at the same time - neither of them need much work. Yomanganitalk 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tidied the ref formats as best I can. One defeats me - no 47. This is because it relates to one of the tiny scraps of text left from the earlier version of the article. The reference, cited by a previous editor, lacks a page no. but I don't have the book. I will drop the extract and the ref if they cause problems. As for FAC I think I'll leave it a few days - someone else may want to review it here, and I need to draw breath. I've also got some reviewing of my own to attend to. But I'm sure it will go to FAC.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page number for the Worsley ref. Yomanganitalk 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Ealdgyth -

  • Lede - first paragraph, second sentence. "of the Antarctica continent" sounds odd to me. "of Antarctica" or "of the Antarctic continent" both work better.
    • I've made it Antarctic continent.
  • Same section and paragraph, I think I'd say "it remains memorable" but that's me.
    • Yes, remains is better.
  • Probably should mention the recent books in the lede, something like "Recent books like (blah) and (blah) have once more elevated the expedition to prominence." or something similar. That's going to be how most folks have heard of this expedition.
    • Don't know about this. Many books have been published about Shackleton and his expeditions over the years, as well as films, TV series etc. I wouldn't know which books have "once more" lifted this expedition to prominence, and I think the implication that the expedition was until recently more or less forgotten is questionable. I don't really want to add more material to the article unless I really have to - is this point critical?
No, it's not. I can certainly understand not wanting to add more to an article when it's already 60KB of prose. (Your Wagnarian ref was close to the truth!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(57, actually, and that includes 100+ refs and footnotes) Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins section, the last sentence of the first paragraph. I'm thinking this sentence is expressing an opinion, and should have a citation. It's the "The nature of his further Antarctic work was uncertain, ..." part that's borderline opinion.
    • I've removed the word uncertain, and redrafted the sentence. I'm sure that in this form no citation is required.
  • Same section, next paragraph, you knew I'd find a quote that needed a citation. (grins) This one is borderline, since it continues in the next sentence, but make me feel good and cite it anyway.
    • I've now cited both halves of the quote
  • Same section and paragraph, the "He had no certainty ..." sentence is a bit word with a lot of t-words. Perhaps "He had no certainty then that this work would fall to him."? It's a personal style choice though.
    • I think "He had no certainty.." is one of my quasi-literary constructions that should have been chopped ages ago, so I've reworded it. "He could not be certain..." etc.
  • Same thing on the opinion on the last sentence of the second paragraph of Origins. The "important information" is opinion, (albeit borderline) and probably should have a citation.
    • Yes, I've changed this rather loose sentence, and put in a citation.
  • Camping on the ice section, fourth paragraph, next to last sentence, the quote needs a citation. (yep, picky me)
    • The citation at the paragraph end was supposed to cover the quote, but I've referenced it separately now.
  • Ross Sea Party section, last two sentences of the first paragraph need a citation, especially the "party was, as a whole, very inexperienced in ice conditions", which is opinion and needs a source.
    • Not an opinion, perhaps an unreferenced fact, which I've dealt with by an explanatory footnote.
  • In the sources, the two websites need to be formatted not to have bald links and need publisher information, and authors where known.
    • Someone else will have to do this, I don't even know what a bald link is. I'll get help.
When I wake up some, i"ll try to come over and format it for you. you don't want me doing that until I wake up though. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the because I had to ask department, I see on the page for Perce Blackborow a cat named Miss Chippy. What happened to her? (grins) If you tell me they ate her...
    • I'd like to say that at as they trudged through the ice they saw a sign pointing to the Antarctic Cats Rest Home, and they took Mr Chippy there and he lived happily ever after. The truth is....well, at least I don't think they ate him. See Harry McNish page.

All levity aside, very nice article. (Even if they ate the dogs, AGAIN). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, & also for the tidying up work (punctuation etc) which you did. I hope to take the article to FAC next week.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed the links in the refs. The bald links refer to the [1] that were there, which I've now changed to titled links. Looking at those, I'm okay with them as sources, mainly because they give their sources at the bottom of the article. Everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine de' Medici

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to submit it as a featured-article candidate, all being well. I hope we can iron out any problems here first. Many thanks to anyone who takes the trouble to have a look: I will respond promptly and fully to any comments (knowing me, too fully!). qp10qp (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine de' Medici//archive1.

Andy Reid (footballer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want some comments on making it the best article it can be.


Thanks,  Sunderland06  17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Andy Reid (footballer)/archive1.

PHP

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Feel free to edit the article instead of mentioning any copyedit changes here, if you feel it is a minor change.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a WP:FA some day.


Thanks, Gary King (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sid Haig

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had nominated it two times for Good Article and was told by the person who failed it that I should run it by PR before renominating. I don't think it'll ever get FA status but I would like it to achieve GA.


Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hi CyberGhostface, some comments which should help the article on its way to GA.

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD, probably two paragraphs.
  • " is perhaps best known " - stick with encyclopaedic terminology.
  • "Haig's career began somewhat by accident" again, non-encyclopaedic, almost speculative.
  • "which shot to #4" - same again.
  • Headings per WP:HEAD should not have "The...", so just "Pasadena Playhouse" will suffice.
  • "When Sid ..." - overfamiliar. Use Haig.
  • Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • The prose could do with a good copyedit, it reads a little like a fan wrote it right now. It just needs to be tighter and more neutral and encyclopaedic in tone.
  • Most of Acting section is uncited.

Hope some of that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse of Horror V

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was failing a WP:FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror V‎) which User:Bole2 withdrew. Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add your feddback from the FAC here. Apprently I can't do it myself. Buc (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copy and paste the contents of one page to another Buc, that's what you can't do. It contravenes GFDL. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While there is a lot of information here, it could be better organized and written. Here are some more specific suggestions that I hope help:

  • I always look at a FAC as a very detailed peer review and think that you should take all of the comments seriously and make sure they are addressed. I will not address specific points already brought up in the FAC except to say that I agree with almost all of them.
  • In the FAC, use the specific examples cited as inidicative of possible wider problems - i.e. look at the whole article and make sure there are not other examples of the same problem in other sections.
  • I would get a copyedit from someone else (a fresh pair of eyes) to address the writing issues - the article as written tends to have choppy, short sentences that do not flow well, and short paragraphs, which are also a problem.
  • There are also still some places that make little or no sense - one way to catch those yourself is to print out the article and read it out loud. One example from the Receptions section: James Earl Jones's guest appearance in this episode, as well as in "Treehouse of Horror" and "Das Bus", was listed seventh on IGN's "Top 25 Simpsons Guest Appearances" list.[21] Matt Groening said that this line is among his favorite lines in the show.[22] What line is Groening's favorite?
  • Make sure the sentences in paragraphs go together logically - for example in the reception section, I have no idea what the connection between these two sentences is: Alf Clausen's musical score for this episode received an Emmy Award nomination for "Outstanding Dramatic Underscore - Series" in 1995.[20] The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood called it "Another fine entry to the Treehouse canon".[1]
  • I would look at the Lead and make sure it summarizes the most important points of the article - things to consider adding are the parody of The Shining, perhaps the fact that the episode had an Emmy nomination - see WP:LEAD
  • I would also look at WP:IN-U and make sure the plot is written from an out of universe perspective.
  • I think for every article on a tv show it is helpful to have a paragraph on background that puts the episode into perspective - here I would provide a very brief description of the Simpsons itself and put more information on the place of this epsiode within the whole Treehouse of Horror series. See WP:PCR
  • I would also look at the Treehouse of Horror (series) article which make some referenced claims for this episode and make sure they are all in here.
  • Final comment - despite saying I would try not to repeat what is in the FAC, I do strongly agree that to reach FA status the article needs to follow WP:RS - why should the reader care what a college newspaper reviewer or blogger (even one with a spiffy website) thinks of the episode? What makes these reliable critical sources? For a well known series like the Simpsons and show like this, there should be more than enough mainstream criticism that sources like these can be discarded - get thee to a library ;-)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Gil

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done a pretty substantial overhaul of it and put it up at GAN (but who knows how long it will take to be reviewed). Looking for general advice—does information appear to be missing or presented in an awkward manner? is more media needed to make the article useful? etc.


Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thriller (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is a featured article candidate, and I would like to know how it could be improved before beginning work on it. It's a Good Article, but I think there could be some work done on it, and I would like to know exactly how it could be improved.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on submitting it for GA sometime soon and maybe FA after that. Could I please have a review which is as detailed a possible? Please could the reviewer tell me if anything needs adding (or removing from) to the article and if the structure is correct. I'm sure there's some grammar/spelling mistakes.

Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this soon. Given the backlog at WP:GAN you can probably submit it now and fix any issues raised here before it will be reviewed there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's alot of mistakes, not quite GA yet. Thanks.-- Jamie jca (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there is room for improvement, here are some suggestions to start:

  • There are a fair number of GA and FA articles on TV shows - find some to use as models for this.
  • The lead does a fairly good job of summarizing the article. The cast paragraph needs the most work and there are issues of weight / balance.
    • I would make more mention of Alec Baldwin and Tracey Morgan in the lead - the big three cast members are Fey and these two. Perhaps also mention Jane K.
    • To date, one full season has aired and a second season, which premiered on October 4, 2007,[4] is mid-way through its broadcasting season. "To date" gets out of date very quickly - use "As of April 2008" or something similar
    • This sentence is awkward The show also has a large amount of recurring and secondary characters who have smaller roles to play in the series than the cast members who receive star billing. I would use number instead of amount, and saying they are secondary characters makes the last half unnecessary.
    • Is the incidental music composer really important enough to be in the lead? See WP:WEIGHT
  • In the sentence NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly felt, in the words of Time, that "Fey was using... you already cite Time as the source in the footnote, so you do not need it again here
  • Say Fey was head writer and a performer on SNL in the first sentence of Conception. Then you can rework the sentence it is now in and the one after to something like In May 2003, Fey signed a deal with NBC to remain in her SNL head writer position till at least the 2004-2005 television season, and to develop a primetime project to be produced by Broadway Video and NBC Universal.[14]
  • Unclear what is meant here unless you've seen the show: ...about the head writer of a variety show who has to manage her relationships with the show's volatile star and executive producer" as opposed to both the stars and the vice president of development of a variety series.[15] - make it clearer that the show became about her relation with both stars and the VP. See WP:PCR - provide context to the reader
  • Episode format is mostly unreferenced, and has no mention of the actors or writers in the show.
  • Be consistent on introducing characters give role within the show, character name, and actor. This is done for Liz Lemon, but the actor who plays Pete is not mentioned, and for Jack Donaghy there is no clue who he is (Liz's boss) or who plays him (Alec Baldwin). Make sure to write about the show's plot and characters from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
  • Cast and charaters section is a mess - almost totally unreferenced, full of quotes that are not cited, and a lot of it seems to either be original research or copy vio, or at the very least not encylopedic in tone. For example: TGS's producer, Pete Hornberger (Scott Adsit) is a friendly-but-not-too-friendly, married-but-not-blind, middle-aged-but-not-at-all-old man, he is viewed as the most "normal" and "sane" character in the series. He is a character who, alongside Liz, has to help deal with problems caused by various characters. It is also too repetitive - Grizz and DotComm are discussed twice (combine into one mention).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Musical

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article at present, but can, with some work, make it to FA. I think some specific guidance is needed in a few areas:

  • How can the lead be improved? Does it need expanding, is it lacking summary, etc?
  • The GA reviewer suggested a lack of balance existed in the Reception section - if this is true, how so?
  • Is the article structured correctly?

Any other comments are also veyr welcome! Many thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hey Fritzpoll, some comments from me. Not an area of my expertise but some points that may be brought up at WP:FAC...

  • The lead is a little on the light side, especially considering the second paragraph is a single sentence...
  • Not particularly relevant here, but the fair use image has a good rationale for this article but none for its inclusion in Sacred Heart Hospital .
  • "[1] –" I'd use ",[1] " so remove the dash and place the ref immediately following the comma you insert in place of the dash.
  • "However, in the style of a traditional Scrubs episode, this is preceded by a cold open." - can you provide a citation for the "style of a traditional scrubs episode" or is this WP:OR?
  • "singing to her ("All Right"). " - "singing "All Right" to her." would be preferable to me.
  • Ms. Miller's image caption reads as a fragment to me so it shouldn't have the full stop.
  • I find the introduction of some of the characters such as the Worthless Peons in Act One to be a little confusing.
  • " they'll " avoid contractions for FA - they will.
  • "It had long been a dream in the Scrubs writers' room to do a musical episode. " a little fancrufty...
  • ("Musical hallucinations associated with seizures originating from an intracranial aneurysm...)" in-line citations disallowed in FAC, make it a normal reference.
  • "Intriguingly, the casting of Stephanie D'Abruzzo was done " - intrigue is subjective, get rid of it, and would a casting be "done"? it reads clumsily.
  • You have one dead link, the etonline.com one. Use this link.
  • Keep citations in numerical order, you've got a [7][4] and [3][17][19][18]
  • "NBC's official Scrubs site." move to reference.
  • Eight external links for a single episode of a sitcom is quite excessive!

That's it for me, good luck with the article.

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall well done, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every sction or subsection should at least be mentioned in the lead.
  • The plot has to be written from an out of universe perspective, see WP:IN-U. Since this is an article about a single episode, I think it would be usefil to have a paragraph or two about Scrubs as a show and the major characters. Someone who is not familiar with the show (let alone this epsidoe) would not know who JD and Elliot are, let alone that Turk and Carla are married and have just had a baby, etc.
  • Similarly, even for someone who has seen the show and this episode, it is always helpful to put people and situations into context. For example, I have seen this episode, but had no idea who "The Worthless Peons" were.
  • There are no references at all in the last three subsections of plot. FA will need at least one citation per paragraph, see WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:WIAFA
  • Similarly any sort of attribution (even if not a direct quote) needs a ref for FA. Example: Reyes and Faison were the only members of the cast (besides the Broadway star D'Abruzzo) to receive praise for their singing abilities.
  • Reception section seems OK to me, but I am no expert. I would ask the editor who made the comment to be more specific. I did notice that there is an error - this is not a film and cannot have been awarded anything at the 79th Academy Awards.
  • It is often helpful to have some model articles to follow that are on similar topics and already FA (congrats on the GA, by the way). I would use a model for structural questions.

Hope this helps, I enjoyed reading the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra! comments:

Many thanks for all comments. I shall use these to try to improve the article Fritzpoll (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powered hang glider

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had researched it for a few years now, in addition of my first-hand experience flying and maintaining these powered gliders. The article is not new and has reached maturity. It is stable, free of editing wars or vandalism. It has been read by fellow fliers anf hang gliding instructors from many countries and some have contributed. I believe this is material for Featured Article and being my first article ever, I am following the humble protocol to submit it first to peer review -specially with grammar & spelling- and fine tune it with welcome feedback.

Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:' An interesting article, nicely illustrated and obviously has had a lot of work done on it. It needs some work to get ready for WP:FAC and to pass that and become FA. here are some suggestions:

  • The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and not contain anything that is not also in the text. I try to mention every section heading in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. See WP:LEAD
  • While this is very well illustrated, there are some image issues that will need to be addressed for FAC:
    • Per the WP:MOS, all images should be set as thumb size to allow reader preferences to set the image size.
    • Some of the images are so close together that there are white spaces - it might be better to prune some and/or consider right / left image placement.
    • Looking at a few images on Commons, there is sparse licensing and source information - who made these images?
  • It is generally a good idea to have a model article to follow for ideas, structure, etc. There are several aircraft FAs (Boeing 747, several warplanes) that may offer ideas.
  • Much of the article is unsourced - to get to FA there will need to be at least one reference per paragraph and a ref for any quote, statistic or extraordinary claim. See WP:CITE
    • For example here are two sentences: The reaction of most pilots would be to say that powered microlights (ultralights) developed from hang gliding in the late 1970s, but it was not that simple. In fact, microlights are a rebirth, a return to the love of low-speed flight which the earliest aviators felt so keenly, but which was subsequently lost in the quest for military superiority.[5] - unless you can cite specific pilots who have this reaction, or have quotes that cite this love of low-speed flight, etc. this is problematic. There is a reference here, i.e. [5], but it is an uncited statement about the history of flight.
  • Without references from reliable sources, it can be hard to tell what is not original research
  • The article needs to meet WP:NPOV and maintain a neutral point of view. Much of the quote above shows POV.
  • It also needs to be written so as to avoid "peacock words" - see WP:PEACOCK.
  • Although it does a decent job of avoiding jargon in most places, it has to do so throughout the article, see WP:JARGON. See also WP:PCR on providing context.
  • It may benefit from being split into several subarticles, see WP:Summary style

Hope this helps - while there is a lot of information here, it needs a lot work and polish to get to FA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boycott

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get to FA eventually. User:Red Gown is creating an image of the man batting, and hopefully we can find some others somewhere as at the moment there are none.

But any other points, please feel free!


Thanks, SGGH speak! 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some random comments:

  • Boycott established himself as one of England's finest opening batsmen and a very occasional medium-pace inswing bowler - the sentence unintentionally gives the impression that

he established himself as a very occasional medium-pace inswing bowler too.

    • Fixed
  • His bowling does not deserve a line in the very first paragraph.
    • Fixed
  • While a less successful One Day International player, becoming the first ever wicket in that format of the game, - the second clause does not follow from the first even though that seems to be the intention.
    • Fixed
  • Not sure whether being the first man out in ODI is important enough to be mentioned in the intro
    • I personally think its quite notable, but appreciate your viewpoint
  • He also remains active at Yorkshire, particularly in the selection of overseas players - Is this line still true ? The source is more than seven years old.
    • Fixed
  • Why is almost two long paragraphs spent for whether Close said it or not ? The focus should be on the innings (which, I assume, is still considered as one of the all-time great List A innings).
    • It is, but it also typifies Boycotts attitude, unfortunately I didn't write the county section or much of the international, will have to contact the user who did
  • Sydenham was not a spinner.
    • Fixed
  • The county career section is unbalanced. Two large paragraphs for a single innings, two small ones for the summary.
    • As per above comment, I'll have to contact the user who wrote it all, I don't know much about his county career
  • I get the impression from several parts of the article that the author is trying to reinforce the slow, dull Boycott image. For instance, was 32-over 23* at Taunton that bad ? From the scorecard one gets the impression that it was a seaming wicket. Somerset made 63 in 35 overs an Yorkshire had 60 overs to get the runs when Boycott batted. I don't know whether the point about his slowness about his slowness is valid for this case or not (what does the Wisden match report say ?), but there are similar hints throughout the articles when they are not really necessary. Tintin 02:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, will speak to the author
  • After reaching his hundreth test match during the series, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 1980 Queen's Birthday Honours "for services to Cricket. - as per the newly inserted link to the London Gazette, the OBE was awarded on June 14 while Sir G's 100th Test was on July 2. Tintin 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed

Record home attendances of English football clubs

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking at taking this list to WP:FLC, but would like to iron out any creases and find out if anything else needs doing first. Comments on whether the lead is sufficient would be particularly welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Lead might want some more expanding, but I wouldn't say it's essential.
  • "...football clubs It lists..." - full stop needed.
  • Don't see the need for "F.C." on every club.
  • I think the references would be better placed in a "Notes" column at the end.
  • Perhaps make it sortable?
  • I'd be tempted to put the competitions in a seperate column.
  • Teams in the "Match" column need wikilinking, and so do the dates.

All I can see. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs) before my battery runs out

[edit]

Ref 77 (Gillingham) is missing full book info ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • I'd agree with everything Mattythewhite says about the table itself.
  • Perhaps find an appropriate image
  • Add wikilinks to notes 3 and 10
  • I think cup rounds should be first, second, etc rather than 1st, 2nd. Especially since the divisions are first, second, etc.

Think that's it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • I think the date column should be sortable as well.
  • Why pick out Accrington Stanley in the lead?
  • Ref one should use an en-dash for page separator.
  • Molineux stadium should be Stadium.
  • The Baseball Ground should just be Baseball Ground.

That's about it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That should be everything above done, with the exception of putting the refs in a separate column, which is a lot of cutting and pasting for only marginal benefit, and the date sorting, which I can't work out how to do without sorting wrongly. The image isn't a great one, but we lack free images from the right era for most grounds. Accrington Stanley are mentioned in the lead to complete the three clubs whose record did not occur at their usual home ground. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Need some sort of as-of date to qualify the 92 English clubs.
  • Could link "terraced" (to Terrace (stadium)) for our non-Brit-Eng readers.
  • The Old Trafford war damage probably needs citing, as does Arsenal playing CL games at Wembley.
  • Consider giving the table a section header.
  • Rank column would look better centred.
  • Would suggest moving the references to their own column. The attendance figures would be clearer if the references weren't in with them, and could then be centred (or aligned on the comma), which they probably should be.
  • Also, the attendances column doesn't sort properly (possibly because the references being in with the numbers stop them being treated as numeric).
  • Consider making Opposition column sortable (if only to make it easy to see if record crowds really do occur against the big clubs).
  • Row 48 Doncaster Third Div North needs linking.
  • Row 52 Wrexham article is Wrexham F.C., not A.F.C., though it probably was when the table was first created. Similarly in the wording of the reference.
  • Row 58 Swindon FA Cup thirrd round has too many rr's ;-)
  • Row 70 Northampton has F.C. after clubname.
  • Ref #1 could have the page numbers within the cite-book template.
  • Ref #2 should use cite-web for consistency.
  • Ref #9 Arsenal needs an access date.
  • Ref #32/41 Fulham/West Ham are technically The Observer rather than the Guardian, and should have the date parameter completed.
  • Ref #81 Colchester should have date and author completed.
  • In general, the cite templates need to distinguish properly between what goes in the work and publisher parameters. Tottenham Hotspur official website is quite correctly a work, but BBC or The FA are publishers and should be entered in the publisher parameter.

I know it's all a bit picky, but better now before it goes to FLC. hope some of it helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all done, but I don't see the benefit of going through work/publisher when the only difference it makes to the output is whether it is italicised or not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Parade

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work in to try and get it up to same standard as other FAs for stadiums, including Portman Road and Priestfield Stadium and would like to know what further improvements can be made.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Degrassi: The Next Generation

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I did this all the wrong way, because I took it to FAC in December (it failed), then a GA review in January (it failed!), and it has just been given GA status. I'd like to take it to Featured status, so any comments are appreciated and addressed. The article is rather large too (101kb), so any ideas on how to shrink it at all would be good.

Thanks, Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1.

Rossall School

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant editing and restructing since the last succesful peer review. Unfortunately a recent request for a peer review went unnoticed.

I would also suggest increasing this article's importance to those of the other English public schools - though it should clearly be lower than Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Winchester.


Thanks, (LennyLeonardson (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: More to come later, but the first image I checked (of the observatory) was a copyright violation, so I would read WP:Images carefully and check all of the images. GA and FA both require free images or valid fair use claims - things like the observatory photo should be fairly easily replaceable - get someone to go there with a camera.

  • More image problems - the school crest is claimed as own work (by the nominator of this peer review), when it should be WP:Fair use. If it is not fixed in 24 hours, I will nominate it for speedy deletion. A number of other images are suspicous - the aerial view, for example - given the problems already found with images.
  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD so that it is an accurate summary of the whole article - nothing in the lead should not also be in the text and every section should be mentioned in some way.
  • Avoid jargon like CCF and IB (both in the lead) - see WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
  • History section - why was the school founded? Where did it first meet? Some of this is in the lead, but should also be here. Also while the stories of the attempted poisoning and embezzler are entertaining, are they the most important things about the school?
  • I would find an article about a similar public school that is at least GA if not FA and use that as a model for this article.
  • The article must present a neutral point of view - see WP:NPOV. Comments like (A very peculiar chap who was always seen riding a horse in full military uniform.) are very POV. Also avoid peacock language - see WP:PEACOCK.
  • The article needs many more references and the references it has need to be from reliable sources and properly cited - see WP:RS and WP:CITE.
  • The refs that are cited come mostly from the school itself - they should be independent third-party sources wherever possible.
  • The actual references are a mess - current ref 33 is just "Insert footnote text here" for example. All internet references should cite title, publisher, author (if known), and date accessed. See also {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite news}}.
  • There is a lot of material of questionable encyclopedic value - do we really need to know the fees? The school terms section is way too detailed - pick the most important and well-referenced and drop the rest. Galleries of images are discouraged too.

A decent start, but this article needs a lot of work to make it better and to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I hope this helps improve it - see the semi-automoted peer review suggestions too as they are useful here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LennyLeonardson Comments: With regards to the observatory photos - you cannot just get someone to go and take a photo of it - the observatory is within the school's grounds and thus private property. Also, to find an image of the observatory before refurbishment would be near impossible - thus the photo you have removed served a purpose - particularly as the article describes the restoration of the observatory - it would be useful to see the before and after. I would appreciate it if you could restore the photo. Many thanks.

All other comments have been taken into consideration and the article is being ajusted accordingly. Thanks LennyLeonardson (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

LennyLeonardson Comments:

Direct Action Day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is an important but controversial event during Indian independance.


Thanks, Sumanch (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article, well illustrated and extensively cited. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should follow WP:LEAD. It should summarize the whole article and really doesn't need to have references in it if the points are also in the text and referenced there. Everything in the lead should also be in the text, and my rule of thumb is that every section title should be at least mentioned in some way in the lead.
  • Make sure references follow punctuation and generally come at the end of a sentence (or, if necessary, at the end of a phrase).
  • Be consistent about names - the title is "Direct Action Day" but at least one caption (Jinnah photo) spells it as "Direct Action day". Also the modern name is no longer Calcutta - not sure what the convention is there, but if you use "Calcutta" throughout, I would make very clear early on that it is now called Kolkata
  • The article could use a good copyedit and proofreading - the section header "Further Rioting in Indian" surely should be "Further Rioting in India"? There are also several run-on sentences and prose that could use some polishing.
  • Fair use rationales all need to be as complete as that for Image:DAD Troop Flag march.jpg. There is generally a limit to the number of Fair use photos in an article - I would make sure every one is absolutley needed.
  • Avoid squeezing text between right and left images per the WP:MOS.
  • The MOS also says to avoid using "The" in section title - so use "Prelude" (not "The Prelude") etc.
  • Please read Wikipedia:Quotations and trim down the quote of the entire program for DAD - describe what was called for and quote small sections of the program as needed. Perhaps the program could be put on Wikiquote?
  • Captions that are phrases should not end with a period, so "Troops finaly arrive." should be "Troops final[l]y arrive"

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I hope[reply]

Action

[edit]
Suggested Corrections
[edit]
  • The lead should follow WP:LEAD. It should summarize the whole article and really doesn't need to have references in it if the points are also in the text and referenced there. Everything in the lead should also be in the text, and my rule of thumb is that every section title should be at least mentioned in some way in the lead.
  • Make sure references follow punctuation and generally come at the end of a sentence (or, if necessary, at the end of a phrase). — Corrected Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about names - the title is "Direct Action Day" but at least one caption (Jinnah photo) spells it as "Direct Action day". Also the modern name is no longer Calcutta - not sure what the convention is there, but if you use "Calcutta" throughout, I would make very clear early on that it is now called Kolkata — Corrected Sumanch (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could use a good copyedit and proofreading - the section header "Further Rioting in Indian" surely should be "Further Rioting in India"? There are also several run-on sentences and prose that could use some polishing. — Corrected Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use rationales all need to be as complete as that for Image:DAD Troop Flag march.jpg. There is generally a limit to the number of Fair use photos in an article - I would make sure every one is absolutley needed. — Corrected Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid squeezing text between right and left images per the WP:MOS. — Corrected Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS also says to avoid using "The" in section title - so use "Prelude" (not "The Prelude") etc. — Corrected Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Wikipedia:Quotations and trim down the quote of the entire program for DAD - describe what was called for and quote small sections of the program as needed. Perhaps the program could be put on Wikiquote?
Correction underway — Moved the program to Wiki-Source. That may be an error. Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewoked the passage but will require copy edit.Sumanch (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ploy (board game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently reminded myself of what a good game Ploy is, and I want the whole world to know! Well, on a more realistic note, this is something fun that I decided to write about to test my Wiki skills. I would appreciate brutal honesty, but also some constructive advice. If it's not too much trouble, try and look really far into this article to find any errors. I noticed some formatting slip-ups on my browser (Firefox) with the photos and the subheadings. Some things appear to be subheading when they aren't supposed to, and I see five or so EDIT buttons in a row. Oh, and let me know if I went too crazy with the subheadings. I'm a bit worried about that. Am I cited enough? Would it be clear to someone who has never played the game? All the usual stuff. To the reviewer who has chosen this article, I thank you. I think that with your (hopefully friendly) suggestions, I may submit this for Featured Article! But we can all dream... Anyways, I hope you enjoy, and have a lovely day.

