Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/January 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 readd {{peer review}} to the article talk page.

Emily Dickinson

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

I've been working on this article for a month and a half or so, and I believe it's nearly there. It passed GA on 12/26 and received a thorough copy-edit and plenty of great ideas from Scartol (copy-editor) and User:Awadewit (GA reviewer), all of which can be read on the talk page. I hope to receive some helpful comments/suggestions about article content as well as style in order to steer me towards a successful FAC nomination in a couple weeks. I'm specifically concerned with polishing the "Poetry" section (especially the "Reception", which still needs work), but anything would be much appreciated. :) Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is now closed and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Dickinson/archive1.

Patti Smith

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

"History" section in biography is small. --The Watusi (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated review

[edit]

Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] JS 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --The Watusi (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

[edit]
  • Are the last two sentences of the first para of 'Early years' the right way round? She worked in a factory before or while at school?
  • "In 1967 she left New Jersey for good, moved to New York City and met photographer Robert Mapplethorpe while working at a book store." Suggest the sentence should break after "City", and merge the rest into the next sentence: she didn't move there with the express purpose of meeting him, surely?
  • The two music samples spread out of their box and overlap the text on my setup (Firefox v2 on Windows XP. 1280 x 1024 resolution).
  • "However, several of its songs, notably "Pissing in a River", have stood the test of time," You might need a stronger ref for this, or a re-word to simply state that she still performs them.
  • Ref 11 doesn't seem to support the text preceding it.
  • Is it necessary to repeat "Sonic" at Fred Smith's second appearance?
  • " Her son had a band called Back In Spades." This sentence doesn't seem to have any link to those before or after it, can a more suitable home be found for it?
  • What is CBGB?
  • "She took the stage at 9:30 p.m. (EDT) and closed for the night (and forever for the venue) at a few minutes after 1:00, after performing a medley of "Horses" and "Gloria", and finally her song "Elegie", while reading a list of punk rock musicians and advocates who had died in the previous years" Couple of things that confuse me here. Firstly, she was on for 3½ hours, but the sentence reads as if all she did in that time was a medley of Horses/Gloria/Elegie. Secondly, she performed Elegie while reading list of deceased punk musicians? If she wasn't singing, how was she performing?
  • Are the last two paras of 'Re-emergence' too long in relation to the coverage of the rest of her career? Particularly in the last para, a lot of space is given to a single performance.
  • "All the other inductees to the Hall that night joined: Sammy Hagar and Mike Anthony of Van Halen, the Ronettes, Grandmaster Flash and Furious Five and R.E.M. including Bill Berry on drums." This doesn't make sense. What is meant?
  • 'Current events': reads like an advert. Can the tone be neutralised a bit?
  • "Smith has been an active supporter of the Green Party" Is she still a supporter? If so suggest: "Smith is a long-time supporter of the Green Party."
  • In general a good, informative article, which could be improved by some tightening up on referencing, and more precise use of words. Well, that's what I think, anyway. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]
  • "Smith is perhaps most widely known for the song "Because the Night". I am not sure if "perhaps" here should be used.
  • Three paragraphs in the lead, and the first first one stubby. Why not just two concise paragraphs?
  • "She was influential in the birth of the punk movement with her 1975". You could link some music years: 1975.
  • We do not know the names of her parents?
  • "In 1988 she released album Dream of Life. In 1994 Fred Smith died. Shortly afterward ... " A bit choppy IMO.
  • "She toured briefly with Bob Dylan in December 1995". Month-year not linked - month-year-date linked. Single years are only linked in special chronologies, such as x year in music. But here ("From March 28 to June 22, 2008 the Fondation Cartier"), where you should link, you don't! Read WP:MoS.

I enjoyed reading the article. Maybe some further expansion with more assessments of her music and style throughout the article would help.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crush 40

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… we feel like we have improved the article by far from the shabby mess it was months ago. Despite being a somewhat obscure subject, there are many people interested in the subject, and the article is improved beyond what I even thought possible for this level of obscurity. Any tips, assessment, ect, which will help us get this article as good quality and high listed as possible will help.


Thanks,

User:Radman622 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be very good, and is labeled as an A class article. I was wondering what should be improved to make this ether a Good or a Featured article.


Thanks, Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

[edit]

Hey, I gave the article a cursory readthrough. I don't have the time at the current minute to give a full readthrough, though I intend to soon, and when I do I will make more detailed comments. First of all, if I were grading the article, I would say it is clearly a "B" class and not an "A" class at this point. Not sure what criteria it would be considered an A class, but while certain sections are excellent, others are clearly below Wikipedia standards. Some general and broad criticisms now, more detailed to come later:

  • The lead is a bit scattered. Paragraph organization seems funny. In general, individual paragraphs should focus on single ideas or related groups of ideas. The first paragraph seems to lack a coherent thesis. Also, the lead reads much better (IMHO) if it flows from more general and accessible facts at the start to more specific and esoteric facts later. In terms of readability, the first paragraph of the lead should be written to "draw the reader in". The first paragraph of this article is already dealing with beta-decay statistics and the like. It isn't very inviting for the non-chemically-minded to read through. Consider, and I hate this phrase, "dumbing it down" a bit for the lead. The nitty-gritty can still be treated in the main article, but the lead really should be more general.
  • The article is overlinked. In general, only link the first occurance of a term. For a longer article such as this it is allowable to link terms for their first occurance in each section, but there is no need to, for example, link Carbon-12 every time it appears. It is linked several times in each section. Consider reducing this so it is linked no more than once per section at the most, and if it is a short section, consider not linking it at all. Also, some very common terms not likely to be misunderstood (like "seconds") are also linked. See WP:MOSLINK for more details.
  • The article is sketchy on its referencing. The first 2-3 sections are scrupulously referenced, but later this falls apart. See WP:SCG for more information, and always err on the side of more references than less. While common scientific knowledge (i.e. something you might encounter in every single chemistry textbook) need not have specific inline citations, other places, for example where superlative statements are made (most, least, best, etc. etc.) or opinions are expressed, or surprising or non-intuitive statements, or in the case of this article, statistics or data are quoted, a source SHOULD be provided via inline citation. Interestingly, while many facts that need references lack them, some places, where there is common and uncontroversial and non-quantitative facts cites, there are a REDICULOUS number of cites. Check out the allotropes section. That first paragraph contains nothing that I would think would require more than a single cite to a single source, if that (this seems exactly the kind of paragraph that WP:SCG refers to as uncontroversial knowledge) and yet there are TEN footnotes for it. Ugh...
  • The production section is lacking entirely.

Just a start, again. When I have time to read this more thoroughly, I can make more specific critiques. However, the above should give you some stuff to work on. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews

[edit]
  • A few comments that I hope are of some use:
    • I agree with the above review by Jayron32. There are too many "[citation needed]" entries needing a citation for this to be A-class.
    • I'd like to see the history section cover the discovery of the carbon isotopes and the subsequent introduction of carbon dating by Willard F. Libby.
    • Some logical re-arrangement of the sections is necessary. Production should go just before Applications, for example, and Allotopes should precede Compounds, rather than Characteristics.
    • Jargon such as "π-cloud" should be explained.
    • Some of the single-sentence paragraphs need expanding or merging.
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ruhrfisch

[edit]

First off I agree with the points raised by the other reviewers. I would also suggest you look at some Featured articles as possible models for improving this one. Diamond is featured, as are several elements (Hydrogen and Titanium to name two).

The article is currently offers a lot of information, but is not always well organized, referenced, or clearly written. Some examples from the History and etymology section follow.

  1. "The English name carbon comes from the Latin carbo for coal and charcoal,[7] and hence comes French charbon...". I think this means the French name also comes from Latin, but it sounds as if the French somehow comes from the English. Since the next sentence is other foreign language names, why not add the French in there to avoid confusion (as they all derive from names for coal)?
  2. "...while carbon in the forms of charcoal was made around Roman times..." it should read "in the form of charcoal" and Roman times is very vague - can a more specific date be found?
  3. "A new allotrope of carbon, fullerene, that was discovered in 1985 includes nanostructured forms such as buckyballs and nanotubes.[14]" First off, I think most people would agree these are multiple allotropes of carbon (not one allotrope). I also think fullerenes are not generally seen as including nanotubes. Perhaps "The 1985 discovery of C60, a new allotrope, has led to isolation of many more fullerene and nanotube allotropes of carbon" or something similar would be a better way to say it.

In the Allotropes section, the two most important allotropes are graphite and diamond, then the amorphous form. I would start with those and describe each clearly, then move on to the more exotic forms. I would also label the figure with letters corresponding to the figure (so a) diamond, b) graphite...). I would try to be clear about structures and show how lonsdaleite can be seen as derived from the diamond structure (but hexagonal) and nanotubes can be seen as derived from the graphite stucture (rolled sheet). I would also mention hybridization here (i.e. diamond sp3 and graphite sp2).

The next section, Characteristics, repeats some information and the table comparing properties is something that I doubt would pass at WP:FAC (describe it instead). The table is also slightly misleading as the left column is three different allotropes, while the right is two allotropes.

I am not going to go through each section, but try to follow summary style better - the articles on allotropes and allotropes of carbon both describe what allotropes are better than this. The Carbon cycle section starts off by discussing the rarity of transmutation of the elements, which is just bizarre (though I understand the point, it could just start by saying "The amount of carbon on Earth is effectively constant"). I see no mention of the role of C in global warming and greenhouse gases. In the compounds, there should be an inorganic section to go with the organic one and it should include more on things mentioned elsewhere in the article (like steel and carbides). A good copy edit (just try reading it aloud) is also needed, but so many other changes need to made first that copyediting now is a waste of time (although I do note that Texas and New York have finally achieved nationhood as "Graphite is found in large quantities in New York and Texas, the United States, Russia, Mexico, Greenland, and India.").

Finallly, I note that the references tend to be internet based, which are likely less reliable (see WP:RS) than the many books on carbon that are available in any good library. Some of the books cited are also quite old - surely there are newer works available? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

The new production states that in South Korea and Austria are major deposits, which might be right, but the larges producer nearly 10 times larger than the second is china, which is stated in the graphite article. The production of C60 and diamonds has to be included. --Stone (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occurence

[edit]

First it is said that 900 Gigatonns coal reserves plus 150 of oil and gas exist than a few lines later the statment 4000 Gt, or 80% of coal, gas and oil reserves occure which is a much higer number. --Stone (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

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

This article needs copy-editing and MoS help to get to FA. I don't know what to look for. Might also have larger issues as it has expanded a lot since reaching GA status. Wrad (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

[edit]

Wow! There is so much good information on this page. I think, however, it could be arranged a bit more effectively and some repetitious information could be cut out. Here are my suggestions:

Larger issues:

  • I copy edited the article a bit as I was reading, but someone should copy edit it who is dedicated to that task (I was trying to review at the same time). I also don't know every line of the WP:MOS, but I could tell that there were some inconsistencies in the article itself and with the MOS. A day spent with the MOS or a MOS-guru could help out with this.
  • Can we get artists' names for the illustrations and dates, when possible?
  • Done
  • I have reduced the "Temptation and testing" section somewhat, but I still think this can be condensed some more. There is some repetition of ideas here and I think an organizational scheme based around the five tests might result in a more concise explanation.
  • We need a reason in the "Nature and chivalry" section as to why Woods and Green's interpretations are being contrasted. Clearly hundreds of scholars have written on these issues. Why are these two included in the article? Explain to the reader. This is a larger problem with the article as a whole. Scholars' names are quite prominent - is there a way to reduce this? For example, if you know that three major scholars agree on a reading, there is no need to mention their names - just put the citations all together in the notes. In my opinion, it is only when someone comes up with a distinctive interpretation that is always attributed to them in the scholarship should we mention their names (the Ingham looks like a good example) or when we are quoting (why we should try to quote sparely). This is a hard balance to achieve, but we want the poem and the interpretations to come though, not the scholars themselves.
  • Material from "The Green Knight" seems like it belongs under "Similar stories" - it seems like sections should be joined together somehow.
  • It seems that maybe the extensive description of the pentangle in "Temptation and testing" should go in the "Pentangle" section.
  • The poet of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight directly addresses the ideals of knighthood by including the symbol of the pentangle and a drawing, for example, of the pentangle, would suggest a symbol of infinity. In the poem, the first description of the pentangle is immediately before Gawain leaves to find the Green Knight, when he “showed forth the shield, that shone all red/ with the pentangle portrayed in purest gold.” The poet uses precisely 46 lines to describe the arming of Gawain’s equipment, revealing the underlying meaning of the pentangle. No other symbol in the poem gets as much attention or detail given to it. There is no passage as explicitly described as this one, as if the “poet wishes his words here to be read very closely,” because the pentangle is a conventional sign and not a natural one. A natural one has the same meaning for everyone, but a conventional sign would imply a deeper meaning, so that 46 lines would be necessary for its explanation. - I don't understand this paragraph.
  • The second paragraph of "Girdle" doesn't really make sense to me.
  • The "Wound" section can probably be cut down - it seems a bit repetitive.
  • There are a lot of unattributed quotes in "Romantic interpretation".
  • I did not feel that the "Romantic interpretation" section explained anything new. It seemed like it could be cut without any great loss. I understand that it is trying to show Gawain as a "romance hero" but it doesn't do this yet. Perhaps some of the current material should be cut and a little description of the genre of the romance should be included?
  • Might not the "Order of the Garter" material work as a subsection under the "Romantic interpretation" section?
  • The "Modern adaptions" section seems a little thin - what happened to the story between the medieval era and the twentieth century?
  • I can't seem to find this. I think I may be remembering things wrong, since it is a Cotton manuscript and those were well-known for quite a while. I rewrote the section a bit to make it less dry, but it really seems like all there is. Not much more to add...
  • References need help - not standardized at all.
  • The article seems to weave back and forth between AE and BE. Pick one and stick with it!

Smaller issues:

  • The manuscript is currently in the British Library. - I wonder if this is necessary to include in the lead? Currently, the sentence is just kind of hanging off a good introductory paragraph.
  • Alongside its advanced plot and rich language - I'm not quite sure what "advanced plot" is supposed to mean.
  • A later poem, The Greene Knight, tells essentially the same story as Sir Gawain, though the relationship between them is not clear. - I wonder if there is a way to work this reference more smoothly into the lead.
  • Does the Green Knight just pick up his head and ride off or does he place his head back on his body and ride off?
  • The Green Knight then reveals himself to be the lord of the castle, Bercilak de Hautdesert, and explains that the entire game was arranged by Morgan le Fay. - I think you have to explain a bit (just a phrase or two) who Morgan le Fay is.
  • one one-stress line rhyming a (the bob) and four three-stress lines rhyming baba (the wheel) - There has to be a better way to write this out - it is hard to follow when reading for the first time.
  • On the whole, the poem takes up 2530 lines, divided into four parts and 101 stanzas. - This sentence is just hanging off the end of the "Verse form" section - perhaps it should go elsewhere?
  • For example, like the Green Knight, Cúchulainn's antagonist feints three blows with the axe before letting him without injury. - missing word
  • Hunbaut has an interesting twist: Gawain cuts off the man's head, then pulls off the magic cloak keeping the man alive before he can replace his head, causing his death. - "interesting" could be viewed as POV
  • The Carle off Carlile also compares to Gawain in a scene in which the Carl, a lord, orders Gawain to strike him with his spear, and bends over to receive the blow. - something is off here
  • The typical temptation fable of the medieval period presents a series of tribulations assembled as tests or “proofs” of mortal virtue. - Is there a wikilink for any of this?
  • Through his journey in this tale, however, Gawain learns humility is a lesson that must be experienced at a level deeper than words can reach. - I don't quite follow this.
  • In the seduction scene, Bercilak's wife, like the boar, is a bit more forward, insisting that she knows that Gawain has a romantic reputation, and that she deserves a taste of it. - This is starting to sound a bit colloquial.
  • Both the boar and the seduction scene can be seen as depictions of a moral victory. - a moral victory over what precisely? we should be as explicit as possible
  • While Woods claims that nature provides stronger orders in the poem (a different kind of perfection), Richard Hamilton Green believes that the poet aims at the quest for chivalric perfection over nature. - What does "stronger orders" mean? Does this sentence mean that Green believes that the poem is about conquering nature with chivalry? It is not entirely clear.
  • The word gomen (game) is found 18 times in Gawain. Its relation to the word gome (man), which is in the poem 21 times, has led some scholars to connect them, possibly as a representation of man's fallen nature in the Christian sense. - Perhaps this could be explained a bit more?
  • Done I took out the Christian point. I want that section to focus more on game tradition and leave Christianity more to other sections, otherwise it will get repetitive. Wrad (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Times, dates, seasons, and cycles within Gawain are often noted by scholars. - This is a weak beginning to a section - why are they noted by scholars? Why are they significant? They sentence needs a "because" clase.
  • Imagery of inevitable fall is strengthened by the image of the fall of Troy - You might have to add more literary context here for some readers.
  • Usually, Gawain is said to have an eagle symbol on his shield. - "usually" - as in the other versions of the story?
  • Most critics agree that gender plays a role in the poem but differ about whether gender supports the colonial ideals or replaces them as two cultures interact in the poem. - Make it clear which two cultures.
  • There is also a large amount of critical debate surrounding the political landscape at the time. - vague
  • Ingham sees the poem as a reflection of a hybrid culture that plays the existing strong cultures off of each other to create something new - What's the something new?
  • Is Patty Ingham's theory based on colonialism or post-colonialism? When I heard her speak, I swear she was talking about post-colonialism, but that was a few years ago now.
  • Strangely, Gawain's journey leads him directly into the centre of the Pearl Poet's dialect region - Why is this strange?

This article has the meat to be an FA. I just think it needs some good copy editing, a bit of reorganization, and some polishing. Nice work, everyone! Awadewit | talk 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

[edit]

At Awadewit's suggestion, I've had a look at this very comprehensive article – well done on covering so many aspects of this crucial text. I've done a copyedit, and didn't realize until afterwards that you're shooting for a BrEng style (and I'm a bleedin' yank). I've checked to make sure I didn't "bollocks" anything up too badly, but you may want to give it another "how's your father".

Below I've listed some thoughts and questions, mostly about small matters of prose. Please don't feel the need to respond in detail with green ticks. I leave to your judgment which items to implement and which to merely consider.

For my own sake I'm going to mark through what gets done/skipped/whatever. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Per WP:LEAD, I think an article of this length should have a four-paragraph lead. I recommend splitting the last paragraph into one on symbolism/themes and one on interpretations.
  • The first sentence has six wikilinks; to forestall an overdose, I suggest delinking "knight". This leaves us with two sets of bumping links, but those are worthwhile.
  • The poem survives on a single manuscript... I'd say "survives as a single manuscript". When I see the first part of that sentence ("survives on"), I think we're discussing a parchment or stone.
  • The structure of the text is unclear as explained in the first paragraph. At first read, it would appear it's a poem with three commentaries (?), but then we have "The four narrative poems...". This is confusing to me.
  • Insofar as we've linked to Arthur in the first paragraph, do we really need Arthurian legend linked in the second? I know they're links to two different articles, but maybe it's a distinction best saved for the body of the article itself.
  • I'd like to have the end of the story explained in the lead.
  • The story of Gawain's struggle to meet the appointment and his adventures along the way demonstrate chivalry and loyalty. Maybe "his commitment to chivalry"? I'd like to see these traits attributed or their presence described in just a little more detail.
  • critics often compare Gawain to similar older works ... in order to find possible meanings and contexts for the symbolism and themes within the poem. I don't know how useful the last part of this sentence is. How about at least shortening it to: "in order to find additional meanings and contexts."?

Plot synopsis

  • Can we get a year for its setting?
  • A gigantic Green Knight... Can we get something less egregious than "gigantic"? It just feels like an odd description. Is he very tall for a human? Twice human size?
  • Gawain tells them of his New Year's Day appointment at the Green Chapel So the earlier decapitation incident took place around New Year's during the previous year? Is this important enough to include in the first paragraph?
  • Is there a reason Bertilak de Hautdesert is referred to only as "the lord"? Seems like using the name would be easier.
  • When the lord returns with the deer he has killed, as agreed, Gawain responds by returning the lady's kiss to the lord... Does he give Gawain the deer (as per their agreement)? If so, maybe we should set up a parallel structure: "When the lord returns and gives Gawain the deer he has killed, his guest responds by returning the lady's kiss to the lord..."
  • The plot summary is a bit confusing; why is the girdle a badge of shame? Why is Gawain upset to learn about who set up the game? You've explained this later in the article, but I'd like to see a brief explanation in this section.

The poet

  • ...some inferences about him can be drawn from an informed reading of his works... Do we know for sure it's a him? The Tolkien quote seems to suggest as much, but am I correct in guessing that they're using the masculine as a generalized pronoun? I can't imagine the headache that would come with trying to gender-neutralize it, but on the other hand it seems sketchy to say it was a man if we don't really know.
  • I've changed the sentence "Little is known of it, or its author, before that." to "Little is known about its previous ownership." If this is inaccurate or flawed wording, please change as needed. (Since the references to Cotton and Savile are both related to ownership, it seems odd to suddenly mention its author.)
  • The three other works found with the Gawain manuscript... Maybe mention when they were all found together. Did Savile purchase/come to own them as a unit?
  • However, the manuscript containing these poems was written by a copyist... I wonder if "written" is the right word here. "composed"? "transcribed"?
  • Can we have a year for the Tolkien/Gordon edition? Could we also get a sense of how they came to the conclusions enumerated in the quote? (I assume it will be something like "after reviewing the text's allusions, style, and themes, they concluded:")
  • I think the last paragraph here needs some clarification. If the most common candidate for the Gawain manuscript is John Massey, and St. Erkenwald is sometimes attributed to him, then I don't understand why it's controversial and generally rejected to connect them. I suppose I'm not clear on which part is accepted and which is rejected. I think it would help the reader to structure the paragraph like so (I hope this makes sense):
  1. The most common candidate for the Gawain manuscript is John Massey
  2. Here are some reasons why
  3. Massey has also been connected by some people to St. Erkenwald because...
  4. Other scholars date St. E to a time outside [Massey's?] era
  5. Because of this discrepancy (or for whatever reason), connecting authorship of St. E to the Pearl Poet is still controversial

Verse form

  • I don't know if we need three phrases (breath-point, pause, caesura) for one concept. I'd pick your favorite two.
  • This is a total case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I don't care much for the blue boxes. Any chance we could use a more toned-down wikitable or some such instead? (I also shudder at the sight one box being laid out as on the left side through repeated floating CSS tags. But I recognize that as a personal problem, heh.)

Similar stories

  • ...Bricriu's Feast. This story parallels Gawain in several ways; like the Green Knight, Cúchulainn's antagonist feints three blows with the axe before letting him depart without injury.
  1. If you promise the reader "several ways", s/he should get several ways. =)
  2. The "him" here is ambiguous. Maybe say: "letting his target depart"?
  • I'd like to see some years (or approximations) for the similar stories. For the Lancelot tale, maybe include a phrase along the lines of: "The trope appears in Camelot for the first time in Perlesvaus, when..."?
  • When Lancelot arrives, the people of the town celebrate and announce that they have finally found a true knight. (Apparently many knights had been tested, and failed). I should like to have a word on what exactly is being tested here. (This might also make it possible to combine these and do away with the parentheses, which I feel should be used as rarely as possible in the article namespace.)
  • As with the Lancelot example above, maybe mention about Gawain: "Gawain appears in the stories The Girl with the Mule..." This kind of transition really aids readability. (Wow, spellcheck doesn't have a problem with "readability"?)
  • Several stories tell of knights who struggle to stave off the advances of voluptuous women... Is this really specific to G&GK? It seems like something which shows up all the time in literature from all over.
  • ...the knight is tested to see whether or not he will remain chaste in extreme circumstances. "extreme" may not be the right choice of word here; having an AK-47 to one's temple is an extreme circumstance. Having a lady visit one's room is a bit less so; maybe there's a less relative word?
  • The last paragraph of this section is choppy and disjointed. Approximate dates of appearance would help, but I think a general attempt at structure would also be useful. Maybe give less detail, and start by saying something like: "The elements of Gawain also appear in the stories..."
  • Among all these stories... In the last paragraph, or the whole section? If the latter, maybe say: "Unique among its various successors..."?