Cheers, bobbo king (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some odd coding errors in the article. It might be my browser's problem, but Mozilla Firefox is known to work quite nicely with Wikipedia, so I doubt it. If you could fix that, it'd be great. (Sorry if it is my error)--haha169 (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hello, interesting article, some pointers...

  • Read WP:CITE for advice on where to place citations. In particular, you should aim to put them directly following punctuation, no spaces between.
  • Check out WP:HEAD - it says things like avoid "The Board", just "Board" will do. And don't overcapitalise unless proper nouns, so "Direction Moves" becomes "Direction moves".
  • I don't understand why you're employing the "blockquote" mechanism all over the article? Just normal formatting should suffice.
  • You have loads of subsections whih is why you end up with all the Edit buttons. So I think you're right, you need to merge some of the information to reduce this.
  • When referencing the web, use the {{Cite web}} template. Also consider expanding your links for the External links section rather than just the url in square brackets which looks untidy.
  • “chess-like feel.” is this a quote? If so it needs citation, if not it needs the quote marks removing. And any reason you're using those quote marks instead of "these" ones?

That should help for a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Response

[edit]

Thanks to those that have given tips. I should get around to fixing things this weekend. I'll address them in this talk, especially if I had a problem somewhere. Oh, and if anyone still wants to give me info, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks!

Natalee Holloway

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA, and we aspire to FA status. Improvement to this article has been ongoing, and continues. However, since it is principally the work of three editors, we'd like another perspective on where the article stands and what work must be done prior to considering becoming a FA candidate. This is a somewhat controversial article, but we are doing our best with it. Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Seems pretty good to me - here are some hopefully helpful comments:

  • I would include the ages of the Kalpoe brothers in the Disappearance section (as van der Sloot's age is given here)
  • References go after punctuation, so this needs to be changed: Beth Twitty was provided with free housing, initially at the Holiday Inn (where she stayed in her daughter's former room[27]),...
  • California Lighthouse photo has white space after it - have you tried adding the "upright" tag to the image (after "thumb|")?
  • Should John and Jones were released on June 13. have a reference?
  • Ref(s) also needed for the releases of van der Sloot senior and Croes releases...
  • ...and for At some time during the interrogation, Van der Sloot told a third story: that he was dropped off at home and Holloway was driven off by the Kalpoe brothers.
  • Anything that is in quotes chould be cited: ...after an individual ("the gardener") claimed to have seen...
  • Why is there an interwiki link to nl here: Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba(nl).[41]?
  • I doubt Scrux.com is a WP:RS, also do not make direct external links in the text.
  • The investigation continues (September 2005-April 2006) section - lots of short paragraphs (one sentence or two). I would combine them into fewer larger paragraphs.
  • I would not include the ISBN for Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise in the text, put it and full publisher information in a reference.
  • Same for van der Sloot's book (ISBN and book details in a ref, use {{cite book}}). I would also translate the title to English. Why is there no summary of the book? Even if it says nothing new, then have a sentence that it repeats what he already said (for example)(or whatever it says).
  • July 2007 Amigoe article section - first four paragraphs are uncited - need refs
  • Awkward sentence: The article states that the interviews indicate that Renfro and Beth Twitty received a phone call from an unknown woman on June 2, 2005, offering information about Holloway's location and the information that Holloway was still alive but was unwilling to return to her mother, for the sum of $4,000. Makes it sound like the $4,000 was for Holloway to return to her mother as now written.
  • Watch for short paragrpahs throughout.
  • Is there any sort of final summary possible - any published theories about what happened to her?

Hope this helps, these are fairly nitpicky Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these things are very helpful, and in the case of the unrefed releases, are things I had been reminding myself to work on. Still, though nitpicky, they are things we must address if we want this to be an FA. Thank you for going through the article with a fine toothed comb and giving us a very useful perspective!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've addressed most of the stated issues (except the summary, which we think would be a problem). However, we would welcome further comments. We're going to go for FAC as soon as a WP policy change which could impact the name of the article is finalized.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shake 'n' Vac

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've decided to list this article for peer review as it needs a lot of help and support to help it to be ajusted to good article status, plus I do not know much on copyediting, style, so I would like some help on how that can be improved on the article.

Thanks, AndreNatas (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Okay, a few basic pointers...

  • Image:JennyLoganshakenvac.jpg needs a fair use rationale, you can't just rely on the template.
  • Caption under the screengrab is a sentence fragment so no full stop needed.
  • You link to air freshener, which I'm not convinced is appropriate...
  • " hoovering" - this is a tradename (Hoover) so stick with vacuum cleaning.
  • "The product becoming well known" became well known....
  • In the infobox you have Shake 'n' vac (small v) - it needs to be consistent with the other mentions of Vac.
  • " 1980's" - 1980s (no apostrophe).
  • "The product, still available as of today" - this will age quickly, bound it to As of March 2008...
  • The two paragraphs of the lead are basically saying the same thing - they need to be copyedited really...
  • "TV advert" - television advertisement.
  • Avoid "ad" - use advertisement.
  • Explain ITV before using the acronym.
  • 1950's - 1950s
  • "History of the product and advert" section heading, split this into two sections called "Product history" and "Advertisment history" and expand them both.
  • "hoovering it up" as above - avoid the tradename.
  • Second half of controversy has no citation.

That may help. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • I found this listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Tasks, and therefore assume it is more about the commercial than the product, therefore a page move to Shake n' Vac (commercial) would be appropriate, with a rework of the lead.
  • Condense the two paragraphs to one, they're basically the same.
  • Have one paragraph discuss the commercial, and one discuss the product
  • Replace "hoovering" with "vacuum cleaning"
  • Expand TV to television on first usage
  • Expand "ad" to "advertisment", or at worst "advert"
  • Some of the info in the infobox is incorrect. The agency should be the people who create the ad, not the people who manufacture the product. "1950's rock and roll style" shouldnt be under "Music by" either
  • "johnson" in Ref 1 needs capitalising
  • IMDB isn't considered a reliable source
  • I'm not sure of the reliability of DVDfever either, even though I have much respect for Dom
  • Blogs are not considered reliable sources
  • Use {{cite episode}} instead of referencing IMDB for This Morning
  • the reference for Choiceful.com needs finishing, using works= or publisher= fields
  • Remove the linking of stand-alone years, per WP:MOSNUM
  • The "History of the product and advert" is only a history of the advert, include some history of the product.. why was it introduced to the market? Were there any competitor products at the time?
  • I don't think what's under "Controversy" is a controversy, rather disagreements over the release of the commercial. A controversy would be if the powder left burn marks in the carpet, for example
  • Is there a wikilink for ITV's 1979 strike action?
  • Citation needed for "The early claim that the advert was originally broadcast in 1979 was disputed."
  • Don't start a sentence with "However"
  • Remove According to the book Box of Delights (ISBN 0333518128)," and turn the book into a reference at the end of the sentence.

That's all I have for now. Let me know if you want a re-review or any clarification. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:52, 29 March, 2008

Cygnus X-1

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This astronomy article concerns one of the first stellar black hole candidates to be discovered, and one of the most intensely studied. I've worked to expand and reference the content to cover the primary known facts, so now I'm hoping for some feedback. (There are a few more facts that need to be referenced [which I tagged] and I know that the page is a little lacking in the image department.) Hopefully the content is readable and not overly technical, at least for a scientifically-knowledgable viewer. I know there is always room for improvement, so suggestions will be much appreciated. Thanks!—RJH (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

First off, I'm no expert here at all. So consider this a layman's perspective!

  • "often abbreviated to Cyg X-1" - prove it!
  • What makes it a compact source?
  • Probably worth adding when it was discovered in the lead.
  • Avoid links in the bold in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title (HDE 226868) - link HDE elsewhere.
  • "it become heated " - becomes?
  • "into interstellar space. The remaining" - merge these ... "...space while the..."
  • "(For comparison, the diameter of the Sun is about 1.4×106 km.)" don't like entire sentences in parentheses. Find a way of flowing this fact into the prose.
  • "on the order of " - of the order of?
  • Don't use K without explaining what it means. Easy way out is to put (K) after the first mention of Kelvin.
  • Expand AU before using it as an abbreviation.
  • Same with ly.
  • "Any matter that passes through this boundary is unable to escape." citation please.
  • "(The helium enrichment of HDE 226868's outer atmosphere may be evidence for this mass transfer. See below.)" as above and avoid "See below." - that's what we have wikilinks etc for.
  • As you said above, you need to sort out the [citation needed] tags.
  • "HDE 226868" section has lots of small paragraphs... consider merging some of them.
  • "(Red light can more effectively penetrate the dust in the interstellar medium.) " again, as above.
  • "bet against..." no need for italics.

That should be a good start for you. All the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I think I've implemented nearly all of your suggestions.—RJH (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iroh

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have started working on this article using the Aang article as an example. Have made it less in-universe but it still needs work on things. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I don't know how much I can do, but I will certainly try.

Thanks, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • "in episdoe 15 " - typo.
  • Image:Iroh ID BitterWork.png needs fair use rationale specific to the Iroh article.
  • "2005-2006" (in the infobox) should use the en-dash to separate the years.
  • Plot section could be merged a bit, seven short paragraphs is a little excessive.
  • "Undeterred, Zuko sought to do the impossible," what does this mean? Seems a strange way to introduce the plot.
  • "season 2" or "Season Two" (I prefer the latter) but be consistent.
  • Plot overview seems (to me at least) to change tense a few times...
  • WP:HEAD advises against The in section headings so "The Veteran" should be "Veteran".
  • "[21] [8] " - remove the space and order numerically.
  • Last two paras of Abilities section unreferenced.

That's all I have for now. Hope that helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Is Not Enough

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A few pointers - it's a good starting point for FA though...

  • Check external links, a least one dead one when I checked this.
  • "(released in 1999)" no need for the parentheses.
  • Don Black in the infobox points at a dab page.
  • The Cast section could be expanded a bit to talk more about the characters.
  • "James Bond(007):" space missing, and this sentence needs a full stop.
  • Moneypenny and R's description need full stops.
  • Image:Renard Elektra.png does not have a fair use rationale for use in this article.
  • Sub image caption is a fragment so doesn't need full stop.
  • "rumored" - okay, since this is a British film about a British secret agent I would advocate the use of British English.
  • "The actual working title, as with all 007 movies was Bond 19 as it is always "Bond" followed by which number this Bond movie is." working title explanation ought to be introduced earlier and this sentence is clumsy.
  • Try not to wedge text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Adaptations has only one references but makes a number of claims.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • the term "(released in 1999)" should not be in parenthesis, usually only the date; not even sure why release date is mentioned, that is understood
  • Phrase "highest grossing James Bond film at that time" need a new word choice, "to date" suggested.
  • Plot should identify all characters by actor as in James Bond (Pierce Brosnan)
  • Referencing variances throughout with inconsistency in dates, names
  • The Rough Guide to James Bond, Death Rays, Jet Packs, Stunts & Supercars: The Fantastic Physics of Film's Most Celebrated Secret Agent and Film Fatales: Women in Espionage Films and Television, 1962-1973 should all appear as part of a bibliography not in the endnotes

That's it for now, generally well-written but minor revisions are required. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Die Another Day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article. Thanks, Ultra! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Explain CGI before abbreviating it.
  • Robert Wade in infobox is a dab.
  • Explain NSA before abbreviating it. Same with HALO and WMD.
  • British English should be used so pressurisation not pressurization etc...
  • Surfing image caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
  • "The cut happened as requested," - was made?
  • "...was voted 9th out of 22 and was voted..." reads clumsily.
  • Three citations in the References to other films section is insufficient.
  • The whole of "advertising campaign" section needs help with spelling, WP:HEAD, WP:CITE etc..
  • Link Royal Albert Hall.
  • "On the very first day" spot the redundant word.
  • References should use {{cite web}} and not be raw urls.

That should help a bit on the way to something like FAC... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)

Interesting article, generally well written but major issues with referencing formats, not only use of bare urls, lack of author notes, mix of dating styles. Contact me for assistance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The Living Daylights

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Link " MI6 " in the lead.
  • "of an actual Ian Fleming" need of "actual" here?
  • Editing by in the infobox is missing.
  • Bond and Milovy image caption is fragment so remove full stop. Same with the other screengrabs.
  • Expand characters, particularly for the non-regulars.
  • Punctuation in characters section needs work. Full stops...
  • "Originally the film was proposed to be a prequell in the series. But the idea was dropped. SMERSH's motto "Smiert Spionon" From the short story formed the storyline.[2]" - typos, short sentences, sort this out...
  • Casting section has a number of short paragraphs, flow these together to improve the prose.
  • "The film was shot at the Pinewood Studios at its 007 Stage in UK, as well as Weissensee in Austria. The pre-title sequence was filmed on the Rock of Gibraltar. Other locations included Germany, the United States, and Italy. The desert scenes were done in Morocco. The conclusion of the film included the Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna and Elveden Hall, Suffolk." citations needed. Same for last para of Filming, it's entirely uncited.
  • "The Living Daylights was the final Bond film to be scored by composer John Barry. The soundtrack is notable for its introduction of sequenced electronic rhythm tracks overdubbed with the orchestra - at the time, a relatively new innovation." no citations.
  • Last para of Music is uncited.
  • Five external links seems excessive.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • Use of numbers, zero to nine written out as words, 10 and up as numerals
  • Delete use of Harvard comma throughout in the use of listing details (one, two and three rather than one, two, and three)
  • Does casting belong with cast section or production, this is unclear
  • All the endnotes are written incorrectly as to dates (use of ISO dating rather than m-d-y already established, all author notes should appear last name, first and middle name and period)

That's enough changes for now but work is needed. Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You Only Live Twice (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's a Good Article.

Thanks, Ultra! 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Why year in parentheses after the title?
  • Four paras in lead probably one too many for this length...
  • $111M - why M and which $?
  • British English please!
  • Image captions are all fragments so remove full stops.
  • Expand Cast section to tell us more about the characters.
  • Numbers below 10 are written out in full.
  • " The 45 meter (120′)" - use the {{convert}} template.
  • Merge paras in the Fliming section, a few too short paras for me.
  • "kamikaze device " - link kamikaze.

Enough from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bzuk (talk · contribs)
  • Second paragraph of the lead is unnecessary as it is part of the plot sysnopsis
  • Third paragraph of lead has "and has been parodied greatly" which requires a word choice change, suggestion: "and has been greatly parodied" or "and has often been parodied" or "and has been the subject of numerous parodies."
  • Plot can be pruned as it tends to relate scene-by-scene which is excessive
  • Spelling derivation: "make-up" often written as "makeup"
  • Dates written in ISO format as well as m-d-Year, choose one, suggestion: use the popular format of m-d-y throughout since it was already established in the article first.
  • Minor variances in references; could use a bibliography listing as a number of citations are page only and the full bibliographical notation can be used.

...for now, Bzuk (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Clarence Lightner

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the article to GA status.

Thanks, AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article and I think it is close to GA - here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • One of the GA criteria is that it "addresses the major aspects of the topic". The article seems to need expansion in the following areas:
    • Since he seems to be most notable for being a mayor, there needs to be more details on his time in office, etc.
    • Per WP:LEAD nothing major should be only in the lead - so this needs more explanation in the article about his being "the first popularly elected mayor of Raleigh"
    • Also there is no real mention of his Honors and legacy in the lead - again all major topics in the article should be mentioned in the lead in some way.
  • The major omission seems to be a lack of information about his time as mayor - what were his maor accomplishments in office? Why did he only serve one term? Currently the only info on his time in office is that he was a member of "the Southern Conference of Black Mayors".
  • A few places in the article are unreferenced, but would need refs for GA - the paragraph on his marriage and children, or the paragraph where he is appointed to the state senate.
  • refs are good - can you find any other pictures- his grave or the building named for him?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schumacher

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This looks to be in good shape but I'm hopeful we can give this the push to FA status. Buc (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Schumacher/archive3.

Home stored product entomology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…with an artical of this nature specificity and precision is exceedingly important. All parts of this artical are open for peer review. Comments or contributions correcting or clarifying a meaning or an idea are appreciated and requested.

Thanks, Crosenbalm (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The title could use some work, not sure anyone will stumble upon this one by accident!
  • Nothing besides redirects links here.
  • WP:HEAD should help with section heading names.
  • Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images.
  • 16 references for an article this size is inadequate.
  • Second para of lead is referenceless and wikilinkless.
  • "More information is to be published in Nature on 2008-03-27. [2]" - that's in the past now, and remove the space before the citation.
  • Convert units using the {{convert}} template.
  • Numbers below 10 should be written out in full.
  • 12-18 days - 12 to 18 days or, worst case, 12–18 days.
  • Avoid spaces between citations per WP:CITE.
  • FDA handbook examples are a little over the top for me. Just explain how the FDA handbook works, what it talks about... you don't need these examples, all nine of them!
  • Eradication and prevention sections are linkless... very dry reading.
  • Conclusion? It's not a formal scientific paper, it's an article in an encyclopaedia.

That should be enough to be going on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Juba

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm hoping to submit this article to featured article candidates sometime soon, so reviews with an eye toward that process would be especially appreciated. Specific areas I'd like some feedback on are the article's use of quotes from primary sources (are there too many?), and its presentation of the various ways Master Juba has been presented by historians. Is it balanced? Thanks for any help! — Dulcem (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexander Grant

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

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

  • It needs references
  • It needs some cleanup in the middle and end
  • It use some information, which I have not been able to find


Thanks, Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • an image!
  • as more info arrives, the article will need sections
  • As you have already identified, it needs a references section with inline citations, which will need a {reflist} obviously.
  • Some of the 1-2 sentence paragraphs can be merged, because they are a little small at the moment
  • Is there an article you can redirect the redlinked "Naval superintendent" to?

All in all, its a good start, obviously it needs more information to develop, and being that it is in its infancy at the moment, I don't know if my peer reviewing can tell you more than you clearly already know. SGGH speak! 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Woody

I suggest much the same as SGGH. I have given it an edit by adding in some sections that you can use for expansion. I also added in a WP:LEAD. I would concentrate on finding out more about his early life and his family life including who he married and when he died etc. All this information needs to be sourced using inline citations as noted above. If I can help with this, then just ask. Hope this helps and regards. Woody (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucilia illustris

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on our article and ideas for improvement. Please feel free to give any suggestions that you think would improve this article.


Thanks, Annemarye (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • expanding a lead, and including in-line citations, see WP:LEAD and WP:CITE
  • Identification characteristics section needs citations throughout
  • quantify information on conditions of ideal larva growth/habitat?
  • external links section needed
  • changes "refernces" section to "notes" and have a references section as a bibliography, a la Operation Camargue for example.
  • with the blue links in the footnotes, fill in titles rather than leaving plain URLs
  • are there more categories that can be included?
  • expand "current research section" if possible
  • any more images if possible?

Those are my suggestions, hope you find them helpful. SGGH speak! 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • A good way to lay the article out is Chrysiridia rhipheus which recently passed GA. I find the headings give a good framework where to add material. Thus lifecycle would go under behaviour and you could have a really interesting uses section for all the forensic stuff at the bottom. Once this is done, and some more detailed taxonomic section and description, and material expanded, we can look at the prose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insect indicators of abuse or neglect

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if it fits the criteria as an encyclopeadic article and if so how well. I would also like to know if the article is informative and understandable.


Thanks, Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. She had developed pressure spots where her head had been resting on her chest for long periods of time - head on chest ? is that possible ? Perhaps it is hand.
  2. 9 of the 10 cases submitted by the British Columbia. Avoid starting a sentence with a numeral.
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The title of the article is a little jargony...
  • Raw URLs in the references should be avoided - use {{cite web}}.
  • More references are required here.
  • Case Study. Overcap'ed and why indented?
  • What makes that list of insects "important"?
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and references, per WP:CITE.
  • ".[20]." rogue full stop after the citation.
  • " 4 days old." - four days old.

That's a good start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • wow, weird choice of article but potentially fascinating.
  • make sure all scientific names are italicized
  • The lead summarises important points, such as the fact they are almost all diptera (flies)?
  • I generally have common names with scientific names in parentheses afterwards. In any case, common names shouldn't be in double quotes.

I don't know enough about the subejct to no what else to add. Will look back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calliphora vicina

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on how this article can be improved to be as effective as possible.


Thanks, Colstewart71639 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • The Image:CVicinaUpclose.jpg image should be made into a thumbnail with a suitable caption per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Expand the lead to at least two paragraphs.
  • "as the blow-flies." - as a blow-fly?
  • "These flies are important in the field of forensic entomology." - why?
  • "10-11 mm " use the en-dash to separate numerical ranges and use the {{convert}} template to provide imperial measurements.
  • "known as the blow-flies." vs "commonly known as a blue bottle fly " - be consistent.
  • Link chaetotaxy, meron, notopleuron and instar or explain them, this is unaccessible to the non-expert.
  • "3-4 days. " en dash.
  • "27 degrees Celsius" use the convert template as above. And for all following cases of temperatures.
  • Don't allow spaces between punctuation and references per WP:CITE.
  • PMI needs to be explained before it's used.
  • Numbers below 10 should be written out in words.
  • References should use {{Cite web}} when using the internet as references.
  • Page ranges in citations need to use the en-dash as well.

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • A good way to lay the article out is Chrysiridia rhipheus which recently passed GA. I find the headings give a good framework where to add material. Thus lifecycle would go under behaviour and you could have a really interesting uses section for all the forensic stuff at the bottom. Once this is done, and some more detailed taxonomic section and description, and material expanded, we can look at the prose. Interesting article! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cochliomyia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to recieve feedback on this article and any constructive criticism there is to give.

Thanks, Phodges09 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I learned a lot reading this article and it is clear a lot of work has been put into it, but it needs a lot more work to more closely follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions:

  • I would make sure that the article provides context for the reader (see WP:PCR). For example in the lead you explain that Calliphoridae are blowflies, but not that Diptera are flies.
  • If the common name is "New World screwworm fly", I would make that as a redirect page to this article (so if someone looks under that name, they find this).
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and not have anything in it that is not in the body of the article. My rule of thumb is that all sections and subsections should at least be mentioned in the lead, but I do not see Human management or Distribution in the lead (for example).
  • Please read the Manual of Style at WP:MOS - this is an article for an encyclopedia and not a term paper or research paper for publication in a journal. Phrases like The two main species we will focus on are ... and the whole Conclusions section are not encyclopedic.
  • The article is seriously under-referenced. For example the whole Human management section does not have a single reference. At a minimum, each paragraph should have a ref, as should all direct quotes, all statisctics, and any extraordinary claims. Please see WP:CITE.
  • The article is also under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
  • Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using {{convert}}.
  • Avoid jargon or explain it better - the halteres are explained nicely, but then we have sentences right after it like: When keying out a Dipteran specimen, it is important to first note whether bristles on the meron are present or absent. All species in the family Calliphoridae have bristles on their meron, plumose arista, and well developed calypters. What does keying out mean? Explain what meron, plumose arista, and calypters are.
  • I would also look at WP:NOT - parts of the article read like a field manual for identifying these screwflies, but I am not sure that a "how to manual" is needed or appropriate in this article.
  • Try to avoid needless repetition - if something applies to both species discussed, why not have some sort of common characteristics section and discuss it there?
  • The Characteristics section subheaders could just be "Adult" and "Larvae" (that these are characteristics has already been established). Similarly, why not just omit the "General information" subheaders (not the info) from the two species descriptions? If there is no subheader, I think readers will know it is General information.
  • Why not some info on the other two species?

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS A model article to folloq is often very useful - I just saw at another review that Chrysiridia rhipheus is a recent Good article and as another insect article it should be a decent model here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External effects on forensic entomology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would appreciate any editing/adding of information for clarification of the topic. The topic of Degree Days may need some assistance because it is a very technical concept.

Thanks, Sasquash128 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Check out WP:LEAD for bold text and lead length - maybe two paragraphs.
  • What's an arthropod? Link or explain.
  • What's an "external effect"?
  • What data are scientists examining? All this needs to be broadly covered in the lead.
  • Moisture levels, Sun exposure, do you want these to be subsections? At the moment they're not and it's not too stylish.
  • Who is quoting for [1]?
  • Don't have spaces before citations as you currently do with [2].
  • More references are required. In general, anything that someone might read and say "According to whom?" or "Who said that?" should be cited.
  • Formulae can be written out using "math" notation.
  • "You add the daily high and low temperatures, then divide by two. After you derive an answer, you subtract a threshold temperature for the particular insect." - not encyclopaedic talk, it's not a recipe book for working out things. Explain the significance and relevance of the formula and its implications, don't tell me how to use the formula. And definitely don't write in the second person here.
  • Citing the web should use {{Cite web}}.
  • Repeated citations should use the ref name= referencing syntax.
  • External links should use either {{Cite web}} or should be written out, not just raw URLs.

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I'll get started on editing.Sasquash128 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining wall

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
(1) It needs cleanup
(2) It needs more references and in-line citations

Thanks, Thisisborin9talk/contribs 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: First off, I think it is great that you realize some of the issues that need to be resolved to improve the article. Unfortunately, Peer review is for pointing out such issues and not really for resolving them. Is there a relevant WikiProject - they might be able to help with more references.

  • This is an interesting article and the figure is great - any chance on a second figure to illustrate the three types of walls not already in the first figure (Soil nailing and the two types of Soil-strengthened walls)?
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and noting in the lead should not also be in the body.
    • I would add a section before the current types of walls analyzing the stresses on retaining walls, and add some mention of the various types of walls to the lead.
    • Also a section on materials used (now in lead, not really in the article) and their strengths and weaknesses.
  • Many of the sections are very short and should either be expanded or combined into larger sections.
  • I would make sure provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR and avoid or at least explain jargon - see WP:JARGON.
  • Any way that there could be some history of these types of walls? I imagine the gravity wall is oldest, but when were the others deleoped and by whome?
  • Not sure what else to say - I have not commented on refs or cleanup as those problems were already identified.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysomya rufifacies

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to get some feedback on how to improve the format, content, and layout of the article. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Motoliyat (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • A good way to lay the article out is Chrysiridia rhipheus which recently passed GA. I find the headings give a good framework where to add material. Thus lifecycle would go under behaviour and you could have a really interesting uses section for all the forensic and economic stuff at the bottom. Once this is done, and some more detailed taxonomic section and description, and material expanded, we can look at the prose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that having a model article to follow would be a great idea. On reading this article I learned a lot and while it is clear a lot of work has been put into it, it needs a lot more work to more closely follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions:

  • I would make "hairy maggot blowfly" (the common name) a redirect page to this article (that way if someone looks under that name, they find this).
  • See WP:PCR - make sure that the article provides context for the reader. I would also avoid jargon or explain it better - see WP:JARGON. For example the tubercules on the larvae are (I imagine) what gives it the name "hairy maggot blowfly" so explain that. Or make clearer what the peritreme of the posterior spiracle is on the larva.
  • Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using {{convert}} for these.
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and not have anything in it that is not in the body of the article. This lead is very short. My rule of thumb is that all sections and subsections should at least be mentioned in the lead, but I do not see medical or economic importance in the lead (for example).
  • Please read the Manual of Style at WP:MOS - this is an article for an encyclopedia and not a term paper or research paper for publication in a journal. The whole Conclusions section is not encyclopedic.
  • The article is under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
  • The three Importance sections are all breif and repeat the word importance - why not make an Importance section and make subheaders on Medical, Economic, and Forensic?

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We will consider all of these suggestions in order to improve the article. Thank you for taking the time to review this article and we appreciate your suggestions. Motoliyat (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart McCall

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's recently been promoted to a Good Article. I'd like to know what improvements, additions and edits would be needed to push it towards FAC. I know it's probably not ready for FAC, and needs some images, but some pointers in the right direction, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick comments:

  • Regarding images, there are a couple on Flickr, it might be worth contacting the Flickr users to see if they would be willing to change the licensing to a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons one.
  • The main thing the article could do with is more detail on his time at Everton and Rangers, particlarly Rangers as he played through the majority of the nine in a row. I know that the sources you have will mean you have more information about his time at Bradford but more detail is warranted than In his first season at Ibrox, Rangers won the league and cup double etc.
  • Due to their brevity and the fact that they coincide with his playing career, the sections about his assistant manager could do with being merged into the Club career section. Perhaps a one or two sentence recap could be given at the start of the managenment section. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've added a to do list on the talk page, for Everton, Rangers and Images. I have his autobio only for reference to Everton and Rangers at the moment, and I'd rather not rely on that, but will use it for some expansion.
  • I'll merge in his coaching career into relevant sections and keep that section for managerial posts only.
  • Thanks for your comments. Peanut4 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Yeah, you need an image for FA definitely so Flickr is a good place to go begging...!!
  • Probably worth enforcing Association football somewhere to avoid a flogging from our US friends.
  • Really don't like the international goals "table" - it's got one entry! Add it into the prose.
  • Not keen on the section titles in the coaching section... no need to add his position in the titles in my opinion.
  • "Telegraph & Argus " - explain - is this a local paper, a national paper or what?
  • en-dash for page ranges in your citations.

Otherwise I'd head for FAC... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The goal already is in the prose. I personally like these sections, I know you don't, but with one entry, I realise it's probably redundant anyway, so will get rid.
  • The section titles are worded such as per WP:MOS#Section Headings to keep them unique. But if I reword as above, it's going to change anyway.
  • Yes, the Telegraph & Argus is Bradford's evening paper. It's mentioned a few times, so is there a particularly reason for you asking, so I can correct accordingly.
  • Again, thanks for your advice. Peanut4 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because... editor who has contributed significantly to the article would like feed back on how to ensure it becomes a Featured Article when nominated.


Thanks, Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx bookkeeper for setting this up. I really want people concentrate on spelling, grammer and pro's. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Efe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This are broad comments so I hope we can reach a consensus.

  • As repeatedly asked during the informal and FAC of this article, the two infoboxes must be taken out. The re-releases must be merged to the release section. make subsections for each re-release and summarize them. Anyway, this is all about Thriller, not the re-release.
  • Recording and release must be separated to give way the above mentioned.
  • Bulky quotations; those are copyvios. Make it brief, taking only the most important points of the statement.
  • Remove credits for the songs. This is all about the album. Credits for the album is fine.
  • You dont have to mention much of the success of the songs. Just brief. Or, you can make a section devoted to the whole tracklisting. Make sure it is prose.
  • Too many certifications; I believe some of these countries do not have official album charts.

Thats all for now. If we can reach a consensus out of my comments, with help from other reviewers, we will go on line by line. --Efe (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok the thriller special edition info box should go but my the Thriller 25 one? it has lots of additional info on it like specific release dates, new reviews, (Thriller 25 has 7 new songs its almost a new album), and it carries on his discography. Removing that would break the chain. There are no similarities between thriller and thriller 25. Realist2 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit conflict) Even me, I get a lot of infos about the latest re-release. Just summarize it; really, be brief but remain meaty. Make another page about the Thriller 25 and I will help you to defend if other users will nominate it for deletion. For the mother page, you have to be brief. Its about Thriller, not Thriller 25. BTW, I think there are infos about the production of the latter in MTV. Akon is one of the contributor right? --Efe (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid i cant, im not going to destroy months of work, the consensus was that thriller 25 came here but nowhere was it mentioned that thriller 25 would be trimmed down to a few lines in the process, i would rather keep the article at GA giving respect to Thriller 25 than have Thriller 25 destroyed just to reach FA. It should have been allowed to keep its own page but its too late for that now. Realist2 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to do that i need proof and a wiki ruling that it can be given its own page and not be tampered with, otherwise thriller cant be FA, nowhere in the merger consensus was this discussed or pointed out. People voted not knowing what would happen and i bet they would change their vote knowing this is what happens to merged articles. Realist2 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every single album or versions of it can be given with independent article providing that its notable, and fortunately it is, and can stand alone as one without its mother article. It does not mean you have to destroy it. Maybe three to four paras can suffice Thriller 25 on the main article. You have to mention what transpired the new version and its new music or vibe, how it was received by the media and summarize its commercial success. Thats it. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, im just gonna leave it, unless i get some sort of backing that it can have its own age im not going any further, i spent months investigating sales figures etc, unless it can have its own album as well with a stamp of approval im not doing it. Realist2 (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We're on the verge of WP:COI but I will not let that happen. Just ignore the trimming of Thriller 25; just continue revamping. Although you worked hard for this, its not worth it if it fails to reach FA. --Efe (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not well written. The subjects in each para are mixed.
    • What I mean is each para should have one subject. When you talk of the album's style, talk about it. When its the reception, state them. Something like that. But you need not to be very specific in each para. Just try to merge related stuffs. --Efe (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many entries in each chart. Try to cut them down; those big markets that readers will really care about. --Efe (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ericorbit (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I for one think that there is no reason to separate out Thriller 25 to its own article again. It was previously separate but a lot of work was put into making all of the album's releases cohesive in one article. There are not many albums that can be re-issued twice and become a best-seller each time out. The reissues are a part of the overall history of Thriller and therefore belong where they are now.

As of right now, there is a lot of information about Thriller 25 because of its very-recent release, and perhaps some of this can be cut down a bit, but I don't believe that the mere presence of the Special Edition and Thriller 25 hurts the article in any way. Overall the article is in very decent shape, especially when compared to its condition 3 months ago. - eo (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, making another page for T25 is doable and is fine. There are a lot of informations out there that will make the article compact. I suggested Realist to somehow make a draft for it, using his sandbox. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment of Efe's talk page about this, i has a very sneaky master plan. Realist2 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realist2 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I would rather Thriller and T25 stay together but if it prevents the article reaching FA they should be seperated leaving only die hard essentuals here. On the flip side if we seperate them we can get two articles up to FA much easier rather than risk having Thriller stuck at GA. I think we need to bring more people in and ask them these fundamental question in order.

  • A) Does/could/would the T25 content, (when its as indepth as it is right now), negativly effect the chances of the article becoming FA?
  • B) If so, how much needs removing to ensure FA?
  • C) Is this in the best interest of T25, which has the potential to get an FA in its own right?
  • D) Would the original merger consensus have differed (it was quite close), in hindsight, if they/we knew this was a requirement for FA?
What I have done so far
[edit]
  • I got it copy edited my an established user.
  • Added info about the first reissue to the release section. Havent done T25 yet because of unresolved issue.
  • Split recording and release section.
  • Removed the first sales and certification box, turned it into pro's, and sourced it.
  • Removed info box on first reissue.
  • Trimmed down quotes.
  • Took out song credits, left in album credits per request
  • Resuffled lead, added some info
  • Turned 3 quotes into pro's, only 3 quotes left in article, no longer too bad imo.
  • Cut down list of coutries (minus Thriller 25 as we dont know whats happening there yet).
  • Structured the influence and legacy section
  • Combining the issue of music videos and race as they are so closely related.
  • Made a section called "reaction". Gave it the subheadings "Critical" and "Commercial".

indopug

[edit]

General comments:

  • WAY too many blockquotes throughout the article (Influence/Reception). They aren't a substitute for prose.
  • The AMG review was written some ten years after the album released; it doesn't count as contemporary reception.
  • Remove all that details about T25, its just a bunch of charting information. Make everything about t25 into a para and add it to the release section; its reception in to the Reception section; its track listing into the Track listing section and so on. Plenty of albums get re-released but they don't deserve much importance (most of the hype about it is just a marketing blitz). I don't think a separate article for the album is warranted either. Please reduce the charting info table of it to something like a quarter of its size. Articles shouldn't be too listy.
  • I'll say it again, the article as of now simply does not tell the story surrounding the album in a succinct and clear way but rather is a repository of charts, awards and sales; all three of which should be peripheral to the prose of the article. I mean, its like, we understand the album sold a lot; we don't the sales figures in India nor the chart position in Colombia to realise that.
  • Look at Be Here Now, Adore and Loveless, they are—in my opinion—model album FAs, and see how much of prose (compared to tables/lists) they have and what great stories they tell.
    • There are only 6 quotes in the entire article, 2 of which are only a line long. I wouldnt call that WAY too many.Realist2 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course as we found out from the original review you would rather hear about his "Weird cloths" and "eccentric behaviour" in the recording studio, hum.... Realist2 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem relunctant to mention any of its sales achievements.
    • I tell you now T25 has sold 1.5 mil copies in 7 weeks, i will not watch one of the best selling reissues of all time be religated to 2 paragraphs. If it only has 2 paragraphs here it needs its own article again , end of, if you think its no more than a media blitz, great thats your opinion, but please respect the opinion of the the 1.5 million people who bought it making it the 3rd best selling album of this year, im sure they like to read some indepth info on it.

It looks like T25 will gets its on page AGAIN with only the important parts remaining here. It worked quite well when it was by itself. Thanx for your imput though, see you at FA later. Realist2 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not too many quotes??!! The critical reception section is entirely in quote! Point to me one other (preferably recent) FA that does that? Its simply not good writing; besides, if people were to read long quotes reproduced verbatim, why wouldn't they just go to the original source?
  • I'm not reluctant to mention sales figures, that's obviously an important aspect of the album's influence; by all means stress on the album's charting details in the US and UK. I'm just saying that sales figures of the album in India and Colombia are hardly important on any level, neither is the fact that ""The Girl Is Mine 2008" reached number two in Japan, three in Mexico, six in the Netherlands". All that info is meant for MJ's discography page. Also, for some reason, you consider T25 to be as important as the Thriller itself! I find that amusing.
  • "weird cloths" and "eccentric behaviour"? Huh? All I wanted was the more detail about the artistic and creative effort from Jackson and Jones that went into the making this monumental album. Also, an in-depth discussion of the music inside; because even after you remove all hype and applause for it, at its roots Thriller sounds frigging great. And this "sound" (the music) is hardly well-discussed during the article.
  • I'm ready to work with you on this on the long run, giving comments on the overall structure and content etc, so I do hope you don't rush this to FAC. indopug (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would support a seperate article for thriller 25 none of this would be a problem. However all you want is 2 paragraphs of info to document its success on wikipedia. Its not far off being the best selling reissue ever, if you would allow it to have its own page again then i frankly wont dont care how much is or isn't here. As long as respect is paid SOMEWHERE on wikipedia to T25 im open to all ideas here. If you allowed a seperate article we wouldnt have to mention india etc here. You are making it difficult by saying that T25 should be chopped in half and thrown away. T25 is worthy of GA by itself. Frankly sales, your just gonna have to get over it, the album is huge, sales is something everyone talks about with this album. I have not found you to be helpful so far, calling T25 nothing more than a "media blitz" is concerning to me. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. Realist2 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if I didn't understand the magnitude of the awesomeness of the Thriller 25 reissue. I did not mean to offend. Clearly I'm a dolt for not realising that Thriller 25 was more important and path-breaking than Thriller itself. indopug (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No1 is saying it is, but patronising me isn't helpful is it? Are you here to help or disrupt? Realist2 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! That was a bad response. --Efe (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, i set up this peer review to get the opinions of those i respect and need such as yourself Efe. I did not set this up and am not working this hard to be patronised by someone who knows less about the subject matter than myself. Realist2 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. Just wanna let you know that if they intend to disrupt, do not bother their comments. --Efe (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern Efe, with time you will come to realise i can handle myself, ill take on anyone if i believe im right, i can name admins who will support that claim as well. We need positivity people, we can do this if we work together, this article is just around the corner from becoming FA and NOTHING with stop it. Realist2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Realist2. Thriller 25 deserves its own article, and I think it should be created. Until then, no info about Thriller 25 should be removed from this article, and if that means that this can't get an FA, then so be it. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be a new vote/discussion on Thriller 25 having its own article, when the merger was agreed (by a slim majority) no1 was aware that this would be in outcome. It doesn't reflect the wish's of those who spent weeks and weeks on that debate. I see only the following options

  • We allow Thriller to pass FA with the Thriller 25 contact as it is now.
  • We allow Thriller to pass FA with MINOR parts of T25 removed.
  • We only include 2 paragraphs on T25 with T25 having a full article like it once had and nominate it for GA which it could pass in days.

Its one of these options as far as i see it. Realist2 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain exactly why the inclusion of Thriller 25 would prevent Thriller from reaching FA? Is it simply the length of the Thriller 25 section? I still think they shluld be merged - why have Thriller and Special Edition in one article, then have Thriller 25 on its own? That makes no sense. - eo (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree eo, i want it to stay here but i dont want it to be half destroyed either. I myself am a little confused how it will stop FA. The article is rather good now and im not sure the Thriller 25 stuff alone it enough to stop that....Realist2 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It takes a lot to make FA. The Thriller 25 info is quite long for an article about the Thriller album. One or two sentences should do. For example, many albums, including those for artists who don't even have recording contracts, have Facebook and MySpace pages. That is one example of info that needs to go if you want the Thriller (album) page to make FA.--DizFreak talk Contributions 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Are you here to help or disrupt?" Really? When I offer to "work with you on this on the long run...on the overall structure and content"? And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the "you know NOTHING" personal attacks please. indopug (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Eric. It would not, of course. As for Thriller 25, it must be chopped down to three to fours paras (prose only, excluding list and tables), then, thats it. FA! --Efe (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Disneyfreak96 (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Concerns on it coming close on COI
  • Thriller 25 section is way too lengthy for a reissue.
Intro
[edit]
  • Different information on facts in articles such as the link to best selling album page saying over 100 Mil copies sold then later in intro contradicts saying "the album is cited as selling between forty-five and one hundred million copies worldwide." Which is it?
  • Intro needs to be shortened. No need to list major media sources giving good reviews in an intro.
  • "2008 saw a second reissue as Thriller 25. "Thriller 25" was a commercial success, selling more than one and a half million copies in eight weeks, becoming one of the best selling albums of the year."
Needs source, for all I know Sony lost bundles in marketing and hasn't turned a profit
Its only the middle of April
Will include more later if Realist2 comes back or another decides to work on the article.
[edit]

--DizFreak talk Contributions 06:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusion

[edit]

Peer review closed, we are going to sort out T25 before we continue. Realist2 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The General in His Labyrinth

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and has an active group of editors who could take it to FA: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem.


Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The General in His Labyrinth/archive1.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has currently achieved GA status, and we wish to push it up towards FA standards. To achieve this, I've listed this article for peer review to receive so feedback in ways to improve this article to meet FA standards.

Some things I'm interested in may include:

  • Are the image fair-use procedures used correctly?
  • Grammar, Spelling?
  • Is the format of the article satisfactory?
  • Is the reception section long enough?

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Smash Bros. Brawl/archive2.

Sitakunda Upazila

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It started as a shabby article. Then it went through a tough peer review, and then a tough GA review. All that toughness really paid off, and I believe, with a little push, it could make a fair FA candidate. Therefore, I am submitting it to peer review again. Be tough, be thorough, be merciless... all that are needed in this case. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Folk metal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have dramatically expanded this article to what I believe is a rather high standard with photos, music samples and most importantly, references throughout the article for each and every point made. I would particularly like to receive some feedback on the sentence flow of the article and whether it can be improved further.

Thanks, Bardin (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mario Vargas Llosa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and has an active group of editors who could take it to FA: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem.

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario Vargas Llosa/archive1.

Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article discusses a very important period in the development of late medieval Kannada literature written in its native metres. The article is well cited and has undergone one round of copy edit. Please provide constructive feedback on how to improve its prose, format and presentation.


Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire/archive1.

Mesh analysis

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the author wishes feedback on how to improve the article.

Thanks, Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and citations per WP:CITE (e.g. [1]).
  • Don't overcapitalise the headings per WP:HEAD (so "Mesh Currents and Essential Meshes" should be "Mesh currents and essential meshes"). This should be reflected in the captions.
  • Explain the abbreviations in the captions, R1, Vs etc.
  • What's a "planar circuit"?
  • Explain the currents i1 etc in figure 2.
  • I think the lead needs to be expanded to clarify what the article is about for non-experts.

Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlash (2004)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like for the article to be a professional wrestling Good Article. Any helpful feedback, would most be appreciated.

Thanks, Zenlax T C S 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hello Zenlax, some comments which you may find useful.

  • Is it Backlash (2004) or Backlash 2004? Infobox has latter, title and lead has former. Or Backlash, as in the main article?
  • First three paras of Event could be merged.
  • "enziguiri kick" what's that?
  • You use [29][30] for five consecutive sentences. It'd be better to just use it once at the end of the fifth sentence. There are several examples of this.
done Zenlax T C S 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I think it'd stand a very good shot at WP:GAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Tower

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently overhauled it completely. I'm looking for simple grammar/language reviews as well as layout and organizational reviews. Basically, anything you want to comment on is welcomed!

Thanks, Torsodog (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Liam Miller

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to gain a broad perspective on how it can be improved.


Thanks,  Sunderland06  16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Done His name should be shown as William Peter "Liam" Miller, not with the "Liam" at the front
  • Improved flow Second paragraph of the lead is made up of very short, choppy sentences
  • Done Lead refers to MUFC as simply "Manchester", should be "Manchester United", the club is not referred to as "Manchester"
  • Corrected Martin O'Neill's name is spelt wrong
  • Corrected Influential is spelt wrong
  • Corrected "Miller is strong...." - should be "Miller is a strong...."
  • Corrected "Miller joined Celtic....and made his professional league debut for Celtic" - no reason to say Celtic twice here
  • Cited Alleged "outcry" from Celtic supporters is not sourced
  • Sourced In fact the whole MUFC section is completely unsourced
  • Removed stunning "stunning" 4-3 win is not NPOV
  • Removed in sentence starting "in July 2006" there's no reason to use his full name
  • Fixed Next sentence starts with "and", this is grammatically incorrect
  • Corrected No reason for capital s on "summer"
  • Removed "Miller has so far...." - as of when....?
  • I'm guessing that was vandalism, as Sunderland have never played Barcelona Wikilink Barcelona
  • Corrected "Liam Miller has been placed...." - again, no reason to use his full name
  • Removed "Several reports have linked...." - unsourced
  • Corrected "bizarrely" is spelt wrong
  • Done I think a much more in-depth explanation of the situation whereby he was suspended but still played is required - how was this allowed to come about? What were the ramifications for the team?
  • Done "where he a good run and a superb 25 yard shot rifled into the top of the net" - first bit is missing the word "had", also "good run" and "superb shot" are not NPOV
  • I will comment it out until he scores another Is an "international goals" table really required for a player who has only scored once?

ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie6705 (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • There are a few short snappy sentances such as- It was made clear that Miller was not part of Alex Ferguson's plans, as, despite the huge number of senior players missing, he was still only a substitute, in the opening game of the Red Devils' tour of South Africa - which could be rearranged or split into two
  • Removed Does 'Cork, Ireland' need to be mentioned twice in the first sentance of background?
  • Removed -Why is the Red Devils in italics in the Manchester United paragraph but not the Leaving Old Trafford one?
  • Removed Link with Aberdeen is unsourced.
  • No, its the same match 'Sunderland went on to lose the match...' should be a new sentence.
  • On second looking, the above sentance has a comma in it, whereas a similar sentance later on in the paragraph has 'and' in it, 'and Sunderland went on to lose the game 2–0'.
  • Done 'he bizarrely played' should be new sentance.
  • Done Shouldn't 'even though' be put in before the section 'he was suspended after recieving...'?

Hope that helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campus of Texas A&M University

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

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


Thanks, — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting way to pick an article to improve - good luck! While lots of work has been put into this so far, much more is needed to get it to GA, let along FA status. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • This article despearately needs one or more maps of the campus. A map of the campus location in Texas would also help.
  • The Lead does not summarize the article - see WP:LEAD. As a rule of thumb, I try to at least mention every section in the lead, even if only a word or phrase.
    • I am also surprised that the size (acres) of the campus is not given in the lead.
    • The whole Aggieland is centrally located within 200 miles (320 km) of three of the 10 largest cities in the United States and 75% of the Texas and Louisiana populations (approximately 13.1 million people). sentence needs a ref (extraordinary claim) and does not seem to be repeated in the rest of the article - everything in the lead should also be in the article.
    • I find the use of the phrase "Aggieland" three times in the lead and then only once more in the article (and that in a title) distracting. Give the alternate name and drop the other two uses - they are not encyclopedic in tone.
  • Use {{convert}} for unit conversions: 2,416 acres is 9.777 square kilometers (not "10 acres" - see significant figures)
  • Much of the article reads like a history of the university, not really like an article on the campus. Try to keep the focus on the campus (see the article title ;-) ).
  • Make things consistent within the article and use specifics instead of generalities - is it the "Century Tree" (caption) or the "Century Oak Tree" (article text)? Give the actual year of its planting (1898) as in the caption, not the vaguer During this time one of the more recognizable features of the Texas A&M landscape, the Century Oak Tree, was planted. Why is it called the Century [Oak] Tree?
  • Or here: For the next ten years, several hundred students lived in tents in a field in the middle of campus.[17] Since no date is given beyond the "early" 20th century, this makes little sense. The caption mentions 1910, but is unclear when in the ten year period this is.
  • The article is organized both historically and geographically - this leads to repetition: for example, the historic "World War II" section is essentially a duplicate of the later "Riverside Campus" section, but refers to it as the Annex instead.
  • Is the Riverside campus not a branch campus (what makes it different from Galveston campus or Qatar?).
  • There are many short sections that could be merged - as it now is they break up the flow of the article.
  • The article could use a good copy edit.
  • Perhaps the buildings could be part of a list of Texas A&M buildings (make a subarticle - see WP:Summary style)?
  • Try to get flow between sections - for example, the "The 2004 Campus Master Plan" section (lose "The" here by WP:MOS, by the way) lists a bunch of apparent planned changes. The next section "Current Status" (again this name is problematic - it will not be current in 5 years, add the date for context) describes a bunch of new building projects, none of which seem to match the Master Plan. I was confused - were the Master Plan items already completed (if so, say so)? Were they ignored / changed / delayed?
  • Try to always provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. Most readers will not know much about the campus.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article have images, is bigger and i think that would be an featured article.

Thanks, MisterWiki talking! :-D - 21:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not close to featured status, and wouldn't yet qualify for good article. For a comparable article of featured status, see El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, which gives you an idea of what to work towards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree totally with Sandy and would add that I am not sure this would make "Start" class - probably still a "Stub" (lowest class). The good news is that means there is lots of room to improve. here are some suggestions:

  • Need lots of content. Put the minimal information present into context - see WP:PCR. Explain what the things listed in the Old buildings and places section are.
  • Need lots of references - see WP:CITE, WP:V. For example the claim that The beach of Pichilemu is considered one of the world's best ones for practicing surfing, specifically the sector of Punta de Lobos, where competitions are frequently held. needs a citation - who says this?
  • Once you add more content and refs, get some help with copyedits - there are numerous grammar and spelling errors now.
  • The map seems odd - the Pacific Ocean should be to the west and if north is at the top, then the land would be on the right side and the ocean on the left. The map shows the reverse, but is not itself a reversed map. It is also in Spanish, but this is the English Wikipedia, so the labels should be English (obviously keep street names etc. in Spanish). So "Bosque Municipal" would be City Forest perhaps?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to improve this article. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxford United F.C. managers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like any comments on how i could make the list a featured list. Although this article is less than a day old, i think there is already a lot of information provided in the article. Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Oxford United F.C. managers/archive1.

Forensic Entomology: Stages of Decomposition

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to get some feedback on the different sections of the article and whre they might be improved. We are also looking for a more explicit title so that this page is easier to find when searching in the human decomposition realm. And with much improvement, we are looking for featured article status.


Thanks, Amandamartinez06 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The page needs renaming to something like "Forensic entomological stages of decomposition".
  • Work out the merger issue.
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD and don't recapitalise Forensic, it's not a proper noun.
  • Read WP:HEAD to avoid over capitalising headings so Black Putrefaction becomes Black putrefaction.
  • Citations that ref the web should use {{cite web}}.
  • A lot of subsectioning. Perhaps merge the small sections or expand them.
  • A lot of jargon - explain or wikilink.
  • Avoid using the gallery - add the images where appropriate.
  • Don't use inline web links such as Phormia regina - link to Wikipedia or use references.
  • Article has no categories.

Enough from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments
  • Image captions are overcaptialised, and should be sized per WP:MOS#Images, i.e. without forcing a pixel width - just use thumb.
  • You don't need to separate paras with br's, just a carriage return, line feed... will do.
  • In the references, don't just link a raw URL, use the {{cite web}} template. If you need a hand with this, drop me a line.
  • The "Factors" section is a little too chopped up into sections. Either expand the sections or reduce the number of them by merging.
  • Not sure about "Conclusion", this is an encyclopaedic article, not a science paper.

That's it for this round! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel García Márquez

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed GA and the editors are keen to take it to FA. The editors are part of an active project: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For FA-quality articles, it is customary to only include general references in the References section (i.e. books and major journal articles completely devoted to the subject), while listing newspaper articles, minor journal articles, and citations for books in which the article subject is mentioned but not the main focus, only within the notes section. For an excellent example of what I'm talking about, please study the notes and references sections of the Emma Goldman article. Along these lines I would move references like the New York Times and Film Quarterly articles out of the References section and just list them in their entirety in the Notes section (like you have with the BBC Mundo article). A good rule of thumb is that if the source is cited more than once, it probably belongs in the References section, while if it it's only cited one time, it's probably better to list it entirely in the notes field. The idea being that the References section should act as a sort of general bibliography for people doing research on the subject. Hope that makes sense. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not customary to list the place of birth in the parentheses with the date of birth. It should instead be in the narrative text of the lead section. Also, I'm not sure the last paragraph in the lead (about where García Márquez lives now) is appropriate for the lead (unless, perhaps, it were augmented with a summary of what significant work he is doing currently). Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This was a very interesting article to read and it has been a pleasure watching it develop over the past few weeks! Here are my comments to help improve it still further:

Revision, expansion, and deletion
  • The lead needs to summarize the article and include references to all of the major sections of the article per WP:LEAD. See WP:BETTER#Lead section for further hints on how to write a good lead.
  • Too much of the early life is cited to primary sources (that is, sources that are presumably autobiographical). Think of it this way - if you told the story of your own life, wouldn't you massage the truth a bit? Autobiographies are not the unvarnished truth - they need to be supplemented with well-researched biographies.
  • The "Life" section needs to make mention of when Garcia Marquez wrote his works so that the reader can put his writings into a biographical context. See Jane Austen for an example of this. The life briefly discusses her works. The page doesn't discuss her novels yet (we're still working on that section), but the "Life" section still mentions them in passing.
  • The "Life" section skips from 1975 to 1999. What happened in between?
  • The article should either focus on describing the works individually OR focus on them by genre OR focus on describing the style and themes of Garcia Marquez's works. Doing two of these things, as the article is currently trying to do is too much - there will be repetition of ideas and the article will become too long. When a writer has written a few books (e.g. Mary Wollstonecraft), it is easy to write about each work, but when a writer has written more than a handful, it becomes more difficult. I think the best decision for this article would be to either write about Garcia Marquez's works by genre (e.g. Anna Laetitia Barbauld) or by style and theme (e.g. Balzac).
  • The "Film" section needs to be expanded since he is the author of screenplays.
  • I would delete the "Political views" section and integrate any important political events he was involved in into the "Life" section (and it looks like there are several). Since people's political opinions are not stable, these sections rarely work out well.
  • The "Legacy" section is thin - it needs to be explained and filled out. Remember, this is for readers who know very little!


Prose
  • The article needs a good copy editor - these are some examples that I found while copy editing the "Life" section. I also did some copy editing myself. However, the above issues are more important.
  • Colonel Márquez was a Liberal veteran of the Thousand Days War and was involved in founding the town Aracataca, near Colombia's Caribbean coast - Can you link "liberal" to an appropriate page?
  • He was well-known for his refusal to remain silent about the banana massacres that took place the year García Márquez was born, which he emphasized by a searing denunciation of the murders to Congress in 1929. - I can't quite follow the "which" clause.
  • Like many of her sisters, she had distinctive folk beliefs: "All treated the extraordinary as something perfectly natural." - Is this quote complete?
  • He was not exactly the man the Colonel had envisioned winning the heart of his daughter, especially since he was a Conservative and had the reputation of a womanizer. - Can you link "Conservative" to an appropriate page?
  • However, during the riots on 9 April 1948 in Bogotá the university closed indefinitely and his boarding house burnt down. - What riots? Explain in a phrase.

I hope this helps the editors develop a plan of attack for the article. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Corps (Shannara)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to discover what else could be done with this page, if anything (improvements, mergers, etc.)----or one of the other Shannara articles...Thanks for any help!!!!

Also, is the placement of the {{Shannara character}} infobox right? (If it is higher, it makes the {{cquote}} abnormally long.)
Lastly, is it even possible to get this to FA-class? (notability issues, etc.)
Finally, see the merged article!! Right here. Please review the entire article if possible...

the_ed17 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: First off, this review is of the whole article Border Legion (Shannara). Good start, but needs a lot of work to get to GA, with FA even further off (though not impossible, just a lot of work). I am not familiar with the Shannara books, so I am a good jargon detector. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead is currently one sentence and needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article - see WP:LEAD.
  • I also note that the lead refers to Callahorn's army, but does not identify it - I assumed it was a war leader / general until I clicked on the link and found it is a fictional country. This raises three important points:
    • Provide context for the reader - assume they know nothing but want to learn more. Here explaining that Callahorn is the fictional country would help. See WP:PCR
    • Not quite the case here, but still try to avoid jargon or if it is required, make sure you explain it. See WP:JARGON
    • Most importantly since this is about a fictional subject, write from an out of unvierse perspective. See WP:IN-U. This is already done in some places (identifying it as in a novel in the lead) but needs to be done consistently throughout, especially for GA and FA.
  • References follow puctuation and are usually at the end of a sentence - see WP:CITE Do not have a space between a period and the ref or between refs, and keep refs in numerical order.
  • The references themselves will need the most work and may the most difficult part to find. Currently all of the refs are to the books themselves or to a few websites. This article needs to have independent third-party sources that are about the books and the role of the Border Legion / Free Corps within them. There needs to be independent critical discussion of the books and these units. See WP:RS for reliable sources - not sure the websites listed are reliable in this sense of the word. See also WP:V.
  • Be very careful to back up all remarks with verifiable, reliable sources, otherwise this risks being labeled original reseaarch and will never make GA or FA (and may be deleted).
  • Watch out for POV language - see WP:NPOV. See Stee Jans was one of the pitifully few members of the Free Corps to survive the War of the Forbidding. [40] pitifully few is POV
  • Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed.
  • I would try to find a model article that is already FA on a similar topic and use that as a guide to follow. It may be easier to write an article on one of the books first, then if you finsd sources, on the military units within the book(s).