Themes

  • The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a test of Gawain's adherence to the code of chivalry. Logical coherence – the story isn't the test, is it? Maybe: "At the heart of SGGK is a test of..."?
  • The sentence "Success in the proofs..." appears suddenly. It leads me to believe there should be a sentence just before it about what happened/happens to those who fail.
  • Gawain believes he has lost his honour and in breaking his promise has failed in his duties. This sentence lists three things Gawain believes he has done. Can we combine it somehow so the reader only has to deal with two?
fixed Wrad (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "hyndez" (hinds) first described in the poem are probably from red deer, a species with large antlers like the American elk, while the subsequent "dos and of oþer dere" (does and other deer) likely refer to the smaller fallow deer. This info, while interesting, does not appear to be in any way related to the courtship. Does it really belong here? Maybe at least put it at the end of the paragraph, with a transition of some kind in front.
  • He removes its head and sets it on high. Isn't this last phrase a bit ambiguous? Maybe there's a technical meaning of "on high" with which I'm not familiar, but maybe we need "holds it aloft" or "displays it on a pike" or some such?
fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...nature represents a form of chaotic order... Does not compute. I get an inkling of this meaning, but I'd choose a less abstract wording.
  • The connection between nature and "the temptations of Bertilak’s wife" isn't clear. I assume this refers to man's lust for sexual interactivity, but if so (or if not) some clarification is in order.
  • I wonder if "man" is being used to refer to humanity in the "Nature and chivalry" section? Or perhaps the codes of chivalry and the

ensuing meanings of the story can't be applied to both men and women. Your call.

  • On the flip side, the phrase almost like an exchange of blows in a fight (or in a "beheading game") is somewhat repetitive. I didn't feel comfortable cutting it out unilaterally, but I think it could be removed without any loss.
  • I've rewritten one sentence to read: However, the hero's victory of the first game depends on his honesty, while his second victory depends on his purity. I still think it's unclear, though. Maybe something like this is better: "The hero's desire to achieve the first victory, however, results in his inability to emerge victorious in the second."?
  • I would insert the "Times and seasons" paragraph into the "Nature and chivalry" subsection.
  • The story starts on New Year's Day with a beheading and culminates on the next New Year's Day. If the time differential is a year and a day, then wouldn't one of the events happen a day earlier than the other?
  • Not really, medievalists have found that because older calendars such as this were so awful, a year and a day was actually a year. People of the time seem to have understood this, using the term "a year and a day" to mean "on this same day one year from now". Weird, but true. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gawain leaves Camelot on All Hallows Day (or All Saints Day) Since we're linking to All Saints Day, can't we just use that as the link text?
  • The various discussions of themes often use "scholars say..." but are followed by a single citation. I'd like to see more evidence that these interpretations are supported by more than one source. (This is much less of a problem in the "Symbols" and "Interpretations" sections.)
  • Perhaps we should provide modern "translations" of the lines about Troy?

Symbolism

  • Stories of the medieval period also use it to allude to love... I personally feel that the only time a footnote needs to come in the middle of a sentence is when something very controversial is being posed, or a quotation needs attribution. (Neither of which is happening here.)
  • British writer J.R.R. Tolkien, who translated Sir Gawain... in what year?
  • Other scholars have called him the "most difficult character" to interpret the most famous poem about him, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
  1. This sentence is unclear. Perhaps an "in" is missing before "the most famous"?
  2. Why is the full title used in a sentence immediately following a use of the abbreviated form? Hopefully just an oversight?
  • I'd provide an in-text explanation of your source for the olde-tyme definition of "girdle".
  • I can imagine a reader asking him/herself: If a girdle doesn't mean underwear in Nibelungenlied, then how is it proof of sexual contact?
  • Tried to clarify. It's not like she took off her bra and handed it to him, but her girdle did have sexual meanings. Underwear isn't the only sex-symbol on the planet. Wrad (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gawain’s use of the pentangle also symbolises the “phenomenon of... (I changed "symbol" to "use" at the start here.) Does this refer to the character Gawain, or the poem?
  • The mathematical information at the end of the "Pentangle" section is interesting, but it feels like a bit of a tangent, and the connection to the poem is far from obvious.
  • Thus, the poet makes Gawain the epitome of perfection in knighthood through number symbolism. But he fails the test of honour, right? So how can he be knighthood perfection?
  • When quoting scholastic interpretations (as in "escape unslain, provided that his honour might also emerge unscathed"), I prefer to have an in-text explanation of who's speaking. Something like: He must, as George J. Englehardt puts it, "escape...".
  • Thus, this set of five elevens (55 stanzas) creates the perfect mix of transgression and incorruption, suggesting that Gawain is faultless in his faults. This is poetic, but confusing. I'd prefer an explanation which takes less of a dramatic license.

Interpretations

  • For future reference: spaced periods for ellipses is "strongly deprecated" in the MOS. See Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses.
  • To emphasize that it's an interpretation, I reworded a sentence to read: "According to the Christian interpretation, the Gawain poet reveals in this depiction of Camelot a concern for his society, whose unavoidable fall will bring about ultimate destruction as intended by God." If I've taken liberties with the meaning, please adjust as needed.
  • When Gawain sets out on his journey to find the Green Chapel, he finds himself in distress... I'd like to see a brief explanation of what sort of distress he finds.
  • However, it is the men who are the ultimate focus of the story and the characters who dictate the outcome. I'm following the feminist interpretation until I hit this sentence. I'm lost here.
  • I'd reorganize the "Interpretations" section in order of popular opinion: You state that "Many critics argue that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight should be viewed, above all, as a romance." Thus, it seems logical to start with this, then provide Christian and then feminist interpretations.
  • Gawain's function, Alan Markman says,... Again, does this refer to the poem or the character?
  • ...laws under the English Order of the Garter. The motto at the end of the poem is a form of 'honi soit qui mal y pense', meaning "Shame be to the man who has evil in his mind." This is the motto of the Order of the Garter. How about rephrasing this as: "...laws under the English Order of the Garter. That group's motto, "blah blah", is presented at the end of Gawain" or some such?
  • If you refer to "Knight and Ingham" in the middle of the colonialism discussion, it makes sense to mention them early on.

External links

  • I'd like to see a brief description of where the links "The Gawain/Pearl Poet" and "Sir Gawain in the Poem" are linked from.

Other

  • In many spots, I've replaced some unusual quotation marks (“) with standard quotes ("). I don't know if this is at all significant or not, but I know that some browsers and associated software (screen readers for disabled users, for instance) stumble on non-standard quotes. You may want to do a sweep through the article to check it over.
  • Should we have a "Legacy" section? (Which could incorporate the "Modern adaptations" info?) Seems like a sensible thing to have in an article about such an important work.

Thanks for all your hard work on this article. Good luck with the FA process, and please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Todd

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want a general consensus of other people's criticisms and comments. Especially focus on the section Later personal life to make it flow, and help expand the conclusion.

Thanks,

--15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Eli Todd (talk)

  • Have moved article to Eli Todd, as we don't usually use titles in article names. Also, there is no other Eli Todd listed, so there's no need to disambiguate. Also am embarking on copyedit of article at some point. ♠PMC♠ 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not at all categorized (and each article should be in at least one category). I've added categories for birth and death years, American psychiatrists, and people from Connecticut. If any other categories are appropriate they should be added. Aleta (Sing) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Force

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like additional input on what needs to be done to bring this article up to FA standards. Also, please check for general readability, errors, and places where clarity is needed.


Thanks,

ScienceApologist (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to nitpick by section, so here we go:

  • Lead
    • I like how the lead pulls in some of the earliest history after hitting the basic properties, although it kinda shifts rapidly into quantum, which is to some extent unavoidable. But in the sentence starting "Following the development of quantum mechanics...", it isn't clear that the second statement follows from the first. Also, I think idea of forces being mediated by gauge bosons needs more than one sentence to be clear, even when condensed down in the lead.
  • History
    • Avoid unnecessarily roundabout wording, such as, "Philosophical development of the concept of a force proceeded through the work of Aristotle." That just says, "Aristotle's philosophy further developed the concept of force."
    • I rather think that encyclopedias should avoid too many parentheses, so I've turned some into commas.
    • The last paragraph is so condensed, there's too much that would require clicking through to other articles to mean anything to the average reader. Why mention that Coulomb used a torsion balance when the inverse square law isn't even elaborated upon, or any further info on the history of the electric force given?
    • I think that fundamental forces are now called fundamental interactions primarily because they are mediated by gauge bosons rather than anything to do with symmetry. That last paragraph could safely end before mentioning 4-momentum, QED, or Noether's theorem.

More to come later. I'm too slow and will have to do this piecemeal. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Carpenters

[edit]

/archive 1

After editing and editing and more editing of "The Carpenters", I feel that this is ready for another peer review. I'm pleased to say that "The Carpenters" looks very professional now, and thanks to the public, is very much better than the original product. Any constructive comments are appreciated! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Fisher

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in improving it to a higher status, don't have much experience working with these kinda things, so I'm just curious as to what needs to be done to get it to the next level, it looks OK so far IMO.

Thanks, - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster Bed

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to be a featured article. I have already nominated it as a good article. I really want to know what kind of suggestions I need to make it better.


Thanks,

–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling video game franchises

[edit]

Previously a part of the list of best-selling video games, it was split from the original article due size. I have transformed the original plain list into a table giving a brief description of every franchise and its original release date. Temporarily I have left the "plain text" version of the list there until the article finishes the peer review (we may copy it to the Simple Wikipedia later). These lists are quite used in the gaming forums (as is regarded one of the few sources for this kind of information, going as far as having Yahoo! Games and The Independent using it for their articles (even though they did not credit the usage).

I am looking for feedback about its current status, trying to get it to featured. All of the references are considered "reliable" in the gaming environment (from consumer sites like GameSpot and IGN, industrial sites like Gamasutra and GameDaily, and even mass media coverage like Forbes, The New York Times, BBC, etc), and all the external links are working (as last checked a few days ago). Please consider that this list may never be completed (it is currently missing obvious examples like Pac-Man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc), and some references are somewhat old. I am worried about the size and whether we should restrict the franchises to a larger number (10 million like the original version—which would limit the list to just 86 franchises instead of 119 right now), besides obvious improvements to get it to featured status (prose, cleaning, etc). Thanks in advance! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren McFadden

[edit]

I've been working with this article for a long while with minor edits, slowly building it up. I added a few references today, and I just wanted to check on how someone else felt about the page, as I am hoping soon to get it up to GA.


Thanks,

-Mastrchf91- 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what other editors think of the way the article works and how good it is at the moment. I would like to see also if it would be possible to push the article to A status or possibly FA status any time soon and if so how much work needs to be done to do so.

Thanks,

Mangwanani (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

[edit]
  • The Naruto (the series, not the character) article is well written, but it needs to be far more well written to reach either GA or FA quality. Any suggestions are welcome. The only one I have is to talk about the theme of the series: ninja; and to also desribe more about the relationships between characters. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads a bit fannishly, and could do with a copyedit. Grand pronouncements about the series being character-driven should be cited to critics, for example. Are there any reviews etc. of the series? (or of parts of the series) You should change the "growth and popularity" section to be a "Reception" section, in which you talk about critics and fans. Take a look at the anime wikiproject's series GAs for more ideas. -Malkinann 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name to reception, but I fear what would happen should I put that It is the world's most popular anime and manga series (and it most likely is), since it is original research. I know nothing else about reception. Also, I would like to mention how the series developed into what it currently is and the themes of the series. I've already started to here, but it is far from ready to list yet. I'll start looking over other GA anime/manga articles tomorrow, I'm going to get off soon today. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naruto is quite popular, but hardly the most popular. Dragon Ball is still the most popular Shonen Jump title of all time, while in Japan alone One Piece is the most popular of current titles (although, Naruto and Bleach are not far behind). Here's a site with Shonen Jump circulation numbers. [1] Jonny2x4 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally you need to distinguish between current popularity (which will vary according to what series are currently in production) and long term popularity where you consider how well series were received in their time, plus the longevity of that popularity. (In the latter definition, Evangelion usually seem to come out top.) Samatarou 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I was about to suggest we take the example the Bleach article gave us and list a small and basic summary of the main characters. The problem is, however, we need to judge just which characters are main or major. For example, none of the other characters match up with Sasuke or Naruto, but some of them play just as important a role as Sakura and Kakashi do, like Shikamaru. So, like Bleach, we should decide just what qualities a character should have to be main besides be a mmeber of team 7. I suggest:
  • Close to Naruto Uzumaki.
  • Must have battled both a member of Akatsuki and a named follower of Orochimaru at least once.
I don't have any more ideas, though. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we only include Team 7 on the main page for simplicity's sake, and re-work the List of characters in Naruto article instead of adding other characters to the main page.--88wolfmaster 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little to the reception section that you might like to expand upon. I'd suggest that you read through a review, and pick out what it says are the good bits and the bad bits of Naruto. Then rewrite it in your own words and use the review as a source. Here's a couple of links to get you started: meta-review review -Malkinann 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot has been done on it recently, and suggestions for improving it further would be very helpful.


Thanks,

Tkn20 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York City F.C. records

[edit]

I think this article will need to be improved if York City F.C. is to become a featured topic, so I've brought it to PR. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PeeJay

[edit]
  • I think the lead could be improved beyond a single sentence. Per WP:LEAD, "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any". I would also suggest including info on the date as of which the information is accurate.
  • I would suggest including the years that players played for YCFC in the appearances and goalscorers tables, and maybe include information on appearance and goalscoring records in individual competitions, if the information is available.
  • There are probably too many subsections in the club records section.
  • The references should be expanded to include details on the publisher.

Hope that helps. – PeeJay 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Here we go...

That's about it I reckon! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Have a look at List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records, I think there are quite a few things you could use from there to help improve your article, or would it be better being a list, but that's up to you to decide NapHit (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harkey Lodger (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The Daily Show

[edit]

I've been trying to do a bit of work on tightening up this article, but I'm not really sure where to start. Any ideas or suggestions would be great! Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Japan

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to see what was needed still in order for this to become an FA. Given the nature of the topic, there might be some issues that I have left out or I need to consider in order to give the article a good and balanced view. Also MOS and copyedit changes are welcome.

Thanks,

User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-written. It seems comprehensive, stable, neutral, verifiable, and it's well-illustrated. I made a few minor proofing changes, and I have suggestions related mainly to prose, Manual of Style, and technical issues.

  • The alt viewer here finds several images that need alt text. It is meant to help readers who can't see the images, including the flags. WP:ALT has details.
  • The link checker here finds six dead urls in the citations.
  • Image:服喪の町並み.jpg has a problem on its licensing page. The clickable source link goes to the image itself rather than to a web site with information a fact-checker will need in order to verify the license.

Lead

  • Unlink "flag" and "Sun" since they are well-known to most English speakers?

Before 1945

  • "Nichiren gave a sun banner to the shogun to carry into battle... " - Wikilink shogun on first use?
  • "The earliest recorded flags in Japan date from the unification period." - It might be helpful to say what years the unification period refers to.

Postwar period

  • "The Hinomaru was the de facto albeit not de jure flag throughout World War II and the occupation period." - It might be helpful to link or briefly explain in parentheses the two Latin phrases.
  • "Despite what has been claimed, however, this was never used as a national flag for Japan during this time period." - Needs a source. Who made this claim, and who denied it?
  • Overlinking: World War II needs to be linked no more than twice (once in the lead and once on first use in this section).
  • "At a Democratic Party of Japan rally on August 8... " - Abbreviate here as well as spell out; i.e,, "At a Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rally on August 8". The abbreviation by itself is OK on subsequent use.
  • "a photograph was taken of a banner that was hanging down from a ceiling" - Tighten by deleting "down"?
  • "This infuriated the governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party and party president (and also prime minister) Taro Aso, saying this act by the DPJ was not forgivable." - Suggestion: "This infuriated the governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the party president (and also prime minister) Taro Aso, who said that this act by the DPJ was not forgivable."

Design

  • "the total size of the hoist length" - Explain or link "hoist length"?
  • "The disc is decreed to be in the center, but is usually placed one-hundredth (1/100) of the flag width towards the hoist." - Why this very precise number? Is it significant in some way?
  • "The overall ratio of the flag was changed to two units length by three units width (2:3)." - Earlier you use height and width but here length and width. It would be easier to compare them if you used the same words (probably height and width). From what you've said, the ratio changed from 7:10 to 2:3, if I'm understanding this correctly.

Present-day perception

  • "In China and South Korea, both occupied by Japan during Empire of Japan, Japanese flags were burnt during protests against Japan's foreign policies or if a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo." - Verb-tense disagreement. Shouldn't it be "visited" rather than "visits"? Also, the sentence implies that the Chinese or Koreans burn the Japanese flag when a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine, but in those cases aren't the flag-burners Japanese?

Use and customs

  • "The flag is used as a good luck charm and also as a prayer to wish the soldier back safely from battle.　One term for this kind... " - Should the 　 be in parentheses" with a space afterwards? And again "the Kyushu Railway Company has displayed Japan's flag on 330 manned stations.[38]　" here?
  • Image:Tokyu Bus 7707.jpg overlaps two sections. The Manual of Style recommends keeping images entirely inside of a single section.

Protocol

  • "When flying the Japanese flag with that of another country, the Japanese flag takes the position of honor and the flag of the guest country flies to its right at the same height." - Misplaced modifier. The Japanese flag doesn't fly the Japanese flag. Perhaps "When people fly the Japanese flag... "?
  • "When the flag becomes unsuitable to use, it is preferred to burn the flag in private." - Suggestion: "When the flag becomes unsuitable to use, it is customarily burned in private."
  • "It said that the sphere finial of the pole... " Wikilink or explain "sphere finial".
  • "the black cloth that extends to the width of the fly of the flag... " - Wikilink or explain "the fly of the flag"?

Military

  • "This is the only branch of service whose emblem does not invoke the rayed Imperial Standard." - A branch of service is a "which" rather than a "who". Suggestion: "This is the only branch of service with an emblem that does not invoke the rayed Imperial Standard."
  • "However, the branch does have an ensign to fly on bases and during parades." - Wikilink or explain "ensign"?
  • "The ensign was created in 1972, which was the third used by the JASDF since their creation." - Since "its" creation?

Imperial

  • "The standard of the Japanese emperor" - Wikilink or explain "standard" in the caption?
  • Was there any particular reason for the choice of a chrysanthemum?

References

  • Citation 64 should link to the source page rather than to a .jpg image by itself.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Magic Kingdom

[edit]

I think this is a great article, full of useful technical and historical information about an interesting game. I've put a lot of work into it. I'd like to know whether y'all feel it's ready to become a FA candidate, or whether there's more than can be done to improve it. - Brian Kendig 02:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a way around these problems? I don't see a way to turn those lists into prose without making a mess of them, and there really are no references on the subject other than the game itself. - Brian Kendig 12:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I find works sometimes, at least in cases where the lists are not readily convertible into prose, is to use multi-column tables, usually with {{prettytable}} to set the style. — RJH 14:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning references, how about a published game guide and outside reviews? The point behind references is that one can be assured that the game actually does exist and that others can vouch for it. Pentawing 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems fairly straightforward - anyone have any other constructive comments on the article? - Brian Kendig 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Lead too short - should be at least two solid paragraphs for an article this size (see WP:LEAD)
  2. A lot of really short paragraphs and some one-sentence paragraphs. Long paragraphs generally == good flow. Especially pronounced in "Games" where its basically a list masquarading as sepearte paragraphs :).
  3. "Items that can belong to an avatar" etc. - could use some more description of the items
  4. Some parts read like a game/HOWTO guide, like "Characters". Someone once told me that an encyclopedia is not "prescriptive" but is "descriptive".... hope that helps.
  5. Of course the list thing mentioned by the previous reviewer

Generally neat article... I think once some of the lists get turned into prose it will be a better reading length too Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Camargue

[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping to make this article FA eventually, and just would like some views please! I know the background section needs expanding, a few bits of info on the later life of Regiment 95 perhaps. Also more photos but they are hard to come by, and that its overly reliant on Fall (but then, Battle of Dien Bien Phu is very reliant on Davidson). Hope this review can help make a second FA for the First Indochina War

Thanks,

SGGH speak! 16:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have addressed most of the points given SGGH speak! 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Giles

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, after getting Marcus Trescothick to FA, MdCollins and I wanted to do the same to Giles' article. We have begun to outfit the article with more details but progress has stagnated slightly. Hopefully a peer review will highlight other areas to improve and help keep the momentum going. Aside from the section tagged with the expansion tag, what other issues are there?

Thanks,

SGGH speak! 12:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I have addressed many of the points given. SGGH speak! 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the content is pretty good, but I am not sure that the format works. I have had some discussions with one of the major editors about the issue, and I think that article could benefit from some peer review, especially now that his campaign has ended.

The article uses a different frame of reference than the sister articles on Hillary and Obama. I think the focus strays too far into the main developments of the race, which would be covered under the main election article. Also, I think there are too many photos that are tangential (at best) to the main issue. For example, there are some stock photos of the other candidates, a stock photo of a fireman, and Steve Martin in 1982.

Thanks,

RedShiftPA (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary position

[edit]

A few questions:

  • Are there any more subjects that need to be covered in order for this article to be considered comprehensive?
  • Is there a better scheme of organization that could be used?
  • Are any additional images needed? What do you think of the ones we have?
  • Do all of these variants really count as a subset of the missionary position, or are some of them different enough that they should be considered completely separate positions? (The full discussion has been centralized to Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary)
    • For instance, at one point, side entry was listed as a missionary variant but I removed it because I consider that to be an entirely different position.
    • What about gay sex and anal sex? I removed those variants because I consider missionary position to be a sexual position in which a man is on top of the woman inserting his penis into her vagina.
    • Does sex in which the woman is sitting on a raised surface (such as bed or table) and the man is standing up count as missionary position? I removed it because he's not really on top of her in that position per se.
    • What about sex in which the man is kneeling?
  • Are there any other variants that should be covered?
  • Do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks,

Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Wafulz

  • General.
  • The article is pretty short (26kb). I think it could use some expansion, especially considering its prevalence. {{sexpositions}} should be added. "Basic position" needs to be near the beginning of the article and expanded into prose form.
  • Lead section.
  • The lead is weak, and the definition isn't very accurate. The missionary position is a male-superior coitus position (ie "man on top") where the partners face each other. It's also a bit jumpy and improperly organized. I think it needs three separate paragraphs: one to introduce the position, define it, and to mention its variants. The next paragraph should cover history and significance- stuff like etymology of "missionary" and religious/cultural stances (I believe that non-missionary sex is technically sodomy by some definitions). The last paragraph should cover the benefits and drawbacks and the popularity. It may be a good idea to include something about a small backlash against the position because some see it as subordinating women.
  • Commonness
  • This section should be retitled "popularity" or "frequency." It needs expansion and historical context - mention that other cultures had never seen it before. As much as I appreciate Kinsey's work, it shouldn't be the only source.
  • Perceived advantages/disadvantages
  • These two should be merged into one section. The writing is a bit weak but I'm just doing a general overview.
  • Basic position.
  • This section should be merged with "implements" and be renamed to "Description". From there it can flow better into "variants". This sentence is really odd and I don't think it merits inclusion: November also notes the possibility of smearing a small amount of lubricant on one's stomach and chest for a result she describes as a "really fun slip and slide effect." While it sounds like fun, the article shouldn't be a sex manual.

Overall I'd say the article is about halfway to featured article status. It'll also need a decent copyedit after this review. This would be a great candidate for the first sex position FA.-Wafulz (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a lot of information can be found about the history of missionary and the frequency and perspectives on it within different cultures. Combined with some of the other information you mentioned (e.g. more studies in addition to Kinsey), and possibly some more positions, we should be able to double the size of this article. By the way, I don't think that positions other than missionary are classified as sodomy anywhere. I looked for info about feminists deriding the missionary position but couldn't find a whole lot...I think most women actually like missionary. The feminist objections I've seen tend to be more against penetration in general (sometimes with the position of clitoris on the female anatomy used as justification that penetration isn't natural) or against men who insist on ONLY doing missionary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah the feminist objections may have just been to "male superior" positions in general and were probably more related to the notion that the man had to be on top. This source on the sodomy bit cites a History Channel TV show.This JSTOR link gives the following abstract: "Many states have laws which prohibit every sexual act except sexual intercourse, in the missionary position, between husband and wife. These laws have been used to repress alternative life styles because such modes of living often do not conform with the rules of traditional marital monogamy. However, recent court decisions make most private relationships between consenting adults outside the realm of the law. The effect on sex laws is seen in an increasing liberalization of these statutes."-Wafulz (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got full access to the article, but it doesn't elaborate on what states held the laws. However, it discusses sodomy laws that were changed in the early 1970s, so maybe they're in some archive somewhere? I'm also getting frequent mentions of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It states: (emphasis mine)
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
  • Apparently this has been interpreted as "missionary only" according to iffy sources. I'm trying to find more concrete sources discussing this.-Wafulz (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I found a mirror of a source here:
There is a statute prohibiting sodomy in the military: Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). (46) Article 125 is a very broadly written statute from the 1950s. The drafters of the UCMJ essentially took the Maryland and Washington, D.C. sodomy statutes and put it into the military code. In the military, anything that is not missionary position is sodomy. In the military, unlike in the civilian world, straight people are actually prosecuted for sodomy regularly. A survey of the appellate cases in the military criminal courts where there was a conviction for consensual sodomy found eighty-six cases in a three- year period. All but three involved heterosexual men convicted of conduct with a woman. One was a woman for conduct with a man, and two were for conduct between two men.-Wafulz (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit skeptical about the statements that Aquinas forbade non-missionary position sex, although there are a lot of books that mentioned it. I would feel more comfortable about having that in the article if I could find one of his actual writings that mentioned it. I couldn't find it in the summa theologica. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enteng Kabisote: Okay ka, Fairy Ko: The Legend

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have no idea idea how to make this article better or where to find more information about the movie.

Thanks,

NeoSkyte (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Wheatley

[edit]

This article just passed at WP:GA. I want to take it to WP:FAC ASAP. Please prvoide feedback here to help toward that end.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Falcon (Australia)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is (and has been for over 40 years) a prominent Australian automobile and needs attention. Previous attempts to bring the article up to GA status by me and other users have not been successful and I believe it is time for some action to be taken to bring this important article up to a decent standard.


Thanks,

HarrisonB - Conributions 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A&W Root Beer

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I need help getting it to good article status. I'm looking for constructive critisicsm, for errors in the article, and for comments on the article in general. Thanks, - ~VNinja~ 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Woody

[edit]
  • I think that Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information should be of help here.
  • First things first, the article is very short, there should be some more information out there that could be added. The history of the company needs to be expanded. There should be a separate history section describing the creation and expansion of the company.
  • It needs third party, verifiable sources. At the moment the only references come from the company itself.
  • We don't need the "®" in A&W Root Beer®.
  • It needs expansion in general. What are the sales figures since they went into supermarkets?
  • Where is it sold and by whom?
I made some minor changes and reorganized a bit, plus left a note on the talk page. Good luck with continuing to build this article! --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Vectis

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… It has seen vast improvement in recent months. It is now sizeable, with a good range of facts, clearly laid out and offers easy readability.

Thanks,

Simon898 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… this article has the potential to get to the Good article status. A peer review will help with that.


Thanks,

Dupree3 (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island Pacific Academy

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want the quality of this article to be better. Any help would be helpful.


Thanks,

— Cuyler91093 - Contributions 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Manning

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the article up to featured article quality. I feel that the article is, at the very least, a Good Article (although due to backlog it has not been reviewed for Good Article status) Any suggestions or comments, provided that they are constructive, are welcome and appreciated.


Thanks,

Dlong (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slackers CDs and Games

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think this article could reach GA status, so I would like to know what may need to be changed, expanded, or cited to reach GA.

Thanks,

Me5000 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

[edit]

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was recently listed as a Good Article. The article cites (61) sources, and utilizes (4) free-use images. The article is stable. Looking for any feedback/comments to help improve the article further.

Thanks,

Cirt (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Addressing points from semi-automated peer review

I will begin to address points from the semi-automated peer review, and make a note of it here, below. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  1. When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  2. This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
    • Done - I think that this is something the bot picks up on a lot. I know it's a long article - but it is important that the history of the incident is discussed in one article, and not split apart. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pied-noir

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been sourced and referenced and seems to give a sufficient amount of information about who the pied-noir were and what their role in Algerian/French history was. Hopefully it reads well and is informative. Ideally, I would like to see this article move to GA status at some point.

I'm a new editor and this is the first so-called "large" article on which I've done substantial work, thus all help is appreciated :). I'm specifically concerned about NPOV at this point because the article concerns a contentious subject with two sides.

Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Lazulilasher (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall has a lot of information, and is decently illustrated. Seems to be fairly well referenced, though there are a few paragraphs with no refs and at least one direct link to the web (not an inline cite) that needs to be fixed. Writing is good on a small scale, but work needs to be done on the big story and getting it to flow from section to section better. Remember this is telling a story, and try to make the story clearer. Specific points follow - not an exhaustive list.

Lead

  • The very first sentence is quite long and involved - is there any way it could simplified? Perhaps swap parts of the first two sentences: Pied-noir (plural pieds-noirs) (French: black foot; pronounced /pje.nwaʁ/) is a term used to refer to colonists of Algeria until the end of the Algerian War in 1962. Specifically, pied-noirs were French nationals of European descent, Sephardic Jews, and settlers from other European countries such as Spain, Italy, and Malta who were born in Algeria. Now the first sentence gives the specifics and the second says "specifically" and gives the general definition. I think it makes more sense here to go from general to specific (as my attempt at a rewrite does).
  • The lead should summarize the whole article, at least touching on every header and subheader (even if only a word or phrase). I would check that this lead does that and also do something about the one sentence Camus paragraph.

Origin of the term

  • ...had been assigned to duty in the coal-room because of their experience with warm temperatures, thus causing their feet to become black. makes it sound as if the warm temperatures turned their feet black (not the coal)
  • The chronology and terms in the last paragraph are unclear - it seems to start in 1962 (independence) when they call themselves Algerian[s?] in relation to metropolitan French, and as Europeans vis-à-vis the indigenous Arab and Berber population. Then the next sentence goes back to the 1920s and 1930s (when Algerian begins to mean the Arabs only), then to 1955 (when Pied-noirs satrt to call themselves that - but then what about the first sentence seven years later they are call themselves Algerians or Europeans?

French invasion

  • Why is the etymology of dey given?
    • Haha...ok. Will remove.
      • Green tickY Done.
  • Abd al-Kader declared jihad against the French and thus began a period of full-scale war which lasted seven years.[17] Please give the year this started.
  • Although various pockets of the country remained independent, the war effectively ended in 1847 with the surrender of Abd al-Kader, and Algeria became French territory.[18] I am not clear on how this differed from the situation after the French kicked out the Ottomans - weren't the French the ruling authority / government then? If it was "occupied territory administered by France before" or something similar please make that clearer.

Settlement

  • They became known as colons, Européens, and eventually pieds-noirs. does some of this belong in the Origin of the term section?

Pied-noir relationship to Metropolitan France and Muslim Algeria

  • The WP:MOS says not to repeat the title in headers and subheaders, so this name should be changed - perhaps to "Relationship to Metropolitan France and Muslim Algeria"?
    • Green tickY Done.
  • Might want to explain what the Metropole is before the block quote - not everyone knows it is the French mainland.
  • Here and in the following sections you repeat the 1 million Pied-noir, 9 million Arabs figure several times - should try to avoid needless repetition (although this might be good in the Lead for an idea of the scale of the pied-noirs)

The Algerian War and Exodus

  • This is History too - you might want to change the "History" section to "History to 1950" or something similar. Also, how did the end of the Second World War feed into all this?
  • ..which has been alleged to be the most massive relocation of people in Europe since the Second World War. Needs a ref - who alleged it? Until when? What about the former Yugoslavia breakup?

Exodus

  • The exodus to mainland (or metropolitan) France began once the pied-noirs became convinced that the country would become independent of France and accelerated after the 5th of July 1962 massacre, in which hundreds of militants entered European sections of the city, and began randomly attacking civilians, causing up to 3500 causalties or disappearances. What city? Oran?

Notable Pieds-Noirs

  • Hard to think of this as a header without "Pied-noir" in it. Very list-y. Can you add more information - dates of birth and death? Even make it paragraph form?

I also note that Pied-noir, Pied-Noir and pied-noir are all used. I do not speak French, but I think the capiltalization should be consistent throughout. If the caps differ, perhaps explain or note this in the Origins section.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Paradis massacre

[edit]

Le Paradis massacre is my first article, and I got it to GA. I'm a new editor so all help is appreciated. I took it here for help with the prose, issues have been raised with sections on the background, the regiments and the battle of La Paradis. Problems with redundant phrases, grammar, fluency, and "sketchy details" have also been raised.

Regards,

Mattyness (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! You peer-reviewed other articles! Give the new guy a break....please? Mattyness (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BuddingJournalist

  • Great work so far! Have you thought about possibly trying to make this a featured article in the future? Some specific comments:
    • "It should be noted that in total sixteen-thousand prisoners..." "It should be noted that" is one of those throw-away phrases that usually adds nothing to a sentence (and in my opinion, actually weakens it).  Done
    • "In total, only one hundred were taken in the area..." This was confusing. I thought 16,000 prisoners had been taken? Done
    • "The men of Totenkopf fought recklessly throughout the campaign, suffering comparatively higher death rates that other German forces." This sentence would probably be best appearing in the paragraph before the discussion of the prisoners. Done
    • The Manual of Style recommends that numbers higher than ten be given in numerical form (16,000 prisoners, 200 French-Moroccan troops). This should be done for the whole article. Done
    • "By this time, the first German units had..." What time? Done
    • "attack on the May 24." Missing a word (night, day?) or just a typo perhaps? Done
    • "to preserve tanks for the upcoming campaign" Which campaign? Done
    • "had been ordered to hold out for as long as possible against the Germans to give as much time as possible " repetition. Done
    • Linking specific places would be helpful ("Riez du Vinage", "Le Cornet Malo", "Bois de Paqueaut", etc.) Not done None have articles.
    • "because the boundary between the two British regiments was the road dividing the position, Ryder's men surrendered to Knöchlein, who had been fighting the Royal Scots." Unclear and confusing. Done
    • "The British prisoners were marched to the barn, lined up alongside it and were then fired upon..." parallelism/redundancy  Done
    • "forced French civilians" Awkward. Recast sentence ("...and the Germans forced French civilians to bury the bodies...") Done
    • "who were later captured by the Wehrmacht's 251st Infantry Division" When exactly? Not done I can't find anything in the sources.
    • "His lawyer, Dr. Uhde" First name?  Not done Again, in every sources it is just "Dr, Uhde".BuddingJournalist 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! A response! I will get working on all those points right now. Anymore comments would be welcomed so much it's not even true. Mattyness (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I run the peer review script on over one hundred articles a month - sorry I missed your comment until now. I read the article and made a few minor copyedits just now. Seems well written and decently illustrated. Also well referenced. If you could get a map of the area that would make things clearer - some of the battle descriptions / movements of troops are hard to follow without a map. I was also wondering about the 200 French Morroccans executed by the same unit - any more on their story? Other than that, seems pretty far along the road to FA. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde

[edit]

This article has maintained its GA status for almost a year, and is relatively stable with minimal vandalism for the past two years. I've listed this article for peer review to seek feedback on what changes should be done or what else should be improved in order to enhance the article further.


Thanks,

Mithril Cloud 08:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR

[edit]

As per WP:UNI article guidelines, the following are suggested changes that could be made to the article:

  • Student Services section is not notable. Most universities have similar forms of student services and are pretty much compulsory, especially in US and UK.
  • Listing of the names of student organizations is unnecessary and once again, are unnotable. If you want to expand on the student organizations, try to focus on events/contributions that were covered by verifiable sources, like charity events, record-breaking, award ceremonies, etc.
  • School Seal section is unremarkable. You should try to merge that into the History section.
  • Campus section comes before the Academics section
  • Your article lacks demographics information. Such information should be included in the Academics and Demographics section.
  • Your article lacks a separate Research and Endowment section. It is not necessarily important, but it is generally good to have one.
  • WP:LEAD states that you should summarize the entire article's key points into the lead. It only looks like the university's history is in the lead at the moment.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding my PR, or if any of my comments were unclear, please let me know and I'll be happy to clear things up a bit. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


PR Commentary
[edit]
  • Student Services section is not notable. Most universities have similar forms of student services and are pretty much compulsory, especially in US and UK.
Will work on it by taking the section out.
  • Listing of the names of student organizations is unnecessary and once again, are unnotable. If you want to expand on the student organizations, try to focus on events/contributions that were covered by verifiable sources, like charity events, record-breaking, award ceremonies, etc.
Will work on it by replacing the names with quick descriptive summaries of the types of organizations.
  • School Seal section is unremarkable. You should try to merge that into the History section.
Will take the section out if it fails to fit in the History section.
  • Campus section comes before the Academics section
Correction done.
  • Your article lacks demographics information. Such information should be included in the Academics and Demographics section.
No published articles about demographics can be found at present.
  • Your article lacks a separate Research and Endowment section. It is not necessarily important, but it is generally good to have one.
Same as above. Articles about any possible research done is scarce.
  • WP:LEAD states that you should summarize the entire article's key points into the lead. It only looks like the university's history is in the lead at the moment.
The lead already summarizes the History, Campus, Academics, and Athletics sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithril Cloud (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway 1

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…work has been commencing on a number of Saskatchewan highway articles, and guidance is requested to seek good or even feature status to improve quality of articles on wikipedia in this genre. This article is one of high importance being a part of the Trans-Canada route.


Thanks,

SriMesh | talk 18:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment have addressed all the issues generated except the one about sub-sections, as I am not sure which section needs the sub-sections. Any other comments welcome also. SriMesh | talk 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been fixed now - just reran the script and this did not come up again. From the other peer review, looks like tere were many more subsections describing its course that have been merged. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:GeeJo

Ok, let me preface this by saying that I've no knowledge on the subject itself, so I'm unable to comment on any factual niggles. This'll mostly be about MoS issues.

  • Origins: Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Canada) could do with a link.
  • Origins: You could do with briefly explaining why there was a need for a trans-Canada highway. You don't need a great amount of information (that's what Trans-Canada Highway is for), but a summary would be helpful.
  • Origins: What was the general consensus in the province about the project? Was it an issue discussed by the politicians and media?
  • Origins: Provinbcial => Provincial
  • Origins: If you can find any information on the subject, perhaps you should include a brief overview of the potential routes discussed, and why the chosen route was settled on. Was there much discussion with Alberta/Manitoba over the meeting locations?
  • Origins: Dominion government isn't a term used widely outside certain Commonwealth countries. Perhaps switch to national (if I interpreted the term correctly myself :) )
  • Origins/Speed Limits: Are all the quotation boxes necessary? They break up the text significantly and I'm not sure that some of them couldn't just be explained in prose with a citation leading to the full quotation.
  • Maintenance: The section is only one sentence long. Either it needs expanding or it can be absorbed into another section.
  • Maintenance: Who is responsible for overseeing the maintenance of the highway? Is it at a local, provincial, or national level? Where does the funding come from?
  • Maintenance: "a 4.6 paving project" I have no idea what this means.
  • Maintenance: Link Judy Bradley. Identify her as a provincial-level politician.
  • Speed Limits: Should be Speed limits
  • Speed Limits: "The highway is twinned east of Regina until Highway 617 east of Wolseley." - explain twinned.
  • Communities: Ok, this is where "figures overload" sets in. I'm not sure that all of these numbers are necessary or even relevant, and most seem to just be acting as filler. How do census figures on the towns inform readers on the highway itself? Do I really need to know about when the various post offices were established? Have a read through and take out bits that aren't germane to discussion on the highway. This may require a bit of reorganisation.
  • Swift Current to Moose Jaw: What is Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) #9? Why do you abbreviate it and then not use the abbreviation again (and usually periods aren't included in abbreviations)?
  • Swift Current to Moose Jaw: Valjean could support a post office between 1912 and 1968 - On the off-chance you really think that this belongs here: could it or did it?
  • Moose Jaw to Regina: <ref="Large"/> should be <ref name="Large"/>
  • Moose Jaw to Regina: You've not used the abbreviation RM before, and the link to Pense No. 160, Saskatchewan doesn't make it immediately obvious what it stands for.
  • Regina to Manitoba: This reads as a slightly prosified list. It needs a lot of work.
  • Regina to Manitoba: another <ref="Large"> (and "Solonyka, Ed & Solonyka". The poor person's name is Solonyka Solonyka? :) )
  • Regina to Manitoba: Trans Canada highway => Trans-Canada Highway
  • Geophysical features: The section is one giant indigestible block of text. Break it up.
  • Books: Is this a bibliography or further reading? Either way, why only one entry? If there aren't more, just drop the section.
  • External links: Identify the sites being linked to. Perhaps (use your judgement) explain why I'd want to click on them.
  • Are there any perennial issues brought up by the media with regards to the highway? I ask this because in the UK, debates over tolls and maintenance crop up every now and then. Even if it's only at the national level, you might be able to find a few comments at the provincial level. If there aren't any debates, fair enough.
  • The could do with a bit of a copyedit, as word choices seem a bit clumsy at times (finally finishes and the like). I'm not really the person to ask about fixing this, but there're a few editors who specialise in this type of thing.
  • There isn't a single image of the highway itself in the article. Perhaps try asking at Wikiproject Canada etc for a snap or two of the road. Since the Saskatchewan section was completed in 1957, you *might* be able to get hold of some expired Crown Copyright images ({{PD-Canada}}) of either the construction or of the first year of use. But then again, maybe not.

Scotland

[edit]

I'm intending to put Scotland forward as a Featured Article Candidate sometime in the near future. The article has recently been improved and other Wikipedians have expressed an interest in getting this through FA. Any help with this would be welcome. This article was last peer reviewed in 2006 and has changed a lot since then. Lurker (said · done) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall very nicely done and well illustrated. A few comments from one read through: I have never seen footnotes in an infobox - it makes it even longer. Why are they here and not with other notes in the reflist below? It might be helpful to have the map higher in the article - those not familiar with the geography of Scotland might appreciate this. Modern History seems a bit thin after the 17th century and Highland clearances. More on the Industrial Revolution perhaps? In the Administrative subdivisions section, these sentences repeat information from the preceding section on politics and seem unnecessary: For the Scottish Parliament, there are 73 constituencies and eight regions. For the Parliament of the United Kingdom there are 59 constituencies. In the Law section, does the last sentence need to be its own paragraph? In Geology and geomorphology, Grampian Mountains is shown on the map, but not mentioned in the section. The Transport section has three one-sentence paragraphs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gillingham F.C. records

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been suggested it needs to go through PR in order for the Gillingham F.C. "series" to become a Featured Topic

Thanks,

ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PeeJay

[edit]
  • How about adding tables for the club's top X appearance makers and goalscorers in each competition such as the ones found in Arsenal F.C. records and List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records?
  • I'm sure there are more club records to be listed than the ones that are already there. A list of "firsts" and "mosts" and attendances and transfer fee records would be perfect.

Basically, there are plenty of club stats articles to take inspiration from. I realise I've not been much help, but the mere fact that I'm offering suggestions should help with the article's inclusion in the Featured Topic. – PeeJay 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I tried earlier to make sure the WP:MOS was followed closely, since then quite a bit of work's been done (to the good!) but a few citation positions need fixing (no space between cite and punctuation please), some hyphens have crept in (en-dash!) and some of the references are missing "p" for the page number(s). I'll have a closer look at the content shortly but those MOS thing really need to be sorted in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done all that, I think

More specific comments:

  • Not keen on the continual wikilinking of Football League.
    •  Done
  • Surely you know the actual dates of big wins (e.g. 05/09/87)?
    •  Done one, will do the other when I'm back home and have my books in front of me, as it's not on Soccerbase......
  • Not clear why you have most appearances and then most appearances by "non-goalkeeper" (most would use "outfield player" I suspect as well...)... Hillyard isn't identified as a goalie anywhere....
    •  Done - took it out
  • Most capped players could be included (although I realise that list may not be so large!!)
    •  Done - added most capped player, might expand it to all capped players given that there's only nine players involved - what do you think......?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon

[edit]

I understand that the page itself is highly functional; it does nothing other than transmit Gillingham FC records. However, I can't help but feel that some more life could be injected into it. Expand on the lead, maybe? Something else I'd be tempted to address is your referencing. Personally, I'd put the Triggs book beneath the reference list using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}, and reference each instance using "Triggs (2001) p. XX." - I'm not sure if there's a guideline about this anywhere, but Anno Domini, for instance, does it the way I'm trying to describe. I really could be clearer. Oh, and spaces between references and punctuation. Seegoon (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean there shouldn't be spaces between references and punctuation? I couldn't find any.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah maybe that should have been made clearer. I saw one, but it was probably removed right away. Seegoon (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faster than a speeding bullet, me ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've "slimmed down" the multiple references to the Triggs book, what do you think of the way it looks now.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klonoa: Door to Phantomile

[edit]

I'm looking to make this article a Good Article or, at the very least, achieve a "B" rating. Other than expanding the introduction and story section, what do I need to work on? Due to the game's obscurity, it's extremely difficult to find information and references, so keep that in mind. Thanks! --Teggles (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first sentence needs something: Klonoa: Door to Phantomile combines standard sidescroller elements with unique gameplay enhancements for the time it was initially released. For the audio section...that is stated in the credits, right? Also where did you get the info for the "release and sales" section? hbdragon88 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some comments from a skim:

  • The lead doesn't summarize the entire article, per Wikipedia:Lead section.
  • Watch your tense: "The rendered, three-dimensional backgrounds could not be walked into" should be "The rendered, three-dimensional backgrounds can not be walked into"
  • Why is there an audio section if you just present a list of the sound team?
  • You've got an entire paragraph dedicated to content rating. Is that necessary?
  • "This placed the game fourth for the week; one position lower than Shining Force III: Scenario 1 and one position higher than J-League Winning Eleven 3." Is it really important to say what positions three and five were?
  • The references need a bit of work. Never specify format=HTML. Don't put two external links in one reference, as the reader should not have to decide which is the actual reference. For foreign-language references, specify the language parameter. Some references are a simple link—please format those. More references are needed in general. It should be apparent where they are needed, but ask if you need specifics.
Pagrashtak 16:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Springs, Florida

[edit]

This article got a big overhaul last year, upgrading from Start to GA. The goal of this peer review is to get the article ready for FAC (hopefully).

Thanks!

Legionarius (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moni3: From someone who has concentrated a few recent edits on the detriments of water diversion from the Everglades, and a North Florida resident that looks askance on most South Florida metropolitan areas, I hope you find my recommendations even-handed...

  • In the History section, Lyons' heirs moving from beans to cattle - was that in the Coral Springs area? Or did they just pick up and leave after selling all the land for development? It's a little disjointed.
  • There are five citations for the violence and rise in gangs. This is too much citation for two sentences. Can you expand it or even it out?
  • What made Coral Springs so highly rated according to Money Magazine? What aspects of the city did they rate?
  • The reference to Trivial Pursuit in Cityscape makes it sound as if you got the fact from the game. It would be just as accurate to take out the reference to Trivial Pursuit.
  • In Demographics, can you put the mean income in comparison to other counties in Florida? Palm Beach County has the most money in Florida. Where does Coral Springs stand?
  • I've not visited Coral Springs, but surely there have to be controversies about it being such a tightly regulated community. I think they are worth mentioning.
  • And, really, I can't help myself. Coral Springs is a result of urban sprawl the directly impacted the Everglades negatively. I have read there are communities in South Florida looking to curb growth in the name of ecology conservation and restoration. Are there any organized movements in Coral Springs to check urban development, or at least decrease its impact on the environment?

It's apparent that you put a lot of work into the article. It is well-referenced, clean, and well-written. It does, however, read as a bit of an advertisement for the community. No urban center can be this positive all the time. There must be some local controversy, just to make it interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great comments! Let me try to address them.
  • I tried to explain what happened from beans to cattle a little better. They finally sold their stuff in 1961... or in the next paragraph. :-)
  • Gangs, negatives, controversy: That's the thing. I tried really hard to find negative views of Coral Springs for evening the POV. There is a lot of small complaints in forums and other non-RS places, but nothing I could find in RS, or coming from some kind of organization. The worst I could find was the gangs; but even the gangs problem is fairly minor, if you look closely. The strange amount of citations is related to the fact that there isn't an overall article that summarizes all the issues. What do you recommend? The facts (if you follow the links) look so minor that I balked a bit into adding more detail.
  • I thought the explanation of the criteria for the Money prize was a little wordy and deviated from the goal of the article, so I expanded it in the ref. What do you think?
  • TS reference: I thought it added a little color to the article, do you think it makes the article sound worse?
  • Zero movements or organizations not related to any specific group (like firemen, political party, museum benefactors etc). Couldn't find anything enviromental.
  • Good point about the demographics; I have to research it a bit more.
Lastly, thanks for the compliments! But most of the credit must go to user:Horologium.--Legionarius (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say? I looked through the last ten years in The Miami Herald, hoping to find something to make Coral Springs a bit more interesting. The lack of information on it makes it seem even more freakish...like the harrowing hour I spent lost in The Villages a few years ago. Don't be surprised if someone finds the Trivial Pursuit sentence odd in FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got this source for the income, but it is very different from the census data. Not sure if I can/should use it.--Legionarius (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some nbsps. Thanks!--Legionarius (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your nice words! I do not feel competent to improve the lead. Please, do you know any project where I could get some help?--Legionarius (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

[edit]

I would like opinions on the general state of the article. I have added myself some {unreferenced} and {fact} tags for people to reference if they can. Also I have added a section (Traditions) that is empty for now. But except for these, what do ppl think of the article? Thanks Nergaal 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old review

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

  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 12 meters, use 12 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 12&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), colonize (A) (British: colonise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), mold (A) (British: mould), molt (A) (British: moult), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • “In the year [of] 2006”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long. The details should be branched off into subarticles, see Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) {[Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolf's Rain}}[reply]

Kit (association football)

[edit]

I wasn't even aware this article existed until I noticed a debate about how it should be titled on the football project's talk page last week. When I looked at it on Monday I was surprised by how feeble it was, so resolved to expand and improve it. It is now a few bytes short of ten times the length it was on Monday morning, but I'd appreciate comments on the usual spelling/grammar/MoS issues as well as whether there's any aspects of the topic I haven't covered.