Hope this helps, sounds like these are very exciting books to read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This just recently became a Good Article and has been copy-edited several times by different users; all comments can be found on the article's talk page. I'm considering bringing this to FAC at some point, but I'm in no rush to do so. :) Feedback in regards to prose and comprehensiveness would be much appreciated, as would the usual MOS issues. So far I haven't been able to attain, through emailing and begging, a better picture of Marshall. There is only one authoritative biography dedicated to Marshall (Glover's 1986 book), and all other sources cite said bio, which is why the refs may heavily rely on one source. There are few other places I can tap for additional sources, however, so I hope it suffices. Thanks for any and all comments! María (habla conmigo) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)/archive1.

Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need some general feedback on how this article could possibly be expanded, improved, and possibly made more relevant to the average reader.

Thanks, ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article on a topic I knew nothing about - here are suggestions for improvement:

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article and not contain anything that is not also in the text.
  • I think a person's weight is concentrated in their footprints (not foootsteps) when standing up.
  • The caption for the first image is not very informative - if I understand it correctly, the shorter truck is damaging the bridge because its weight is more "concentrated" in a smaller area than is the weight of the longer truck. Be explicit and tell people what it means instead of just saying it illustrates a practical application of the formula.
  • Would it also be possible to have some sample calculations in the article - a truck of X pounds and length Y would have this much weight per axle by the formula? I also note that the article does not explicilty say what the limitation is until almost the end (trucks can't weigh more than 80,000 pounds). See WP:PCR and provide context for the reader.
  • Do the same regulations generally apply to state highways?
  • By the WP:MOS, this should also give metric equivalents - see {{convert}} for one way of adding them fairly easily.
  • Are there any sort of well-referenced anecdotes that could be used here - a truck breaks a bridge and weighed this much...?
  • The second image talks about the axles in terms of the tractor group and the trailer group, but the article refers to them as the tractor tandem and trailer tandem, which is confusing - see WP:JARGON
  • Illustrations are decent, references seem fine -
  • Ideas for expansion - is there any sort of commentary on the formula (do truckers love or hate it)? when was it established as a federal reg? How do states and smaller groups handle this? What about Canada, Mexico, Europe?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, thank you. I've been struggling with trying to figure out what I can add to this article for a long time... I guess it takes a fresh set of eyes to really tell you what needs to be done! These are some great ideas, and I will use them to expand the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have sufficiently summarized the article accoring to the MOS guidelines.
  2. Wording has been changed.
  3. Wording changed again.
  4. I have provided a complete table of calculations.
  5. Finding information on state laws is relatively difficult. One thing I do know is that this is a federal regulation, therefore it only applies to interstate commerce. So thats basically what I stated in the article. However, many states use the same formula, and I have yet to find one that doesn't. I just wasn't sure if that would be relevant to the article.
  6. Metric conversions have been provided.
  7. Added new section about bridge collapses and truck weight effect on bridges.
  8. There is a difference between "groups" and "tandems" so the wording was necessary. However, I have provided greater explanation of the difference between the two. Hopefully it is a bit clearer now.
  9. I even added a new illustration.
  10. Couldn't really find any information about other countries... other than they have a bridge formula and they enforce it. Beyond that, information is sparse. Information about the history is sorta vauge. Some say it was invented in the 40s but wasn't made law until 75, which seems strange to me. I'll try to get to the bottom of this.

So if anybody has any more ideas, let me know! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the suggestions were helpful - on further thought it is about the US federal regulation, so state and other countries regs are not really needed, just interesting for comparison. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Boy (song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if the prose is of featured quality, check sources per WP:RS, comprehensiveness, and anything they could comment on this article. After such, this will proceed to WP:FAC.

Thanks, --Efe (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC) `[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Baby Boy (song)/archive1.

Black Moshannon State Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that is could be a Featured Article. We are looking for some feedback on this article before it is submitted for FA. It has been thoroughly researched and we believe that with some changes suggested in the PR process that it will be shortly ready for FA.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC) and Ruhrfisch[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Moshannon State Park/archive1.

Aang

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through four GA nominations (succeeding in the last) and one FAC (failed). I really need extremely close-up feedback on the prose. I have tried copyediting it myself, but I am not sure. I really need as much advice as possible. If you see any other problems with the article, mention it here to. Thanks, — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No expert by any means but please accept comments of a layman...

  • "...one episode of the show. The exception was "Zuko Alone"." consider merging so you don't have a tiny sentence.
  • "(that has never been aired)" never really understand why significant text is in parentheses so flow it into the prose.
  • "with the unique ability" meaning they have a single ability or no-one else in their universe can do this?
  • "One century of his ..." probably more elegant to say that he was in suspended animation for a hundred years...
  • Plot overview section needs work on merging the paragraphs, six is too many, more like three for this amount of material.
  • "claim the events are part of canon." - what does this mean (to the non-expert)?

Sorry I can't help more, but hopefully some of these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problems you mentioned. I hope the article is OK now. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may take a while, the League of Copyeditors may be more what you want (line by line) - see WP:LOCE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a LOCE request. Unfortunately, I cannot wait for them because by the time the League responds, it will be 2009. In fact, the request has been in for at least a month, if not two. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking for any kinds of suggestions and advice to help get this article to GA status, or improve its overall quality.

Thanks,  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption/archive1.

Dermestidae

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feedback on our article and ideas for improvement. Please feel free to give any suggestions that you think would improve this article.

Are there subfamilies? Usually family articles list the subfamilies in the taxobox (e.g. Geometridae). Other things you could include in the taxobox are the type species and diversity. IMO there should be a list of genera, with subfamilies, and ideally number of species (I don't know that much about Dermestidae, so I can't say if that is realistic or not). I'd also develop the part on their use for cleaning museum skeletons. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angelina5288 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Just a few pointers...

  • "1-12 mm" - use en-dash for ranges and the {{convert}} template to get into inches for us Imperialists.
  • "Thaumaglossa only lives in the egg cases of mantids, while Trogoderma species are pests of grain." this needs context and explanation, particularly with the red links.
  • Five paragraphs in the lead is too much, check out WP:LEAD for some advice.
  • It's a little hard to get into for a non-expert, a lot of "jargon" in the lead would put most people off...
  • Again, for 30˚C, use the convert template.
  • " 1/2 of an inch" ditto. And all further instances.
  • Put citations in numerical order - you have [14][2][15] at the moment.
  • "time.[20]They " space missing after the citation.
  • Important works - says who?
  • Split the general and specific references into subsections.

Biggest problem is making the article accessible to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, we'll edit it as soon as possible! Noromaru (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab (Amy Winehouse song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over time, it has really started to come together. This was obviously one of the most lauded/controversial/famous tunes of last year, and it matters that this article is done well.


Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Firstly as a general rule the article needs to use British English, it currently seems to be US English (e.g. recognizes). Specific things to consider...

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD - at least two paragraphs for an article of this length.
  • Background final two paragraphs too short, either expand or merge.
  • "In November 2006, an early demonstration version lacking the horn section and originally played on Mark Ronson's East Village Radio show was released in the iTunes Store." needs citation.
  • "The band is dressed in gowns " "The band members are dressed in gowns..." sounds a bit better to me.
  • "On May 31," which year?
  • " jumped a massive " - POV.
  • Half of the Commercial section needs referencing.
  • UK R&B Singles Chart doesn't have a reference.
  • " have sprung up" - not particularly encyclopaedic.
  • "pop singer Justin Timberlake would the song's chorus " word missing here?
  • Fix the [citation needed] tag.
  • If you insist on keeping the succession boxes, at least merge them.
  • You have one dead link when I checked - use this to help.

That's it! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Efe (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • In favor of the prose, please put the charts and lists after the Notable appearances in the media section.
  • The alternate cover adds nothing to the article, and its non-free. Use them if they're extensively discussed in the article.
  • Please supply the copyright information of this image: Image:Amy Winehouse - Rehab.jpg, as well as Image:WinehouseRehab.ogg.

I was actually planning to revamp this article and pass to FAC, but I just stumbled on PR today and found this. I will help, instead. --Efe (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indianescence (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Did not review the article completely, but the statistical data and the sales number are unsourced.
  • I know that the article is small, so the lead should not be very long. But i feel this is way too short. Something about the songs impact would be great.

Thank You. Indianescence (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State University of New York at Binghamton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to continue to work to eventually bring it up to Good Article status. I've done a great deal of work over the past few days to bring it more into line with the WikiProject: Universities standards.


Thanks, Wsanders (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Several WP:MOS issues need sorting out, but specifics...

  • Section headings must comply with WP:HEAD.
  • Citations should be placed in accordance with WP:CITE.
  • Explain SUNY before using it as an abbreviation.
  • If image captions are fragments, they don't take a full stop.
  • You need considerably more references, you have many [citation needed]'s already and a whole section tagged as needing references.
  • When making references, use the {{Cite web}} template, not just raw urls.
  • Image sizing should comply with WP:MOS#Images.
  • Value ranking has no references at all.
  • What's a SAT score? Remember, this needs to be understood by non-American, non-academic readers.
  • What makes a notable alumnus "notable"? This section will be WP:POV.

A lot to do for GA. Feel free to shout if you need help with any of the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would look for a model article or two to follow - Ohio Wesleyan University or Michigan State University come to mind, but there are others. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Jet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm trying to decide if FAC is ready for a horse FA. Any suggestions would be welcome.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • I would expect that for FA you'd need to expand the lead to at least two paragraphs.
  • Do you have a specific citation for the infobox? Lots of very "accurate" stats, like winnings to the nearest dollar...
  • " considered a nicer-looking individual" perhaps "considered to be a better looking horse."?
  • Consider converting hands in feet/meters for those of us who aren't horsey.
  • Don't think you need to link to horse markings twice in the same sentence.
  • " in purses." this is a little unclear to the non-expert.
  • You use AQHA before explaining it.
  • Consider knocking out a quick stub for starting gate if you really believe it deserves an article.
  • Same for the Rocky Mountain derby.
  • Order citations numerically - there's a [5][2] there.
  • $5000 should be $5,000.
  • "...[4] in 1993.[5]" I'd prefer to see both [4] and [5] at the end of the sentence.
  • Page ranges need the en-dash (per WP:DASH) - see ref [2] for example, 178-185 should be 178–185.

That's about it for me. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks muchly, this will help a bunch. The dashes, well, I'm lazy. I usually beg User:Brighterorange to run his script over it right before plan to go to FA (grins). Lazy, but it works. I'll try to take care of the rest of these shortly. I kinda like the idea of a race horse being the first Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine FA. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Spinning Plates

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Right, this time the article should work. Please give me your thoughts.

Thanks, Tkotse (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: A very interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead is two sentences and should be expanded to summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD
  • What is already there is fairly well written, but I think more could be added.
    • For example, is there any information about the musical key, chords, chord progression, time signature?
    • Who is credited as the author(s) of the song? Could there be more on the lyrics than the cloud cuckoo land quote? Even the lyrical structure (verse, refrain, verse?)
  • Try to be more specific - which songs This technique is similar to ones used by The Beatles and The Stone Roses on some of thier songs.[2] Or what year was the song first performed live?
  • For the preceding quote, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - see WP:RS and check all the refs.
  • Internet references need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. Try using the {{cite web}} for consistency
  • There is no critical reception information - this is a major album by a major group and was reviewed widely at the time, get to a library and look up the reviews and see what critics said about this.
  • Music video, Notes and Hidden Booklet sections are all way too short, and why are notes on the lyrics and a hidden booklet a subsection of the video?
  • The hidden booklet should be a normal image, not a gallery. It needs a valid fair use summary - see WP:FAIR USE
  • Find a model article to follow here, preferably a GA or FA.
  • There are several Radiohead FAs, see who were major contributors to them and ask them for assistance / advice.
  • You could probably have a brief sound clip (fair use) in this article.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to get up to GA status, and then perhaps to FA status. I would like the general gist of where to improve, where things should be ommitted, where the article needs extra things. I think at the moment the article may be too lng, but someone as prolific as Hendrix deserves that sort of treatment, don't you think?


Thanks, Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Bardin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hi there. I've taken a look at the article and I agree that it is too long so the first thing you might want to do before anything else is to get rid of the excess and sort out the structure. I noticed that there's eight long paragraphs before the article begins discussion on Jimi Hendrix's early career. His notability is as a musician and so the article should focus on his music career. A lot of the information in these eight paragraphs can be removed since they have little relevance or bearing on the music career of Jimi Hendrix. For instance:

  • Hendrix had two brothers, Leon and Joseph, and two sisters, Kathy and Pamela. Joseph was born with physical difficulties and at the age of three was given up to state care. His two sisters were both given up at a relatively early age, for care and later adoption, Kathy was born blind and Pamela had some lesser physical difficulties. Al found it hard to gain steady employment after the Second World War, and the family experienced financial hardship. Hendrix's parents divorced when he was nine years old, and his mother died in 1958.

That's the kind of information that belongs in a detailed (and printed) autobiography of Jimi Hendrix but it's not the kind of information that I would expect in an encyclopedia entry. You can sum it up in one or two sentences: eg. he had a difficult childhood marked by poverty and etc. A good article should be comprehensive and yet concise. Take a look at the list of featured articles for well-written examples on other solo musicians or singers. The Mariah Carey article discuss her early life in the first two paragraphs but does this by relating it to her singing career, eg. "She graduated from Harborfields High School in Greenlawn, New York. She was frequently absent due to her work as a demo singer for local recording studios." The biography on Phil Collins begins with "Collins was given a toy drum kit for Christmas when he was five." No irrelevant information. Just straight to the point. With someone like Jimi Hendrix, you should probably take a look at the Bob Dylan article for an example of a well-written and yet lengthy article. The first paragraph is a concise summary of his ethnic, geographic and family origins. The second paragraph is a concise summary (just three sentences) on his early life. The third paragraph begins discussing Bob Dylan in relation to his music career. Like the Mariah Carey article, it discusses non-musical aspects of Dylan's life in the context of his musical career, eg. "Zimmerman spent much of his youth listening to the radio." So that's the sort of structure and approach that you can adopt for the Jimi Hendrix article.
Another structural problem with the Jimi Hendrix article is the jarring personality section that comes in between a discussion on his early career and the Jimi Hendrix experience. That seven paragraphs on his personality are not only too long but they also disrupt the narrative flow of the article. In other words, the placement is just awkward. You can either move that entire personality section so that it comes completely after the historical narrative on his life or better yet, integrate all that info into the biography. I have not personally come across any featured articles on an individual musician that similarly provides an entire section devoted to the musician's personality so it's probably best if you can integrate those information where relevant to the biographical narrative on his life. What he wore at Woodstock should be mentioned at the discussion of his performance on Woodstock and not treated separately in a different section, for example.
I also note that there's a lot of unreferenced statements in the article, particularly in that personality section. Some of these unreferenced statements strongly comes across as original research, for instance the speculation on his drug use. My advice is that you remove every single bit of information that's unreferenced. The article will shrink down considerably as a consequence and you'll have an easier time to improve the article. Also try to use the same format for each reference cited. Some of them are just bare links. Take a look at the Bob Dylan article for a good example of how to do citations and references. Note that there are two different sections: one for references and one for notes. Books listed in full in references can be referred to in short-hand in the notes section (eg. "Gray, The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, 136–8"). --Bardin (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has now failed three FAC's and needs feedback as to what to improve. As part of the peer review, I will contact all people who placed comments at the articles FAC nominations.

Thanks, Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3.

Macbeth

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know where to start to improve it, otherwise I would be spinning around in the dark and just editing, which would not be useful. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:

  • It is always useful to have a model article or two to follow and Hamlet is FA, as is William Shakespeare. Since Hamlet is also a tragedy, I think the structure of that article would work well here too.
  • I would ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare for advice / help too.
  • The lead will need to be expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • For FAC, all statements that attribute anythng will need to be sourced with references to reliable sources. The statements will also need to be as specific as possible, for example On this basis, many scholars reject all three of the interludes with the goddess Hecate as inauthentic. Even with the Hecate material, the play is conspicuously short, and so the Folio text may derive from a prompt book that had been substantially cut for performance, or an adapter cut the text himself. all of this needs citations, and the scholars need to be identified.
  • Do not repeat the name of the article in headers per MOS, so "Macbeth as a tragedy of character" could be "A tragedy of character" perhaps. There are also NO refs in the whole Themes and motifs section,
  • Make sure images are free or properly justified for Fair Use, for example Image:Witches 2006macbeth.JPG needs a Fair USe rationale.

So here's some things to start on and please ask some of the experts that got Hamlt to FA a few months ago. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phormia regina

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like other people to read and catch any gramatical errors and mistakes. I also think that the writing could use some touch ups here and there. I would also like to know if I have references correctly listed and if I need to link more pages.


Thanks, Kt babe8 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'm no subject matter expert but allow me to comment on style and method.

  • I believe we usually italicise Latin names of fauna.
  • " blow fly family Calliphoridae. Although some authorities merge both the blow fly group (Calliphoridae) and the flesh fly group (Sarcophagidae) together in the family Metopiidae, key distinguishable physical traits allow for this separation" is repeated verbatim in the taxonomy section. Reword, and expand here.
  • For repeated citations which point to the identical reference, use the ref name= code. If you need help with this, let me know.
  • "(78% [dung] versus 100% [beef liver])." write out as prose.
  • Need more links in the lifecycle section, as it stands it's a rather bland set of paragraphs which are unappealing to the non-expert (i.e. me!)
  • For ranges (e.g. temperature ranges, page ranges) separate the numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) - read more about this at WP:DASH.
  • "12:12 (Light:Dark) " expand this for non-experts.
  • There's a [clarify] note in the physiology section so that needs to be dealt with.
  • "post mortem interval or PMI" and then "post mortem interval (PMI) " in the next para. Just one will suffice, the first one.
  • "Kirckpatrick " typo.
  • Medicinal importance section needs referencing.
  • As does Discovery. Some of the discovery stuff should go in the lead as well.
  • For links to the internet, use the {{cite web}} template.

Hope some of this helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for WP:FAC someday.


Thanks, Gary King (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add piping to the publisher parameters in the cites. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean? Are you talking about fixing disambiguation links in publisher fields? Gary King (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • First paragraph of the Soundtrack section needs a reference.
  • make sure any version-exclusive information that is notable is included and referenced.
  • I guess the images are in the optimal spot, but it would be desirable to space them a bit if at all possible.
  • Also, make sure all the fair use rationales are very specific as to what is demonstrated and why it is necessary to be demonstrated.
  • Gameplay section almost totally unreferenced, get the game manual and quote it, see Final Fantasy IV

Megaselia scalaris

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like some more input about our work.


Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

As ever, non-expert comments, but some things that I noticed...

  • Latin phrases I believe should be italicised, you and your students should be aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna).
  • Taxonomy section should be expanded and referenced.
  • What are flagellomere?
  • No need to use the same reference to cite every single consecutive sentence (e.g. [3] is used six times in eight sentences..., [7] is used seven times in seven sentences...)
  • En dash (–) should be used for numerical ranges. Again, use the WP:DASH as a guide for you and the students. Including page ranges in references.
  • What are setae?
  • Avoid 3-4 days, say three to four days instead.
  • Units need conversion so use the {{convert}} template to provide mm and inches, C and F etc.
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and units (e.g. [6]) per WP:CITE).
  • Size images per WP:MOS#Images

That's a good start for you. Please ensure these comments are implemented across all of your entomological peer reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of forensic entomology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is an important and popular subject in forensic entomology, and we'd like to make this article as high quality as possible.


Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by karanacs

[edit]

Howdy. This is an iniital review; please ask on my talk page if a more thorough review is desired after these changes have been implemented.

  • A history article generally discusses the history in chronological order. The headings should refer to periods in the history generally. For this article, I'd recommend an introductory section that briefly explains what forensic entomology is. The next section could discuss Origins of the field, then 19th century methods, etc.
  • The article should maintain a focus on the history. One section is written as a focus on people; the next as a focus on case studies while the third is more of a description of techniques. The article needs to instead be focused on events that happened in the history of the field and what impact those events had on the way the field developed. Sometimes this can simply be reworded to put the focus back on the chronology. For example, "Sung Tz’u was a lawyer and death investigator in the late 13th century. He wrote a guide commonly translated the “Washing Away of Wrongs” (洗冤集錄) in 1235 A.D. This book was to be used as a guide for other investigators so they could assess the scene of the crime efficiently" could be rewritten as "The first recorded account of forensic entomology's use in judicial proceedings was the guide "Washing Away of the Wrongs", written by Sun Tz'u, a lawyer and death investigator, in the late 13th century." Same information, but focus goes back to the history.
  • A great deal of the article is still uncited. This will need to be fixed.
  • There appear to be major gaps in the chronoloy. The article jumps from the late 13th century to 1855. Did anything happen in the field in the intervening 600 years? It then jumps another 200 years, from the 1890s to the 2000s. I would suspect that the bulk of the research in this field happened in the 1900s, but it is not explicitly mentioned here.
  • The case studies should not be discussed in depth in this article. If a particular case study was very notable for its development or its influence on the field, then it should be mentioned, with an explanation of why it was significant in the history of the field. This article should not include a full description of the case studies though.
  • Wikipedia articles don't have conclusions. The article should present the facts in an ordered manner and then stop.
  • Other pieces of information that could be relevant to this article:
    • When did the first formal training in the field begin (actual classes)? How quickly has this formal training spread around the world? Are there degrees offered in this particular field, and if so, when and where were they first awards?
    • If there are particular organizations devoted to this field, when and where were they founded? How quickly did the membership grow or did the organization spread to other parts of the world?
    • Has the field entered various parts of the world at different times?

Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entomological evidence collection

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has some issues, and I'm looking for how to fix them.


Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article needs an appropriate lead section. Follow that link for more details on how to write one, but basically the lead section provides the context for a reader that doesn't know much or anything about the subject to get the basic idea. The first or first couple sentences should start with an accurate definition of the topic. The lead section in general should properly summarize all the most important aspects of a topic. Thus it is a bit like a good abstract in a research paper. 2) It's hard to describe how, but the writing style doesn't follow encyclopedic writing conventions. It's self-referential for one, for another it is prescriptive: "it is imperative to take..." for example. Encyclopedia articles should be descriptive and give facts and cited opinions only. They should not give recommendations. This article gives tons of them. Also, I agree with the comments on the talk page, the article needs to be connected to other articles on Wikipedia. Read through it and find the important concepts in each paragraph and try to find the Wikipedia articles to link to. See my edit for examples. I don't know how to define the topic, so my edit to the lead section will need to be improved. - Taxman Talk 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

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

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

A few months ago the MJ (Michael Jackson) article failed a FA nomination. I made the improvements suggested and contacted one of the reviewers who originally failed it asking "was it worth reapplying for FA". He/she suggested a peer review first. My goal then obviously is to get it up to FA statues and have it reviewed. I have been the main contributer to the article for the last 8 months but dont mind reviewers destroying my work so long as it reaches FA. Thinks i think need looking at are;-

  • Copy editing - English is NOT my first language so mistakes will be there i swear
  • Sources - Sources are good, they just need formatting
  • The lead - The lead used to be really good but it was destroyed a few months ago by another editor it might need improving.

NOTE - What ever you do please do not go over board with the Thriller Era Jackson, MJ has had a long successful career and Thriller is just one part of that. When I first started at wiki the article had a terrible Thriller era American centric viewpoint of Jackson's career. Most people are unaware that his Dangerous album from 1991 did much better than Thriller in many countries. Jackson is an international start, more so than elvis or the beatles, he conquered south america and asia. Please avoid what I call "80's nolstalga".


Thanks, Realist2 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • "His distinctive style, dance moves, and vocals have influenced a whole generation of hip hop, pop, and R&B artists." is a fairly bold statement and should be referenced
  • Why the need for six references for Thriller 25 selling 1.4 mil copies?
    • (DONE)
  • "Musical prodigy" is too WP:POV for my liking
    • (DONE)
  • The sections 1.2 Off the Wall, 1.3 Thriller, 1.4 Bad, 1.5 Dangerous, and 1.6 HIStory for me would be better in the respective album articles, instead breaking the sections down to perhaps spans of five years or so, similar to the FAs Kate Bush, Mariah Carey, Kylie Minogue and Gwen Stefani.
  • The second paragraph of "Trial, career hiatus, reissues and return to public eye" needs a full stop at the end.
    • (DONE)
  • Don't include "Trial" in that section's title, because the trial isn't part of his career
    • (DONE)
  • In "Influence", ref 9 appears in the middle of a sentence, and again at the end of it. Remove the first one.
    • (DONE)
  • Refs 9 and 168 should appear after the full stop
  • Ref 56 appears after a space
  • The bit about Fred Astaire calling him should be referenced
  • Ref 180 should appear after the full stop
  • Fedora is wikilinked many times.
    • (DONE)
  • The paragraph about Blanket needs a full stop at the end
  • References should go in order, so [15] should be before [192]
  • The wikilink of $ to United States dollar appears well after the first use of "$"
  • All references should attribute the publisher and accessdate. Use WP:Citation templates to make it easy
  • Your comments at the top suggest you expect reviewers to make the changes; it doesn't work that way. It usually falls on the one who requested the review and other people who work on the article such as those involved in a WikiProject or just regular contributors to the article. That's all from me for now. Let me know when/if you want more. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just failed FAC because of the prose. I'd like some opinions on how to improve it.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I made a brief comment in the previous PR and, while I still think this is overall well-done, I agree that the writing needs some polishing to get to FA standards. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I read the FAC and scanned the GAR - please read each carefully and address all concerns. I would also treat the issues raised as examples and check the whole article for similar problems. When you think they have all been addressed, ask the editors from the FAC and GAR to look at it again and see if they agree.
  • I am not an expert copyeditor - see if you can find someone at WP:LOCE or on the new Peer Review volunteers list for another opinion.
  • Here are some things I found. First example is the infobox image caption: The interstellar cruise liner Titanic, the main setting of the episode, orbits above Earth on Christmas Eve in celebration of Christmas. I struck the part that seemed superfluous and even unclear
  • Lead - since there is a 192 in the infobox, I assume this is the 192nd episode. If so could the first sentence be "Voyage of the Damned" is the 192nd episode of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who.?
  • This was commented on in FAC - would it make sense to provide context to the reader for "companion"? (see WP:PCR) Something like and is the only appearance of Australian singer and actress Kylie Minogue as [the Doctor's traveling] companion Astrid Peth.
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the article and give the most important points - see WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT So how is this one of the most important things about the episode: Another scene, filmed on a set labelled by the production team as the best set they had made, featured composer Murray Gold, conductor and orchestrator Ben Foster, and singer Yamit Mamo, three people involved in producing the music of the episode, performing "The Stowaway", a song written specially for the episode. If it really should be in the lead (your call), maybe something more like this reads better: Another scene featured a performance of "The Stowaway", a song written specially for the episode, by singer Yamit Mamo, composer Murray Gold, and conductor Ben Foster, on what the production team called the best set they had made.

OK, I am going to try some tweaks to show what a copyedit might do - I am not great at this, so these are just sugestions.

  • Add a word here? to prevent the ship from [causing] an extinction-level collision.
  • Perhaps The episode continues the storyline of "Last of the Time Lords" and "Time Crash"...
  • He decides to stow away, only confessing his status to a waitress... perhaps instead could be He decides to stow away, telling no one of his status except a waitress...
  • Astrid, who joined the crew of the Titanic to travel throughout the stars, is disappointed because she is not given shore leave. Shouldn't the end be in the past tense? Do we see her not get leave (in which case this is OK), or has this already happened (in which case something like this is needed) Astrid, who joined the crew of the Titanic to travel throughout the stars, is disappointed because she was not given shore leave.
  • Change to The Doctor takes her on a brief illicit excursion to London, along with [adjective needed here - tourist? alien? married?] couple Morvin and Foon Van Hoff..
  • How about this - However, the populace of London [has already] fled in fear of an a third consecutive extra-terrestrial attack,[3][4] and only a few people remain[,] including the Royal Family and a newspaper seller called Wilfred Mott (Bernard Cribbins).