Cheers! ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Firstly, Hell's teeth!!!. Great expansion job. Next, the comments and questions...

  • Consider linking "knickerbockers" in the lead.
    •  Done
  • Remove "The.." from your headings per WP:HEAD.
    •  Done
  • Could mention position numbering, then squad numbering and names on kit in the lead as well.
    •  Done
  • What about home and away kits as well, are they worthy of lead mention? Also the one-offs, such as Champions League finals shirts with the event embroidered into the shirts?
    •  Done - added home and away colours to the lead. I don't think one-off shirts should be mentioned in the lead, it might be worth one sentence in the main body of the article if I can find a source discussing the concept.....
  • "huge amounts" - not that encyclopaedic, perhaps "significant amounts"?
    •  Done
  • Don't like "Required (basic) equipment" as a heading - either basic or required, and explain in the section what you mean.
    •  Done - the slightly rubbish heading represented pretty much the only words left from before I started work on the article ;-)
  • "(the Laws do not specify that studded boots need be worn)" - you're assuming we all think studs are specified. Perhaps a rephrase something like "...while most boots are studded (or bladed!), the Laws do not specify they are required..."
    •  Done
  • Are logos ever present on the arms or is that just the "Premier league" logo?
    • I can't find any reference to clubs with sponsor logos on sleeves. Refs have it of course, I may drop in a mention of this........
  • Not necessarily the right place for it in this article but there has been some controversy over the use of the blades, injuries etc. Worth a mention?
    •  Done
  • I've heard repeatedly of players being encouraged to wear boots one size too small for that "special touch" which has resulted in chronic foot damage. Again, worth a mention if you can cite it?
  • Are players prohibited from wearing gloves in warm weather? (you know what I mean, from your phrase...!)
    •  Done
  • Didn't Davids wear the goggles because of glaucoma? Probably worth distinguishing that it wasn't a fashion choice...
    •  Done
  • Match officials - international ref's have worn yellow quite a bit...
    • I'll keep looking, but thus far have not been able to find a reliable source for this point......
      • Still can't find any actual reference to this, but have dropped in a picture of Howard Webb reffing in yellow, dunno if that helps at all.....
  • "This prevents confusion and wild attempts to wrest the ball from your neighbour." - I love this.
    • those wacky Victorians.... :-)
  • "heavy hobnailed boots" in the caption - proof?
    •  Done - changed it
  • Who's the loser in the cap hanging onto Cascarino's left hand?! And yes, very short shorts!
    • I actually sponsored those shorts either that season or the season before. It took me ages to save up the £10 from my pocket money......
  • Hmm, this may be anecdotal but what about the Man Utd grey strip (allegedly designed to be good with blue denim) which they wore for a half against Southampton (I think) going down 3-0 at half time, changing into a different strip and, still losing, at least got a goal back in the second half?
    •  Done
  • Last ref [53] needs the space before it removing.
    •  Done

Very good read, I really enjoyed it. Let me know if I can be of further (assuming this was some...) use...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stain

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

new info has been added to it and it has changed from its previous version

any suggestions for improving this article will be more than appreciated Thanks,

Binarymoron (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article looks significantly better than the old version at first glance, it still feels very much like a stub to me. Here are some suggestions for possible expansion:
  • The article seems to be almost entirely slanted towards the American version of it. You should give more information on the Japanese version other than just the little in the info-box (i.e. what company makes it, etc.).

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • An entire section could be made on production. What made Ryuji Masuda create the series? Why did he create it the way he did? How is it produced?

 Not done lack of proper information.Binarymoron (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand the music section. Tell more about the music, who composed it, how it is recorded (i.e. digital, orchestra, individual musicians, etc.).

 Not done lack of proper information.Binarymoron (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was the critical reception of the series? Has there been any noteworthy praise, criticism, etc. of the series? Did someone notable love it or hate it?

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did the series air on TV or was it a web series originally? What channel did it air on in Japan? In America? What were the ratings like in both countries? Is it significant for any reason in any other country?

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You quote a lot of the information from the special features of the DVDs. Can you incorporate this information into expanding other sections instead of putting it into the DVD section? Maybe just list all the special features in one list. In general, the DVD section should usually be very simple and straightforward.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your description of the show I'm really just picturing a cross between Wile E. Coyote and Teletubbies. You should really expand it in a plot section and tell exactly what goes on in each episode. Make the reader who's never seen the series picture exactly what the series is about.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected some style issues myself but your references are cited wrong. See WP:REF for information on how to cite your sources within the article. Remember, in general, anything that I wouldn't know about the series just through common knowledge, since I haven't seen it, should be cited within the article.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember your consistency in number usage. In general, numbers under one hundred should be written out (e.g. one instead of 1). I corrected some of these I saw within the article.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. -- Redfarmer (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done requested CopyEdit.Unnecessary terms have been removed. Binarymoron (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above reviews are for the older version of Mr. Stain, links are

Redfarmer's review for :this

And

Ruhrfisch's review for :this

The current version is the revised version of Mr. Stain.

It would be helpful if you could help me with the not done portions of the article (marked above). Thanks, Binarymoron (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non automated comments from Ruhrfisch

  • Reference tags should have a space after them. I fixed those int he two lead paragraphs, but the rest need this too.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dates need to be wikilinked, fixed the first two.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand this: "The CGI was produced by FUNimation Entertainment and broadcasted in Japan by Kids Station, beginning January 6, 2003, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 12 p.m. (JST). The show also premiered between 10:50 p.m. and 23:30 p.m.(JST) on December 31, 2002.[4]" I would list the premier first, then the usual air times. Also 10:50 p.m. makes sense, but 23:30 pm does not - either "between 10:50 and 11:30 p.m." or "between 22:50 and 23:30". I think most casual readers would understand the p.m. version better.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might want to find a featured article or good article on an animated series and use it as a model for the article.

Green tickY using Excel Saga Binarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The characters table refers to episode number, but the list of episodes does so by title and "Volume" number. The table of characters seems a bit much - could there just be a list of major characters and then the details on the minor ones could be in the episode summaries?

 Done still working on the character list Binarymoron (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Instead of al ist of characters, how about a paragraph or two describing them? Start with Mr. Stain, then talk about the characters who appear in the most episodes (volumes) (the cats?). Then maybe move on to characters by type - robots together, or love interests, or birds?

 Done Binarymoron (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead paragraphs it says "There is no dialogue, just music and sound effects, similar to the old Looney Tunes cartoons." I did not know there were Looney Tunes without dialogue. My question is, if there is no dialogue, how do we know the characters' names?


 Done Binarymoron (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Characters section, can you give examples of how the names suggest their fates or roles? In the list it mentions the fish named "Eaten" - any others? Also why is Mr. Stain called that? What does Palvan mean and are there any differences between the Japanese and English names in meaning (if you translated the Japanese names into English, would they all be the same)? You might want to mention here that Mr. Stain is the only character who appears in all episodes, Palvan next, etc. Some characters roles are more obvious than others - Lost kitten needs no explanation, but who is Stephanie? Is Handsome Stain real? Would "abandoned" be a better description of the baby than "deserted"?


 Done the cast names only appear in english, I added this in the lead.

  • "Also why is Mr. Stain called that? What does Palvan mean?"
have to be answered. Binarymoron (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Storyline - no references in any of the four paragraphs (plus none in the last pragraph of Characters). Pehaps a quote or two about the story from a reviewer could be used here?

 Done

Episodes - these are mostly fairl well written

Green tickY

General - still needs a copyedit, cleanup. Probably by someone who has seen the show. Hope this helps answer your question, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 definition of planet

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it could easily become a GA with some tweaks.


Thanks,

Nergaal (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article mention whether this definition is still in use or has been superseded? The date in the article title leads readers to wonder. Fg2 (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… this is a very important subject and Wikipedia should make sure its article on this subject is well written.


Thanks,

Dupree3 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Faulk

[edit]

I do notice some things that need to be added (references being one), but would like to know what other information should be correct, added or deleted. Thanks for your opinons/suggestions in advance.

Pinkkeith (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Youngblood}]

Coral Springs, Florida

[edit]

This article got a big overhaul last year, upgrading from Start to GA. The goal of this peer review is to get the article ready for FAC (hopefully).

Thanks!

Legionarius (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moni3: From someone who has concentrated a few recent edits on the detriments of water diversion from the Everglades, and a North Florida resident that looks askance on most South Florida metropolitan areas, I hope you find my recommendations even-handed...

  • In the History section, Lyons' heirs moving from beans to cattle - was that in the Coral Springs area? Or did they just pick up and leave after selling all the land for development? It's a little disjointed.
  • There are five citations for the violence and rise in gangs. This is too much citation for two sentences. Can you expand it or even it out?
  • What made Coral Springs so highly rated according to Money Magazine? What aspects of the city did they rate?
  • The reference to Trivial Pursuit in Cityscape makes it sound as if you got the fact from the game. It would be just as accurate to take out the reference to Trivial Pursuit.
  • In Demographics, can you put the mean income in comparison to other counties in Florida? Palm Beach County has the most money in Florida. Where does Coral Springs stand?
  • I've not visited Coral Springs, but surely there have to be controversies about it being such a tightly regulated community. I think they are worth mentioning.
  • And, really, I can't help myself. Coral Springs is a result of urban sprawl the directly impacted the Everglades negatively. I have read there are communities in South Florida looking to curb growth in the name of ecology conservation and restoration. Are there any organized movements in Coral Springs to check urban development, or at least decrease its impact on the environment?

It's apparent that you put a lot of work into the article. It is well-referenced, clean, and well-written. It does, however, read as a bit of an advertisement for the community. No urban center can be this positive all the time. There must be some local controversy, just to make it interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great comments! Let me try to address them.
  • I tried to explain what happened from beans to cattle a little better. They finally sold their stuff in 1961... or in the next paragraph. :-)
  • Gangs, negatives, controversy: That's the thing. I tried really hard to find negative views of Coral Springs for evening the POV. There is a lot of small complaints in forums and other non-RS places, but nothing I could find in RS, or coming from some kind of organization. The worst I could find was the gangs; but even the gangs problem is fairly minor, if you look closely. The strange amount of citations is related to the fact that there isn't an overall article that summarizes all the issues. What do you recommend? The facts (if you follow the links) look so minor that I balked a bit into adding more detail.
  • I thought the explanation of the criteria for the Money prize was a little wordy and deviated from the goal of the article, so I expanded it in the ref. What do you think?
  • TS reference: I thought it added a little color to the article, do you think it makes the article sound worse?
  • Zero movements or organizations not related to any specific group (like firemen, political party, museum benefactors etc). Couldn't find anything enviromental.
  • Good point about the demographics; I have to research it a bit more.
Lastly, thanks for the compliments! But most of the credit must go to user:Horologium.--Legionarius (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say? I looked through the last ten years in The Miami Herald, hoping to find something to make Coral Springs a bit more interesting. The lack of information on it makes it seem even more freakish...like the harrowing hour I spent lost in The Villages a few years ago. Don't be surprised if someone finds the Trivial Pursuit sentence odd in FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got this source for the income, but it is very different from the census data. Not sure if I can/should use it.--Legionarius (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some nbsps. Thanks!--Legionarius (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your nice words! I do not feel competent to improve the lead. Please, do you know any project where I could get some help?--Legionarius (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth MacFarlane

[edit]

This article recently passed GA. Just wondering what changes would be made if the article were to be submitted to FA.

Thanks,

miranda 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College

[edit]

I'm trying to improve Dartmouth College-related articles, bringing them to GA or FA status. I've got plenty of experience writing articles on the institution and its subdivisions, but never on something like a Board of Trustees, so I'd like a general review of what this article will need to progress through the ranks of GA and FA. I know that at present there are some citations, but it's not at the rigorous level required for promotion. Taking stronger sourcing as read, I'm looking more for comments about comprehensiveness: what else needs to be discussed? What is it missing that will prevent if from being promoted?


Thanks,

Kane5187 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal Behavior

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…it appears to be a very comprehensive account of the book Verbal Behavior and its components


Thanks,

Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah State University

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly improved since its original creation and copy editing occured to remove all copyvio information. Thanks, Absolon S. Kent (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Peer Review

[edit]
  • Mission statement should be merged into the academics description
  • Notable campus events includes trivia, which are discouraged in articles.
  • Academic profile section should be renamed to Academics and Demographics per WP:UNI's article guidelines.
  • Research Centers section should be merged into the summary of buildings in the Campus section.
  • The Schools and Colleges section should be integrated with the Areas of Study section. Separately, it's kind of awkward and it looks as if you're restating the same material.
  • Other academic programs section is awkwardly placed. It should probably integrate it with the academic programs description.
  • The Want more information? infobox on the Notable faculty and staff section seems out of place. The Want more information title almost sounded as if the article's advertising SSU, but it's not. My suggestion would be to place the links to the "See Also" section.
  • Athletics section should be embedded in the Student Life section.
    • School Colors and School Mascot section should be deleted since the material is already covered in the Infobox University for SSU.
    • The same deal with the Athletics' "want more info" box, please move the links into "See Also"
    • Organization section should be placed as the first sentence of the Athletics section prior to the NCAA intro. Trivial information regarding the Athletic Director is unremarkable, therefore should be removed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a roster. Readers who require names will be better served by clicking to the university's athletics dept link on the External Links section.
    • Athletic Facilities should be mentioned in the Campus section
    • Athletics infobox is completely unnecessary and should be only placed in the athletics article.
  • Re: SSU in the news
    • Winless BBall Season should be integrated into the Athletics section
    • The court case should be integrated into the History section.
  • Convention naming methods suggests that "Suggested Reading" be renamed to "Further Reading"
  • Footnotes should be renamed to "References"
This section has also been posted on the Talk:Savannah State University page.
I welcome comments regarding my findings or to clear up any misunderstandings if I was vague in my descriptions. Happy 2008! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

updates

[edit]
  • Mission statement should be merged into the academics description -  Done
  • Notable campus events includes trivia, which are discouraged in articles. -  Not done merged into history section
  • Academic profile section should be renamed to Academics and Demographics per WP:UNI's article guidelines. -  Done
  • Research Centers section should be merged into the summary of buildings in the Campus section. -  Not done The Research Centers are not actual facilties but are programs operated by the University
  • The Schools and Colleges section should be integrated with the Areas of Study section. Separately, it's kind of awkward and it looks as if you're restating the same material. -  Done
  • Other academic programs section is awkwardly placed. It should probably integrate it with the academic programs description. -  Done
  • The Want more information? infobox on the Notable faculty and staff section seems out of place. The Want more information title almost sounded as if the article's advertising SSU, but it's not. My suggestion would be to place the links to the "See Also" section. - -  Not done Renamed
  • Athletics section should be embedded in the Student Life section. -  Done
    • School Colors and School Mascot section should be deleted since the material is already covered in the Infobox University for SSU. -  Done
    • The same deal with the Athletics' "want more info" box, please move the links into "See Also" -  Not done Renamed
    • Organization section should be placed as the first sentence of the Athletics section prior to the NCAA intro. Trivial information regarding the Athletic Director is unremarkable, therefore should be removed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a roster. Readers who require names will be better served by clicking to the university's athletics dept link on the External Links section. -  Done
    • Athletic Facilities should be mentioned in the Campus section -  Done
    • Athletics infobox is completely unnecessary and should be only placed in the athletics article. -  Not done see above discussion
  • Re: SSU in the news
    • Winless BBall Season should be integrated into the Athletics section -  Done
    • The court case should be integrated into the History section. -  Done
  • Convention naming methods suggests that "Suggested Reading" be renamed to "Further Reading" -  Done
  • Footnotes should be renamed to "References" -  Done


Absolon S. Kent (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary

[edit]

I feel like this article needs some more work. I would like to bring it up to A or at least good article status. Any suggestions? ― 金魚花火 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alone

[edit]

Hopeful I can get this to GA status at some piont. Thanks,

Buc (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pacific hurricanes

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of making it into a Featured list and I would like suggestions of any sort for improvement.

Thanks,

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway 11

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…Working on a few Saskatchewan highway articles to help raise quality levels to GA or FA and would like to know if my contributions are on the right path


Thanks,

SriMesh | talk 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the semi automated peer review of Manual of Style concerns, they have been addressed. If there are any other comments regarding article improvement please let me know. SriMesh | talk 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done heavy editing of it lately and want to bring it up to GA status, and for this, outside views would be appreciated. I'd like to find ways to drastically cut down the plot summary (I think four paragraphs would be needed, not five), other sections and content to add, and addition reviews and the like for the Reception section.


Thanks,

The Clawed One (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 894

[edit]

I've put this up for peer review because it's a B-class article, I'm hoping to get to GA or higher. --Son (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrians

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it needs to be checked before going through a potential GA review. Specifically, the article needs to be enhanced both content-wise and source-wise. It is true that many edit-wars have occurred over the identity and history of the Illyrians. However, the article has remained stable for some time. I would appreciate any assistance whatsoever.

Thanks,

Elysonius (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)
The "Greek mythology" and "Ancient texts" sections at the beggining need significant expansion. The "Bronze Age remains", "Irno Age remains", "Classical period", "Roman rule" and "Middle Ages" can be turned into subsections of one large "History" section, and you can get rid of "remains" at the end of the first two sections. Apart from that, it's quite good. You might want more references, with inline citations and and pic or two more couldn't hurt—Phoenix-wiki 20:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Souliotes

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should be checked before going through a potential GA review. It is true that many users have engaged in constant edit-wars over the identity and history of the Souliotes. However, the article has remained stable for quite some time. Nevertheless, it is still necessary for this article to undergo improvements both content-wise and source-wise. I would appreciate any assistance whatsoever.

Thanks,

Elysonius (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Soup

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to get feedback from other users, so that such feedback can be applied in updating the article.


Thanks,

— Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Roger Davies

[edit]

I'm sorry to be so slow responding to your message but I don't have a huge amount of time at the moment. Here are a few observations:

Reception
  1. Needs clarifying: One possible reason for the film's reception is that... - you don't actually say what the reception was, though you do imply that it did badly.
  2. Why did it do well at the box office but badly with the critics?
  3. How does it compare box-office-wise in dollars with Animal Crackers, Monkey Business, Horse Feathers, A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races? A nice simple table showing comparative grosses would be good.
  4. Why not include the punchline in the Groucho anecdote about Casablanca and Warner Bros? It's short and funny.
Famous scenes
  1. Reads more like fond memories than encyclopedic content. (Understandable :)
  2. Some external scholarship for selection of the scenes to feature would be good, ie an external rationale.
  3. Perhaps one sub-section per key/famous scene, with a brief description of the scene, some critical input, and images?
References in popular culture
  1. The Woody Allen reference is rather thrown away and could do with expansion.
  2. Consider renaming to something encyclopedic like Works referencing Duck Soup
  3. The film must have influenced far more than you suggest. More research?
  4. On a related point, which would make a good subsection, what material influenced or inspired Duck Soup? (The Laurel & Hardy connection is thrown away in the intro. It needs expanding.)
Footnotes and references
  1. Bit of a mess. Clearest in my experience is to list in full every source referenced in the references section. Then in the footnotes, use very brief cross-reference. See Hamlet for examples. Something like:
  2. Any printed sources you can look to? Adds gravitas and, more importantly, depth (IME, webcomment tends to more superficial than printed stuff.)
Overall
  1. Rather engagingly written but short sentences/paragraphs make it rather choppy/stubby in places.
  2. A world politics overview section would be interesting. Economic horrors wirth worldwide depression. Emergence of Fascists in Italy, Nazis in Germany.
  3. Have you considered a compare and contrast section, to very similar films? The Great Dictator springs to mind but there are bound to be others. What was the cinema landscape generally of the time?

I've concentrated on broad stroke stuff rather than nitty-gritty. This has great potential for a featured article. All the best, and happy New Year, --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for the feedback. I'll do my best to assess your suggestions and apply them to the article in the near future. Once that's done and the article looks satisfactory, I'll contact you and see if we can get it nominated for good article status. It'd be nice to have a Marx Brothers-related article as a FA, too. Much obliged, and Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collectonian

[edit]

Hmmm...my response will probably not be what you want to hear, but as you are seeking to improve it I hope you'll take my feedback as an attempt to help you with that goal.

  • The very first thing I noticed is that the article is not complying well with the Film MOS. It is missing some key sections (most notably cast/characters and production details). Famous scenes should be subsections of the plot and a source is needed for the declaration that those selected scenes are famous.
  • Musical numbers should either be moved into the plot, or reworked as a start to a more detailed production details with the lists converted to prose if possible; that could also include the current ride remark in the intro about the earlier titles of the film
  • Refences in popular culture is a trivia section and unnecessary, as is the side statement: "(Groucho would later use a similar idea in his letters to Warner Brothers defending the title of A Night in Casablanca)" in the reception section.
  • I'm not super familiar with these films, so I can't tell for sure if the plot summary is including the ending, but if not it needs to.
  • The intro needs rewriting to better fit the lead section guidelines and the Film MOS suggestions. Some of what's there is production note stuff that belongs further in the article, and several key basic points are missing (director, producer, original release, etc).
  • The disambig link should be at the top of the page, not buried in the See Also section
  • I'd ax the two final links in the ELs, they are fan sites that add nothing of encyclopedic value to the article
  • Some of the references need to be redone using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} or similar template rather than just a plain link; more references are also needed. For example, if Herman J. Mankiewicz was uncredited as the producer, a source is needed showing he was the producer. The entire first part of the music section is also unsourced, though it makes some important claims that need verifiable, reliable sources to back them up. Other similar key points are missing sources.
  • It's also missing the video and DVD release info. It was released to VHS in 1992, and has had several DVD released. There is also a CD soundtrack created by Soundtrack Factory.
  • Finally, may want to work on the tone. Some parts read more like a loving tribute from a fan than a neutral, encyclopedic article :)

I hope that helps some Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for the critique. I'll be correcting a lot of these problems in the near future. By the way, concerning the repeated note about "some parts read more like a loving tribute from a fan than a neutral, encyclopedic article"— honestly, I'm a big fan of the Marx Brothers, and I have no doubt that the majority of the others that edited that page are, too, but hopefully that won't stop the improvement of the article. Thanks again for your comments. and Happy New Year! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob and good luck. Trust me, I struggle sometimes with being neutral while working on articles of favorites too. That's one reason I like the PR as it lets more neutral eyes help you find spot times were the inner fan took over the keyboard ;-) Collectonian (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik

[edit]

Happy New Year to you, too! I haven't much time on Wikipedia today, what with the Bowl games and all, so here's a couple of brief thoughts:

  • Duck Soup is an old film, so I think that for the article to significantly improve, you would need to track down offline resources. I have a feeling that this film has likely been covered at length in books and newspaper articles between its release and today, so you may want to try out keywords for Duck Soup in Google Book Search, Google News Archive Search, and Google Scholar Search. If you have a university account, you can learn to search the keywords in newspaper articles locked in subscription-only databases. The one I've used frequently is Access World News -- hopefully, it's available to you! And implementing templates is also a good idea. Though I'm biased, I'd suggest Fight Club (film) was an example to follow. You'll see a healthy mix of offline and online resources for a 1999 film. For this one, I think that there'd likely be a slant toward offline resources. If you have questions about researching, let me know, and I can help out! I've provided subpages to some editors with some headlines.

If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for your comments! I'll go ahead and start researching more for the film in order to find more offline references, so that a balance between offline and online citations can be achieved. In that regard, however, I may need your experience to help guide me through it. Much obliged. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColdFusion650

[edit]

First up, some props. The plot is not too long. Usually this is my main complaint on film articles. People make the plot section like a transcript. This one is good. However, the famous scenes section seems bloated. The first paragraph is fine, as it uses citations and proves that it is indeed famous by using the also famous I Love Lucy scene. The second through fifth paragraphs of that section don't really establish why they are famous. They may be great and funny, but why are they famous? This section really needs citations to establish famousness.

I saw in the reception section that several refs do not use citation templates. They attempt to duplicate the output, but they should really use a template.

There are a lot of uncited statements that I have tagged with {{fact}}.

I also saw that several places use parenthesis. In some of them, the parenthesis could simply be removed. My general criteria for parenthesis is this: Are the parenthesis even necessary? If they are necessary to put in a statement, does the statement really belong there or is it just stuck in?

You should try to convert the lists in Music into prose.

The "Works Referencing Duck Soup" section may be combined with famous scenes. Other works referencing the scene establishes that the scene is famous and may take care of the problems I cited in my first paragraph. On a quick read through, that's all I see. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of songs should not be converted to prose, i.e. in a long paragraph instead of a list. That will make it much more tedious to try to read. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Original Songs" section, apart from the first bullet, is just a list of names. It won't be that long. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are much easier to read when presented as lists. Put the interests of the reader first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid appearing too negative, I should point out that most of your changes and suggestions are good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You assume I'm doing something other than acting in the users best interest. I disagree that a list is easier to read in this context. It creates the appearance of more length, making me want to completely skip it. Also, converting lists to prose is basically what everyone brings up on a GA or FA review. You can ignore it for now, but you can't forever. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are easier to read as lists than as a paragraph with semicolons embedded in it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, as a final thought on this issue, it requires no semicolons, and this will be brought up again at GA or FA time. So, it's just a postponement. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemaniac replies: There were some good points brought up here, but I hope we'll have these issues resolved before GA time. In any case, thank you all for responding. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemaniac replies, to ColdFusion650's and Baseball Bugs's comments above: The major concern I have with lists is that they can, upon expansion, easily become too large. For example, see how this short entry of trivia became this rambling juggernaut, and you'll see my point. However, I don't think such things apply to the list of musical numbers in the Duck Soup article, simply because those are the only musical numbers in the film, and so adding others would almost certainly be vandalism and be reverted. But I hope we can eventually turn the list into prose, as some other editors might see the list as "trivia" and delete it without even really looking at it. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The only additions to such a list would either be factual additions that had been overlooked previously, or bogus additions subject to deletion. But what about other lists of songs, such as on movie soundtracks and other albums? Surely he wouldn't be arguing for converting those into prose. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one difference is that soundtracks usually have numbered tracks. Maybe if the items in the list were numbered instead of being bullet points, would that please everyone? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cliff smith

[edit]

I'd like to briefly say that this article is in good shape, and as ColdFusion said, Cinemaniac and his fellows deserve props for their work. Beyond that, I also second most of what ColdFusion had to say, but I'll get specific.

  • The section about works referencing the film seems borderline trivia. If it can be integrated into the info on famous scenes, as long as it's properly ref'd of course, then it should be okay.
  • The cast usually warrants its own section. Each character should have a sentence or so of description, and perhaps an accompanying sentence about casting when available.
  • I'm not sure if explaining the film's title would warrant its own subsection, but that's not a major issue.
  • Get some more references, as many as possible. I'm aware that I don't really need to say that since it's been said already, but I think that it's an uncommon occurrance when any article can have too many references.
  • Like Erik said, there are probably more offline references for this film due to its age. Search 'em out.
  • I almost thought that the plot was too summarized, until I noticed that the film was just over an hour long. Well done on the plot summary.
  • Something about the film's soundtrack and VHS/DVD releases, as spoken of by Collectionian, should be present.
  • Finally, consider adding a sentence in the lead about the film's reception, perhaps something along the lines of how it was received when it came out and how it's perceived in present times. The lead is a little short anyway.

Well, keep up the good work: it's coming along well. And Happy New Year. Regards, Cliff smith (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Yeah, I'm trying to get some more offline sources for the article. Concerning the "explanation of the film's title" section, I got that idea from the To Kill a Mockingbird article, which I think is a good example of a good article, and which I will often look to for ways of making this article improve. Unfortunately, by next week my busy schedule will be picking up again, what with the holiday season all but over, so I won't be able to respond quickly to feedback as I have for the week or two. I sincerely hope that won't hinder the improvement of the article, though. For a while, at least, you should expect my edits to focus almost solely on the two articles I've put up for peer review. Thank you for your comments. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Asyndeton

[edit]
  • I think that the intro is good, not over or under detailed but just right, containing the sort of info I would want to read straight off.
  • Personally, I think that the plot is too bare; I have never seen this movie and when reading it I felt as if it assumed you had some knowledge of what happens, e.g. why does Teasdale want Firefly as Freedonia's leader?
  • I also agree with ColdFusion650 about the famous scenes section; it doesn't really establish why they are 'famous'. I would suggest that, while it isn't quite trivia, it is a bit bloated as it is and could stand to be slimmed down and possibly renamed - 'Cultural references' perhaps? - or maybe merged somehow with 'Works referencing Duck Soup'.
  • The reception section is excellent in my opinion; interesting to read, well written, informative and well sourced. No complaints about that. Pretty much the same for 'Pre-production and development'.
  • As for the songs, I think that first we could stand to lose the info about when each song is played in the film. Trivial, IMHO. However, I agree with Baseball Bugs about converting the list to prose; personally, if I just saw a paragraph that contained nothing but a list of names, I would be very tempted to gloss it over. It just wouldn't make for easy reading. Also, I think a source is needed for saying that the into to Groucho's character is similar to Animal Crackers and Horse Feathers. Bit OR-ish without a source.
FWIW, the film never gives a reason why Mrs. Teasdale wants Firefly to become Fredonia's leader -- she simply insists on it at the very beginning of the film. It's part of the film's premise, and isn't explained -- it's that kind of comedy. (This is true of most of the Marx Brothers' films. You either accept what's happening and go with the flow, to hilarious effect, or you don't. If the films spent any time trying to make sense or rationalize the characters behaviors, they wouldn't be nearly as funny as they are -- in fact, they might not be funny at all.)

BTW, you should really see it. A true classic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say that Mrs. Teasdale wants Firefly because he is, in her words, "the most able statesman in all Freedonia." I could go on, but that's a lead-in to a series of Groucho's insults, which reveal that she is, at best, naive about Firefly's value as a statesman. Which is also part of the humor. And Vera Marquel says she has heard that Mrs. Teasdale is "sweet on this Firefly." So she might be letting emotion get in the way of judgment. But as you indicate, it doesn't pay to over-analyze the plot. One word, often used to describe the Marxes themselves: "Zany". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemaniac replies, to Asyndeton's comments above: Thanks for your review of the Duck Soup article. While I await your opinion of the Princess Leia article, I strongly recommend you see Duck Soup. If you have a soft spot for surreal humour and biting satire of society, you will enjoy it quite a bit! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch

[edit]

Comments by GoodDay

[edit]

The pre-production section could be trimmed down & possibly the famous scenes section (not sure wich one's to omit). Other then that, the article looks great to me. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for your comments. I've been thinking of trimming down the "famous scenes" section, because, admittedly, a few of the selected scenes described in that section aren't necessarily famous. The "mirror scene", the "climactic production number", and the final battle scenes are, since most film scholars hail these as being the funniest moments in the film and since said scenes have been duplicated more than a few times afterward. However, things like that dialogue between Chico and the Prosecutor aren't exactly famous, and should probably go down as a footnote instead. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bws2002

[edit]

After reading all the reviews above, I feel the only thing I have left to say is that the "This means War!" section is unnecessary. Good article overall, though - I particularly like the plot summary. Bws2002 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Vladimir

[edit]

Now that the article is expanded so to address the major aspects of the reign and sainthood of Jovan Vladimir, a review regarding the prose would be welcome. Thanks in advance, VVVladimir (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway 58

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…work has been on a few Saskatchewan highway articles to help raise quality levels to perhaps good or feature and would like to know if the contributions are on the right path.


Thanks,

SriMesh | talk 18:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this manual of style editing reviewer. Have addressed all of its comments. If there are any other comments to improve Highway 58, they would be appreciated as well. Kind RegardsSriMesh | talk 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Sam II

[edit]

At the beginning of the year I asked for a peer review on this (archive) and I believe that most of the issues have been addressed. I haven't had much time since then to work on this but figured that others would help address issues over the last year. I feel the article is ready for another peer review and then hopefully for the featured article nomination process. ----Rodzilla (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly looks much better than when I passed it as GA; I'd say it has a shot for FA. Some things:
Source statements like "Serious Sam II's gameplay consists almost entirely of the player attempting to defeat hundreds of enemies at a time, and thus is relatively simple", "A prominent feature in the previous Serious Sam games was cooperative gameplay, in which multiple players could play the single-player campaign together. Serious Sam II focused on this game mode even more than its predecessors"
Reword some awkward sentences, for example "Player-controlled vehicles and turrets were introduced to the series in Serious Sam II, and examples include rocket launcher, machine gun, and laser turrets as well as hover bikes and hover saucers", instead, "SSII (or the game to avoid redundancy if needed) introduced player-controlled vehicles and turrets, allowing Sam to utilize rocket launchers as well as hover bikes"; "This is a significant change from the previous games in the series in which the story existed merely to transport the player from place to place in order to kill as many enemies as possible in the process, with the plot consisting merely of messages that the player could disregard without consequence."
Layout- I swapped around the sections (put development before reception) to conform with vg conventions. Also, consider adding a reviews table like {{VG Reviews}} to the Reception section; this allows you to spend more time in the body talking about complaints and praise rather than raw scores from individual sections (see Halo 3 for examples; usually only aggergate scores are mentioned in the main body.)

--David Fuchs (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Class

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article which has, over the past few months, been widely expanded and is in need for a review.

I would like some surgestions of inprovements or sections which could be added or removed.


Thanks,

Jamie jca (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Typewriter Company

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in experiencing the various review processes (e.g. GA, peer review and FA). Ultimately, I would like for the article to be FA class, so any comments, suggestions, etc to help achieve that end would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 14:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of timekeeping

[edit]

I've listed History of timekeeping for peer review because I've been working on it for a while now, and I wanted some input as to how it could be improved. I'm trying to get it up to GA, so checking it against that criteria would help. Thanks, J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest things to improve would be citation style and capitalisation (e.g. Modern Devices) - use {{citeweb}} tags in order to cite information from the internet, for example. Little things make all the difference to GA reviewers, and they'll not give your article the time of day unless there's nothing that could niggle at them. Ensure all citations go after punctuation, and make sure there's no doubly-punctuated citations (cough note 20 cough). Similarly, why is "candle clock" bolded, yet nothing else is? I'd just give it a once-over with a fine-toothed comb before worrying about content. Seegoon (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better now? GAN worthy? J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd call this article History of timekeeping devices, not just of timekeeping. I remember in history we talked about the effects of being able to keep time in minutes in the 1800s changed society and how they perceived time. This article should include all of those aspects unless you want to make it solely about the devices. That's a scope issue. For what you have you need to reference the chronometer section and give everything more context. It's just descriptions of the devices and no real flow through the whole work or what led to research in new types of timekeeping devices, etc. gren グレン 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like it to be about timkeeping as a whole, including devices. Would you mind finding a source for those effects of keeping time in minutes? I would, but it's kind of a vague statement, and you know what you're talking about. J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly agree with Grenavitar. The article is fine overview of the history of individual clocks, but despite an initial mention of calendars, entirely overlooks much of the history of human timekeeping. The struggle over how to keep time should certainly at least mention Julius Caesar, for starters. -- Yamara 22:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some help to fix up the article before I send it in for WP:FAC. Criticism, suggestions, general help or copy edits, anything will do. With some help from User:Cirt to get some references, and from several others who were nice enough to do some copy editing, I was able to get it to WP:GA status, and I think the article looks nice, but I feel that a peer review would do nicely before I nominate it. Thanks! xihix(talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have glanced over it and will fully read it later. The main image has the caption "The World Trade Center as seen in the episode."; however, the WTC is off to the side of the picture and the Statue of Liberty is the dominant object. In the reception section, it says "Ian Jones and Steve Williams greatly criticized the episode, claiming that it…", but I don't know who Jones and Williams are, nor can I find out as their names are not clickable. "[…]" often begins quotes in the reception section. Why is this necessary? Good job on the article, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ian Jones/Steve Williams citation is not really a very good source, I'd suggest removing it altogether. Instead, you could expand upon Since the release of the season nine DVD box set, the episode has been highlighted out of the other episodes of the season by several newspaper reviewers. - and actually highlight some of the newspaper reviews from these four sources that are just cited at the end of this sentence. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The Ian Jones/Steve Williams ones should stay in my opinion, as Homer's Phobia, an FA that it recommended we use as a template to make articles, uses a quote from the two. xihix(talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it should go. I'm just saying that it should be established why their opinion matters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did not see that it was used on another WP:FA, but I agree with thedemonhog (talk · contribs), and at the least, something should be said about what publication these guys write for. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I see it now says "writers of Off the Telly, " -- that's a good enough change for me, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I looked at Homer's Phobia and decided to just use that. Ok, moving on from this, I'd like more constructive criticism. xihix(talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, requested feedback from relevant WikiProjects

I posted a notice about this peer review at WP:TV, WP:NYC, WP:DOH, WP:COMEDY, and WP:US-TOON. So hopefully you'll get some feedback from some some of those project members. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Saw the note over at WP:US-TOON and thought I'd offer my $0.02. Overall this looks very good, as I expected. I do have a few minor qualms with some wording which you might want to cleanup, I'll list what I can find but I'm not a very careful proofreader so I may have missed some. I highly recommend User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a to help spot some of these things as I have found it immensely helpful.
  • In the lead He is also later successful in removing it, could probably be He is later successful in removing it,
  • In the first paragraph of the plot "however" is used in two consecutive sentences, which doesn't read fluidly for me.
  • Production: Co-executive producer Bill Oakley decided to have the car parked in the plaza of the World Trade Center, which he had visited when construction was complete. Perhaps I'm dense but it's not abundantly clear what construction is complete, I assume this was shortly after the towers were initially completed? Was the plaza built at a different time and he visited then? I'd consider rewording it for clarity.
I know those are a little picky and you may disagree, I'd recommend just checking for general wordiness throughout. I also have a personal preference to have the Reception section before the Cultural References but it's probably best to stick to the same formula used for the other FA eps. Also to comment on the above discussion, the Jones/Williams quote read as overly long to me. I thought the first sentence was the quote and that someone had inserted "Homer discovered his car had been illegally parked between the two World Trade Centre buildings, and then spent the rest of the episode trying to get it back." as some sort of vandalism until I read it more closely. I think it's important to show that not everyone loved the episode but maybe you could use just the first sentence and then explain that they were happy the episode is now rarely shown and that it was the worst season premier. That just seems like it would flow better to me but it's variable by individual style. Good luck! Stardust8212 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually upon further review it seems that Off the Telly accepts reader submissions [3]. I'm not sure if that makes it a RS or not, even if it IS used in Homer's Phobia. Stardust8212 02:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'll fix what you recommended. However, with the Ian Jones/Steve Williams thing, I do not believe that the submission means you get your story published or anything on the site. I really just needed the negative criticism, and I believe if it was already used on a great FA like Homer's Phobia, I might as well just use it. xihix(talk) 05:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

The lead section is almost perfect. The "Plot" section could se a lot more references though, but apart from that it's good. I'd also like to see the "Production" section expanded. I think the "Cultural references" section can become a subsection of "Reception", though that's not essential. More refs always help, especially in the intro. Oh yeah, and the "Further reading" section shouldn't be a subsection of references. The best thing would be to make a level two "Further reading" with two level three subsections — "Books" and "External link".--Phoenix-wiki 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a few things. Plot sections often don't really even need references, but I added two anyway. There's not much to expand in the Production section, as everything that was available is pretty much there. I don't really see how Cultural References would make sense in the Reception.... Also, I don't see how more references would be necessary, when everything is already referenced. And, references in lead are usually a no-no, as whatever is in the lead is usually in the rest of the prose. I'm not sure about the Further Reading section, as Cirt did that, but I'll see what he says. xihix(talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, made Further reading its own level subsection, as per above comment. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Semi-automatic peer review
Points from the Semi-automatic peer review

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

  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  2. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  3. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  4. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placed here above for reference, I'll note comments on these points, and/or fix/address them. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Responses to points from Semi-auto peer review
  1.  Done - The lead is already of an appropriate length and is comparable to other WP:FA articles on episodes of The Simpsons. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Done - Did a look through the article, could find no instances of this, must have been fixed already by another user. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3.  Done - Went through the article and removed some of these minor awkward wording instances - the article reads better/more succinct without them. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  4. We will make sure that the article undergoes some more copyediting, and continue to work on wording and other areas in order to satisfy the WP:FA criteria. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Henri Brocard

[edit]

I've decided to list this article for peer review because I think it's ready for GA, as it satisfies all the criteria listed except, maybe, the one concerning images: There is no portrait of Henri Brocard himself. I may have overlooked something, though, which is why I'm listing it here. Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 18:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gifu, Gifu

[edit]

I'm submitting this article to peer review because I've been working on it for some time now and would like fresh opinions on how this article can be improved. All comments are appreciated. The past peer review was archived, but there weren't many comments in it. Douggers (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nice article. You've brought it a long way since the last Peer Review. It's well organized, easy to read and at an appropriate level of detail. The illustrations are relevant and attractive.
Here's a suggestion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Article structure guidelines links to article structure guidelines for UK and US cities. Both call for a geography section. The Japanese Wikipedia has some relevant material. Since the article mentions several features including the castle, mountain, Gifu Station, and some chō by name, a map would help readers conceptualize the layout.
I've added a geography section and a demographics section. (I haven't been able to come up with a map with suitable licensing, but I'm still looking.) I also went back and put in references to more statements. I'm considering putting it up as a featured article candidate in the next day or two, unless anyone has more advice Douggers (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next, a couple of minor comments on ways to polish the article. I've done some similar changes and suggest these.
In the Lifestyle section, the information on Gifu City Tower needs to be updated. It's referenced, so either a new reference will be necessary, or the present one will have to be removed, unless you can alter the sentence to separate the pre- and post-opening information.
A number of topics are discussed in two places. Slow life, Gifu City Tower, and the fashion industry rivaling Tokyo and Osaka are all covered twice. Once should be good.
Saito Dosan's name appears both with and without macrons. That'll be easy to fix. Jozai-ji too.
The sentence "In the aromatic garden, you can enjoy tea and traditional foods." is in the second person; WP:MoS requires the third person.
These are minor matters. The article is quite nice already. Fg2 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for compliments and advice. I've made the simple changes (redundancy, macrons, etc.), but the geography section is going to take a little time, so I won't get to it until later this week. Douggers (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance (2006)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want, in the future, nominate it to GA status, but I need to know what needs to be done first. Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good, however one thig stood out. One of your sources "pWew", is that a reliable source? Also you can find more sources for this article, like Slam Sports, and try searching for it with sources in the PPV Guidelines page. I will perform a clean up with AWB later.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-No Errors were found!--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davnel says its a reliable source. So, I guess it should stay. I added another ref. to the article. I will look for more. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Judy Garland awards and honors

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think it's quite close to Featured list status if not there already. It meets the criteria in my opinion but I wanted some feedback before nominating it.

Thanks,

Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the current NFHS rules. Please check behind me. I'm mainly interested in improvements to the all of the sections, especially the History section (in conjunction with editing the History of collegiate wrestling page) for accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if the article is at least B class. I would like to see the article become a Good article and even an A class or Featured article in the near future.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, I resurrected this Scholastic wrestling article because the High school section on the Collegiate wrestling article was grew to be too long. So it had to have its own space. Nevertheless, I hope that in terms of the writing style and such that this article will continue to be like its Collegiate wrestling counterpart, except where high school and middle school wrestling has its official differences of course, and such like. I originally intended this article to be a sort of "companion piece" to the Collegiate wrestling article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.15 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the current NCAA rules. Please check behind me. I'm mainly interested in improvements to the all of the sections, especially the History section (in conjunction with editing the History of collegiate wrestling page) for accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if this article is at least B class. I would like to see the article become a Good article and even an A class or Featured article in the near future.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, the Scholastic wrestling article has been resurrected, mainly because the High School section grew too long for this page. Nevertheless, Scholastic wrestling makes for a great "companion article" in my opinion, and I hope any changes in terms of writing style and such will be carried over to the Scholastic wrestling article as well, except where high school and middle school wrestling differs officially from its college counterpart.

History of collegiate wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've just created this article fairly recently (after the History section on the Collegiate wrestling page had been taking up loads of kilobytes) and have been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the sources I've been able to find. Please check behind me, and correct and improve not only this article, but also the History sections on the Collegiate wrestling and Scholastic wrestling pages where approrpiate. I'm mainly interested in improvements to all of the sections for accuracy and detail, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

There has been a question that has been on my mind for some time. In the section on the 20th century, I've pointed out that the first college dual meet took place between Yale and UPenn in 1900. I've cited the sources I found that information from appropriately. Other sources, such as the article on this website at http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=2084, point out that the first college dual meet took place between Yale and Columbia in 1903. Is one right and the other wrong, or could both events be added to the article and clarified somehow?

Could someone please also add accurate and cited information regarding the development of American wrestling at the high school level?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if this article is at least B class. I would like to see this article become a Good Article, if not an A Class or a Featured article in the near future.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the current FILA rules. Please check behind me. I'm mainly interested in improvements to the History section, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if it could now be considered to be at least B class on the assessment scale. I would like to see it become a Good article, if not an A Class or a Featured article in the near future, possibly by the time of the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Roman wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've been editing this article either signed in or logged off on my own or at a public computer for some time now. Even though I'm not a wrestler, I've tried to make sure that this article is accurate and consistent with the current FILA rules. Please check behind me. I'm mainly interested in improvements to the History section, as well as in improving/correcting redundancies, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if it could now be considered to be at least B class on the assessment scale. I would like to see it become a Good article, if not an A Class or a Featured article in the near future, possibly by the time of the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think it would provide a good basis for a general look at amateur wrestling. I would most be interested in seeing whether there are any redundancies, spelling, or grammatical errors.

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I was wondering if this article could now be considered to be above Start class on the assessment scale. I would like to see it become at least B class. Could someone also please consilidate repeated source references when appropriate?

I'm also concerned that this page is being vandalized way too much. Perhaps this page would be much better in quality if it was protected somehow so that only registered users could edit.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

It has the potential to provide a good overview of the basics of wrestling, but I think more emphasis could be given in the section on folk wrestling. Also, grammatical and spelling errors may need to be checked and corrected as well.

I would also like to find out if people think the writing style of the article is clear, sufficient, and comprehensive enough (without being too burdensome to read) for the average reader. Other changes are also welcome that will improve the article. I would like to know if it has any potential to be above B status on the quality scale.

Thanks,

Wikiman86 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Urr, I would just say that nominating seven articles at one time for PR is not a good idea. I would withdraw the other six articles, leaving Wrestling, which would appear the most important article to be (hopefully) reviewed. Mattyness (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting It: The psychology of est

[edit]

Recently passed as a WP:GA, before that article appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know section. Would appreciate feedback on how to further improve the quality status of the article.

Thanks,

Cirt (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing points from semi-automated peer review
Note

Peer review was listed at WP:PSYCHOLOGY and WP:BOOKS when review was started. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Barbarian

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it lacks references and is also bereft of a neutral tone. I urge all users to contribute whatever is necessary in order to enhance the quality of this article.

Thanks,

Elysonius (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgian Creation Myth

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the Pelasgians article is also undergoing a peer review. I thought it prudent to also have this article peer reviewed since it does contain valuable associations to the Pelasgians article that could be useful to users who wish to contribute.

Thanks,

Elysonius (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because its content deserves to be enhanced. This, in turn, will help the article to acquire a positive GA review.

Thanks,

Elysonius (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgians

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it deserves to be checked before going through a potential GA review. Moreover, a peer review will help to further augment the article's exposure to the Wikipedia community. This peer review in general is necessary in order to help the article progress and avoid further harassment from users who advocate certain varieties of propaganda that significantly lack evidence. The article is currently stable so I doubt that any assistance provided will be met with any serious levels of hindrance. I urge all users to provide any assistance whatsoever to ensure that every aspect of the article's content is accurate and based on evidence that is substantiated by verifiable/reliable sources.