Hope this helps - try to get someone who is better at this than I (and who knows the good Doctor and wouldn't make goofy mistakes as I would). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • She isn't given shore leave because of "insurance reasons" (age-old excuse, I know!). I'm split over some other wordings, like the ELE part (because the ship will be the one colliding) or the part about London's populace (you can't flee a city within 2 hours - look at Gulf cities, so it took place before the narrative). Sceptre (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Abominations

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take the article to FAC. I am open to any comments and would like for the entire article to be reviewed. In the last peer review not much was done, so I want this a very thorough PR. I'd like to get out any debates and big edits here so they are not at FAC, I think people at FAC are getting pissed at me :P

Thanks, Burningclean [speak] 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zirconium

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on taking Zirconium to FA. I believe the biggest issue is comprehensivity. I'm looking for suggestions on where to expand the article and where I can find the sources to do it. Also, I could definitely use some feedback on the Geological section, as it is somewhat disorganized.

Thanks, --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cambrasa (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • In my opinion the Applications Section should use bullet points instead of cramming all the information into a paragraph. It would make the section more clear and readable. A narrative is not needed in this section because the individual applications have little relation to one another.
I disagree with your statement "the individual applications have little relation to one another." The applications are grouped together by the form of zirconium they employ. There's a sentence for zirconium dioxide, one for zircon, one for zirconium carbonate, and a few for zirconium alloys. While it would be better to give each form an individual paragraph, there just aren't enough applications for this to be possible. I feel it is more appropriate to keep it as it is than to break it apart into a list. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about grouping the different forms of Zirconium into sections. Bullet points are used in other element articles' "Applications" sections. Perhaps you are right - it may be premature to use bullet points here as the section is not large enough. On the other hand, bullet points will encourage future contributors to stick to the format. Cambrasa (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just leave it as it is for now, and if any new application information arises in the future, we'll alter the format as needed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

[edit]

I would use any of the metallic element FA articles (Francium, Technetium, Titanium, Ununoctium, Uranium) as a model article, with Ti closest. Here are some more suggestions for improvement:

  • Expand the lead to summarize the article per WP:LEAD, my rule of thumb is that if it is a section header it should be in the lead in some way.Expanded to include missing sections.
  • Since you need sources, please look at N.N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements or F. Albert Cotton and Geoffrey Wilkinson's Advanced Inorganic Chemistry or most Inorganic Chemistry textbooks, all of which would have lots of useful information on Zr. I would think any decent library (especially at a university or college) would have them.
  • Provide context for the reader - make clear zircon is a solid mineral (since it is collected from coastal waters they might think it is a solution)[Fixed] or give the date for Claproth's work with Zr. See WP:PCR
  • Some refs are doubtful for a chemistry article (there are LOTS of reliable sources for Zr, so "Infoplease.com" is less than ideal, especially for FAC).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't responded yet. I listed zirconium for peer review because I thought I was done working on hydrogen's FAR. However, some new issues have come up, so I'm trying to wrap that up as quickly as I can. Once I'm a tad less busy, I'll try to incorporate your feedback. I appreciate your interest and your patience. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of DNA in forensic entomology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would really like some additional feedback on the work.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article, in which I learned for example that bedbugs are hemiptera or true bugs. While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this, and the author(s) are knowledgable about the subject, but it needs a lot of work to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style - see WP:MOS. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article and should be 3 or 4 paragraphs for the length of this article. I try to include everything mentioned in a header in the lead as at least a word or phrase- see WP:LEAD
  • Get rid of the conclusion, this is an encylopedia, not a term paper. It could be part of an introduction or even the lead.
  • Blood meal extraction section reads like the abstract of a how to manual - while a general description of the process is fine, this level of detail seems a bit excessive here. The title is "Use of DNA...", not "How to extract DNA...". See WP:NOT too (not a manual)
  • Get a copyedit - I read for content, but saw some issues such as missing spaces, broken degree C,
  • The basic idea is that DNA from people is taken from insects, but this is not specifically mentioned until the third section - Haematophagous insects of forensic importance - this is asking a lot of the reader.
  • Large chunks of this are lists - there are articles that are primarily lists - see WP:LIST, or the lists could be "prose-ified"
  • There are some good examples of providing context for the reader, make sure to do this for all technical concepts and try to avoid jargon - see WP:PCR and WP:JARGON
  • How about putting some images - surely there are some for the insects or DNA or even PCR?
  • References need to be complete - list all authors, not just et al., identify the journal (not Science Direct), perhaps use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pauleta

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think that this is a good articule.


Thanks, Sdrtirs (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that there has been a lot of work done on this article, if you want this article to someday be a good article, it will need a lot more work to reach the Good Article criteria. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The article has ONE reference currently - to reach GA, it will need refs for every quote, every statistic, every attributed statement, and at least one ref per paragraph. See WP:V and WP:CITE Example where a ref is needed: "Pauleta is a fighter, very strong and completely unpredictable," said his former coach at Paris Saint-Germain FC, Vahid Halihodzic.
  • The lead should summarize the whole article per WP:LEAD and needs to be longer too.
  • Neutral point of view is a problem here, also see WP:PEACOCK. Just some examples - The striker's killer instinct is married to a deft touch with either foot, impressive aerial ability and excellent mobility. or this enjoyed an impressive run with Girondins Bordeaux in his first season. At the very least these need citations, but they are not very encyclopedic in tone.
  • Make a redirect page for his full name, i.e. Pedro Miguel Carreiro Resendes, and any common variations of it besides Pauleta.
  • A model article is often useful as an example to follow for structure and flow of an article. Pelé is a GA and would seem to be a good model too.
  • My guess is if this were properly cited and had more neutral language it would be fairly close to GA.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Vargas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The subject is widely reported in blogs and you tube. It is not listed as a hoax or urban legend any where. So the references are not normally acceptable. However, there are enough of them. If it is true, the WP should include it. With a million signature petition against the artist, if it is not true then it is certain a notable phenomenon. Your honoured opinions please.

Thanks, Triwbe (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is not really for notability debates - if the Guardian writes about him, he seems notable to me. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Make sure the lead summarizes the article per WP:LEAD
  • References need to be complete, consider using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} and include url, title, publisher, author if known and date accessed for internet sources.
  • try to expand the article
  • Any chance of an image?

Hope this helps, the article is very short so not much else to comment on Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source transformation

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

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


Thanks, Perevodchik (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that needs some cleanup work to better follow the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD, specifically the name of the article should be bold and as early as possible in the first sentence.
    • Perhaps the first sentence could be something like: Source transformation is a process to find a solution to a complex electrical circuit which simplifies the circuit by transforming a voltage into a current source, and vice versa.[1]
    • The lead should also summarize the whole article, the example is not mentioned now.
  • The article is fairly technical, try to explain jargon clearly - see WP:JARGON
  • Also try to provide context for the reader - perhaps explain the theorems and Ohm's Law briefly - see WP:PCR
  • Headers should not repeat the title of the article, so "Example of a Source Transformation" should just be "Example" or perhaps "Sample calculation"
  • The figure would be clearer if the letter Z were oriented the same way for both parts of the figure - looks like an N in the right side
  • I would also explain the symbols in the figure for the uninitiated
  • In the example avoid second person (you)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hamasaki

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working extensively on this article since late 2007, but I would like a pair of fresh eyes to review the article, specifically the lead section and the overall flow of the article, as I hope to eventually bring this article up to featured article status. Also, I would appreciate it if a disinterested party could point out any non-neutral point of view statements. Any feedback, however, would be much appreciated.


Thank you very much, Thanatous (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I read the first peer review before reading the article and was pleasantly surprised at the level of improvement, good job. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Last sentence of the lead could be split for clarity, i.e. She is also the first Japanese artist to have her first original eight studio albums top the Oricon charts,[8] as well as the Japanese female artist with the most number-one singles, most Top 10 singles, and highest singles sales. Hamasaki shares the record for most million-seller singles with the band Pink Lady and fellow J-pop singers Namie Amuro and Utada Hikaru.[9]
  • There are 11 fair use images in the article, which seems excessive. SInce the first image in the infobox is free, the fair use claims that "No public domain or free image has been located for this article/subject." on many of the images need to be updated / changed.
  • Every reference to her in the "Childhood and early endeavors" section is by her last name - use she / her sometimes for variety. Also could more be said on her acting jobs - how many B movies did she make? TV shows?
  • If she was raised by her mother and grandmother, was it really a "single-parent household"? She had two parents, just not the usual two. I think just saying she was raised by her mother and grandmother here and in the lead is sufficient.
  • Problem sentences: It was at Velfarre where Hamasaki was introduced to her future producer, Masato Matsuura.[11] Introduced to Hamasaki by a mutual friend, Matsuura offered Hamasaki a recording deal immediately after hearing her sing,... What is Velfarre - provide context for the reader, see WP:PCR. Also avoid repetition, so perhaps At Velfarre (explain this) Hamasaki was introduced by a mutual friend to her future producer, Masato Matsuura,[11] who offered her a recording deal immediately after hearing her sing,... Just one example - try to get someone to help coyedit this
  • Also try to explain jargon - the Oricon seems to be the Japanese pop music chart, but explain this early on - see WP:JARGON
  • Matsuura, however, persisted until the following year, when Hamasaki agreed and began taking vocal training.[11] Finding the instructors too rigid and the classes too dull,[11] Hamasaki skipped most of her classes. Where did she take these classes? What school / teachers?
    • Not much information (from reliable sources) is available on this; Hamasaki rarely gives details on her life prior to her musical career with Avex (I believe there are only two times when she goes into detail about her pre-Avex years, one is a TV interview and the other was a magazine interview; there are transcripts of the TV interview, but it's on a self-published site).
  • When did she get signed to Avex? We just read that she has a first single.
  • It is useful to have a model article to follow - there are a number of FA on musical groups and artists, pick one
  • Article needs more critical reception - what do critics think of her and her music?
    • As an American writing on an artist who does not have much media coverage in English-speaking countries, critical reviews are few and far between. If I am able to dig up enough material, however, should the critical reception be given its own section? Thanatous (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life section?
    • Per your suggestion to model the article after a featured article, I combined Hamasaki's personal life and music career into one section, as the articles of Celine Dion and Mariah Carey (both featured articles) do.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)

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

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

I was expecting this, a crucial part of The Simpsons' early years, to be at GA level all this time. One day last week, I went to its talk page--and my mind went something like, "Hey, why isn't this one yet?" One look at the assessment class, and you'll know why.

I'm sorry if I haven't followed Homer, Bart and company that much in ages. Don't get me wrong, I may like this show, but I have other interests in my pursuit, like The Bellflower Bunnies (whose TV show list I'm helping to improve right now through PR.)

So first and foremost, to end this request: How complete is this article?

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Ok, I'm not a regular contributor to episode articles, but I will compare this article to a recently featured TV episode The Last Temptation of Krust;

  • The lead should have about 3-4 sentences on the plot, as you would have no idea what it is if you read this lead.
  • A sentence related to reception should be included at the end of the lead.
  • Fair use rationales are very vague; you must say exactly what is being demonstrated by using an image, and why it is really important to demonstrate it.
  • There should be an image of the most significant moment in the show in the plot or production section, whichever is more appropriate.
  • The deleted scenes section should be deleted and anything useful incorporated into the production section.
  • In the cultural references section, add detail as to how people reacted to the references, whether they worked or not, that kind of thing.
  • Ask people at Wikiproject Simpsons if they can get you a few quotes from Simpsons books about the episode and how good it was or wasn't.
  • Bulk up the reception section with stuff like the DVD commentary of the episode.
  • After that, copyedit the heck out of it, take it to the league of copyeditors for help or do a peer review focusing on prose. Make sure it flows.

If you do that, I think you'll have an FA :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maitch (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I am the main author of this article and my plan was to take it to FA, but I stopped because I don't believe anymore that this can reach FA. There are simply not enough sources. I have used up everything from the commentary, looked in the most common Simpson books, and the cultural references and the reception section are still too short.

I could do some more work on it. Bulk up the lead and do something about the images. If somebody could copyedit it I would appreciate it. Then we will have a GA. --Maitch (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trogidae

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we're working on getting this article up to snuff and we'd like some input on how we're doing.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:

  • It is always useful to have a model article to work on and follow as a guide for organization and ideas on how to discuss the topic. Chrysiridia rhipheus is a recent Good Article and seems like a decent model for this one.
  • The lead should list the article name first (Trogidae) and hide beetles after, or else move the article to Hide beetles. This should be made as a redirect if the article is not moved.
  • Be consitent - is it "hide beetles" (text) or "Hide beetles" (infobox)?
  • Make sure the lead summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD. For example, the Lead mentions three genera, but the article lists five.
  • The lists of genera and species could be split off into a subarticle: List of Trogidae or perhaps List of Hide beetles
  • Since Trogidae refers to hundreds of species, shouldn't it be treated as a plural? So It is believed that Trogidae hails from Australia. should be It is believed that Trogidae hail from Australia.
  • The next sentence here reads like original research: Although migration to other parts of the world is not clearly outlined, it could be assumed that they first traveled with goods and cargo on ships. See WP:NOR
  • The article is seriously under-referenced in that there are no inline citations - I see the refs at the end, but just like a scientific paper, there should be footnotes. At a minimum, each paragraph should have a ref, as should all direct quotes, all statisctics, and any extraordinary claims. Please see WP:CITE and WP:V.
  • The article is also under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
  • Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using {{convert}}.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic entomologist

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like some feedback about our work.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: A lot of work has been done here, but much more needs to be done to clean this up to meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions:

  • I agree completely with Shyamal's comments.
  • Read about reliable sources - they need to be published, so interviews and lectures do not count
  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD to summarize the whole article. For an article this long the lead should be 2-3 paragraphs long
  • Avoid lists (Tools section), convert to prose instead.
  • Article needs many more citations - every quote, every attribution, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and any thing likely to be challenged needs cited. In general every paragraph needs at least one ref
  • Avoid needless repetition - Dr. Jeffrey Tomberlin is described at least twice. Also is he an an Assistant Professor or a Professor (called both - there is a big difference).
  • Get rid of the conclusion section, it is not encyclopedic.
  • The tone needs to be encylcopedic - this is not a term paper, and people found in the hallways that you could ask about this profession are no substitute for library work and relaible published sources.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposition

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we want to get this article as great as it can be.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I believe the scope is too narrow. Decomposition is not just limited to the body of a formerly living organism. Organic chemicals can decompose too, and from many of the same causes. For another example of a broader scope definition, the Decomposition (disambiguation) page says Decomposition is the biological process through which organic material is reduced. Looking at a previous version of this page, the lead used to read Decomposition (or spoilage) is a phenomenon common in the sciences of biology and chemistry. In biology, decomposition refers to the reduction of the body of a formerly living organism into simpler forms of matter. In chemistry it refers to the breaking down of a large molecule into smaller molecules or atoms and is referred to as chemical decomposition. which seems much more comprehensive and encyclopedic. While there is an article on chemical decomposition, it is about the chemical process, often used in analysis.

In any case, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead needs to be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs and should summarize the whole article. See WP:LEAD
  • Headers should not repeat the name of the article unless absolutely required so "Human" (not "Human decompostion") etc.
  • The whole article has only TWO inline citations (references). Each quotation, each statistic, each attribution, anything likely to be challenged, and at a minimum, each paragraph needs a reference. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I note later on there is a different style ref using parenthesis (author name, date) - all refs should be consistent in format.
  • Think about the organization - humans are treated first, then plants, then animals (although animals inlcude humans). Then under animals, there are sections on "Embalming" (which is mostly done on humans, and lists all human examples) and "Importance to forensics" (also all human examples).
  • It is usually better to go from generalities to specifics - so the "Process" and "Factors" sections are towards the end, but introduce usueful generalities.
  • Also be careful about contradictory statements - first the article states ...a body submersed in water decomposes at half the rate of an exposed body. However the next sentence is more accurate and says The rate of decomposition depends on the temperature of the water. then points out it can be faster at higher temperatures and slower at lower temps.
  • Science Direct is a content provider, not itself a publisher of scientific articles. Cite the journal article, not the online means of accessing it.
  • Units should be both metric and English - the {{convert}} template is useful here.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic entomology and society

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like as much input about this article as possible.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: On reading this article it fails in my opinion to address the title, and seems to me to be a candidate for merger with the existing Forensic entomology article? How is this article different from the Forensic entomology article?

  • The lack of any mention of the word "society" in the lead seems odd.
  • The title should be repeated in the first sentence in the lead in bold, and should not be wikilinked. The current lead needs to summarize the entire article and should be 2-3 paragraphs long. See WP:LEAD
  • Put information in context for the reader - see WP:PCR For example, nowhere do you mention that Sung Tz’u is a Chinese scholar.
  • I fail to see the relevance of Italian physician Francesco Redi disproved the theory of "spontaneous generation",.. to the article. Sure it is very relevant to biology and to entomology, but how is it an example of forensic entomology - what crime or investigation was involved? If all that is needed for relavence are insects, then you might as well mention the maggots in corpses after some historical battles or fleas and the Black Death.
  • References need to immediately follow punctuation or other refs - no spaces between please. See WP:CITE
  • The relevance of most of your examples in the "Popular scientific and fictional literature in the 19th and early 20th centuries" (section title way too long) also escapes me.
  • I would use the cite templates for consistentency in the references - see {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}, for examples.

Hope this helps, I am going to add a suggested merge to tag to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patient and mortuary neglect

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we were up for deletion, and we want to improve this as much as possible.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfsich comments: Congratulations on not being deleted. This article needs many changes to more closely follow the Manual of Style, here are some suggestions.

  • This completely lacking a lead section (it would come before "Definition"). The lead should summarize the article - see WP:LEAD.
  • The title should be in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.
  • The title includes "Patient neglect" but the article says very little about this topic, and frankly this seems like two separate topics forced together by an unfortunate choice or article title - why not split these into two articles and keep this one as Mortuary neglect?
  • This article has zero inline references and really needs them, think of them like footnotes in an academic paper. See WP:CITE
  • Any chance for some images?
  • The article has several very short sections (only one sentence in at least three cases) and is choppy and does not flow. Try expanding them or combining them.
  • Since this article is referring to human cadavers (corpses), the use of the word "carcasses" seems inappropriate - how would you feel if you went to a relative's funeral and someone referred to your relative's carcass?
  • Remember that in some ways you are telling a story - the section "Washington v. John T. Rhines Co." does not tell what ultimately happened in the court case or where it was or why it is important to this article (presumably there have been many lawsuits against mortuaries since 1990). Try to answer who, what, why, where, when, and how for all such stories and provide context for the reader.
  • The article needs lots more work, but these are the major points - fix these and then worry about the more minor details.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blow-fly

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like as much input as possible.

Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:

  • It is always useful to have a model article to work on and follow as a guide for organization and ideas on how to discuss the topic. Chrysiridia rhipheus is a recent Good Article and seems like a decent model for this one.
  • Make sure the lead summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD, for example there is no mention of the list of species in North America in the lead.
  • Also make sure the lead has no material not elsewhere in the article (Shakespeare does not seem to be listed again).
  • The article is seriously under-referenced. For example the whole Diversity section does not have a single reference. At a minimum, each paragraph should have a ref, as should all direct quotes, all statisctics, and any extraordinary claims. Please see WP:CITE.
  • The article is also under-linked and needs many more wikilinks.
  • Per the MOS, units should be in both metric and English units (not just mm). Try using {{convert}}.
  • Avoid jargon or explain it better.
  • Nice pictures
  • Try to avoid really short sections like the one sentence "Disease" section "Adults may vector pathogens of diseases such as dysentery."
  • The "Identification" section should be in the references
  • Use references and not direct external links in the text. For example, To view actual cases where maggot therapy is used go to: http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/som/pathology/sherman/cases.htm, or the four links at the end of "Characteristics"
  • Generally good job providing context and explaining jargon - makes it easier for the average reader - thanks.
  • Reliable sources need to be published in some form - ref 1 appears to be lecture notes from a class (for which this article is being written) and does not seem to be reliable. You could reference the textbook (if you have one)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EarthBound

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten 90% of it and want to take it to FA. I believe the sections that need probing are:

  • The Gameplay section, need to make sure everything is covered and easily understandable.
  • The Characters section, need to make sure it flows and is informative, not a hinderance.
  • The Story section, does it flow alright? Is it truthful? I might have gotten some of the plot mixed up.

Anyway, thanks for the help : ) -- Noj r (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be honest, it looks very strong in its current incarnation. You might want to switch out the reviews template with the standard video game reviews template, and also write much more specific fair use rationales. For example. instead of "This illustrates the subject", what does it illustrate? What is it being used for? Other than that, consider yourself pretty much set. Give it a copyedit, and give it a try! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert on games articles, but this needs a copyedit. For example, in the lead Buzz Buzz proceeds to tell Ness that an evil alien, named Giygas, has overtaken the world in the future and that Ness must undertake a journey to prevent this event. but "overtaken" does not mean the same thing as "taken over". Or this Throughout the game, four characters come to compose the party in the game; Ness, Paula, Jeff, and Poo. Or this Development on EarthBound took place as a joint effort between Ape, Inc. and HAL Laboratory, Inc. and was designed by Shigesato Itoi. I think this means the game was designed by Itoi, but the subject of the sentence is "Development" so it could be read that the development was designed by Itoi. There are other places that need some polish throughout the article. Since one of the FA criteria is writing approaching brilliant prose, this is something to fix. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.


says Mistletoe Bellflower (to quote an actual line). And I hope it is--one of the most unexpected labours of love I have ever pursued in my WP career.

By the way, I am a little ashamed to find that, when it comes to TV toon lists, it's all anime, action, and Simpsons. Till now, no one has ever taken the opportunity to manage one from a children's Western world franchise. In this case, a French/Canadian co-production whose existence almost no one in North America knows of.

The way I've been at it for the past Easter weekend, it's been really hard--and I've worked really hard. So many of the episode summaries are either in French, the show's original language, or in German (from the descriptions and stills at KI.KA's list). Those, and Google's Translator service, give me clues as to what's in each episode.

If some fan from Europe or Quebec can help me correct (and improve) the episode descriptions, I'll be glad to assist.

With this list, I've (un)officially set a record for reference count on any page I've done (or started): a whopping 97, including 2 notes!

How well have I done so far? I'm looking forward to suggestions, and FL candidacy come one or two weeks.

Appropriately enough, have a happy (belated) Easter from Beechwood Grove! Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes/archive1.

Entomotoxicology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we think it may be a bit too technical, and we're trying to make it more accessible.


Thanks, ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Go with WP:HEAD for headings, don't overcapitalise = "Limitations in the Field of Entomotoxicology" - "Limitations" will suffice.
  • Per the comment above, there are a number of "in the know" phrases used which need to be explained or wikilinked.
  • Use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} for the references, not the manual superscripted refs you have now.
  • "-20°C to 4°C " - use {{convert}} for Imperial measures to be included.
  • "1-10 " use en-dash.
  • "70% HNO3" explain. Not everyone will know you're talking about nitric acid...
  • Any images you could add? It's quite dry at the moment.
  • "Wilson et al.[10]" - what does this "sentence" mean?
  • "Entomological specimens make for excellent qualitative toxicological specimens. " says who?
  • en-dash should be used in page ranges in the references.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from karanacs
  • I added a few citation needed tags
  • Overall, the article looks pretty good. I know very little about the field, but I could see room for expansion in the section on effects of toxins on arthropods and the sections on techniques. There is also no information about how accepted these techniques are in the legal arena or how broad the field is around the world.

Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entomology and the law

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The Entomology and the Law article was created as part of a Texas A&M University class project. We would like to get some feedback about the quality of the article, any other sources we should consider adding information from, or any stylistic tips to make this a better article. Any feedback is welcome! Thanks so much! Kayla foster (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Entomology and the law/archive1.

Justin Tuck

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been putting in some serious elbow grease in improving this article. I'd like to improve it and hopefully make it a GA.


Thanks, Endless Dan 13:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Dan, some comments which may help on your quest for GA.

  • Expand the lead. You currently have one very short para about him and then another single-sentence paragraph which isn't about him at all. Check out WP:LEAD to see what should go in there.Done
  • The image caption is a fragment so it doesn't need a full stop.Done
  • "(2005-present)" in the infobox should use the en-dash to separate the dates, so it'll end up being 2005–present.Done
  • "His cousin Adalius Thomas plays for the New England Patriots.[2][3][4]" shouldn't be in the lead and why does it need three refs?
All those refs are also used for different statements found in the article so I figured it would do no harm to source it more then once. Smoke em if ya got em.
  • Lots of American football jargon in the "Central Coosa County High" section. Need to explain or wikilink. Done
  • Numbers below 10 should be written out in words. Done
  • Move references to the right place per WP:CITE, e.g. [6] is just before a comma when it should be just after the comma. Done
  • Giants season sections are really short. Either expand or merge. Done
Tried to satisfy this the best I can. He is a back-up player and was injured for a third of his career. I merged 05 & 06 and expanding the 07 section the best I can. I hope this is okay.
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and citations! Done - I believe I got em all.
  • Personal Life section should be Personal life (lower case L) Done and should be prose, not bullet point trivia list. Done
I added most of the personal life section to the opener and to the Super Bowl sections.

Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas de Rossy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs as much comment as possible (even from the bot) before proceeding any further. Prose is the likeliest thing to be an issue, but there is also a need to obtain some comments as to what background info would be most necessary. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comments from Ealdgyth' Whee! Another obscure Scottish bishop, to go with my obscure Anglo-Norman bishop!

  • You know my strengths aren't copyediting, so while I'll point out things I see, don't consider it copyedited completely, because I have a tendancy towards wordiness in my prose.
  • Early years section, the first paragraph, second sentence. Might consider reworking this sentence to something like "His name indicates his family came from a place named Rossie, but..."
  • The sudden introduction of "Papal Bull" in the second paragraph is jarring if folks don't realize that any papal communication could be called a bull. Most folks won't realize this, you might introduce it in the previous sentence.
  • Consider merging the two paragraphs in Early years, they fit together, and the current break is arbitrary seeming to me.
  • Pre-episcopal career, first sentence the second phrase seems badly connected to the first part of the sentence. Was he making a payment for Patrick or was he making it on his own behalf?
  • Consider switching the sentences in the first paragraph of Becoming Bishop section, that way the bit about him being provisionally provided to the see is next to the bit about why he was provisionally provided and not just straight out provided.
  • Same section, last sentence is awkward. Perhaps "The cancellation of Oswald's appointment does not appear to have silenced him, for he later appears in England, a kingdom that supported Urban VIII."
  • Consider giving the year on some of the dates in Bishop of Galloway, just to make things clear to readers.

Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is not enough evidence..." sentence should be altered, although it's hard for me to know what to alter it to without knowing more details about the evidence in question. But if the evidence contradicts itself, or is from unreliable sources, or both, then it would make sense to indicate that. John Carter (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to propose it for featured article. The article reveals the rich collection of all silver and gold Austrian euro coins, including the world famous Vienna Philharmonic coin.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to begin this review by pointing out that the lead consists entirely of sentences stating what the article is not, which is not really what the lead is for, but upon doing a little research, I found a far worse problem. The descriptive texts for each and every coin in this article (at least, for every one that has any description) are direct word-for-word copies of the material located at the Austrian Mint website, linked as a reference for each coin. That makes the overwhelming bulk of this article a copyright violation. This is a candidate for deletion, not featured article. --Ig8887 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landing at Kip's Bay

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The primary reason I would like this page reviewed is for my in-line citation style to be assessed. I wrote this B-classish article using four references, and am using a separate "References" section from the "Notes". I have only done the first section, and as it takes a bit of time, I don't want to do the rest if other editors seem to think it should be done in a different way. Anyway, let me know what you think about this - too much? Just right? Feel free to give general comments on the article, too! Tan | 39 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kevin Myers (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Your citation style is just right. You're using the Chicago style, which is best when using just a handful of sources and a lot of notes, and you use footnotes at appropriate places. The "p." is now optional in the Chicago style, by the way, since the last number is always understood to be a page number. If you decide to keep the "p.", use "pp." (the plural of "p.") for citing multiple pages, such as: McCullough, 1776, pp. 203–04. As you can see from my example, technically, an "en dash" goes between the page numbers, and you can drop the first digit of the second number when it is understood. All of these are nitpicky things not many people will worry about, but you asked!