Thanks,

Elysonius (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lazulilasher:

Please note that I am far from an expert in this topic, however I decided to try and help by making a few comments:

  • First, the lead seems lacking and rather technical. I'd like to see some more context and background given on the subject which would be interesting to the reader without extensive knowledge of Greek history (for example, what significance does the Pelasgians being considered Greek have?). See WP Lead.
  • The word choice seems inaccessible to the average reader--example: does "autochthonous" have to used? (see last sentence, second paragraph).
  • Additionally, the article could use some copy-editing, which I would love to do, however I feel that I do not know enough about the subject to do so without substantially altering the meaning.
  • Maybe some more images could be found?
  • Some sources are cited parenthetically (example: (fragment 225)) whilst others are footnotes. It would be easier to read if they were all footnotes.
  • I would love to see some more context given -- for example: when discussing "Isocrates", I would like to know his significance so I would be better equipped to analyze the quote of his provided from Panegyric 23-5. To me, this is the largest area in which the article could be expanded. As it stands, the text is difficult for someone without intimate knowledge of Greek history to comprehend. Here are some further examples:
  • Strabo quotes Hesiod as expanding on the Homeric phrase, calling Dodona "seat of Pelasgians" (fragment 225); he speaks also of the eponymous ancestor of the Pelasgians, Pelasgus (Ancient Greek: Πελασγός), the father of the culture-hero of Arcadia, Lycaon. I had to look up the word "eponymous", additionally it is unclear what significance these facts have to the topic.
  • Herodotus, like Homer, has a denotative as well as a connotative use. As the reader, I am interested in what this means and its significance to the topic.

Overall, the article seems to be full of good information but could benefit from being edited into an easier to read style. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ammonites

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

...I'd like some feedback before nominating it for featured list (WP:FL) status.

Thanks,

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PANDORA

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article has undergone significant expansion and revision in the past months. Wondering if it's still a "B," an how we might make it an FA.


Thanks,

Ifnkovhg (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of national instruments

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's getting close to FLC-ready. I need to finish adding the Hornbostel-Sachs numbers and beefing up the descriptions of the instruments, which I'll do over the next few days.


Thanks,

Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric cartilaginous fish

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

...I'd like to get some feedback for it before I nominate it for featured list (WP:FL) status.

Thanks,

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric bony fish

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

...I was hoping to nominate it for a featured list (WP:FL) and would like to get some feedback before I do so.

Thanks,

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me but it will never get anywhere without complete reference system. gren グレン 06:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series

[edit]

Okay, before I try a FLC for this, I need some additional comments, as I have no previous experiance in the field of awards lists. I based it on the FL Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama, which uses the similar table format and has a main reference at the bottom, and few in-line citations. I took it from a stage of factual inaccurate winners, to a complete table of accurate winners and nominations by year. Any comments of any kind will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Gran2 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy McGrady

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs help. No one really knows what Tracy McGrady's real weight and height are. There have been reports that a "moron" keeps vandalizing the page.

Thanks,

Basketball110 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it is reaching FA status and want to gain feedback prior to nonimation in order to gain FA listing.

Thanks,

Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millimeters. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever that's gone (!), that need changing too. Peanut4 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added a couple of missed "sp=us" to {{convert}} --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies

[edit]

A good article with great potential. It appears comprehensive from a quick read through. A few structural niggles:

  • ... with a population of 384,600. Date?
Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixes numerals and words for cardinal numbers. WP:MOS#Numbers suggests words for zero to nine, and numerals therafter.
Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ordinal twelfth grade needs hyphenating.
Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temperatures need hardspaces between numbers and the degree symbol, thus: 15 °C.
Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date ranges: per MoS, replace hyphens in ranges (1965-1987) with unspaced endashes (1965–1987).
Sorry, Im not quite sure what you mean--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dash between the dates should be –. I've done the ones I can find. Peanut4 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I came a cropper on dashes at my last FAC. Happily there was a world expert on dashes to hand :))) --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Hyphens: Basically, replace hyphens used as parentheses either by spaced endashes, or unspaced em dashes. This is explained, with examples, at WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH.
  • Mixes British (neighbourhood, centre, theatre) and American (neighborhood, centre, theatre) spellings: decide on one and stick to it.
I've converted it to US spellings as they seemed to predominate in actual place names.--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The City of Tel Aviv Either the city, or Tel Aviv, or the city of Tel Aviv. No cap on city.
Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an account that Sokolow came up with the Hebrew title "Tel Aviv" to allude to the destruction of the ancient Jewish state and its hoped-for restoration: aviv = "spring" to symbolize renewal, and tel to symbolize the destruction of the ancient state, following not the usual Hebrew meaning of the word "tel" but its use in archaeology, meaning "mound of accumulated ruins".[7] Very long and clunky. Two sentences? Not happy about the = sign either.
Done - I think--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine :) Good snippet about Tel. I always though it meant Hill of the Spring. :)--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as having a vast array of museums for tourists to visit, and interesting quarters to explore, there are a vast array of interesting tours which have been launched in numerous languages for tourists to enjoy. Not very encyclopedic (sounds like a tour brochure).
Done - I think--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediately north of Jaffa, Tel Aviv is situated on land which used to be sand dunes, and as such has relatively poor soil fertility. It is now on flat land with no notable gradients. As such, its most notable geographical feature are the bluffs above the Mediterranean coastline and the Yarkon River's mouth. I'm sure you can express this more elegantly and concisely. Two as suches in close proximity!
Done - I think--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tel Aviv is made up of a large number of districts How many?
Done - I think--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a close copy edit to remove occasional redundancies and inelegancies. Otherwise, very promising indeed.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK looked at--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unless anyone has any other comments - I might go for the FA nomination.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milla Jovovich

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because over the past few months, I've slowly expanded and worked on the article. Its a decent length now, and because I've been so involved in writing it, I feel like I might have missed either grammatical errors, or am just too involved to see my own mistakes. I would like to bring the article to GA status and eventually FA, and with the review I aim to make the GA review go a bit more smoothly, fixing some of the points brought up here before an official review.


Thanks,

Lindsey8417 (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seegoon

[edit]

I'll just pick things up as I read through.

  • "which has gone onto spawn two sequels" - maybe "onto" should be split.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released the critically-acclaimed musical album" - released "a", maybe?
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for an illegal operation with medical insurance" - this is a little ambiguous, and I don't quite understand what is meant.
 Done I clarified a bit, adding that he partook in an illegal [...], but other than that, the sources are vague on what exactly he did. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 7th grade, Jovovich left school to focus on her growing career." - for one, I'd change "7th" to "seventh". More than that, I'd change it to whatever age that places her at when she did so, because the international readership for this article might not know how old that would make her.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a teenager before age 14" - so, only when she was 13? I'm confused.
 Done Fixed. Changed to "young teenager". -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Modelling career", mentioning her age more often would help the reader contextualise when events take place.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "romance thriller" - maybe "romantic thriller" or "romance-thriller"?
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following roles on the television series Paradise (1988) and Parker Lewis Can't Lose (1990), Jovovich was cast as the lead in the sequel to The Blue Lagoon. Return to the Blue Lagoon (1991), placed her opposite Brian Krause, as Lilli Hargrave, in the romance and adventure film." - this is the clumsiest section of prose so far in the piece.
 Done Fixed. Rewrote this little section! -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much like Shields' gained" - I don't think the apostrophe is required.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jovovich said she "worked like hell: no band practice, no clubs, no pot, nothing" to acquire the role and impress Besson" - this is probably quoted from one of your citations, but I'm unsure which one.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cut her hair to a short lenghth for the role" - speeling.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The role of Fangora or "Fanny", in Dummy, brought Jovovich with Oscar-winning friend Adrien Brody." - this is confusing.
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to which Jovovich attempted to stop the sell of" - 'sale of', surely? And re: the courtcase, what happened?
 Done Fixed. And I haven't found any information on what happened in the courtcase, so, thats pending. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plastic Has Memory played about a dozen shows in Los Angeles and New York City for a potential Virgin Records album release,[56] in which Mick Jagger had also attended." - is this supposed to say "in which"? It confuses me.
 Done Fixed. Changed to "one of which..." -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about mentioning that she plays a song during Dazed and Confused? It might be one of her own, but I'm not sure. I only vaguely remember that.
 Done This was already stated in the Dazed and Confused part of the acting section and had occurred before the album. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two met while working on Resident Evil in which Anderson wrote and directed, and Jovovich starred" - is the "in" necessary?
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trailer for a Remake of Gore Vidal's Caligula" - is the capital R necessary?
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want any further reaction, say so on my talk page... all in all, it's a good article and I hope you take it to where you want it to go! Good luck. Seegoon (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, the help was really appreciated. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Hope it does well. I reckon it'll multipass GA. See what I did there? Seegoon (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haha, thanks! -Leeloo8417 ummm Lindsey8417 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dormand

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the good article review was passed without criticism due to its "compliance with all criteria, and more", and because I don't see any major deficiencies with respect to the featured article criteria other than the lack of a picture. A picture may be hard to obtain, but I'd be grateful for feedback on any other areas in which it might need to be improved to meet FA standard.

Thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments on this one:
  • "Easington" is mislinked to a disambig page in the lead
  • The referenced material in the lead should be incorporated in the text (which much of it seems to be) and the lead then re-written as a multi-paragraph summary.
  • There is a lack of balance in the article. It's about a man called "Jack Dormand" but, rather than being written about him, the article is largely about his political career from when he turned 50. There is very little about the first 1/2 century of his life. The article seems to note that he trained as a teacher, stopped teaching but no note on the teaching work he did in the middle(just an example of missing material)
  • The "Family" section is far too short in proportion to the rest of the article - perhaps incorporate into the "Early Life" and rename this section.
  • Over-wikilinking. 1970, 1981 and 1987 in the infobox need not be linked. House of commons, Easington, Maggie thatcher are linked twice Chair of the parlimentary labour party and his constituancy thrice and there are quite a few more.
  • "Despite his age, he remained physically active." - ouch ! at the time he setup the Gym he was in his 50's - hardly old, decrepit or of a notable age. Perhaps just note that he remained physically active until (age) at least ?
Quite few text issues (I'm a poor one to find these - need a better copyeditor)- picked a few that stood out for me. Needs some strong copyediting
  • "In the 1970s, he had opposed left-wing infiltration into the Labour Party,[2] and in foreign affairs, he was pro-American and pro-NATO[11] at a time when the party's left-wing was becoming increasingly hostile to both." - reads much better as "In the 1970s, he opposed left-wing infiltration of the Labour Party.[2] He was pro-American and pro-NATO, at a time when the party's left-wing was increasingly hostile to both.[11]" then there are not references in the middle of the sentence, the two ideas are split in two and some redundancy removed.
  • "Despite the left's strength at the time, when stood for election in October 1981 as Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, supported by the centre-Right Manifesto Group of Labour MPs, he defeated the left-winger Ian Mikardo by 102 votes to 65, and Mikardo then withdrew" is convoluted and clunky. - try
  • "He stood for election in October 1981 as Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, supported by the centre-Right Manifesto Group of Labour MPs. Despite the left's strength at the time he defeated their candidate Ian Mikardo by 102 votes to 65, causing Mikardo to withdraw."
  • "Dormand was born near Easington at the workingmen's club in the village of Haswell, when his father Bernard, a former miner, was steward" - he was born at the club ?
  • "Although he later took up rugby" - gives one the impression that rugby and football are in some way mutually exclusive. Just present the rugby as a separate sentence unless there is some need to connect it to football here.
  • "However, once in the Lords he thrived, serving on numerous select committees, including education, trade and industry, and the liaison and procedure committees." ->
  • "He thrived in the Lords, serving on select committees including education, trade and industry, and liaison and procedures." Shorter, removes the needless "However" as this is clear to a reader and "numerous" is pointless as then a number of committees are listed.
  • "When Labour lost the 1979 general election, Dormand served for two years as an opposition whip." -> "Dormand was opposition whip for two years after Labour's loss in the 1979 general election." Puts the main idea at the beginning.
The prose needs work beyond copyediting:
  • There are a few excessively long sentences that often try to connect two completely different things that should be separated eg: "He recovered from a double heart bypass in 2001, and received an honorary doctorate of letters in July 2003 from Loughborough University" - The operation and the hon-doc do not need to be connected.
  • Short paragraphs (particularly the one and two sentence ones) should be connected into longer ones that have a common theme
- Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara people

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… the article has rapidly expanded in the past week and has much improved but now needs to be peer reviewed for grammar mostly. It has a potential to be nominated for Good article status but first a peer review should be done.


Thanks,

Padmanii (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Puchiko

[edit]

Overall, the article is pleasant reading, and a GA should be possible with minor corrections.

  • References-I can't stress this one enough. You must get rid of the ugly [citation needed] next to the Australia population and in the orgins section. In general, try to add more references.
  • The lead could use some expansion.
  • What's the plural of Hazara? I have seen both "Hazara" and "Hazaras" used within the article. In my suggested rewordings, I have put "s" in brackets. You should probably find out what's correct before applying these changes.
  • One sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged. Eliminate/expand/merge the Etymology section. The information is clearly important, and must stay, but it can't have its own section unless you can write a full paragraph about it.
  • One theory states that the Hazara have Mongolian origins... To WP:Avoid weasel words, you should probably use According to ______________ Hazara(s) are of Mongolian origins... In summary, make clear who is making that claim. Same goes for It is commonly believed that the Hazara are descendants of the armies and settlers of Genghis Khan's Mongolians... and Some sources say he drove out the Uzbeks...
  • This chromosome is virtually absent outside the limits of the Mongol Empire except among the Hazara people, where it reaches its highest frequency anywhere. Sounds awkward.
  • Put the whole modern history section into the past tense. You should also recheck the neutrality of the section.
  • Many young Hazara are studying in developed countries such as Australia, legally through education or work visas. Should probably be Many young Hazara(s) are studying in developed countries, such as Australia, legally, through education or work visas. Not sure though. Also, a source would be nice.
  • There are many Afghanistani Hazara who have migrated to developed countries especially in Australia as refugees. should probably be: Many Afghanistani Hazara(s) have migrated to developed countries, especially to Australia, as refugees. Also, it should probably be sourced.
  • In Pakistan most of the Hazaras live in and around the city of Quetta and hold high positions in the government of Balochistan. In its current state, the sentence says that most Pakistani Hazara(s) hold high postions in the Balochistan goverment. Try rewording this to make its original meaning clearer. Again, include a source.
  • In Pakistan, Hazaras are mostly in business and have high education levels. Try: Most Hazaras in Pakistan work in business, and are highly educated. And a source would be great.
  • The sections "Religion" and "Hazara tribes" are extremely short. Try expanding them, or merging them into other sections.

Honestly, the article is a fine one. It has some problems with grammar and references, but it contains all the necessary information. Great work! Puchiko (Talk-email) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have change the item you mentioned above, please review it again. | - |azaraBoyz (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Number Five

[edit]

I'm contemplating going to FAC, but it was suggested last time around that I go to PR first. Seems like a good idea, and thus here I am. Any and all suggestions appreciated. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

[edit]

M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…it recently passed it GA nomination and i intend to push for FA status. But before that i want it to go through a thorough peer review which would be helpful in later stages during FA nominations. Before GA nomination, it had 62 references and currently it has 91 sources, most of which were added during its GA nomination suggestions. I guess the article is broad in its coverage, well sourced and referenced, and well written. But still i'd like it to go through a peer review so that anything i might have missed is noted and improved at this stage.


Thanks,

Gprince007 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by LaraLove

[edit]

Well-written, though I'm not sure it will pass "brilliant prose". It's comprehensive, balanced, well-illustrated, focused. I did some minor copy-editing. Below are the only things that popped out at me:

  1. Television > Lizzie Mcguire: The Lizzie Mcguire Movie raked in $42.6 million at the US box office[12] and received mixed reviews with certain critics calling it, "an unabashed promotion of Duff’s image, just as Crossroads was for Spears",[13] while other reviews were generally positive and encouraging.[14][15][16] DoneGprince007 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Film career > 2003-2004: Afterwards, Duff reprised her role as Lizzie McGuire for The Lizzie McGuire Movie, which exceeded box office expectations earning $55,534,455 worldwide.[20]
  4. Music career > 2002-2004: The video for "Our Lips Are Sealed" was popular on MTV's Total Request Live, but the song failed to chart on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100.
    • Did it chart in the U.S. at all? If not, just say that. This goes for any such wording in the article. Hot 100 is not the only U.S. chart, so it can be confusing.
  5. She described the album as more personal and having a rock feel than Metamorphosis.
  7. Personal life: In August 2005, Duff said she received veneers because she chipped off one of her front teeth on a microphone during a concert.[77] She subsequently had her veneers redone to match the size of her original teeth.
    • Why is that relevant?

Good luck with the FA nom. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i guess i've addressed the major issues raised in the peer review. The following are the issues which i couldnt address alongwith reasons:
  • Pt. 3...many cites and sources are available which indicate that the song charted only in Australia. That means it didnt chart in US. But as far as my knowledge goes, drawing ur own conclusion or inference amounts to "Original Reasearch" ,so i think the sentence shd be left as it is.If i find a cite which states it clearly that it didnt chart in US , then i'll reword it as suggested in the peer review.
  • Pt 5... the veneer incident is cited but i am not sure abt its notability. A search on the internet revealed that Contact music, people magazine and life and style magazine have covered the veneer treatment. Also hilary duff's comment that she kept chipping her teeth on the microphone makes somewhat notable point. Anyways i have expanded the veneer incident in the article alongwith Duff's comment and its cited. But i'm still doubtful about its notability. But still i guess it shd remain as long as its ok or it doesnt hinder FA candidature.

Thanx for the review....any other suggestions are welcome. Gprince007 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Leia Organa

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

Thanks,

— Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Evula

[edit]

For examples of some well-done Star Wars articles, see Darth Vader, which is a GA, and Palpatine, which is a FA. Those might help. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehrams2020

[edit]

If you want to bring it up to GA class or higher, it is going to need more inline citations, especially for the sections that have none at all (which appear to be from the books after the films). Also throughout the article there are multiple single sentences. These shouldn't stand alone and should either be expanded or merged into another paragraph. For the inline citations, consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET, as you can then include information about the website, title, author, access date, etc. It will make the references easier to read, but if you haven't used the templates before, I'd recommend practicing with them a bit and previewing a lot before saving. If you have any further questions let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik

[edit]

Happy New Year to you, too! I haven't much time on Wikipedia today, what with the Bowl games and all, so here's a couple of brief thoughts:

  • For Princess Leia Organa, I think that there is plenty of room for improvement. One important thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia grounded in real-world context. Thus, in-universe information should be downplayed and used to complement the real-world context of the character. I would suggest reviewing WP:FICTION if you haven't already. Also, I would recommend the character articles Jason Voorhees and Captain Jack Sparrow (good works by editors I know) to serve as guides. You can ask them for advice, too. My thought for this particular character is to find out about its conception, like how Lucas came up with the character and why he designed her the way he did. Also look at how the character has been publicly received. I imagine that there's probably some commentary on the sibling kiss and perhaps some feminist studies about her, since she seems to be a major female icon. She's also been in quite a number of Star Wars books since the original trilogy, so you could look at how reviewers have criticized different authors' portrayal of the character. Perhaps one author wrote her as independent and another one wrote her as clingy. This would definitely be a big project, encompassing films and books and probably more. Like I said about Duck Soup, offline resources may need to be involved. Nobody said editing was easy. :)

If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for your comments! I'll go ahead and start researching the topic in order to find more offline references, so that a balance between offline and online citations can be achieved. In that regard, however, I may need your experience to help guide me through it. Thanks again. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wrad

[edit]

I'd have to agree with the above users. Just add a load of inline citations to confirm her story, and afterwards check the writing to be sure everything is clear and organized into coherent paragraphs. Also, I see that the picture of Leia in the Bikini is 350px! I know she's beautiful, but that might be a bit big. Usually, MoS asks that image size fields be left blank. Users can pick how big they want images to be by tinkering with the own preferences. On smaller-resolution monitors, the Leia bikini picture would take up half the screen! Wrad (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Sorry about the Leia "bikini" pic's size. At the talk page, though, I can recall consensus being reached that 350 px was fine to illustrate the image. I'll go ahead and shrink the image anyway, just in case. And thanks for your comments. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. That discussion seems to have a consensus for shrinking it to 150px. I wouldn't even agree with that. Just take the size parameter out altogether and let users choose for themselves. Wrad (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemaniac replies, to Wrad's comments immediately above: Looks like I'm gonna have to start checking old discussions instead of just relying on my memory. This is the third time already in two months that somebody has caught me in error. Thanks again, Wrad. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only three times! You're pretty good. Wrad (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColdFusion650

[edit]

The main thing is the history section. It should be retitled Appearance, which seems to be the standard. The early life should be removed. The expanded universe should be greatly compressed. "The Truce at Bakura", not important. Her marriage to Han Solo, important. You have to make decisions like that. That's priority number 1 to me. The sheer length makes me want to skip the article completely and move on to something else. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Yeah, I agree the article is rather lengthy. The various subsections of the Expanded Universe section should probably be compressed to the size of the pre-Expanded Universe section: One-to-three paragraphs each. That'd probably help trim it down. The article also really drags on in those sections; again, undoubtedly because of length and somewhat rambling prose. I'll do my best to correct that. Thanks for your comments! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Euryalus

[edit]

As you point out at the talk page, fan fiction is neither reliable nor part of the canon. I could add a story to fanfiction.net saying the gold bikini was melted down and used by Vader as a prosthetic limb, but that wouldn't justify the inclusion of this viewpoint in the article. I note that you have a second (more credible?) source to back up the fanfiction story. Could you post it here for further discussion? Without it I would argue the "Leia had sex with Solo while wearing Jabba's bikini" sentence should be removed from the article. Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: And on that note, the sentence is gone. Thanks for confirming my doubts. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cliff smith

[edit]

The article is in good shape, but there are a few issues, as already mentioned and discussed above.

  • The whole Expanded Universe subsection is in need of referencing, and a little more summarization would be good. It does mention some of the books from which the information is drawn, but it can be more specific than that. Check out John-117 and you'll see what I mean.
  • Make mention somewhere of what ABY means, since the average reader probably won't know that it means After the Battle of Yavin.
  • Props for pointing out the plothole about how she remembers stuff about her mother.
  • When the section about her Appearances draws to a close, wrap it up with something akin to a "last known whereabouts." Describe what she was doing and what was going on in the latest part of the extended universe, if you know what I mean. (Like with John-117: at the end of Halo 3, he is in the wreckage of a spacecraft and enters cryonic sleep. That's the last thing that is known to have happened to him, in the Halo universe.)

Once the referencing and summarization issues are addressed, I think that the only thing between this article and a GA review would be a general copyedit. It's lookin' good. Regards, Cliff smith (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thank you for comments, and for pointing out some more flaws in the Expanded Universe section. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collectonian

[edit]

Hmmm....seems I'll be the odd one out wondering how this article achieved B class. It is almost entirely plot summary, with only one section of real world info that would benefit from a renaming, as well as a great deal of expansion. I'm not a Star Wars fan by any stretch, but I'm pretty certain Princess Leia has a lot more real world notability than just her bikini and hair do that would fill the article up much better. How did she influence society? At the time the movies first came out, did her characterization have any affects in the movie industry's depiction of women or with female audiences? The entire plot section needs a great deal of shortening up and summarizing. For a fan, I'm sure it is a useful amount of detail, but I think it would fit better in the Star Wars wikia than as the bulk of an encyclopedic article about this character. The article is also in need of better sources for some stuff. It seems like most of the bikini info is sourced from a fan site for the bikini and a few other sources look a little questionable. The first half of information on the hair style is unsourced at all and needs a wee bit of tone adjustment. As a whole, I'm seeing too many primarily sources and not enough outside sources to establish her notability apart from the films, when even a non-fan like me knows she has some ;-) Collectonian (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Yeah, I'm trying to research more third-party sources on the character. Unfortunately, by next week my busy schedule will be picking up again, what with the holiday season all but over, so I won't be able to respond quickly to feedback as I have for the week or two. I sincerely hope that won't hinder the improvement of the article, though. Oh well, I'm tryin', anyway. Thank you for your comments. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Darthgriz98

[edit]

You've done well removing most of the cruft from the Return of the Jedi and Metal Bikini sections; however, it could use more in-line citations. Try a universal format for citations. The Bikini section also seems a little long still. Check out the other SW GAs and FAs like Palpatine to get some more ideas. DarthGriz98 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for taking time from your wikibreak to respond to my request for peer review. As I'm sure you know, distinguishing fact from fanboyish-fiction isn't always easy, as you can tell by clicking here. As that discussion shows, my initial reason for editing this article was nothing more than piqued curiosity concerning the famous outfit. It's fascinating, because this article was always getting fandalized for this very reason; in fact, it's probably experienced more fancruft explosion than any other Star Wars article. Fortunately, with the addition of that "Metal Bikini" section to the article, most of that vandalism has come to a halt. Also, although most of them were limited to the two sections of the article I created, in-line citations are being steadily added to the other sections, so I hope that helps. Once again, thank you for your comments. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At one point, the Return of the Jedi section was almost pornographic in nature, going into way more detail than was in the movie or even existed outside of fandom. As long as it keeps true to the story, keeps true to the real history behind it, and brief enough with lots of sources, I really don't have a problem with the Bikini section. DarthGriz98 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemaniac replies, to DarthGriz98's comment immediately above: True. I've had to deal with such vandalism to the page in the not-so-long-ago past. Euryalus, Evula and I had to clean up all the soft-core erotic fanfic that IPs kept on inserting into the article. Obviously, this is still a problem as some horny fans have huge "Slave Leia" crushes. . . Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you, it just doesn't belong here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch

[edit]

Comments by Davidovic

[edit]

I thought Leia's first kiss was Luke, or was that in Return of the Jedi? To be honest I think that the way the 'first kiss' passage is phrased is a perfect example of the overarching problem with this article - that it's far too casual. The article gives a complete summary of the films from Leia's perspective. I'm not sure that chronicling every one of Leia's appearances is the best way to describe her character. If it is, then they should be far more succinct and far less informal. Davidovic 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: You're right; Leia's first kiss (on film, at the least) was with Luke, depicted in The Empire Strikes Back. The most obvious reason for this is because of the natural attraction that Leia had to both Han and Luke (and vice versa), and the tension resulting among them because of this. If I remember correctly, she kissed Luke because an argument broke out between her and Han, and it was possibly done to make Han jealous. Han and Leia wouldn't kiss each other until later in the film. Remember, it wasn't until Return of the Jedi that Leia was revealed as being Luke's sister. I'll try to edit this 'first kiss' passage to make it more succinct. Thanks for the comment. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GoodDay

[edit]

I find this article cool. I sure am happy my real mother concerns have been added. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac replies: Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad to see that I addressed your concern over Leia remembering Padme. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill a Mockingbird

[edit]

I worked on this article for months, bringing it to GA status. I nominated it for FAC in November, but de-nominated it after a few days. It has changed quite a bit since its GA pass. I feel now with the additions I made to it for the initial FAC that it's cumbersome at 78k, though as thorough as possible.

  • The book is unique: it has been read by the majority of the English-speaking world and rates very highly on books of impact and importance, but lacks a large body of study outside of the legal and education fields. What has been written in these fields is primarily a study on its impact of the legal profession and guides on how to teach it.
  • On images: Harper Lee despises having her photo taken. She had some shots taken of her when the book was released, but there are no public domain photos of her. At one point, I had screen stills from the film, but they were taken out by another editor. What is the recommendation for including only book covers?

Your input is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Hadseys -- the article is very good however, a few things I've noticed is that
  1. the table of contents does seem to be rather large, is there a way too condense it perhaps?
    I'm up for suggestions that don't compromise the content. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the article too is also very large, and may not conform to wikipedia's size guidelines, for information on how to write a featured article about a book check out Lord of the Rings and our policies on our article size
    Yes, I recognize this. I'm asking for assistance in what to cut out, if anything. I have read all the featured article novels, and used them as guides in writing this article. But there is a point where TKaM becomes its own article, apart from the others. Because of the far-reaching impact this book has had, that it is Harper Lee's only novel and she is somewhat enigmatic about it, and because the film and play are so closely related to the book, the lore involving the novel is extensive. Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, unfortunately, the subject doesn't lend itself into neater divisions as a trilogy does. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. the images tend to be concentrated towards the latter parts of the article, perhaps more images of life in America at the time may help to provide more context for readers

Other than that, a very well article that is extensively referenced, very comprehensive and very well written. Kudos --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider these ideas for images. Thank you for your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on this article about a year ago. Much good work has been done since then. Here's my two-cents. Not for nothing, but I think that under 'Reception' both the impact on legal profession and race relation sections are places which should be trimmed. I think it would make more sense to place the impact on legal profession in the Atticus Finch article, as 99% of it revolves around him. Also, include a link to Atticus under 'See also.' Furthermore, I would remove the impact on race relation section altogether. Although I hate to do this for 2 reasons. 1) It removes your hard work 2) Implies that I'm racially insensitive--I think that this is a tenuous connection anyhow. It states as much in the article:

"The novel's release is so closely associated with the Civil Rights movement, many analyses of the book and biographies of Harper Lee include important moments in the movement, despite the fact that she had no direct involvement in any of them."

That's all for now. Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trimming parts to an article one has worked hard on to scour sources is difficult and I do it with some reservation. I will link to Atticus Finch - you are right to point that out. However, since the majority of written material on the novel is about Atticus in the legal profession, I thought it appropriate to give that material weight in the article. I have to think about that.
The second point is also difficult for me to consider. The novel's first impact was on race relations. Even though it is seen as a bit outdated for many in the field of race relations, in the context of its history, it was quite influential. I have to admit I don't understand your point about the tenuous connection. Are you saying it's not strong enough to be included in the article?
I appreciate your comments and feedback. --Moni3 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Atticus, I think there is a certain point where one article becomes too long and needs to separate. I think this is normal and a good thing. Take for instance a honey bee hive, they get too big and one queen bee leaves the other with a bunch of other bees. When I read the legal profession section, all I see it being about is Atticus. This makes a fortunate breaking point as you can pretty much cut/paste it into the Atticus article. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a later date makes Atticus a FA--he's certainly notable enough. Now in regards to the race relation and tenuous connection, first you place emphasis on the children in the movie. This almost seems as though it could go in the article on the film. I suppose my main argument with the tenuous nature of the material is that I have a problem with emphasizing an impact that isn't necessarily the main focus of the book. As far as I can tell Lee didn't write it as a civil rights movement book, per se. As noted above in the article, the gay community has found resonance in TKAM. However, just because a group finds resonance doesn't necessarily mean one must include a considerable section on it. Granted, this may be a weak argument on my part.
One other section that I think you should take a second look at is the Style section. I'm typically not too big of a fan of the Style/Themes sections of articles on books, simply because I think they tend to read into aspects of the book way too far and are more interpretative. However, I think the Theme section is well done in this article and should be left. I think the style could be trimmed back. I'm not sure that sections devoted to irony, parody, satire, and legal allusions are needed. I think that if you cut these back it would be a good place to trim the article. Additionally, it would solve a little bit of the problem with that insanely large table of contents. One thing I would like to mention however is that I think it is good to keep that legal allusion with the opening quote. I think that is significant, albeit interpretative. Best Wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just cut a large portion of the article, adding to Atticus Finch, and shifting some material around. That was physically painful. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Talbot

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is around good article level, and wondered if anyone had comments before I nominate. I started editing the article because I had followed Britain's Got Talent, then started referencing it to adhere to WP:BLP concerns that were raised. I then realised I had started it, so I may as well 'finish' it, and so wrote it up to the current standard. I have no specific concerns, but any comments anyone has are extremely welcome. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination, I have nominated for good article status. Comments are still very welcome, and it will probably be a while until it is reviewed anyway, due to the backlog. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeker

[edit]

I've never reviewed anything before so I'm not sure if I missed anything important, but, the only thing I can see that should be fixed is: "show singing The Wizard of Oz's "Somewhere Over The Rainbow".[3]", the link to "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" is a redirect, maby put this in place: "[[Over the Rainbow|Somewhere Over the Rainbow]]". I'm not sure if redirects are bad, but I personally like the original link, and the T in "The" shouldn't by capitalised. I hope I can help a little, I've never reviewed before this, but it is an interesting article and looks good.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

[edit]

You should of left me a message on my talk page ;p M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch

[edit]
[edit]

Rupert Clayton and Awadewit have been working on this little article about an interesting eighteenth-century Shakespeare venture for a couple of months now. They are planning on taking it to FAC soon and would like help polishing and revising it. Thanks in advance! Awadewit | talk 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Scartol

To begin with: The use of third-person objective in the lead to this peer review is entirely inappropriate and shows evidence of hideous moral upbringing, as well as insipidly substandard prose. It must be revised immediately without discussion or question.

Seriously, though, this article is – as always for Awad's work – well-written and comprehensive in the extreme.

Lead

  • I'd like to see some mention in the first sentence of how the gallery was a collection of pictures. (This might seem obvious, but the "…also included…" clause later in the lead made me say: "Wait, what?")
  • These opening sentences have continued to pose problems. New opening paragraph: The Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was a collection of pictures commissioned by eighteenth-century engraver and publisher John Boydell in an effort to foster a school of British history painting. In November 1786, he initiated the project, which also included an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints from the London gallery. Awadewit | talk 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the above could be remedied along with my next gripe: the split clause "He initiated the enterprise … in November 1786 in London." How about: "He initiated the enterprise in November 1786 in London by bringing together…"?
  • How would you feel about changing that "enterprise" to "project"? Enterprise feels so still and formal.
  • "and their productions" in the second lead paragraph feels unnecessary (especially in a sentence with a number of phrase-tendrils).
  • Do you have another suggestion? The sentence is supposed to mean paintings of the plays and of their theatrical productions - these were both important elements and both receive treatment in the article itself. Awadewit | talk 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I see what you mean. I wonder putting the predicate at the end of the sentence is in part responsible for its awkwardness. How about: "Shakespeare enjoyed new popularity in 18th-century Britain when several new Shakespeare editions were published; his plays were revived in the theatre; and the numerous works of art were created illustrating his plays and productions of them."? – Scartol • Tok 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about changing "beginning in 1791 and ending in 1803" to simply "from 1791 to 1803"?
  • "the original paintings of edition's plates" – either I'm dense (which is possible) or this is a confusing phrase.
  • "and the folio of engravings he published" – would "his folio of engravings" be incorrect? That sentence just feels full.
  • However, the long delay in publishing the prints and the illustrated edition prompted criticism. The final products of Boydell's ventures were not judged favourably: they were hurried and many illustrations had been done by lesser artists. Was the criticism of the first sentence here related to – or the same as – the unfavorable judgments of the second? If so, do they need to be separate sentences? If not, I'd like to see a transition word or phrase. ("…were likewise not judged favorably…")

Shakespeare in the 18th century

  • …Boydell tapped into a rich market that many others, such as actor and producer David Garrick, were also exploiting. I'd like to see a noun complementing "others", as in "other entrepreneurs" or "other investors" or some such. Also, I wonder if the "also" is needed – insofar as we're setting up a background into which Boydell entered? (I think of "also"s as being most useful when the events are happening simultaneously.) Now that I re-read the sentence, though, it seems to fit. Your call.
  • Man, I wish we could left-margin those blockquotes when there's an image. I've asked in the IRC channel and I'm trying to find an answer as I type.
  • UPDATE: Okay, we found a way to jam in some extra CSS code to give us the left margin back. The important thing is that it's dependent on the image; if that moves or changes size, then the margin will look very odd. So leave it alone!! =) – Scartol • Tok 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you asked, because I love to explain technical nerd stuff. It works like this: The <blockquote> tag tells the MediaWiki software: "The following words need a left-margin of 10 pixels". (Numbers are approximate.) However, when an image appears on the left, the MediaWiki software already says to itself (because of an evil bit of code known as the <div> tag): "Space that text over the width of the picture, plus a margin of 5 pixels." So in the case of this example, Let's say the image is 285 pixels wide, plus 5 for the margin. When the 10 pixel margin is demanded by the <blockquote> tag, MediaWiki says: "No sweat! It's already over 290 pixels. All taken care of." (And such a thing is not additive.)
  • The problem is that this is also the same left-margin as all the other text, so the block quote has no relative left margin. Therefore, it's necessary to say "No matter how much of a margin you might otherwise apply, indent this block 300 pixels", which gives us the 290 we'd normally have, plus the extra 10 we need to make it look like a real blockquote. Voilà! (The person who helped me figure this out – I almost fixed it by myself but like a moron I was using the wrong word for the CSS code – provided me with a snappy diagram he somehow generated of the various elements involved, but I didn't save the URL and don't know how to generate them. I'll see if I can find it.) – Scartol • Tok 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why "literary pictures" and "conversation pieces" are italicized.
  • They are art-historical terms. I don't think scare quotes are appropriate, since no distancing is needed. Either italicize or do nothing, in my opinion. (Scare quotes in the humanities often indicate that the word being quoted doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't want to indicate that here.) Awadewit | talk 08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, I don't necessarily have that association. Many times they are used that way in my experience, but sometimes I see them used (perhaps erroneously) to substitute for the phrase "what some people referred to as". Your call. – Scartol • Tok 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer a word or two about what the Royal Academy exhibitions actually exhibited. Also, how about a different phrasing on the second instance, to break up the repetition of: "…attained its peak in the Royal Academy exhibitions. The Academy exhibitions became an important public event…"
  • Revised: This tradition began with William Hogarth (whose prints reached multiple strata of society) and attained its peak in the Royal Academy exhibitions, which displayed paintings, drawings, and sculptures. The exhibitions became an important public event: thousands of spectators flocked to see them each year and newspapers carried detailed reports and critiques of the works displayed. Awadewit | talk 07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to stop in the middle of a section, but I've got a conference call I need to join. More to come! – Scartol • Tok 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see how well I can peer-review while listening with one ear to the call.

  • The parenthetical phrase "as would Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery, later in the century" uses the conditional past – I don't care for it in general, and here it seems like "as did Boydell's…" would be more efficient.
  • …the public was introduced to the works of Shakespeare. Hadn't they been introduced when the plays were performed back in the day? Maybe "introduced anew" or some such? Especially when the first sentence of the paragraph talks about "expanding Shakespeare's popular appeal". This dilemma continues into the next paragraph.
  • I know I'm really splitting hairs here, and I apologize if this is too microscopic: …it was the mid-century Shakespearean theatrical revival that was probably most responsible… A simpler phrasing would be: "the mid-century … revival was probably most responsible…" Cutting out the "it was" phrasing would make it read more smoothly.
  • I'm sure that "superb acting, unrivalled productions" is representing the majority of critical opinion, but I wonder if we still need less POV words?
  • Actually, this does represent the sources, both modern and historical. Garrick was a celebrity and people thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. That reputation has lasted. I am hesitant to change the description because this, surprisingly, reflects both primary and secondary sources. Awadewit | talk 07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how much the sentence "Garrick became the 18th-century embodiment of Shakespeare." adds to the paragraph. It seems to be expressed by the other elements.
  • Sometimes "18th century" is hyphenated, and sometimes it's not. Seems like it ought to be one way or the other.

More to come! – Scartol • Tok 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated Shakespeare edition and folio

I made a bunch of comments on this section last night, but somehow they got lost; since they're not in my contribs, I'm going to assume that I was a moron and forgot to save them or something. Argh! I'll try my best to recreate them.

  • The sentence Unlike previous scholarly editions, the text was unencumbered by notes. seems out of place. I'm not sure where to move it, but it sticks out in a paragraph which mostly describes the ornate decoration of the edition.
  • I'm not sure, either. It is a really important point, though.
  • The paragraph which starts The volumes contain the 36 plays... is filled with a technical breakdown of the data; could this be more of a prose paragraph and less a rundown of statistics? The same problem occurs at the end of the paragraph later which starts The print folio, A Collection of Prints....
  • The reason for this is the paucity of sources on Boydell's gallery. I felt that this information could be included, despite its technical status as original research because it is just counting. Anyone could verify this by themselves counting. Awadewit | talk 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a word on the mainstreamness of Northcote's criticism? Did other folks agree, or was he a lone voice? (I see this is revisited later in the article; maybe the quote should be moved?)
  • He was not a lone voice - I have moved his criticism to join the others. It is hard to say how representative this criticism was, but he was not the only one criticizing the project. I tried to indicate what the overall reaction was in the later section. Awadewit | talk 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He guessed that he could sell more folios and editions if the pictures were different. The edition's primary illustrators were known as book illustrators... These sentences could use some kind of transition or link.
  • I rearranged the paragraph.
  • ...it was reissued throughout the 19th century. Could we have a "repeatedly" or "many times" after "reissued"? I think it would eradicate a slight vagueness.
  • Alas! I'm hoping someday soon I'll find a text entitled An Exploration of John Boydell's Folio Reprinting During the Nineteenth Century and Unrelated Commentary on Specific Revision and Publication Details about Balzac's Le Père Goriot. But Alibris doesn't seem to have it. =) – Scartol • Tok 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm going to finish my first go-through before responding to replies. Hey! Where's my witty 2001 allusion? Just kidding.)

Gallery building

  • This contrast is echoed in Rev. George Reeves's description of Pall Mall in his A New History of London... Isn't there some license afforded to drop the first article from a title if there's a possessive pronoun preceding it?
  • this property had been the home of Goostree's gentleman's club from 1773 to 1787. Begun as a gambling club for wealthy young men, it had later become a reformist political club that counted William Pitt and William Wilberforce as members. Three "club"s in two sentences; could the two sentences be combined to remove one use of "club"?

Shakespeare Gallery in operation

  • It took over the public's imagination and became an end in and of itself. The last phrase is unclear. I think I know what you mean, but I'd rather have something more explicit.
  • Furthermore, artists who had influence with the press... "Furthermore" feels like the wrong word here. I think maybe it could even simply be dropped.
  • The list of artists feels dry. Maybe include a word or two about which plays each one painted/engraved from?
  • These days The Times is usually followed by "of London" to differentiate it from the other Times. Maybe we should do that here? Your call.

Collapse and List of works

  • In a blockquote: "there were few than could be approved" – is this accurate? Wouldn't it be "that"?
  • When both the Shakespeare enterprise and the Thames book failed, they had no capital to fall back upon. This sounds like the "they" refers to the enterprise and book had no capital.
  • there were 64 winning tickets, each costing three guineas... Didn't all the tickets cost the same? That phrase probably ought to be somewhere else.
  • I'm not clear on what the bylines in the List refer to ("by William Beechey"). Is there a way to clarify without ugly-ing up that very nicely-formatted list?
  • Those are the painters. I don't really know how to make that clear in the note at the top: "These are the paintings and their painters". Ew. We could always say the list does not include the names of the engravers, thereby implying it does include the names of the painters. Awadewit | talk 08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant a much more general description, like changing the subhead to: "List of art works" or some such. I'm thinking of the teenager who sees the list and thinks: Merry Wives of Windsor, Act I, scene 1 by Robert Smirke? Didn't Shakespeare write that?" Maybe I'm just being dense. – Scartol • Tok 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article! Thank you for bringing me in – I enjoyed learning about this important institution. As always, you need not convince me one way or another about how you proceed; I trust you to consider my suggestions and employ the most useful. – Scartol • Tok 16:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wrad

  • I think the first section after the lead would be easier to follow if it was split into three sub-sections: "Rise of Nationalism", "Theatrical Revival", and "Shakespeare editions", or such like.
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph in the lead reads a bit funny, "which..., but..., excited..." It's all just too much to compute.
  • What are the "36 plays attributed to Shakespeare" which the edition contained? Which plays were left out?
  • Maybe say in the footnote where the Hamlet quote on the sculpture came from.
  • Have any Shakespeare critics examined the paintings for insights into 18th-century views of Shakespeare's plays?
  • Yes, but as there were over 100 paintings by many different artists, it is impossible to say anything as a group about the paintings. That information would have to go on the individual pages about the paintings or the artists, I feel. Awadewit | talk 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the pictures and the list at the end. Pretty darn good article overall. Wrad (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley House

[edit]

Awadewit and I are the major contributors to this article about the American home of Joseph Priestley and would appreciate any comments, feedback, or suggestions on how to improve it. We will make brief articles to take care of the two red links, and are working on a map, but thought we could start the peer review process and work on those at the same time. We plan to submit this to WP:FAC in the future. Thanks in advance for your help, Awadewit and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Yllosubmarine
I'm not sure how much help I can be; I didn't even know there was a Northumberland, PA! Still, here are a few thoughts:

  • I know nothing about city planning, so forgive me if this is common sense, but I find the phrase "laid out around a central green" goes completely over my head. What does this mean, exactly?
    • First off thanks for the very helpful comments. The Pennsylvania Northumberland is named for the British one, and was, as you say, a planned community (laid out by the planners, who then sold lots for building on to people who wanted to live there). Reflecting their British roots, they included a village green in the center of the new community. I have tweaked the sentence to read "Northumberland was laid out around a central village green in 1772." Hopefully the wikilinks and added word make it clearer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph and Mary lived with their son Joseph and his family in a small house while theirs was being built, and in 1798 Joseph Jr., his wife, and their children moved into the new house with Joseph. This is rather jumbled up and confusing, what with the four "Joseph"s. Perhaps split it into two sentences or separate it with a semi-colon?
    • My fault. We were not sure where to put this, and I think it would be better if it were moved to just after the quotation on Mary's death. The problem is that they had another son who did not live with them. I will let Awadewit try her hand at this. Perhaps something like the following (new version of moved sentence italicized):
"This day I bury my wife....she had taken much thought in planning the new house and now that it is far advanced and promises to be everything she wished, she is removed to another."[33] Joseph Priestley Jr., had taken his parents into his family's small house while theirs was being built, and in 1798 Joseph Jr., his wife and children moved into the new house with his father. Priestley's family relations...
  • Another thought, it might work better to split it into two sentences and have just the first on where they lived while the house was being built where the problem sentence is now (The senior Priestleys lived with their son Joseph and his family in a small house while theirs was being built.). Then have the second on where they lived after the house was completed just after the quotation on Mary's death (In 1798 Joseph Jr., his wife and children moved into the new house with his father.). Does this seem any better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to beginning of "Architecture and landscaping" with slight revision to make chronology clearer. See what you think. Awadewit | talk 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his Memoirs Priestley wrote of his situation in Northumberland: "the settlement was given up..." This is the third quote that begins with a colon, but I don't think it works as well as the previous ones. It's also unnecessary to repeat "Northumberland" since it was stated in the previous two sentences. I would prefer to see it flow seamlessly, perhaps with an introduction similar to Priestley wrote in his Memoirs that "the settlement...
  • Aha! In regards to my second point above, I was wondering why the sentence had read that Jr. and his family moved into the new house with Joseph, but there was no mention of Mary; four paragraphs later it's explained she died before it could be completed. This was confusing for me, so maybe if you rewrite that "Joseph"-laden sentence, it will be less of a headache.

This is quite well written and highly comprehensive. I haven't read the Joseph Priestley article, but I was able to keep up with the subject matter fairly well. The history of the Priestley family in particular is very well told and I definitely got the sense of the importance of this house, not only in terms of Priestley's life, but also locally. The pictures are fantastic and it's a shame more pics from the commons cannot be added for fear of crowding out the text (I quite like the photos of the plaques, for example). I'm glad a map will be added; that would be very helpful for geography disinclined folks such as myself. I hope this has helped somewhat. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Buryan

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • I have wanted for some time to bring this article up to featured article status. It was until recently listed as a good article but was downgraded by another editor requesting further referencing. I have addressed these concerns, and added extra material to the text. I realise that the article is probably not FA status yet, but would like some feedback on what else could be done to achieve this before nominating it for FA. At the very least I feel that it should be re-entered as a good article.
  • I feel that St Buryan would be a suitable FA candidate in terms of subject matter, not dissimilar to Chew Valley which is an existing geography FA about a similar sized location.

All constructive comments gratefully received,


Thanks, Mammal4 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good overall. I think it would stand a good chance at FA. A couple of points

  • The last sentance in the lead: Today St Buryan is an important local centre housing many important amenities. does not read well with important twice.
  • In Mozilla there are four edit links appearing in the the middle of the text. It might be possible to change the way the images are layed out to avoid this.

--Salix alba (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Your House 1

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review as it recently failed FA, see here. My main goal is to attempt to get this article up to FA status. Comments appreciated. Cheers, Davnel03 09:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll just give you a couple of suggestions and come back later with some more.

  • I went ahead and fixed some small things myself, like expanding the PPV abbreviation to pay-per-view and some minor grammar problems.
  • Make sure the citation numbers are in order in the article. Instead of being [25][12][24], they should be in numerical order. This is a problem throughout.
  • Nobody is a bigger advocate of keeping the articles out of universe than me, but if you go too far with the wrestling jargon, you are isolating the non-wrestling readers and putting the article right back in-universe (just in the opposite manner). Sentences like "The selling feud of the pay-per-view was between then-WWF Champion Diesel and Sycho Sid" should read more like "The most prominent feud leading up to the event was the feud between then-WWF Champion Diesel and his storyline rival Sycho Sid." Just look over the article, and if there is a sentence that you think may be confusing to a non-fan, the best bet is to reword it.
    • I'm guessing your just talking about mainly the first feud? You may of noticed that that sounds different to the remainder of the article. Those edits were done by me, but then the language was dramatically changed here by Screwball23 (who then created a rant at WP:PW. Should I revert back to the first paragraph version before that? Cheers, Davnel03Sign It, Junior! 14:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a small grammatical thing that nobody ever notices but me and a few other grammar nerds, but "however" should never be put at the beginning of a sentence in formal writing. "However, in the interim, the creative team decided to diffuse direct confrontations between the two on-screen..." should read "In the interim, however, the creative team decided to diffuse direct confrontations between the two on-screen...". In the end, it'll read better that way.