More importantly, the article itself: the "Background" section of the article, which is the section you've footnoted, is really good stuff. You've managed to juggle the various events, including the Staten Island conference, quite well with good, clear prose. As you develop the article, we need a bit more insight into General William Howe's strategic thinking here. His fatal error at Kip's Bay, in the opinion of someone like Ferling in Almost a Miracle, is that he waited too long to land and lost his last real chance of crushing the American army outright. So we need more on this; Gruber's The Howe Brothers in the American Revolution would be of use to develop the British point of view. Good job—I look forward to reading more of your work. —Kevin Myers 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! The nitpicky stuff is great. Much better than learning that my entire style is terrible. I completely agree with your thoughts on British strategy; in fact, I had a small section written for this and deleted it for lack of clarity and pretty bad prose. There's two major things missing from the article right now - Howe's delay due to well, lethargy and the Staten Island conference, and the probably apocryphal story of why Clinton stopped at Inclenberg instead of cutting off the island east/west - the Ms. Murray story.
If you look at the talk page of the article, I have an image discussion going. I have almost no experience with using images that I didn't create, and absolutely no experience with trying to find images for a long-past historical event. If anyone could shed some light or know-how onto this for me, I'd really appreciate it. Tan | 39 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hello everyone!

This article, about an Indian actress, is already a GA. It has had a long history on WP. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, I believe the article would benefit with a broader perspective and more comments from editors before taking it to FAC again. In order to make it a better qualified FAC, I would like to know what your opinion of the article is, and if there are any suggestions to improve it and take it a few steps further.

I'll be watching this page, and waiting for any suggestions, ideas and comments.

Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why one of the images isn't used in the lead? Please be sure to have Elcobbola (talk · contribs) check the images before you come to FAC, and ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to do a final MoS check; there are quite a few MoS issues. Getting those issues out of the way pre-FAC will smooth the way. There are errors in logical punctuation: Epbr will pick those up if you don't get them all. There are also WP:MOS#Ellipses problems. The sourcing looks good; remember though that The New York Times is italicized, like all journals, magazines and newspapers. And I hit dead links on indiantelevision.com, so you'd best review those. The prose could be tighter, so you might to find a word nerd to go through, samples only:

  • The column turned out to be a success, and became one of the site's top 10 most widely read stories on the day.
    • The column was a success, become one of the site's top 10 in readership.
  • ... identifies herself as not being of a particularly religious nature.
    • ... self identifies as not being particularly religious.

It's close, but needs a few more eyes to tighten up the prose and correct the MoS issues. Good luck; hope to see you soon at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, thanks for commenting! I will try and address all your concerns. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nebular hypothesis

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly expanded recently. I invite any kinds of commments about this article.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RJHall

[edit]
  • Per the MoS, could you give an estimate of "the short time scale"?
  • It was pointed out to me that not everybody would know what "of the order of" means.
  • "It should be noted that a T Tauri star is a young solar mass star with hightened levels of stellar activity." Can't they be up to two solar masses? Shouldn't the text also mention the other cases?
  • I'm unclear about the relevance of the paragraph that begins, "Recent analysis of the composition of eight meteorites...". Perhaps that should be on the Solar System page?
  • This seems odd: Hr=(M/3M)1/3. Don't the M's cancel out? Probably should be (m/3M)1/3 I think.
  • A few more images would be beneficial.

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed these issues. Ruslik (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber

[edit]
  • OK, I am not clear whether this is still the currently most-accepted model from the lead. If so then: this method of planetary system formation was subsequently thought to be at work throughout the universe. - needs to be in the present tense. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..into even denser clumps. --> "into smaller and denser clumps." - 'even' doesn't really gel here as the clouds aren't dense to begin with.
  • Actually scrub that as this needs to be rewritten. From the next sentence I gather the clumps are within the clouds, whereas the original sentence suggests the GMC fragments into clumps, in which case try "Such clouds are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within. These then (proceed to) collapse and form stars." - does that flow better? bracketed bit optional
  • complicated multistage process - why not just complex process?
  • Shouldn't the star formation box be up at the top right?
  • where the number density of planetesimals is sufficiently high - does this mean density or number? - if former, remove 'number' , if latter say 'where the planetesimals are numerous enough' or somesuch.
I meant here the number of planetesimals per a unit of volume, like particle number density. The density of planetesimals would mean their physical density. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the later stage the growth slows - why note 'Growth later slows..'
  • The main problem is the mechanism of angular momentum transport from the inner to the outer part of the disk, which is necessary for efficient accretion by the protostar. - umm, this needs to be in plainer english or explained a little
  • As the envelope's material infalls onto the disk - infalls is ungainly. Try 'falls' or 'settles' or somesuch.
What is wrong with this word? It is widely used in scientific literature. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy if you feel strongly about it and there is something about the word that conveys something not included in the mere 'falls'. It just sounds odd to my ears. Nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event, which can be called the birth of a new star, happens... - can this just be "This birth of a new star occurs..." ?
  • In para 4 of Protostars you mention T Tauri 9 times (!). If you can reduce the repetition without losing meaning it would scan better. If this is impossible don't worry.
  • vicious dissipation - viscous dissipation??
  • 'The formation of giant planets is an outstanding problem.. - outstanding generally means 'great' now in regular English. I know what you mean here but the meaning of the adjective has changed such that it looks odd. if you can think of another it'd be helpful.
I meant somethink like 'outstanding debt' here. I have not known that it means 'great':). Ruslik (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A final note - the prose is not looking too bad. What you need to do most is check repetition. glazing my eyes and scanning over the article I can see many nouns, verbs and adjectives repeated often. Much of the time this is necessary without introducing ambiguity in meaning. However, I think some can be addressed. Scan over the text and whereever you see the same word repeated in consecutive sentences, see if it can be replaced with a pronoun or somehow removed. Many times this won't be possible but it may be in some cases (see T Tauri as an example). It iwll make the text more readable.

I also am not much into See Also sections, but its a personal choice really. Good luck Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CrazyChemGuy

[edit]
  • I think the history section could be expanded. It describes when the hypothesis was first conceived, but doesn't really talk about it after the 18th century or describe how it became adapted to use outside of our own solar system.
I have expanded History section. Ruslik (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section on this article seems quite long and has information that can't be found elsewhere in the article - I really don't think there's anything wrong with it, and it fits with WP:LEAD, but do you think it may be beneficial to move some of its content to the body of the article- for example, the information about the formation of giant planets could have a summary in the lead section and a somewhat expanded version of what is there now as it's own section in the article?
Could you be more specific? I tried to avoid mentioning anything that is not the main text. Ruslik (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this may sound dumb, but in trying to figure out what I had in mind writing that comment, I beleive I got my tabs mixed up in firefox - I beleive I wrote that comment about an earlier version I was viewing, from 9 April. I'm really sorry about that - I don't see the information left out of the giant planet section anymore CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given the length of the protoplanetary disks section compared to the Protoplanetary disk article itself, you may (or may not, I don't actually know) want to consider moving or copying some content from the former to the latter. There is a lot of detail about proplyd formation in the nebular hypothesis article that can't be found in protoplanetary disk.
I may do this in future. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done quite a job working on this article. Thanks for your hard work! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody. I am going to nominate the article (FAC) now. Ruslik (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crabble Stadium

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A bit too slender for FA but I'm thinking GA's worth a punt. Let me know what you think......

Thanks for your time, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As some of the sections are only a couple of sentences long, they might be better off merged, Future and Other uses to History, and Transport to Structure and Facilities.
  • Perhaps the sums of money could have a modern equivalent value given.
  • The "upper pitch" and "lower pitch" could do with some more explanation.
  • sent a team down is a bit too informal.
  • Make it explicit that the condition of the ground was the reason the club were not promoted to the Conference in 1990.
  • Another possible source you could use is The History of Non-league Football Grounds by Kerry Miller. It might be worth asking fr:Utilisateur:Clio64 about it, who has a copy according to fr:Utilisateur:Clio64/bibliothèque. As an aside, if you do this you'll probably find single user login useful.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, and going to the Cricinfo ref, I understand that two grounds are adjacent, a football ground and cricket ground. This is presumably the "upper pitch" and "lower pitch". The cricket ground lacks an article, but if I'm reading it correctly it is this ground the first paragraph is talking about, not the current football ground. This is a source of confusion. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think I've actioned all the points above. I've put in a chunk of stuff which (I hope) makes the upper pitch/lower pitch issue much clearer......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I realise a substantial chunk of the first paragraph technically talks about a ground other than the one which is the subject of the article, but I think it's necessary background/context..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've contacted the French user too, using my best schoolboy French ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Edgar Allan Poe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hoping this can get up to Featured Article status. Hoping for commentary specifically relating to breadth, NPOV (especially in Credibility of Moran and Character assassination sections), excessive wordiness, weasel terms (some seem necessary considering the mysterious nature of the topic, but I'm sure this area needs improvement) and anything else a reviewer can offer. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "is clouded in mystery" - a little weasel.
  • "this interpretation had lasting impact." this isn't cited, unlike a number of other claims in the lead.
  • You should use the upright parameter portrait formated images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • "...out of character." "out of character for Poe."?
  • "Perhaps the best witness..." not particularly encyclopaedic.
  • Expand on the rabies evidence.
  • Don't like the positioning of the Poe template. I'd move it up to near the top and move the wikisource template into the See also section.

Very good article though. Shouldn't be too much of a push at WP:FAC! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had some discussions about that opening line before. Any suggestions? I'll look into your other suggestions as well. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree this is a very well done article and needs little work for FAC. Here are three suggestions:

1) For the opening line I have two ideas. The first is a tweak of the current line:

The circumstances leading up to the death of Edgar Allan Poe on October 7, 1849 are uncertain and the cause of death is disputed.

The second idea is to use a quotation from a reliable source on Poes death, so assuming "has remained mysterious" was a direct quote, it would be:

The death of Edgar Allan Poe on October 7, 1849 "has remained mysterious":[1] the circumstances leading up to it are uncertain and the cause of death is disputed.

2) I would mention his wife's name in the lead (since his mother's name is already mentioned)

3) Is there any way some of the symptoms for the most likely proposed causes of death could be given? A sentence or two on the symptoms of the major proposed causes with "this would explain (or "be consistent with") his X and Y, but not his Z." I am afraid I am not being very clear on this, ask if you want me to try and explain it better. Overall well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line is going to take some serious work, methinks. I've added Virginia's name to the lede but it may take some time to provide symptoms of some of the death theories. They may border on original research unless I can find some serious studies rather than just cursory lists (which is how I often see it). Not a bad idea, though! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seemed to recall reading articles of this type (we think X died of Y) where they went into the symptoms that matched and those that did not - assumed it would be available here, but if it is not, it is not. Glad the review was helpful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LSWR N15 class

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is on the way to becoming an FA. It has reached GA standard, and some tweaks have been made in an effort to improve the article further.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article and already in very good shape (so I don't have a lot of suggestions). Here's some hopefully helpful ideas:

  • Provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Some phrases need more clarification / context for the average reader. Example from the lead: Following the Grouping of 1923,...
  • This Grouping is also not mentioned as such again in the text, but by WP:LEAD everything in the lead should also be in the body of the article.
  • My rule of thumb is that anything which is a named section in the article should be mentioned in the lead, even if only a word or phrase. So Scotch Arthurs and Livery and numbering do not seem to be in the Lead now.
  • Per the MOS, "The" should not be in section headers unless absolutely required - so "Urie N15s" and "Scotch Arthurs".
  • Some terms could be linked that are not now, for example Gawain (Gawain and the Green Knight was on the Main Page as an FA earlier this month). Also any chance of explaining who Sir Lamiel was in Arthurian legend?
  • For FA all units will have be in both English and metric units - {{convert}} may be useful here.
  • Refs seem fine except I don't understand the ordering in the References section (Abcs are out of alphabetical order by author's last name?). Also be consistent on the title - in the refs current ref 25 is ""Abc of British Railways Locomotives, winter 1958–59 edition". Ian Allan." but the References section lists it as "Ian Allan ABC of British Railways Locomotives, winter 1958–59 edition (Ian Allan: Hinckley)"

Hope this helps, and thanks for an interesting read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the list of locomotives links the names, it does not have be linked here. I still think that a sentence or phrase identifying Lamiel would be useful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at it again and it has been improved. I made a few copyedits - one was what seemed to be a broken ref tag, so please check that I fixed it correctly. I have three final suggestions: 1) since there is an article on Sir Lamiel (the engine and the knight) I would still link the first occurence in the text. 2) For FAC they will want a nonbreaking space, ( &nbsp; )between units and numbers (or use of convert, which also fixes this). 3) I did not see any changes to the refs - there is still an inconsistency on the Abc ref title. Hope this helps, and let me know when this is at FAC Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments have been dealt with. More are welcome.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to FA status, and to do that, I have to edit it enough to get it up to GA, and I need to know where to start.


Thanks, Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roman Catholic Church

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone two passes through FAC and needs a fresh perspective.

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Homeschooling

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has seen very considerably good improvements within the last month since it was selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling Collaboration of the Month. Previously, it had some problems with NPOV in the last peer review. Also the article was previously too focused on the United States. I think both of these problems have been fixed, and I plan on nominating it as a good article very soon. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to improve the cites. Cite 37 should have CIA in the publisher parameter (i.e. you need to use the cite web template. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Given the backlog at WP:GAN, you are probably OK nominating it there now. I will try to review this later today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The lead reads like the introduction, when it should be a summary of the whole article. I always try to make sure every header is somehow mentioned in the lead, even if it is just a word or phrase. For example, there seems to be no mention of History in the lead, nor of the many countries listed in the TOC. See WP:LEAD
  2. Per WP:HEAD, please do not use an ameprsand & in a header (so "Raymond and Dorothy Moore"), and please do not repeat the name of the article (so just plain "Criticism" not "Criticism of homeschooling ").
  3. The current lead reads very much like original research in the "why people home school" part - all of these will need citations from reliable sources once it is in the body of the article (have not yet read the whole article - apologies if it is already in and cited). See WP:CITE and WP:RS
  4. History section - one sentence on the introduction of compulsory education in Germany in the 17th and 18th centuries, then two large subsections on American educators and the homeschooling movement in the US. Unless the article title is changed to Homeschooling in the US, this is very POV and not at all comprehensive. Since WP:WIAGA requires WP:NPOV and broad coverage, this will fail GAN unless fixed.
  5. Here is the "pipe trick" to get only "John Holt" to display in a wikilink type this: [[John Holt (educator)|]] and what you get is John Holt, or you can type it in full too: >[[John Holt (educator)|John Holt]].
  6. Keep focused on the topic at hand - why in an article on homeschooling do we need to John Holt was a former submariner?
  7. Try to keep the tone of writing neutral and encyclopedic, so It was no great leap from there to arrive at homeschooling, and Holt later said, in 1980,... could be something like He soon embraced homeschooling and in 1980 said...
  8. Sentence about Holt's last book needs a ref
  9. Don't link words in headers either, and "DACH" is not an acronym I knew (and I speak German and have lived in Germany). Spell it out and provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR
  10. Avoid contractions except in direct quotes Parents violating the law have most prominently included devout Christians who want to give their children a more Christian education than what's offered by the schools.
  11. See WP:WEIGHT - this is an article that tries to be about the whole world, but look at the US section size compared to every other country. Also look at nearly all of the examples in every other section, all US.
  12. Avoid needless repetition - there is already a Cost to families section, so why also a Finacial obligations section that mostly repeats the same information?
  13. References to the internet should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. Consider using {{cite web}} and the other cite templates (cite book, cite journal, cite news, etc.)

While a lot of work has gone into this, it needs a lot more work to get to GA status. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I switched from bullets to numbers as requested - I am fine with replies between by points if that is what you like. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I also added tags to the article related to what you noticed and I've made some of the basic changes that you suggested. Hope you don't mind. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The main difficulty that this article has is that it feels as though it bears underlying webs of POV, which can be seen in the John Holt section, and accentuated by need of citations. Much of this can be cleaned up just by changing the wording in areas. The stilted delivery of the introduction paragraph needs some work to help with flow, and the International status section needs sources as well. The countries listed have so little written about them that it seems as though they are a list. While some of this could be left alone for now, the POV issues and 'essay' feel are what really need to be worked on. In my opinion, it's still a start-class article, though B-class isn't too far away for it. FusionMix 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia, Missouri

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very close to FA status. It is currently a Good Article, and has been reviewed for Wikipedia:MOS. What it needs most now is a fresh eye to take a look at it for neutrality, conciseness, and any gaps in information.

Thanks, Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While there has clearly been a lot of work done on this article, I do not think it is that close to FA yet. I will try to make some very detailed comments, these are examples so look for similar issues throughout the article. Also some will be pretty nit-picky.

  • It is always useful to have a model article to follow for issues of structure, weight, etc. There are several FAs on cities, so pick one or more and see how they compare to this.
  • In the Infobox can "nickname" be made plural (as there are three)? I also note "CoMo" is not referenced anywhere.
  • All three nicknames are only in the infobox and lead - per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article and not contain anything not also in the body of the article.
  • Back to the Infobox, the locator maps are the county and state (l to r), but the caption is state, then county, which could be confusing for those unfamiliar with Missouri
  • Infobox for council has "List of council people" but it is not a link - better to leave it blank
  • On to the lead - be consistent. Is is the largest city in mid-Missouri.[7] (1st paragraph) but a region known as "Mid-Missouri". (3rd paragraph). Quotes or not? Capital Mid or not? Why repeat this tidbit twice in the lead (where space is at a premium) anyway?
  • Also per WP:LEAD I try to make sure at least every section or subsection is mentioned in the lead - so where are Transportation and Sports (as examples)?
  • When it says Over half the population of Columbia possesses a bachelor's degree[13] and over a quarter has graduate degrees,[14]... that means over 25% of the population has more than one graduate degree, which seems unlikely. I think "has a graduate degree" is what is meant (and is a better parallel construction too).
  • Per WP:IMAGES please do not set the pixel size of images (let reader preferences kick in) and avoid wedging text between two images.
  • I thnk this needs a copyedit - some short, choppy sentences impede flow. Look at the start of History - no dates at all for two sentences (provide context for the reader, WP:PCR), then lots on Daniel Boone, his family salt lick and trail, but the connection to Columbia could be made much clearer. Link or define streams with unusual names (Flat Branch).
  • Some sentences picked at semi-random: Events in the 20th Century caused Columbia's distinction as an educational center to rise even further. It became home to the headquarters of both the University of Missouri System which today serves about 70,000 students and the Columbia College system which today serves about 25,000 students. The insurance industry also became important to the local economy as several established headquarters in Columbia, including Shelter Insurance, Missouri Employers Mutual, and Columbia Insurance Group. First sentence is POV and unreferenced. Second sentence is quite long and needs some commas (or rewritten) and gives no dates (remember this is history). Third sentence missing a word "as several [ ] established.." - the subject is the insurance industry, which there is one of in the US, so this needs to be "several companies established". Also no dates here. How about something like In the 20th century, Columbia became the headquarters of both the the University of Missouri (UM) and Columbia College systems. The UM System was created in 1963 and has 70,000 students as of 2008, while Columbia College expanded in 1973 to serve military bases and today has nearly 25,000 students...?
  • Rabbits are not rodents Eastern Gray Squirrel,[50] Cottontail rabbit, and other rodents are abundant,...
  • OK, more general comments now - have both metric and English units (km as well as miles, for example). {{convert}} is useful here.
  • Demography - I usually see this called Demographics

Hope this helps, perhaps ask for a copyedit from the WP:LOCE Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington Redskins players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed List of Washington Redskins players for peer review for a third time because I finally think its near/ready for a Featured List nomination. Please let me know of any comments, critiques, or criticisms you may have.

Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks pretty good, here are some suggestions for improvement for FLC.

  • I would make clear in the first sentence that the earlier teams are predecessors - provide context for the reader right away - see WP:PCR, perhaps This is a list of American football players who have played for the Washington Redskins, as well as its predecessors the Boston Braves (1932) and Boston Redskins (1933–1936), in the National Football League (NFL).
  • It includes players that have played at least five matches ... - why matches and not games?
  • I would make the notes a, b, c, d and not i, ii, iii, iv. The i looks like a 1 as a note.
  • Tweak sentence to something like In addition, the Heisman Trophy sculpture was modeled after Ed Smith in 1934 and he became a Redskins player in 1936.[8]
  • I like the background color scheme - is there a list of 70 Greatest Redskins Players to link to?
  • I use IE 7 and the pictures often seem slightly too wide - for example A and B have the pics first, with white space to the left, then the A and B lists after. Narrower pics work - so for C the pic of Laveranues Coles is the first to fit beside the table and the rest follow it. The C pictures before this do not fit and have white space beside them.
How would I go about fixing that? I use firefox So I cant see the problems.
I imagine it has something to do with the image widths - perhaps set the widths narrower? Could also ask at the Village Pump technical. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Jwalte04 (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some entries with no jersey number have a "–" like Benny LaPresta, others are blank like Dan Lewis. Be consistent.
As explained in one of the notes, The Skins didn't use numbers until the 1937 season. I used the "–" for players that played before '37, While the blanks are just players that I haven't numbers for yet. If anyone has a source for numbers for former players, I would much appreciate it.
I saw the note about numbers before 1937, but there was no explanation of blanks. Perhaps explain that in the notes too, or maybe replace the blank with a "?" or some other symbol. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason the tables are not sortable?
I thought that since the letters aren't connected, making it sortable would be useless. There would be no point to being able to sort the players by "games played" if its already/exclusively sorted by letters.
OK< I just thought if someone wanted all the RBs with last name starting with M, for example... Your call Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there are some articles that could be listed under a See also section?
All the articles that I felt would be appropriate in See Also section were already present on the Redskins template.
OK Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed that there seem to be no red links, nice job and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the tips, they were exactly what I was looking for! I would appreciate anymore that anyone has to give. Jwalte04 (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied above Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocobo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is really terrible, and I have no idea how to get it to GA. Shower me in critiques! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I would not say it is really terrible, just needs a lot of work. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is always useful when trying to improve - WikiProjects list their FAs and GAs in their Assessment sections, so I looked and found Pikachu is a video game character GA (not sure, but it looks like there are no such FAs). There are a lot of video game GAs, so I imagine there are other such model articles out there.
  • Most of the Final Fantasy articles are FA, so they should have some reliable sources in them to use here.
  • While some effort is made to write from an out of universe perspective, be extra careful to do so all of the time. See WP:IN-U
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article and give about the same weight to each topic as the article does - there are 10 sections on Chocobo spin off games, but only one short sentence on them in the lead. See WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT
  • Make sure to avoid jargon or at least explain it for the uninitiated reader, see WP:JARGON
  • For GA this will need many more references. Any direct quote needs a cite, as does any place where information is attributed to someone, as do any sort of statistics and dates, as do any extraordinary claims. As a rule of thumb there should be at least one cite per paragraph - currently many paragraphs and whole sections have no citations. See WP:CITE
  • There are at least four sections that are only one sentence long and need to be either expanded or combined with other short sections.
  • Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and access date. While many of the refs meet this, several do not. I am also not sure all of the refs used meet WP:RS, I am not a game expert.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Murano

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would appreciate a copy-edit and feedback on how the article can be expanded.

Thanks, BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Even for GA I'd expand the lead.
  • Add 1959 births and living people to the categories you've got.
  • "due to her limited budget, enrolled at Miami Dade College, a nearby junior college." why is that logical? What's wrong with that college that means limited budget would send you there?
  • "master's" - link it.
  • "She would serve " She served...
  • Ref 9 needs to be fixed.

That's about it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of India

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have edited this article significantly and requesting feedback and identify areas that can be improved.

Thanks, Sumanch (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, clear that a lot of effort has been put into it, here are some suggestions for improvement (and more work ;-) ):

  • Expand the lead to summarize the whole article per WP:LEAD
  • Put references after punctuation, so in the lead It is the longest written constitution of any independent nation in the world,[3]...
  • Avoid or define jargon - not everyone will know what "scheduled classes" are, for example. See WP:JARGON
  • Wikilink full dates (day, month, year).
  • Which year did the Assembly first meet - article says both 1947 and 1946 (and only really needs to say this in one place - avoid repetition)
  • There are whole paragraphs and even whole sections without references ("The Constituent Assembly" section and the paragraphs before and after it, for example, or the whole "Influence of Other Constitutions" section - see WP:CITE
  • Images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to be followed, see WP:IMAGE
  • "Influence of Other Constitutions" is a list - could it be made into text form? Lists in an article are generally discouraged.
  • There is a lot on the Preamble, some on Amendments and very little on the Parts and Schedules of the Constitution, besides a list. Since this is an article on the whole constitution, there should be some discussion of each of these - see WP:Summary Style and WP:WEIGHT
  • References need to be consistent and follow the MOS - try using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and the other cite templates.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

[edit]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, clear that a lot of effort has been put into it, here are some suggestions for improvement (and more work ;-) ):

  • Expand the lead to summarize the whole article per WP:LEAD
  • Put references after punctuation, so in the lead It is the longest written constitution of any independent nation in the world,[3]... - corrected - Sumanch (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid or define jargon - not everyone will know what "scheduled classes" are, for example. See WP:JARGON
  • Wikilink full dates (day, month, year).
  • Which year did the Assembly first meet - article says both 1947 and 1946 (and only really needs to say this in one place - avoid repetition)
  • There are whole paragraphs and even whole sections without references ("The Constituent Assembly" section and the paragraphs before and after it, for example, or the whole "Influence of Other Constitutions" section - see WP:CITE
  • Images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to be followed, see WP:IMAGE - corrected - Sumanch (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influence of Other Constitutions" is a list - could it be made into text form? Lists in an article are generally discouraged. - corrected - Sumanch (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot on the Preamble, some on Amendments and very little on the Parts and Schedules of the Constitution, besides a list. Since this is an article on the whole constitution, there should be some discussion of each of these - see WP:Summary Style and WP:WEIGHT
  • References need to be consistent and follow the MOS - try using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and the other cite templates. - corrected - Sumanch (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McGill University

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although I haven't really contributed a lot to this article, I would like to follow some suggestions and improve the McGill University article, and perhaps go for FAC. Those that have actually not been lazy like me and pushed McGill to GA deserve to have their work as FA. Thanks, Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Congrats on GA, but a lot of work needs to be done to get this up to FA status. Here are some suggestions:

  • Model articles are useful for ideas to follow - I see there are 20 FAs in Category:FA-Class_Universities_articles so there should be some useful ideas there.
  • Make sure to have both metric and English units for all cases - km to miles in lead, for example. {{convert}} is useful here. Also be consistent in units used - for area is it square meters or hectares?
  • See WP:LEAD and make sure the lead summarizes the whole article - my rule of thumb is all headers and subheaders should be at least mentioned (word or phrase) in the lead. For example Student life section does not seem to be in the lead
  • Is corporate personality the proper term? Seems odd to me - perhaps corporate identity?
  • Lots of "citation needed" tags need to be taken care of before FAC. Also lots of uncited paragraphs and sentences - every paragraph, every quote, every statistic, and every extraodinary claim needs a ref. See WP:CITE
  • It might just be that I am tired, but I found the History section confusing - it just did not flow well.
  • History section ends with 1969 - nothing has happened in the past 39 years?
  • I would list the seven Nobel laureates by name
  • Be consistent and avoid needless repetition - we are told international students make 19% of the student body in the first paragraph of Profile, then "nearly 20%" in the fourth paragraph. Or almost all of the material in "Notable alumni and faculty" has already been mentioned earlier
  • Keep similar things together - second to last paragraph in Profile is all rankings on research, then two sections later there is a separate Rankings section.
  • Lots of short (one sentence) paragraphs interrupt flow. Also several quite short sections - can these be expanded or perhaps combined?
  • The words of the Alma mater are copyvio when presented in their entirety - quote a few lines or provide a ref linking to the full text.
  • Internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal computer

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what parts are still missing and what can be done/written better. General opinions also welcome.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting read - I am not a PC expert, but I could only think of one topic to add (disposal, see below) although I do think the level at which most of the article is written could be changed. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I agree with the tag at the top - this needs many more references cited for verifiablilty. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure the lead is an accurate summary of the whole article and that it contains nothing that is not also in the body of the article - see WP:LEAD
  • Parts of the article are written in a very broad and general style (for example the History section does not mention a single manufacturer and is very vague on dates), while others are extremely specific (for example Ultra-Mobile PC). I think that the article should be somewhere in the middle in tone, i.e. give enough specifics to be interesting while not getting bogged down in tons of specific details.
  • Surely there is a better actual photograph for the lead image?
  • Perhaps History could give some of the stats and capabilities of the early computers to show how things have evolved from very expensive systems with monochrome monitors, text only displays, no mouse and the large floppy disk to today's PC.
  • Always useful in a technical article to provide context for the reader (see WP:PCR) and to avoid or explain jargon. This is especially true in the more detailed sections, i.e. The server edition, Mac OS X Server, is architecturally very similar to its desktop counterpart... - see WP:JARGON
  • The article is very list-y in places, such as Hardware and Other components and these should be put into prose if possible.
  • I like the Lifetime section (although it is completely unreferenced). Perhaps the problems of disposing of obsolete PCs could be mentioned here too.
  • Refs might benefit from use of {{cite web}} or other cite templates and do need to be consistent. Internet refs should all give url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Naomi (1968)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… As the creator of the article, I'm looking for some additional perception as to find out what this article needs to become better. I may up it for FAC if it passes, but for now, I'm wish for some other opinions of it. In particular, I want opinions on the writing and organization of the "Impact, records, and naming" section as well as intro prose. (Note: I've never done this before, so my behavior may be a tad...off.)

Thanks, Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Juliancolton

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

A very good article. Let's see if there's anything I can find...

  • "ESSA-6 weather satellite" bit techie for the lead - perhaps either explain ESSA-6 or expand on it in the main body.
  • Landfall caption doesn't need a full stop, it's a fragment.
  • "Six more ship reports on September 9 reported winds..." could we do "On September 9, six more ships reported winds.."?
  • "clearly showed the vortex and center" of what?
  • "large feeder bands" what are these? FAC must appeal to non-experts so link or explain.
  • "at 600 Greenwich Mean Time." - 0600 minimum but check with WP:DATE to ensure you're compliant with the MOS on times.
  • "30 mi (48 km)-40 mi (64 km)" - en dash required in here instead of hyphen.
  • Put (GMT) after the "Greenwich Mean Time" so it's clear to non-expert what that acronym means.
  • First ref [8] needs to go the other side of the comma.
  • Big gap in the Impact section between the paras.
  • Why bold Naomi once only in the third para of Impact?
  • I've got serious problems with access to lots of the links. Check this out to show you what I mean.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with the site earlier, and found from the main page that the site is undergoing maintenance. As a result, many and very likely all links to articles on that site are blocked until maintenance ends. After that, I'm very sure the links will be repaired.

Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theobald of Bec

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and I recognize that my writing is only acceptable, not "brilliant". Any suggestions on polishing the prose or places where I've assumed too much background knowledge are eagerly desired.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Certainly no subject expert besides having spent a night inside in the walls of the cathedral grounds...!

  • Opening sentence says he was ABOC from 1138 while infobox says enthroned from Jan 1139. Confusion. I guess it's my ignorance of the infobox.
    • Think I got this straightened out.
  • I would expand the lead, or at worst merge the two short paras you have there right now.
  • "He was of Norman by birth" - reads strange to me, why not just "he was Norman by birth"? (forgive my ignorance!)
    • fixed
  • "primacy" presumably relating to religious primates? A non-expert would be dumbfounded.
    • clarified this. This wasn't really a "primacy" issue, which is related authority between equal ranked offices like between bishops or archbishops. This case was an attempt by the Welsh to set up their own archbishop, and it was not sucessful.
  • British English ought to be used here so "recognized" needs an s. And in the lead, Stephen quickly becomes Steven.
    • Fixed
  • "Steven reign," should that be "Stephen's reign"?
    • Fixed
  • "Steven recognized Henry of Anjou as his heir. " what is the relevance of this to Theobald? It's not clear.
    • fixed
  • "canon law", "vacant see" unclear to non-experts again.
    • clarified.
  • "Roger of Salisbury Bishop of Salisbury and his nephews Nigel of Ely Bishop of Ely and Alexander of Lincoln Bishop of Lincoln " - some commas wouldn't go amiss here, especially when the next para has "Bernard, Bishop of St David's"...
    • fixed
  • "The archbishop was able to force peace on King Stephen." I guess the image is of the king (hence the crown) but the caption is misleading.
    • fixed
  • Page ranges in the references should be separated with en-dash (–) instead of hyphen (-).

I think that's all that immediately sprung to mind. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Rambling man -

The infobox is because someone has been playing with our ABC infobox lately. Enthroned is different than consecrated. I think I fixed it, although it is still giving me fits. Merged the lead paragraphs, and fixed the birth thing. The primacy thing is one of those jargon things I'll have to expand later, along with canon law and vacant see. I fixed the Steven's, someone obviously put them in while I was out of town (and I missed them on a copyedit). Stephen the king is always Stephen, and I can't even type Steven without concious thought after years of Stephen. Explained a bit on Henry of Anjou. I'm lazy and have User:Brighterorange run his script over things I'm going to take to FAC. Not sure on Theobald yet, he's pretty skimpy. Maybe after I explain the jargon! Thanks muchly for the peer review!

Belldandy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've gone about as far as I can, and would greatly appreciate other opinions to help bring it up to GA status. I'm not quite sure where best to focus further efforts.

Thanks, Bilby (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The plot sections need to be tightened up some. IMDB should not be used as a source. A lot of it appears to be unsourced, and sourcing is one of the prime requirements for GA or FA, so I would start there. Unlike with a series article, claims made about the character from the series must also be sourced to specific episodes, manga volumes, novels, etc. Himura Kenshin is a recent character GA that would be good to study to see how to tighten up and source. Collectonian (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malkinann

Per Wikipedia:CITE#FULL, direct quotes (such as the ones from Susan J. Napier, who is different from Susan Napier the romance novellist) need to be to page number if at all possible. There also isn't much information about character merchandise, but that's perhaps a bit more incidental to the character than the scholarly and popular reception.-Malkinann (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier if the general policy was to use Harvard in-line references, as that makes page numbers easier. :) I don't have the Napier book, but I'll pick it up next week to fix that. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have the book on hand at the moment (checked out from the university library), so I can look up the page numbers for you if you'd like. Collectonian (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple

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

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


Thanks, Paul75 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some outside advice would be appreciated

This article I'd rather not have been taken to peer-review yet, as I stated on its talk page, which you obviously saw. And I'm not truly able to edit right now, as you also know. So what, yeah, you're going to try making changes while I'm not there? Great heads up (sarcasm evident). As if you care for this article anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is not for dispute resolution so I am archiving this per the Peer review Request removal policy. Sorry and please try WP:RfC or other dispute resolution processes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for critical reviews for it so that it can be put through WP:FAC in the near future.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

I didn't do a What will CoD 2024 be? Best Call of Duty 2024 Leaked Concept 

check, so bear that in mind.  18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipe organ

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Request peer review for eventual FA nomination. Here are links to the previous peer review and the archived featured article nomination. WikiProject PipeOrgan would like to get the article to featured status in time to list it on the front page for the International Day of the Organ on October 19, 2008. Thanks! —Cor anglais 16 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I think a diagram (or two) of the basics of mechanical operation of an organ would be helpful - perhaps Lady of Hats or someone else good at graphics could help?
  • Organ pipe voicing, linked as "voiced" is a red link. For FAC I would write a short article or at least provide some brief explanation in the text. Done
  • The construction section is very clear, but would it help to have an introductory paragraph before the Pipes section that described each part of the organ in a sentence or two? Something like A pipe organ is composed of several parts. The pipes produce sound in two different ways, when air (wind) is forced through them. The pipes are organized in groups called ranks and the wind to them is produced by the wind system. The action controls both individual pipes (key action) and ranks (stop action), and can be mechanical or electrical or both. The organist controls ranks of pipes via stops, and individual pipes via the console, which contains the various keyboards, as well as... You get the idea (and I am at my limit of understanding) Done
  • I think most of the Construction section is a model of clarity, but I just don't get this sentence A common electrical stop control is the rocker tab, which sits on a hinge and activates an electrical circuit when pressed. Am I trying to make this more complicated than it is (is it just describing an electrical switch)? Done
  • Add a word here All organs have at least one manual, and most [also] have a pedalboard. Done
  • Is it worth repeating in the keyboards section that a division is a group of ranks (I had to go back and look up what it was)? Done
  • Perhaps this could be made clearer (suggestions in brackets): (for example, the "Swell super-octave to Great," which adds to the Great [division] the ranks of the Swell division[,] an octave above what is being played on the Great manual).[31] Done
  • History - is the organ thought to descend in any way from mouth blown instruments like the pan pipe? I know, WP:NOR.
  • In Renaissance and Baroque periods link Silbermann at the first mention (now linked at second) Done
  • Repertoire section is underreferenced, citation needed tags will have to be cleaned up before FAC. Done
  • FAC might have trouble with Encylopedia Brittanica as a reference.
  • No mention of circus organs, calliopes, carousels?
  • Most of this is fairly nit-picky, seems close to FA to me (refs in the last section biggest hurdle)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input! I have addressed a few of these issues and marked them with {{done}}; I'll get to the others in a few days. —Cor anglais 16 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ruhrfisch that the repertoire section is woefully undercited and needs expansion. The rest of the article looks quite good on a casual glance. The article as a whole seems to focus overwhelmingly on how pipe organs work mechanically, but how they've fit into cultures and societies is just as relevant, and includes more than just repertoire. I'd suggest moving much of the content to a subarticle, something like construction of pipe organs and leaving a summary here that would allow for more room to expand other sections. That subarticle would be very FAC-worthy, I feel. Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

I've just looked at sources, not prose. (April 12, 2008)

Tenacious D

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I submitted this for FA a bit too soon (I have asked for the FA nom to be withdrawn). I would like to be able to submit this for FA after addressing any concerns here. Please help me sort this out for style, and any other improvements.

Thanks a lot, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tenacious D/archive4.

Saganami Island Tactical Simulator

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I quite honestly am not sure where else to go with it. A discussion of tactics in the game wouldn't really be appropriate, and the gameplay, to me, seems to be fairly well described already. Granted, I'm looking at this from the level of someone who's actually played the game, so I know how it works, so I'd like to get my hands on the perspective of someone who's never played the game so as to give me ideas.

Thanks, Kant Lavar (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I know nothing of this game, which perhaps makes me an ideal reviewer. I would rate it start class (not stub) and will assume you want to work to WP:GA. here are some suggestions:

  • A model article is often useful to follow and I note there are 7 WP:FA at Category:FA-Class strategy game articles - take your pick.
  • My three biggest concerns on reading this are 1) jargon, 2) provding context for the reader, and 3) citations
    • Jargon examples from the lead and first section: A thrust scale of 1 is 190 Gs - so I think this is a spaceship game? or Orientation on the map is shown with box miniatures and tilt blocks, with altitude shown by stacking tiles. - tilt blocks are explained two sections later, which is not much help here.
    • Jargon and providing context are often linked - I read Honorverse in the very first sentence and did not click the blue link. From scanning the article initially I assumed it was some sort of self-consistent gaming universe. Then books are mentioned, so it is based on them. When I got to the bottom of the article and saw the Honor Harrington navbox it finally dawned on me what it meant (I have heard of HH, just haven't read the books).
    • The article has one inline reference currently. Every quote or statistic or statement likely to be challenged should be cited and there should be at least one ref per paragraph.
  • While there is some effort to do this already, make extra sure to write from an "out of universe persepctive" - see WP:IN-U
  • In General Overview expalin the background situation of th game too - who are the Manticoran Navy, who are their enemies, where do they fight?
  • Try to avoid repeating things - for example "Each Jayne's guide covers one space navy as seen in the Honorverse books, as well as its attendant marine corps. Released so far have been books covering the Royal Manticoran Navy (including the Royal Manticoran Marine Corps) and the People's Navy (and the People's Marine Corps)." repeats the marine corps
  • In general for works of fiction some sort of Reception section is included - how well did it sell, what did critics think of it, what sequels did it produce or influences did it have on other works?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Bear in mind I'm a HH fan, and I own the game (although haven't actually played it much, no one in the area to play with, and no time). However, if I saw this article at FAC, I would oppose because of a total lack of citations. The one reference there is , is to a message board post. Yes, it's by the creator of the game, but it probably wouldn't get past folks. I agree with Ruhrfisch that the article needs some sort of reception section. I suggest some time spent finding sources for the article. The Lead section discusses stuff not discussed in the article itself, some of which might be good in a background and/or history section. Also it is pretty thick with jargon: "A thrust scale of 1 is 190 Gs, and ships (as of the release of Second Edition) range in thrust from a scale of 1 to 4; however, the play aids can handle ships with thrusts of up to 7." and other things like that. If you don't play the game, none of that makes any sense and it should be introduced or explained in terms a non-player will understand. (April 11, 2008)

Joseph Goebbels

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

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

This article failed a FA nomination a while ago, but has been significantly improved since then, with extremely complete referencing. The only thing I can see being a possible issue with this article is the length, but I wouldn't consider this a serious problem, given the importance of the subject. I think that it's almost ready for another shot at FA, but would like any feedback from anyone as to what the possible problems with the article could be at this point in time.

Thanks, J.StuartClarke (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall well done and seems fairly close to ready for FAC to me (though usually someone there will find somthing else to fix ;-) ). Here are my questions, mostly nit-picky. I also speak German, so I may have some questions that a non-German speaker would not.

  • Word choice (because) Goebbels earned a Ph.D. in Heidelberg University in 1921, because of a doctoral thesis on 18th century romantic drama; ... I think writing a doctoral thesis on.. or even with a doctoral thesis on.. would be better than "because"
  • By late 1943, the war had turned into a disaster for the Axis powers, ... I agree with the statement, but some at FAC might see the word disaster as POV or want a reference
  • Watch out for wordiness - for example, would it be OK to say ..following the Führer's suicide he served as the second Chancellor of the Third Reich—albeit for one day.
  • Goebbels was educated at a local grammar school, where he completed his Abitur (school leaving examination) My knowledge of the German school system is current (not 1910s), but I would not call a German Gymnasium a "grammar school" and I would try to make it clear that the Abitur is the also the entrance exam for University.
  • I would cite the sentence that gives his height (even if it is the same ref used a few sentences later)
  • Try to be consistent about German words and phrases - earlier the article gives the German word (Gauleiter, Abitur) then the English translation in parentheses after. I would do the same for office soldier (Bürosoldat?) The nearest he came to military service was as an "office soldier"... Same thing with "Patriotic Help Unit".[4] a bit later
  • Any chance of writing stubs for the two red links? Not required, but I always like an FAC with no red links and it expands the encylcopedia
  • Cite Goebbels compensated for his physical frailty with intellectual accomplishments.
  • This quote is confusing - I think it needs to be put into context, who is writing this and why - see WP:PCR. Also the quote within the quote makes it more difficult to follow, and in the context explain at the start who Michael-Goebbels is: "The very name of the hero, Michael, to whom he gave many autobiographical features, suggests the way his self-identification was pointing: a figure of light, radiant, tall, unconquerable," and above all 'To be a soldier! To stand sentinel! One ought always to be a soldier,' wrote Michael-Goebbels."[7]
  • Give the date he wrote his novel so saying it was not published until 1929 makes his wait / frustration clearer
  • which he is unclear in in the Rhineland party newspaper National-sozialistische Briefe (National-Socialist Letters), of which he was editor, in mid 1925.
  • Long block quote at end of Nazi Activist section (Fest writes...) is uncited
  • Read WP:HEAD for capitalization of headers (so "Nazi activist") and not including the name of the article in headers if possible (so "Goebbels and the Jews" should be changed, perhaps to "Relation to the Jews"??)
  • The citation should be at the end of sentence with a direct quote in it, even if it is repeated later so "Beware, you dogs," he wrote to his former "friends of the left": "When the Devil is loose in me you will not curb him again." needs a ref / citation. Ditto for "our little doctor" sentence a bit later
  • I try to keep chronological order - the Horst Wessel quote is 1929, the next sentence is 1928. Any reason they can't be switched in order?
  • I think it is useful to end each paragraph with a citation (several have the last sentence or two uncited)
  • Image:What is an aryan.jpg needs a better fair use rationale (see WP:FAIR USE)
  • I will not mention uncited paragraphs after this, but the first paragraph in "Propaganda Minister" section needs a ref
  • Lead says Bebelplatz (modern name), body says Opernplatz (name at the the time). I would at least add an explanation that the name is now Bebelplatz
  • This sentence is unclear: However, this proposal was absurd given Göring’s increasing incapacity and, more importantly, Hitler’s increasing contempt for him due to the need of having a scapegoat in order to shift the blame for Germany's defeats from the Führer, that it was doomed to failure.

Overall well done, but still needs more citations and a careful copyedit. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thought - I like the pictures used in the article, but it is a long article and several sections have no images. Given his role in the instigation of Kristallnacht, perhaps a picture of it would be useful in the Jews section? Probably should try for an image a section. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I have just one comment-question in light of the fisch's excellent review above. In the infobox image caption "head of the propaganda machine" smacks to me as slightly POV as (I myself feel) "propaganda machine" has a slightly anti-establishment anti-propaganda-esque tinge to it. Because of this, and in light of how open the Nazi party were with thier propaganda ministry, should it not just be propaganda ministry not machine? Or if that is unsuitable because of the name of the later, more developed ministry, perhaps some other title. Just not "machine"? I may be nit-picking but a peer review is a good place to bring it up. Good article. --SGGH speak! 17:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much so far. I can't make the changes immediately, but after the weekend I shall plough through them. Thanks particually to Ruhrfisch. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ferguson (baseball)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to people who are more suited at writing articles of this type, who can then help the text flow better. Any ideas for sub sections, or the moving, deleting, or adding content. Thanks, Neonblak (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  1.  Done* the comma within the "" on "death to flying things" suggests that it is part of the quote and should be outside of it, I feel.
  2.  Done* "His character and unquestioned honesty was looked up to and was sorely needed during a period in baseball history where the game's reputation was badly damaged by gamblers and rowdy behavior by players and fans, and it served him well during his long career" - this is a) a lot of info for the lead, b) hopefully cited by [3] and if not, needs to be cited quickly, and if is uncited then is POV etc.
  3.  Done* having the nickname info so far away from the nickname in the lead is a bit confusing
  4.  Done* "early career" new york is repeated twice in quick succession
  5.  Done* "drove in the tying run" non-baseball watchers (like me) would not understand the term "drove in" is it baseball specific or just an unusual analogy?
  6.  Done* "One possible reason raised was that nobody wanted to be like Ferguson. But soon, the advantage that switch-hitting posed in situational hitting, and platooning ballplayers" too much baseball jargon
  7.  Done* cites [2] and [2] in "national association" you only need the last one as the two lines are together
  • career highlights and awards in infobox, "No notable achievements" is that a third party RS statement?
  1.  Done* between [3] and [6] in "National League" is a big gap for no cites

Other than that, seems fairly comprehensive and well written. Hope my suggestions are of use... --SGGH speak! 20:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatamoto

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be good if editors could offer some constructive viewpoints on how this article could be further improved, lengthened, and hopefully brought closer to good article status.


Thanks, Tadakuni (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It's come a long way and it's in much better shape than it was a month ago. Here are some suggestions for topics that could be added to lengthen the article, making it more complete. Please consider these as possible directions for expanding the article, not as a required to-do list for a Good Article or Featured Article. Some of these are already touched on in the article, of course.
Name some additional famous hatamoto. Ōkubo Tadataka is an early example. The colorful Mizuno Jūrōzaemon (水野成之) dates from later in the century. Ōoka Tadasuke is a middle-period example, and another famous example of a hatamoto promoted to daimyo. Tōyama Kagemoto is a still-later example, and Katsu Kaishū is a prominent bakumatsu figure.
Detail their occupations and career paths. The Japanese Wikipedia has information on these. The English Wikipedia has articles about some of the posts they held. Mention the major guard posts as well as administrative positions.
Tell readers more about their lives: in which cities and neighborhoods they lived, what their housing was like, what they wore and ate, where they worshiped, which martial arts they practiced. What they studied. Entertainment. Marriage and inheritance patterns and adoption.
Discuss the major trends. The transition from a military to a peacetime bureaucracy. How the number of hatamoto changed over time. Hatamoto as a power bloc.
Hatamoto in fiction. Kabuki and bunraku, kodan, gesaku, and modern novels, plays, films, television shows and so forth.

Fg2 (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair (musical)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Over the past year or so, this article has come from an unreferenced, listy mess to a well-cited, -written, and -organized article. We'd like some comments regarding the prose, the organization, and the comprehensivity of the article. Any suggestions at all would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks, —  MusicMaker5376 02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hair (musical)/archive1.

Posting system

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've completely overhauled it, and I would like to get it to at least GA quality. I believe that all the information that needs to be on the page is there in some form or another, I would just like to get the prose and grammar perfect, which can be hard when there are so many names, terms and technical jargon to juggle around. Any help perfecting it would be great!

Thanks, Torsodog (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and good start on the way to GA, but still needs some work. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  •  Done The lead needs to be expanded to be a summary of the whole article and could be at least one paragraph longer - see WP:LEAD
  •  Done Define each abbreviation right after its first use, for example Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) and Major League Baseball (MLB)
  •  Done word choice here "presumably": the posting system presumably solved both problems. perhaps the posting system presumably was meant to solve both problems.?
  •  Done Would it make sense to add to the caption Ichiro Suzuki was the first high-profile NPB player [and second overall] to use the posting system. ?
  •  Done Use "for" instead of "of" here perhaps: exclusive signing rights of [for?] Hideki Irabu. ?
  •  Done References are good, but a few more are needed - I usually like to end each paragraph with a cite. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  •  Done I would give the dollar amounts that Nomo and Soriano signed for to give some indication of what thier NPB teams lost (and cite this)
  •  Done This is well written - I could follow all of this pretty easily (Thanks! Torsodog (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Done The intro to the two tables on successful and unsuccessful postings could be expanded.
  • This is a bit short for GA, so one way of expanding it would be to have more on each case (as is done for the three cases in the history already).
I understand what you are saying here, but there is not much else to state about the other postings. Most of the postings were rather low-profile except Daisuke's. Ichiro's posting is over 8 years old now and it is hard to find information about the posting and bid. Torsodog (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Does this work in reverse - MLB to NPB? (and the answer is no, btw :)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of folk metal bands

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know whether other editors feel that the format I've used is appropriate for this type of list. I would also like to hear any suggestions as to how this list can be improved further. ` Thanks, Bardin (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of folk metal bands/archive1.

New York State Route 28

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel its almost ready for Featured Article status. It is part of my future Featured Topic and I need it well reviewed so I'm not mauled at FAC for it.


Thanks, Mitch32contribs 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Lead: Looks good at first glance.

Route description: A few phrasing issues. Near the eastern tip of the Ashokan Reservoir 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from US 209 in the town of Kingston, NY 28 intersects the eastern terminus of NY 28A." There's at least a comma missing in there if not a better way to phrase that sentence.

"NY 28 proceeds along the reservoir to its western end in the Olive community of Boiceville, where NY 28A reconnects to NY 28." I know after hovering my cursor over Olive that it links to Olive, NY. I assume that the community of Boiceville is in Olive, NY, but someone else might assume there's olive groves there.

"Roughly 0.75 miles (1.21 km) north of I-88, NY 28 passes over NY 7 with no access between the two." If there's no access, and this is in the junction list lower in the article, I don't think it really needs to be mentioned in the prose. It feels extraneous to me.

There are many mentions of other highways that terminate at NY 28. I'd prune through mentioning all of them in the prose. Some are less notable compared to others, and if they're all in the jct table, they don't all need to be in the RD? Ditto all the concurrencies.

History Looks good at first glance.

I'm sure I'll have more later. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Close the Peer Review. Per instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, articles shouldn't be at both places simultaneously. It creates extra work to remind nominators to follow the instructions, and the open peer review will stall the bot when the FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrimethInc.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
CrimethInc. is a somewhat obscure and secretive anarchist organisation about which little has been written in reliable sources. The article has recently been promoted to GA, and, barring newly published information, expanding it with relevant, reliably sourced content would be very difficult. So I am thinking the article is ripe for an FA nom, and wanted experienced editors to take a look over it to see what can be improved. In gratitude, Skomorokh 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/CrimethInc./archive1.[reply]

University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… We created this article for a project through Texas A&M University. Our group would greatly appreciate any comments/suggestions to help make our article better!

Thanks, Laylou11 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility/archive1.

The Human League

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the whole article requires review by experienced Wikipedians who have not previously been involved in editing it. This is a measure of transparency after action to end an edit war. But more importantly a good PR is required before the article goes into the GA nomination process later this month. Because of recent edit problems only comments by established Wikipedians with a verifiable record will be acted on in the 'to do list' Good faith comments by new editors are more than welcome but may not be acted on.

Thanks, andi064 T . C 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd have to say that I'd like to see a bit more history about the members. I'd like to know where they came from and what their past acomplishments are etc... Also, it seems like a small amount of sources for all the information already there. Are there any more, good sources out there for this band? Undeath (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting photo I must say...
Need to highlight in the lead the years of their peak popularity (after the release of dare)
You need to watch frequent repetition of people's names. Use pronouns if there is no chance of ambiguity.
because it was so unique and at odds with everything else on the market - I'd try and rephrase to sound more encyclopedic. Maybe 'unusual' for 'unique' (which is a little hyperbolic). The second bit of the phrase - 'at odds with..', i'd probably dump - what does it add? Maybe instead write, their sound differed so markedly from other popular songs...I'm not sure.
This is essential reading for anyone aiming for GA or FA. have a look how much you can make redundant and remove while maintaining information.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) You need to work on having more source citations as well as improving the sources you do have. Right now, you don't give publisher and last access date information for most of the websites, and the references are formatted in all different formats. Wikiquote isn't a good source for a quotation, go to the source that is given in WikiQuote. The Youtube interview probably needs to be switched to another source. But the biggest issue is that large sections of article that don't have any sort of source information. That will be a big issue for GA. As the article stands, I'd fail it at GAN for lack of citations, without even looking at the prose, which I haven't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyride

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

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

I want to know if the functions of this transportation system are clear to users who don't use it. Also correcting gramatical errors and sentence structure would be appricated. If the information could be orginized in a better way, please put it on the discussion page.

Thanks, Razorfingers (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Biggest concern is the notability tag at the top of the article - if it does not establish notability, someone may nominate it for deletion. See WP:NN for notability policy. Peer review is for pointing out problems more than fixing them here. Comments go here, rather than the talk page too. Anyway, off to a good start and here are some suggestions for improving the article:

  • The lead is too short and needs to be expanded to summarize the article and meet WP:LEAD
  • The article needs a copyedit - example From the 1860’s until the early 1890 college students... should be 1860s (no apostrophe) and 1890s (missing s)
  • References come right after punctuation, no space. See WP:CITE
  • Units should be given in both English and metric systems - use of {{convert}} templates helps
  • Most of the article is unreferenced and will need to have refs.
  • A model article is always useful for ideas and examples to follow - MARTA is a GA and might be of interest, or find a FA model article
  • Internet references need to include url, title, publisher, author if known, and access date.
  • Most of the current refs are to Cyride itself - see WP:RS and WP:V and find sources that are independent of Cyride.
  • Image:Isucard.gif is almost certainly copyright Cyride or Iowa State and needs a WP:Fair Use rationale.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft Systems and Controls Lab

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on this page. We are currently working on a Wikipedia page for an English class and feedback is required. Since my topic is not something mainstream, I have requested a peer review. I hoping to get feedback on the content of this article.

- Did you find that the article was interesting? - Was their enough material in the article? - How can I improve the article?


Thanks,

Tom

Ruhrfisch comments: I will evaluate this on how it follows Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should summarize the whole article and not include anything that is not also in the body of the article. The title should also be bold (I did this when I moved the PR request tag to the article's talk page). See WP:LEAD
  • Use <ref>Reference text</ref> tags, not external links right in the article as is done for http://calspace.ucsd.edu/spacegrant. See WP:CITE
  • I see there are some references in the article, but most of it is still unreferenced - verifiability is key here so this needs many more refs - see WP:V
  • Be consistent - is it IJEM (header) or IJEMS (article)?
  • This despeately needs a copyedit - In 2007, the lab was remained to the Spacecraft Systems and Controls Lab... I think is supposed to be "renamed", not "remained"
  • Avoid needless repetition - the SSCL is given twice in just the lead of the article.
  • Pictures need captions - see WP:IMAGE
  • References need to be consistent, try using {{cite web}}
  • To be honest, I found the idea interesting, but the article didn't really tell me that much of a coherent story about the lab and what it did or does. For example, what did they learn from IJEM(S) - which sounds as if it is the most successful thing from the lab to date.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I am a pretty new editor to Wikipedia, and I'd like to request a peer review of this article so that I can get some good feedback about what's working/not working. I think the whole article needs reviewing (it isn't very long) for content matter, references, and consistency. Is the content appropriate for this article (too much, too little, missing important things)? Are the references adequate? Is the article easy to read, and does it flow smoothly between sections?

Thanks in advance for your time and input. Bl7904 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some suggestions to improve it.

  • Make sure the lead summarizes the whole article (Advantages?) and does not include anything not repeated elsewhere (British). the lead should be two paragraphs for this length article. See WP:LEAD
  • This will be difficult, but try to both avoid jargon (see WP:JARGON) and provide context for the reader (see WP:PCR). For example spell out VSTOL in the lead, or explain how the background of launching a plane off a carrier for background so the reader understands what the system has to do. Many readers will also need a brief summary on linear induction motors, steam catapults and the like. Links help, but a good summary sentence or phrase and a link is even better.
  • Units should be both English and metric throughout. {{convert}} should help
  • Article should include reaction, but all that is listed are Advantages. Why did the British not go with this system? WHat critiques have been aimed at it?
  • Give data for comparisons - this is already done in some places (steam give 95 MJ, this 122 MJ) but then the time for steam launches is not given, so the comparison can't be made.
  • Avoid lists in the article (4 components)
  • References come right after punctuation, no space
  • I think the average reader would have some trouble because of jargon and contexxt issues: At the time of launch, the power conversion subsystem releases the stored energy from the disk alternators in a controlled manner by using a cycloconverter. sounds more like Star Trek than an encylopedia article tight now.

Hope this helps - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland (rugby league team)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a little known subject and very few sources. I managed to get up to GA status, but want to achieve higher. Needs some help with prose and comprehensiveness ... Not contributing, I (and others) can do that, but where it can be improved.

Thanks,  The Windler talk  07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • First, it's pretty short for FAC. It also depends on three sources, which gives it a rather skimpy feel. The use of the big table in the middle makes it feel like you are trying to bulk up the article.
  • What makes http://www.rl1908.com/index.htm a reliable source? He doesn't list any sources that he uses.
  • Likewise http://stats.rleague.com/?

I gather the team was short lived, but the article relies on a lot of jargon that non-rugby players simply won't understand. It feels incomplete, and now the feeling is it is just mainly a list of the games they played.

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Ealdgyth's comments - here are a few more suggestions for improvement.

  • Is the title correct - is it really officially "rugby league" (no caps)?
  • Provide context for the reader - not everyone will know where Sydney is, let alone the Cumberland Plain (i.e. say it is in Australia) - see WP:PCR
  • Expand the lead to summarize the whole article per WP:LEAD
  • Also be careful to avoid jargon - not everyone knows or even understands rugby and how its forms differ - see WP:JARGON
  • Try telling the history chronologically - start before the team forms so you don't have to go back and explain why some players were annoyed and formed their own team.
  • Team honours section could come before the 1908 season section as a nice overview / introduction.
  • Article could use a copyedit to clean up some issues
  • If the team roster is partially unknown, how can you be sure about the record holders?
  • Would some time looking through old newspapers in a library help fill out the team roster and perhaps other details?

Hope this helps, interesting start but it has some work to get to GA and more to FA, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Semi-Automated Bot put here by SpecialWindler for better access.

  • I remoived these for two reasons - first it breaks the PR page transclusion so no one can see your PR request listed. Second, it does not follow the directions to save space on the PR page, as per the hidden comment at the top of this page: do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town of Berne

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a stable and (I think) well written article. Since so few large European cities have such a compact and well preserved medieval core, Berne is unique. The article features numerous pictures and a good number of references, but could use a general clean up Thanks, Tobyc75 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have been to Berne and agree it is a lovely city and am glad to see work being done on this article, and the many nice images. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead is too short and needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article, see WP:LEAD
  • A bit awkward: ...essentially unchanged since its construction lasting from the 12th to the 15th century., how about ...essentially unchanged since its construction during the 12th- to 15th-centuries.?
  • Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the name of the article in the headers - so "History of the Old Town" would just be "History" and "Founding of Berne" would just be "Founding"
  • Per Wikipedia:MOS#Images please do not sandwich text between two photos - the detail of the defensive works from the 1638 map does not add much (as it is already all there in the whole map image) and could be dropped
  • Images are also supposed to be set at "thumb" width per the MOS (allows viewer preferences to kick in). Vertical photos can use the "upright" parameter so they are not so wide.
  • Let's assume the goal is to get this to WP:GA - if so (and in any case) the article needs many more references. For example, the first paragraph after the lead is uncited, as are several others. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet references should include url, title, publisher, author if known and date accessed.
  • Semi-automated peer review has some useufl suggestions on spelling (be consistent on British or American) and other issues.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the Münster is described as the cathedral or minster every time (although once "Minster" is spelled "Minister")
  • I speak German so I think of it as the Berner Altstadt anyway, but since UESCO calls it "Old City of Berne", why name it "Old Town of Berne" here?
  • Much as I too love the fountains, I think ten photos of them is a bit excessive. I also doubt they all need their own section of the article, which would shorten the TOC. Why not just a section called Fountains, then make a subarticle on just the fountains if you want.
  • Also the bagpiper is in two photos but I do not see it mentioned in the article. Basel has a very similar bagpiper fountain - is one a copy of the other?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Ruhrfisch comments thanks for the note on my talk page, I will reply here as part of the peer review

  • I made a mistake - the bagpiper fountain is in a gallery with another picture of a fountain, which I assumed was also of it. It is Image:BernaBrunnenBern.JPG so it is a different fountain, but it should also have a caption and, if this "Berna" fountain is not already decribed in the article, it should be (don't have pictures in the article that are of subjects not discussed in the article).
  • I know there is a way to put two verticla images side by side (not a gallery). That might work here - have sets of two photos for the fountains and one caption.
  • It is pretty much your choice on the fountains - I would either reduce the number of headers and leave this information in the article as is (perhaps if the photos are in sets of two, the subheaders could also be in twos, i.e. "Justice and Moses" under a general "Fountains" header. I picked those two at random - don't have to pair them. Or it could just be Fountains and no subheaders. The alternative would be to use WP:Summary style and leave brief descriptions of each in the main article and then throw in everything know in a subarticle on just the FOuntains of Bern.
  • I am pretty sure Moses has the "rays" coming out of his head becasue of a mistranslation - it used to read he came down from Mount Sinai "with horns". If you look at Michaelangelo's "Moses" statue, it has tufts of hair for horns. The artists tried to follow what they thought it said in the Bible without making him look too demonic. See Moses (Michelangelo) - looks like these are more the rays of light. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… i feel the quality of this article has slipped significantly. I have tagged it with reference tags plus a couple others and left a small review on the talk page. It would be useful to se what could be improved more and where.

Thanks, Simply south (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: MIND THE GAP! (sorry, couldn't resist) The semi-automated peer review has a lot of good MOS suggestions. Here are some more:

  • For as long as this is, it has few refs and there are several sections marked as needing refs. I would make sure every paragraph has a ref, as does every quote or statistric or extraordinary claim.
  • The references that are there need to be formatted to meet WP:CITE - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} helps, as do the other cite templates.
  • I think a map of the whole system early on would be very useful.
  • The lead is very choppy, but I would fix the whole article and then make sure the Lead summarizes it properly.
  • Per MOS, please don't repeat the article title in a header, so Travelling on the London Underground needs to be changed
  • The FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/London Underground/archive1 has some excellent suggestions for improvement
  • The German Wikipedia article is featured there and offers some idea on organization that are lacking here. Here is a quick and dirty translation of their Table of Contents:

1 Rail network 1.1 Individual lines 1.2 CLosed stations and parts of lines 2 Operation 2.1 Operational numbers (figures) 3 Technical (engineering) 4 History 4.1 First plans 4.2 Metropolitan Railway 4.3 Metropolitan District Railway 4.4 First Tubes und Electrification 4.5 Expansion 4.6 Second World War 4.7 Further development 5 Future plans 5.1 New rolling stock 5.2 Cooling (air conditioning) 5.3 Expansion of the lines / network 6 Accidents and catastrophes 7 The logo 8 Map of the network 9 Mind the Gap 10 Fare system 10.1 Oyster 11 Handicapped access 12 See also...

Hope this helps Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Atlantic hurricane season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rewrote this a while ago, and after a successful GA review I would like to know what needs to be done to the article before an FAC run.


Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:GeeJo

[edit]

Ah, another good offering from the hard-working Hurricane folks. Alrighty, getting started:

  • Lead: "2 indirect deaths" and "7 people" but "Four more hurricanes" - be consistent with spelling out numbers.
  • Seasonal forecasts: Looking through the previous promoted articles in the Atlantic series, the only other one to include a preface to the subsections was the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which in addition included a summary of the number of forecasts released by each party. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on whether such a summary would improve the article, I just thought I'd mention it as a possible expansion.
  • Storms: Your timeline is linking to (nonexistent) headings in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season article for Helene and Isaac. I presume the correct link would be to List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season?
  • Storms: States only need to be linked the first time.
  • June and July: 70 mph (110 km/h) - missing non-breaking spaces.
  • August: switch the link of tropical wave to the first mention.
  • September and October: category 1 but Category 3 - be consistent with capitalisation.
  • September and October: 90 mph (145 km/h) - more missing non-breaking spaces.
  • September and October: shift link of Britain to the first mention, and either disambiguate it or expand it to the correct form.
  • Impact: perhaps link Florida Panhandle?
  • Forecasting uncertainty: The first sentence seems to repeat itself a bit.
  • Forecasting uncertainty: "Also, for some of the same factors..., several of the tropical cyclones in the season were forecasted with error." - difficult to parse.
  • Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating - section lacks references.
  • Overall: Very good article. High readability, good depth, clearly cited, and with several illustrative images. Most of the above comments are just nit-picky details, and once they're fixed I don't see any major problems standing in the way of an FAC. Good luck! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful comments. The issue about the lack of sources in the ACE section is probably unfixable, as you will see with other hurricane season FAs, are generally unsourced, as there are no sources. Other than that, I fixed pretty much everything. Thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo International Airport

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm seeking (a long-overdue) peer review of this article as this has been my pet project (à la Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System, both of which are FAs already) for nearly a year now, and I really do hope it is ready for either GA, or even better, FA status. I'm looking for feedback on how to make this article better than it currently is, so I would appreciate all comments and suggestions. Thanks! --Sky Harbor 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Iloilo International Airport/archive1.

U-Drop Inn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like additional feedback on what fixes it may need before submitting it for Good Article. It was originally created as an attack article and rescued from near deletion. I believe it is now well sourced and well written, though it may be in need of a copyedit. I'm also not sure if on the section headers and order, as there is no MOS for this particular type of article that I could find.

Thanks, AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/U-Drop Inn/archive1.

List of thrash metal bands

[edit]
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 since late 2007, starting off by adding thrash albums to the various bands present in the list. In March 2008, I started adding cited entries to various bands, summarizing their impact on the thrash metal scene. I think this list has the potential of becoming an FL candidate. Hence I would like the editors here to review this list, so that any flaws or shortcomings present can be addressed. Any feedback, however, would be much appreciated. Thank You, Weltanschaunng 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Great user name! Interesting list and I will be the first to admit I know little about the topic, although I know some of the bands. Here are some thoughts / suggestions for improvement:

  • The bold text in the lead is not supposed to also be wikilinked per the MOS (so link thrash metal elsewhere) or rewrite the first sentence, perhaps something like This list of thrash metal bands includes bands that have played thrash metal at some point during their career, sorted as per the country of their origin. See WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, don't sandwich text between two images
  • The band name Sodom is a dab link
  • Perhaps give the country of origin for each notable band mentioned in the lead (US bands noted already)

The next comments are more my questions than definite "must do" suggestions. I have helped write three WP:FL, but on state parks and Pennsylvania counties, so I am not as familiar with music FL criteria. Still here are my thoughts.

  • I like using sortable lists as they allow the reader to sort by the column they are interested in. For this list I wonder if it would help to have the default listing still be by country, but also be sortable by other information.
  • I also note that many of the entries are nothing more than a link to the band name - for FLC my guess is that they will want approximately equal information on each list entry. Currently some bands have a nice description and an album listing, while others have nothing but the name.
  • So I would have perhaps five columns: country of origin, name, description, Thrash albums, and perhaps some sort of date. The first four items are given for some bands already. The date could be their first album or their years of activity. I would not sort the comments, and perhaps not their albums - if you did then it would sort by the name of their first album.
  • Two more suggestions: a model article is always useful, so see if you can find one to follow and for ideas. I would also look at WP:FLC to get some ideas of what the reviewrs there are looking for nowadays.
  • You may find it easier to have two sortable lists: USA and rest of the world.
  • My concern is that as it is, FLC may ask why "Hobbs' Angel of Death" gets a description and album listing, but not the other four Australian thrash metal bands.

Hope this helps, obviously a lot of work so far, but I think more is needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the review! I have fixed the major points you raised.
I am trying to model the list as per the list of Telecaster players. There are very few featured music lists, and most are discography type lists. I think tables are not suitable for these type of lists, as the snippets doesn't seem to gel well with it. I toyed with the idea, but settled on this format on recommendation of another user.
Yeah, its not complete. I don't plan to take it to wp:FL anytime soon though.
As for the sorting, well it was alphabetical earlier, but there was an issue over the improper use of flagicons in the list. If you have a look at other band lists, you'll get an idea. I used country-wise sorting partly to address the nationality issue which was raised for retaining flagicons. I could revert back to the previous sorting format, if that's a problem. And yeah, the "years active" info seems a good idea.
PS - my name has a typo, I presume you are German or interested in Germany! Weltanschaunng 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I did this review, I was asked to review List of folk metal bands, which does use a sortable table and some of the things suggested here, plus others I did not think of. Again, it is your call, but it may give you some ideas. The thing about FLC is that I think they will want each of the entries in the list to have about the same amount of information. It may be seen as POV to single out one or two bands per country. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I speak Germann and have lived inn Germanny inn the past, but I hadnn't nnoticed a typo ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd like info on improvements etc. in order to get this article in shape for a GA status.Jv821 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has been done on this article, it still needs some polishing to get to GA status. Here are my suggestions:

  • I would try to find a model GA or FA article to follow - there are many FAs on tv shows.
  • The lead needs to be expanded and should summarize the whole article. See WP:LEAD
  • The article needs a serious copyedit - for example (just in the lead):
    • Created by David Lynch and Mark Frost, Twin Peaks's pilot episode was first broadcast on April 8, 1990 on the ABC Network, until June 10, 1991. The until June 10, 1991. is presumably when the first season ended, but the sentence makes no sense now and needs to be clarified.
    • After its debut in 1990, Twin Peaks became a top-rating programme ... - I think I would write top-rated and spell it "program" (American show, use American spelling)
    • In its longer second season, declining viewer ratings led to a cancellation. first off I would write "its cancellation." This sentence seems odd, there is no previous clear reference to the length of the first sentence, and the second paragraph starts by saying how popular the show was.
    • Currently, NBC Universal's (also the current owner of Bravo) horror-themed cable channel Chiller, which launched on March 1, 2007, is airing the series. This is awkward. Currently is frowned on, use something like "As of 2008..."
  • Things to keep in mind with an article like this are to write from an out of universe perspective (see WP:IN-U) and to provide context for the reader (see WP:PCR).
  • The plot synopsis seems overly detailed
  • In Conception there is information on two failed movies, then Lynch is not interested in a TV show, then out of nowhere we read Early on, Lynch and Frost developed the town before its inhabitants.[2] Why did they decide to do the story and why did they change their minds about TV?
  • Needs more references for GA - for example the Epsiode format and Music sections have no refs. The direct quote from the script needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Moor

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because WP:GM would like to see this article reach WP:GA status.

Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article on what looks to be a ver interesting place. Here are some suggestions to help improve it.

  • You might want to try using {{wide image}} for the panorama, instead of squeezing it into the infobox. Put it at the end maybe? For an example, see Black Moshannon State Park
  • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article - not much of the history is in the lead or no mention of literary references. See WP:LEAD
  • Units should be both metric and English throughout (now has hectares only for example) The {{convert}} template is useful
  • Needs more references - the Geography is not cited after the first sentence, or Waugh's poem is not cited (all direct quotes need refs). See WP:CITE
  • Plants are briefly mentioned in Geography, but there should be more on animals and plants there.
  • The history section especially has several short one or two sentence paragraphs - these should be combined or expanded. The section is also long and could be divided into subsections.
  • Nude Male Races to meet your spouse - too bad this was not in the April Fools DYK!
  • Internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here
  • No History after 1890?
  • Two poems are quoted in the history - should they be in the Literary refs section?
  • No mention of the Rangers etc. from the lead.
  • Needs at least a locator map within Great Britain, would be great if a more detailed map could be made.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Smith

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to GA status if possible. There seems to be a good basis to the article already, I just want to know how I can turn it into a GA.

Thanks, 02blythed (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should get this copyedited by one of the regulars before it is PRed. The language needs to be improved at several places. If you take the intro -

  • The first line should simply say who he is - cricketer, batsman, captain of South Africa
  • No need for the details like the Pollock affair in the intro
  • Bit more about what he does
  • IMHO, it is better not to include stats which are very volatile in the intro - in this case the 54 matches, which will become out of date tomorrow. Tintin 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it now Ok 02blythed (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few hours I have greatly improved the refs. Any more comments. 02blythed (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie6705 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I went through starting to cleanup the article and found a few pointers.

  • There should be no spaces between a comma or full stop, and the reference.
  • The reference shouldn't have redlinks in and some of them don't actually link anywhere, e.g. [http:content-uk.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/47270. profile of Graeme Smith]. Cricinfo.
  • The individual sentances in the Career highlights sections should be combined to make larger paragraphs.
  • Headings should only have one capital letter in per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Section headings. For example Early Years would become Early years.

Hope these can help. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Phillies seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it close to featured list status. It's part of the Philadelphia Phillies WikiProject and is also listed for review there.

Thanks, Killervogel5 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list - are there any models to follow (any baseball team season lists that are already FL or perhaps such a list for teams in other sports)? Here are some suggestions, with FLC as the eventual goal. *The article has no (zero) references given. This is the biggest single obstacle to it becoming FL. While there is a "References" section, these are just notes explaining the table itself and strike shortened seasons, and not anything that would meet WP:V or WP:CITE

*The External links section seems to be the source of the statistics cited (i.e. the actual references), but this is not what External links are for - see WP:EL

  • If a single source is used for most of the data, put it in the appropriate columns header(s).
  • If the current External links become references, as internet refs they need URL, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} is useful here.
  • I think I would try to give indviidual refs for the awards and probably for the postseason appearances.

*The lead also needs to be referenced.

    • Done
  • Since they have always been in the National League, why does there need to be an "NL" column in the table?
  • Any reason this is not a sortable list?
    • I've tried to make it sortable but it doesn't work properly due to all of the column-spanning headings and the overall record at the bottom. FL Chicago Bears seasons is also unsortable. Killervogel5 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*The lead needs a good copyedit - one example: The franchise was also the first professional sports team in American history to 10,000 losses during the 2007 season. needs a verb (to achieve 10,000 losses" or "to reach 10,000 losses") and, as now written, it makes it sound like they did this all in the 2007 season. How about something like On Month Day, 2007, the franchise became the first professional sports team in American history to reach 10,000 losses. (needs a ref too)

*watch POV language with an astounding 111 losses - OK as a quote, not as it is.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything helps, I will go through and reference all of the statistics. Thank you! Killervogel5 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MythBusters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I know that there are some issues with copyediting, and the images need to have their non-free use rationales reformatted, but any other suggestions for improving the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will assume the goal is to get this to GA (for now). While a lot of work has clearly been done on the article, more remains to be done. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead is not a summary of the article and needs to be expanded - see WP:LEAD
  • References generally come at the end of a sentence or at least right after punctuation (so The show was pitched to Discovery Channel under the title Tall Tales or True by producer Peter Rees from Beyond Television Productions in 2002.[1] -see WP:CITE
  • The current refernces need to be consistent and provide more information in most cases. For internet refs provide url, title, publisher, author if know, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and the other cite templates are helpful in being consitent and complete.
  • For references that are explanatory notes, give enough information that someone reading the note on its own will have some clue as to what it is talking about. For example, current ref #4 is just the cryptic "35, 40, and 46".
  • Article needs many more references - whole paragraphs are now uncited, as are some direct quotes Dubbed "replicate the circumstances, then duplicate the results" by Savage,.. and statistics. See WP:V
  • Do not have direct external links in the text, that is what refs are for - Beginning in Season 5 they have prompted viewers to visit the show's website[1] to see less edited where [1] is a jump to their website.
  • Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, even the Mythbusters intro says that "Adam and Jamie have over 30 years combined special effects experience" (IIRC, closeto that anyways). The article just drops Jamie in with Jamie Hyneman came to the show through Rees, who had previously interviewed him for his appearance on BattleBots. Perhaps some of the material in the Cast section should be moved up in the article, as it does a better job of explaining this.
  • Generally well written, though a copyedit is always good. Lots of interesting material that is well-organized, so it is mostly a matter of citing it and polishing.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop

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

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

Hip Hop is a former Good Article (arts/social science). the article as-is has survived as an introductory article for a multitude of aspects within Hip Hop. A LOT of cleanup has been done, but I would like to work with others to elevate the article back to GA status, and I would appreciate any review of and constructive comments about the entire article.

Thanks, RoBoTamice 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and topic, fairly well written, but needs some work and expansion to get back to GA status. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Read the Good Article criteria - in its current state this does not seem to meet the comprehensive or well referenced requirements.
  • Comprehensiveness is the major problem I see - for example, the history ends with the 1980s. it refers to the History of hip hop music article, but does not summarize it per WP:Summary style.
  • Also is this about the whole hip hop culture or just the music? The lead refers to tagging / graffiti and break dancing, but there is very little about these here. This is covered under WP:LEAD - the lead should summarize the whole article and everything in the lead should also be in the article.
  • Several whole paragraphs have no references - for example, cite claims like Rapping is derived from the griots (folk poets) of West Africa, and Caribbean-style toasting.
  • The refs that are there need to be more detailed and consistent - internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. Using {{cite web}} and the other cite templates may be useful.
  • The article seems overlinked - for example Sugar Hill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" is linked twice in two sections and Planet Rock is linked twice in one paragraph. Most people want no more than two links per article - one in the lead and one in the body.
  • Be consistent - is it "Planet Rock" or just Planet Rock? the Bronx or The Bronx (another overlinked term)?
  • It seems like there could be more images in the article

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) PS I just read Hip hop culture and will review it next - it does a better job at being comprehensive and using images, and worse on citations. My main concern is that having read both articles, I am still not clear on how Hip hop differs from Hip hop culture - why should these be two separate articles (and not merged)? I am not saying they should, only that the articles need to make a better case for their notability as a topic and uniqueness. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop culture

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… As with Hip Hop, I would appreciate review & critique centered on elevating this article to GA status.

Thanks in advance for you input, RoBoTamice 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just read read and reviewed Hip hop - it does a better job on citations, and is worse than this at being comprehensive and using images. Here's what I wrote there - it is valid here too: My main concern is that having read both articles, I am still not clear on how Hip hop differs from Hip hop culture - why should these be two separate articles (and not merged)? I am not saying they should merge, only that the articles need to make a better case for their notability as a topic and uniqueness.

Another interesting article and topic, also fairly well written, but also needs some work and expansion to reach GA status. Here are my suggestions for improvement (I hope you don't mind that I copied some things that apply here too from the Hip hop review):

  • Read the Good Article criteria - in its current state this does not seem to meet the well referenced requirement.
  • See WP:LEAD - the lead is very short and should probably be three or four full paragraphs instead of two short paragraphs made of three sentences. The lead should summarize the whole article - my rule of thumb is that if it is a section header, it should be mentioned in the lead some way, even if only a word or phrase.
  • Several whole sections here have no references - DJing, Breakdancing, Beatboxing, Language, etc.
  • The Table of Contents is very long - can any of the sections be combined? For example under Media, the subsections Television, Magazines, and Film are all very short - could they just be paragraphs in a media section? They are all also unreferenced.
  • The refs that are there need to be more detailed and consistent - internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. Using {{cite web}} and the other cite templates may be useful.
  • This article also seems overlinked. Most people want no more than two links per article - one in the lead and one in the body.
  • Nice use of images in the article, but make sure not sandwich text between them, or have them on the left so they mess up a header (as Busta Rhymes now does)
  • I found the Religion section very interesting - not something I had read about before. It does need cited to meet WP:V and avoid WP:NOR.
  • Make sure to avoid or explain jargon, see WP:JARGON
  • A model article is often useful - find a music related GA or FA and use it for ideas, structure, etc.
  • Sorry I am the only one to review here so far - ask for peer review volunteers at WP:PRV

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Now I have Biz Markie singing "Just a Friend" stuck in my head - thanks. Girl...

Deva Victrix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's improved vastly over the past few months, with large amounts over material being verified. I think the article is fairly comprehensive and would be looking to take it to WP:FAC in the near future. All comments are welcome, but especially whether anything should be trimmed or expanded, if it is too technical in places, does the tone work, and is it easily understandable?

Oh, and since it's not obvious from the name, this article is about a Roman town in Britain. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:GeeJo

[edit]

Excellent article. I'm afraid I'm not able to offer much, but here are a few minor things I picked up from a quick glance, if only to avoid having this article go completely without comment:

  • Lead: In the second sentence, perhaps mention that Chester isn't just in Cheshire, it's the county town.
  • Lead: Last sentence, perhaps link rock cut.
  • Foundation: geography Ptolemy => geographer Ptolemy
  • Foundation: "...'playing card' shape – rectangular with rounded corners – it had four gates:..." - comment isn't parenthetical, as without the break the sentence is grammatically incorrect. Perhaps switch "it" for "and", or just break off into two sentences.
  • Foundation: "...contained barracks, granaries (horrea), military headquarters (principia), baths for the soldiers to maintain hygiene." - missing an "and".
  • Legionary baths/leginary quarry: in situ need only be linked once.

Good luck at FAC. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the help, I've made the changes as you suggested. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Just two for now, both on images

  • Nice use of illustrations but the MOS asks that there be a picture in the lead.
  • I think it would be helpful to have a map or two - if nothing else a dot locator map for Chester could be used. The picture of the model of the camp is nice and a similar map would be useful if it could be made. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped up one of the pictures to the lead (in my opinion the best one); the map would be a good idea, I'll get onto finding one. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeneas Mackintosh

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was my first attempt at a Wikipedia article, some months ago. I was so embarrassed that I gave it up, but since then I've picked up experience with other articles, and I've spent time on my original baby to see if it can be brought up to a good standard (it was so awful that nobody gave it even a start rating). I'd be pleased to have the widest range of positive critical comment, and a tough copyedit would be great.


Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insect development during morgue storage and autopsy procedures

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… -The article may consist of grammatical/spelling errors -Any comments on how to improve the content of the article would be greatly appreciated

Thanks, Best js 2007 (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) best js 2007[reply]

"Grammar and spelling errors" is a serious understatement regarding the problems with this article. The article doesn't look like a Wikipedia article at all; it looks like a high school or college essay.

  • It does not follow Wikipedia's manual of style.
  • It is not cited properly using inline citations.
  • There is no lead section.
  • The title is long, not short, concise, and descriptive, and it looks like it's trying to capture several topics into the article at once. The title looks more like something you might read in a blog or on a news site and not an encyclopedia.
  • Titles of subsections do not follow the manual of style, and are long and wordy. Encyclopedia titles should be short and concise, and easy to be read within the table of contents.
  • The wikilinks that are present in the article look like they were inserted at random and don't really have any context whatsoever to the article.
  • There are some significant WP:NPOV issues.
  • There are no images.

While I think it's good that colleges are trying to include Wikipedia in their assignments, I think such classroom assignments should still understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. We're not compiling a database of term papers here. We're trying to publish an encyclopedia on topics of academic interest to people. If I was the professor in charge of this course, I would assign a grade of F to the student or students involved in writing this. If the purpose of the course, and the assignment, is to help build and contribute to Wikipedia, this fails at it completely. It's a stand-alone essay, and not helpful to Wikipedia's purpose and mission. If students want to truly use Wikipedia in a way to maximize their education, they need to do a thorough and comprehensive search of articles related to the subject that they are researching, and then look at the sources cited by those articles and go to those articles for further research into the subject. As such, Wikipedia should never actually be cited itself, it is merely a starting point for research (but a very good one!). Once you've looked at other sources, if the goal is to contribute to improving the encyclopedia, then identify specific gaps in the Wikipedia articles that you've researched, and improve those articles based on new sources that you've found through your research. If new articles are created through this research, that's great, too! True, it makes the grading from the professor's point of view a little more difficult, since they've got to look at more than one article, as well as the contributions of his/her students across several articles instead of just one. But if you want your students to work on a collaborative group project of individual library research, then have them write a paper on their own, print it out, and turn it in. Wikipedia is not needed for this. If you want your students to gain real world experience of helping to improve an encyclopedia with a very wide readership, then work within the standards and context provided by the publisher, instead of trying to put your own standards into the publication in question. Most good professors **should** be well aware of this.

As it is, this article is an example of an "epic fail" in terms of Wikipedia collaborating with education, and it is nothing more than useless drivel that will most likely either be ignored or deleted once the course is done. To the encyclopedia we're building here, this article is useless. The students involved failed here to get an idea of what Wikipedia is and how it works, but this isn't so much the students fault -- it's the professor's fault for failing to understand the purpose and procedures of Wikipedia, how it works, and effectively communicating this to his/her students. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/April_2008&oldid=704352984"