That's all for now. I'll be back probably tomorrow. Nikki311 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the article history, I'd say you should probably revert the first paragraph to its previous version. While I believe Screwball was acting in good faith, he added a lot of POV and weaselly words that really shouldn't be there. Actually, I'll go ahead and do it since it really doesn't take much effort. Nikki311 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and cleaned up the article. Here are a few things I wasn't sure about:

  • Sometimes you have move names in italics and sometimes they aren't. I'm not sure which it should be, but it should be uniform throughout. Specifically, the Razor's Edge is written with and without italics.
  • In the Hakushi vs. Hart match description, it says that after the match "he" jumped down and appeared to injure his knee. Is the "he" Bret Hart? I think it should be made clear who it was, and I wasn't 100% sure. That's why I didn't change it myself. Nevermind. It is made clear later in the article, so I changed the wording myself.
  • Sometimes, it is better to combine short sentences to make more complex sentences. It reads as less choppy. I tried to fix this as I went through the article. I'd say a general rule would be to combine any short/simple sentences when there are three or more in a row.

That's all I've got. Hopefully, somebody (with fresh eyes) comes along and makes some suggestions. Nikki311 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood+

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because significant work has been done in the article over the last view weeks and I think it has been significantly improved (see [4] for what it was like before). I'd like to get feedback on other potential improvements to be made and to see if it is ready to go from Start to B class as part of the over all goal of GA or Featured status later.

Thanks,

Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Ideas if you go for GA.

  • Include the manga, light novels, and video games in the infobox.
  • Genres should be alphabetized
  • If possible, find an image of just the logo to put in the infobox.
  • Make sure the lead section conform with guidelines at WP:Lead.
  • Article needs a reception section.
  • A slimmed down version of the major characters should be added to the character section of the main article.
  • Add a subsection in the character section named "Character types".
  • Found 9 red links. Consider making stubs for them or removing the link.
  • Some words used in the article are in the guideline Words to avoid.

(Duane543 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks! Will work on those items. Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater Worldwide

[edit]

I've put down Blackwater Worldwide for peer review, for the process of eventually getting to the level of a Featured Article. I'm aware of some defects in the article (some writing structure, formatting of the sources is only about 50% complete), but wanted to get the process started to expedite the improvement of the article. The talk page and activities from other editors has dropped off, I suspect from them not being in the news each day now, but I still wanted to run with it for FA. Thanks for any assistance, Lawrence Cohen 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good to me so far. Someone does need to go through all of the references and make sure they all have the necessary information because some them are just links to an article. It also might help if there was some more organization in the external links section. Finally, someone should make sure that all books referenced in the article have the applicable ISBN numbers listed. But that is pretty much all I saw in one read. I made a couple of small changes but other than the suggestions above it looks good to me (but I am new at reviewing articles so maybe I am missing something). Remember (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'm still going through all the sources to standardize them. It took me about 3-4 days to do it on another article with half as many, so probably by next week I'll have them all caught up. Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{[Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila}}

Manga

[edit]

With the significant work to reference this article within the past couple of months, it is an easy Good Article candidate. It just barely missed being a Good Article because of one few unreferenced section, which has now been fixed. However, I want to go one step further and see just how close this article is to being a Featured Article and what needs to be improved to reach that status. My main concern is that it may be over referenced.

Thanks,

Farix (Talk) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You may be right, but without more details about what references might be excess, unnecessary, or redundant, there weren't any guidelines for removing citations. So they were all kept pending such input. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It already exists. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why no pre-WWII pictures? In fact, this goes for the entire article. The subject is intensely subjective and visual - it's about art! - and so too many pictures is not enough. A picture of a manga cafe would be good too, or perhaps a picture on a train where everyone is reading manga. It's one thing to say it's a major part of modern life, and another to actually show it.
Reply Not enough room to put in all the pictures we need. There have been discussions about this for months, but no simple solution has emerged. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems to have an odd focus. In the post-WWII section, we have 2 sections on Shojo (which is all well and good since Shojo is a very important category of manga) and then we jump straight to '3 Manga publications'. ...what? There are other important genres to be covered, from shonen to American-style murder mysteries and suspense to the early sci-fi and mecha stuff, too.
Reply This has been fixed by inserting completely new, heavily referenced sections on manga for male readers and on gekiga manga. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Added later. The new sections are major additions to the article, not merely a sentence or two. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'd like to see more pictures/screenshots, particularly if they are spaced out in time such that you can see the evolution from the most primitive '40s era manga art-style to the slickest modern one, or if they illustrate the various 'styles' of manga (like 4-koma or full page spreads like Blade of the Immortal uses, etc.);
Reply Not enough room for the pictures. I wish there were room. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a section on the intertwined relationship of anime and manga; and a finer-grained breakdown of sections - they are pretty monolithic.
Reply Again, not enough room to go into anime-manga connections.

--Gwern (contribs) 02:11 22 December 2007 (GMT)

  • Under the dōjinshi section, I find the part about omakes to be out of place especially because it's mentioned before defining dōjinshi. Omakes is not only a part of dōjinshi. Maybe move the omake part under publications? Toothpyx (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree that the dojinshi section -- the whole publication section, in fact -- needs a lot of work. But it's not my area of expertise, and I can't do it. Someone else will have to fill in here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things about the article, in no particular order.
First, there's some excess detail. In statements like "Another example is CLAMP's Magic Knight Rayearth, whose three young heroines, Hikaru, Umi, and Fuu, are magically transported to the world of Cephiro to become armed magical warriors in the service of saving Cephiro from internal and external enemies." the names of the planet and the heroines should be removed to focus the reader's attention on what matters. Perhaps the example should be removed entirely. I suggest searching for other places where the article gives too much detail.
Reply It seemed unwise to remove Magic Knight Rayearth, since it is one of the most popular manga in both Japan and the US. Removing the heroines' names deletes only a few words. But without more details about other examples you consider excess, unnecessary, or redundant, there wasn't much else I could do about this issue. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second, there's a fruit salad of orthographic styles. The same name is written variously, for example with or without macrons, or with long vowels written as ou. Japanese words suffer the same fate (shojo and shōjo, for example). Is "Aikawa Minwa" correct? There's a spelling error in the transliteration of Versailles.
Reply Yes, Aikawa Minwa is correct. Versailles has been fixed. Sometimes the macrons are missing in the original titles and references, and we can't add them without getting those titles and references wrong. Perhaps you yourself could correct other mistakes when you find them? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be proofread with the goal of bringing it into accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The abbreviation "lit." is unnecessary even if the explanations are kept (see "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style). There are a few slashes. See "Avoid joining two words by a slash" in the Manual of Style. There are variations on styles (quotes, italics, no styling) the article uses for titles, foreign words, and words as words. There are several mixed citation styles (with inline citation and a footnote number), for example, "(Schodt 1986, p. 88)6 " . Are these dual-format citations required, or should they be simplified? "Bande Dessinée" has capital letters in one place where it should have lowercase. There are various abbreviations of "United States" (I noticed "U.S.A." and "US.") Spaces around a dash in the sentence "All of these innovations – strong and independent female characters, intense emotionality, and complex design – remain characteristic of shōjo manga up to the present day." result in a line beginning with a dash (when I view it on my screen). The Manual of Style specifies no spaces around dashes.
Reply Fixed these.
I don't think it's fruitful to explain "image-centered" as "pictocentric" and "word-centered" as "logocentric" in this article. Can we remove the explanations, which don't appear elsewhere in the article, and don't clarify (at least to me) the simpler terms?
Reply Those two words aren't explanations, they're the words used by the author being quoted. I think this is a matter of taste, actually, and I left them. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sentences need editing. "In 1969, a group of women mangaka later called "The Magnificent 24s" made their shōjo manga debut (the term comes from the Japanese name for 1949, when many of these artists were born)." (Which term?) Reply: fixed this. "Although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films.[17][18] (e.g. Star Wars)." I'm not sure of the point of the sentence "Although U.S. Occupation censorship policies specifically targeted art and writing that glorified war and Japanese militarism,[6] those policies did not prevent the publication of other kinds of material, including manga." Is it saying that policies permitted manga, or that policies permitted glorification of war and Japanese militarism in manga (but not in other forms of expression)?
Reply I changed "targeted" into "prohibited." Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
English could substitute for a lot of foreign terms. Do extended glosses like "redisu / josei 女性 じょせい" really add to the word "ladies'" or should they be removed? Do we need a repeat ("This "Ladies Comic" subgenre (in Japanese, redisu レディース, redikomi レヂィーコミ, and josei) has dealt with themes of young adulthood")? Reply: fixed this. How many times is the German word bildungsroman necessary, and can the English term "coming-of-age," which it explains, substitute for it? In the English Wikipedia, most of these foreign-language terms should be removed, especially in articles to which Manga links, when the terms are explained in the article.
Reply: Bildungsroman is the correct technical term, and the one used by Wikipedia itself for the article. It is defined in an endnote. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the people called "scholars" scholars? One is Takashi Murakami. He well might be; I don't know. Having skimmed the article on him, I don't get the impression of a scholar, but perhaps I missed something, or the article on him omitted his scholarship. (It covers artistic and entrepreneurial activities and mentions that he left a doctoral program.) The same word also describes Frederik L. Schodt. However, the article on him says that he is a writer, translator and interpreter famous for translating manga. Again, he might be a scholar, but writer, translator and interpreter don't add up to scholar. A scholar could write a book with a title like "Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics" but writing a book with that title doesn't automatically make him a scholar. Critical examination of the roles of these authors can help bring this article to the next level.
Reply I changed the word "scholar" to "author" and "writer" since it serves no purpose to debate Schodt's scholarship. Yes, he is a scholar, and one of the best in this field, but that's not the point here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate from the word used for Murakami and Schodt, the quality of the references should be examined. For Good and Featured articles, Wikipedia wants sources that are progressively more reliable. When sources are marginal, ask whether the statements they support are important to the exposition. If they are, find better sources; if they're not, remove or reword the statements to avoid the need for those marginal sources. Aim for works that provide scholarship, rather than armchair sociology.
Reply The citations used are all of high reliability. Without a list of references you believe to be "armchair sociology," there isn't anything I can do about this issue. At another time, we can discuss my own credentials for making the choices I did, but not here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notes about the Constitution of Japan related to censorship reference Kodansha; it seems more useful to reference the Constitution itself (see the article on it for a link to Wikisource in English).

Reply This puzzled me at first, since the Kodansha encyclopedia citation we used takes one precisely to the Japanese Constitution itself, but then I realized that you probably don't know the encyclopedia. I added some page references and clarified the issue, I hope. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Publications" section, prior to "Magazines," has no citations. Many of the statements could reasonably be challenged. The section is close to the border of what Wikipedia calls "original research."
Reply I agree. I did no work on this section, except for the Gegika section (which was completely rewritten and referenced). Several times on the discussion page, I've recommended that it be removed (except Gekiga) or moved to another article, but there has been no consensus on the issue. Future editors will have to take up this problem, since I will be making no further major additions or changes to the manga article. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links need checking. The phrase "Mixx Entertainment/TokyoPop" contains two separate links to redirects that both lead to Tokyopop. Although it's not necessary to fix every indirect link in Wikipedia, I'd hope that editors aiming to bring an article to Good or Featured standing would make them all direct.
Reply. Fixed these.Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are minor points. A thorough proofreading is time-consuming and tedious, but it can address many of the issues I've raised. This article is interesting, informative, and accessible. I'd like to see you pick the nits and get it the recognition it deserves. Fg2 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions, everyone. They have been very helpful, and I regret that I wasn't able to use all of them. Future editors will doubtless find them very useful.
I will now no longer be making any further major additions or changes to this article. Back in September 2007, when Peregrine Fisher and I started to work on it, we had a list of topics and headings we wanted to upgrade. That list is now complete, and I believe we were successful in significantly improving the article by adding quality writing and references (we added over 200 solid, reliable references). But that job is done now, so it is now up to other people to continue to work on this entry.
The only advice I'd pass on is that dealing with the bibliography may be tricky if you start deleting references wholesale or without asking if they are mentioned in other references (e.g., in what is known as an "op. cit." = opus citandum reference).
As some of you have guessed, I am what Wikipedians sometimes call an "expert." It is not alway a term of praise on Wikipedia, where -- I'm saddened by this, actually -- experts are treated sometimes scornfully, sometimes with hostility, and sometimes with outright dislike. Some editors are exceptionally welcoming, but not all by any means. So this has been a mixed experience for me, sometimes good, but often not pleasant at all. I frankly doubt if I will do any more detailed editing on Wikipedia again. Too much hostile, pointless bickering, too much petty backbiting, and too many naive wannabes trying to call the shots about things they don't know. But I will say it has been interesting.
Good luck with this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pryce

[edit]

I've worked a lot on this article and i would really like to make it a FA, therefore, feedback is most cordially requested.

Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.

  • See WP:DASH for the syle guidelines on use of hyphens and dashes.
  • Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), isation (B) (American: ization), modeling (A) (British: modelling), programme (B) (American: program ).

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all ok, but thank you Ruhrfisch.Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Hall of Fame

[edit]

My goal is to have this page ready for an FAC within a month. It is currently fully sourced, but it definitely needs a copyediting, especially the exhibits section. Thanks, Scorpion0422 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeschylus

[edit]

Just had major overhaul. Needs overall comments towards FA criteria. - Mocko13 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

[edit]

This is a very good article; it was a pleasure to read. Here are my suggestions as you work towards FA.

  • There are quite a few sentences that de-emphasize their subject matter through awkward phrasing, wordiness or clause placement. Here are some examples:
His contributions to the art of drama include expanding the number of characters in plays from one to two, which allowed conflict and interaction between characters rather than limiting plays to dialogue between one character and the chorus. - Could you foreground his contribution in the sentence? For example, "He expanded the number of characters to allow for conflict between them; previously, characters interacted only with the chorus." (something like that)
Aeschylus' life and career took place in the context of the Persian invasion of Greece, which influenced the subject matter of many of his works. - "in the context of" sounds awkward to me. Which part of the sentence is most important? I have a feeling you want to emphasize that his works are about the Persian invasion, but this is only a secondary emphasis; try reworking for emphasis.
There followed a second competition of five comedic playwrights like Aristophanes, and the winners of both competitions were chosen by a panel of judges. - awkward - what do you want to emphasize?
The theme of the gods interfering in human affairs, and placing them in difficult situations, continues in Seven Against Thebes (Hepta epi Thebas), which was performed in 467 BC. - awkward opening phrase, particularly because the previous paragraph emphasizes that The Persians is about human events
Its tragic story of a war between Thebes and Argos also marks the first known appearance in Aeschylus' work of a theme which would continue through his plays, that of the polis (the city or citizenship) as the highest development of human civilization. - awkward and wordy - what do you want to emphasize?
  • one of these plays, Prometheus Bound, is sometimes thought not to be the work of Aeschylus - While attribution issues are important, I do not think this one belongs in the lead.
  • The young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy as soon as he woke, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old. - "as soon as he woke" is awkward
  • After fifteen years, his skill was great enough to win a prize for his plays at Athens' annual City Dionysia, a festival dedicated to Dionysus. - awkward
  • There is a sudden switch from playwriting to fighting in the middle of the "Life" section. Could you transition between the two, perhaps by giving us a bit of historical background? Did Aeschylus have to give up playwrighting to defend his country or something like that?
  • This pivotal defeat of the Persian King Darius' invading horde by the outnumbered soldiers of the Greek Delian League ended the first Persian invasion of Greece proper and was celebrated across the city-states of Greece. - what is an "invading horde" exactly? Perhaps that phrase should go.
  • However, the glory was tempered for Aeschylus personally when his brother was killed in the battle. - awkward - how about "However, the victory was bittersweet for Aeschylus because his brother was killed in the battle" (or something like that).
  • The crushing Athenian victory over the Persian fleet at Salamis was to become the subject of The Persians, his oldest surviving play, which was performed in 472 BC and won first prize. - won first prize at the Dionysia?
  • Aeschylus traveled to Sicily once or twice in the 470s BC, having been invited by Hieron of Syracuse, a major Greek city on the eastern side of the island. - it almost sounds like Hieron is a major Greek city
  • Sometimes you write Eumenides and sometimes The Eumenides.
  • I think you could say a little more about the themes of Agammemnon. At least a sentence or two. In fact, I think that the plays get short shrift in general. Maybe a little subsection on each play (there are only seven) with quotations? In particular, could you say more about Prometheus Unbound?
  • Pick an italicization scheme - are tetralogies italicized or not? You are inconsistent. Also, all play titles should be italicized.
  • Aeschylus added a second actor, such that the actors themselves could have conflicts and engage in dialogue, while the chorus took less immediate a role. - awkward
  • Your notes are not all formatted the same way. Also, I do not think it is necessary to write "page". It is more customary to simply include the author's name and the page number.
  • In your references, please include commas after the editors' names and before "ed" and since you have decided to include the place of publication, you should probably include it for all of the references for the sake of consistency.
  • I would think about removing these "External Links": IMDB list of films based on Aeschylus (you don't talk about pop cultural representations anywhere else); Schlegel, August Wilhelm, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, 1809 (just link from note), Selected Monologues by Aeschylus on Monologue Search (particularly this one, since you have to join to view) Awadewit 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

[edit]

Nicely done. These are my suggestions for FAC:

  • "As soon as he woke from the dream, the young Aeschylus began writing a tragedy, and his first performance took place in 499 BC, when he was only 26 years old.[4][3]" I think it is nicer if the notes are in the right order ([3][4]). Now, you can also avoid having citations in a row by combining them. See various ways of combining citations in Tourette syndrome, Battle of Edson's Ridge etc.
  • "The trilogy consists of Agamemnon, The Liberation Bearers (Choephoroi), and The Eumenides." Be careful with the wikilinks. In this sentence, for instance, instead of linking to the article (the section of another article to be accurate) about the play "Agamemnon", you linked to the mythological king. I fixed these links, but, in general, be careful with all these often confusing wikilinks.
  • I would like a more detailed analysis of his artistic traits and his literary importance. Why is he regerded as the greater ancient playright? What are the characteristics that make his art sublime? How did he influence Roman theatre, and did he even influence Shakespeare and other dramatists of this era? Has his work influenced the Western culture and theatre from Renaissance and afterwards? I think that questions like these ones could find some answers in the article.
  • You cite no primary sources. This may be a personal preference, but I think that secondary sources should supplement and co-exist with primary ones. But in Hippocrates, I had a similar argument presented, and the editor explained to me with solid arguments his choice to focus on just secondary sources. But, at least, we should know how do we know all this stuff about his life: who wrote down, and who transmitted this biographical information to the next generations, and to modern historical times? How do we know that he lived and did all these things while living?
  • Another question you would like maybe to answer in the article: who saved his works? Thanks to whom we have the chance to read his plays, and to know that Aeschylus is the person who wrote them? How did these masterpieces pass from one generation to the next one?--Yannismarou 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To back up what Yannismarou has said, the article needs a critical analysis of Aechylus' work as a whole. Indeed the section on Influence over Greek culture should be expanded to cover his influence on drama and the theatre as a whole. Certainly a section on Aeschylus' reputation through the ages would be most helpful (something like Shakespeare's reputation). Otherwise, this is a marvelous start to a very important article! I'm a theatre person and I would be most willing to help if you need it. I do have access to a fairly good academic library so I have access to some sources you may not have. Let me know if I can help. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lloyd Racing

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is one of my better articles, and it might be able to go on ahead to GA with some tweaks. Help with grammar, wording, and references will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

The359 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Engineering and Technology (Peshawar)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been modified to come up to the standards of the WikiProjects for Universities.


Thanks,

LopezKahn (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chowder (TV series)

[edit]

I'd like to see what can be improved on this article, and ultimately bring it to the highest possible class. I'm basically shooting for GA.

Thanks,

Yngvarr 11:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tila Tequila

[edit]

Me and several others have been working on this article for awhile now. I was just wondering what changes or additions to this piece would anyone suggest? Thanks in advance for the feedback, by the way. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

[edit]

The article was recently promoted to GA after a good deal of work, but didn't get a thorough play by play of issues the article has, and ideas on where, and perhaps how to improve it are appreciated.Patrick Ѻ 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core article on places (being the capital of Malaysia). It has recently undergone a major cleanup since Decemeber 1, 2007, because the article was choesen to be the Malaysian Wikiproject's collaboration of the month. I think it has satisfied GA criteria, and ive nominatedthe article for GA, but there seems to be a backlog there (no response until now), so i decided to nominate for a peer review as well, hoping to see what else we can do to push the article to FA status. Would like to know whether the article is comprehensive, whether there are certain things missing, among others.

Thanks,

kawaputratorque 02:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Turkey

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to attempt to make this a feutured article. This article grew from a partially developed stub into a full-blown study on the historical development of Turkish nationhood. Please actually read the article to give your final judgment. If it is not yet a candidate for this week, it will be, from the way it is being developed. Wish it the best of luck.

I was referred here by a team member from "Feature Articles". Thank you very much. Bestlyriccollection (talk)

Hi. It's a good piece of work that has one enormous flaw - it is almost entirely unreferenced. Try going through the article and every time the article claims something ("Many groups speaking "Turkic" languages never adopted the name "Turk" as self identity." or "There is no doubt regarding the etymology of the name "Fu Lin"..." for example) ask yourself "Says who?" If you like, I can do it for you by adding a bunch of {{cn}} tags. Any other shortcomings are so massively outweighed by this one that it's not worth discussing them at this stage, because currently there's nothing to stop people from assuming 99% of the content is OR. Which is isn't. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important sources of reference include: 1) Fuat Mehmet Koprulu's "Origin of the Ottoman Empire", discussing the formation of Anatolian Beyliks by Turkmen tribes around the Seljuq-Ilkhanid times. 2) Hugh and Nicole Pope: "Turkey Unveiled", talking about how multiethnic Ottoman Empire became "Turkey". 3) there is a book I've read that talks about the Karakhanid period reinvention of the identity "Turk" from a Pagan tribal-dynastic identity into a Muslim collective cultural identity similar to "Tajik". Maybe it is Hugh Pope. 4) Peter Mansfield, "the Arabs", talking about the formation of the "Arab Nationality" during late Ottoman period. Of course, one must look into books that deal heavily with the subjects of Namik Kemal, Ziya Gokalp, Ataturk's Republican Reforms, Young Turks, Tekin Alp, Nihal Atsiz etc.
That's great, but doesn't address my concerns at all. You urgently need to read this section of arguably our most important policy. Without citations in your text, showing where you've got your information from, it can all be dismissed as "Original Research" and aggressive editors may choose to wipe it, which would be a pity. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuge Liang

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what this article needs in order to become GA, positive and negative things about the article and if there are enough citations and references. Thanks, Armando.Otalk · Ev · 3K 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Twelsht

[edit]

I am not an expert on Chinese history, but this article seems comprehensive and well presented. Here are some things that I would work on:

  • Avoid cumbersome phrases and constructions to enhance readability. I lightly edited the lead to illustrate this point. You might consider referring this article to an experienced copy editor; a second pair of eyes is often helpful.
  • This article includes plenty of useful information, but there is a clear need for more citations. This is especially true in cases where the article describes the supposed motivations of Zhuge Liang's detractors. These kinds of observations, in the absence of citations, may strike readers as speculation on the part of contributors. Speculation qualifies as original research (OR).
  • Be aware of style issues. I inserted endashes where they seemed appropriate. It is also my understanding that users should avoid highlighting partial dates, e.g., 916. I delinked these dates, but I recommend that you consult the Manual of Style for additional information.

Again, this article is filled with interesting information. If you want to bring it up to GA standards, you might start by streamlining the prose and including more citations. I hope this helps! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mewtwo

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to attempt to make this a feutured article, and having a group of others telling me the problems help! I'm not kidding, no matter how much I seem so. Anyone, yeah, just tell me what needs fixing with the article and what I can do to make it better.


Thanks,

- ~VNinja~ 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Warren

[edit]

I have requested a peer review for this article because I would like to improve the article to GA status and am looking for helpful advice on what needs improving.

Thanks,

Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Twelsht

[edit]

I didn't have time to read this article thoroughly. But after skimming it, a couple of things caught my eye. Watch out for MOS issues. Your standard (American) use of quotation marks doesn't conform to Wikipedia style. This is one of the first things that will catch the eye of a reviewer on the GAC. It's also a good idea to avoid overlinking, a temptation to which I've often succumbed. If I remember correctly, most of your links were perfectly appropriate. But you probably don't need to link terms such as "district attorney," which are familiar to most native speakers of English. At a glance, the piece looks fairly comprehensive. I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a closer reading, the article still looks reasonably comprehensive. On the whole, it's well written and well organized. A couple issues concerned me, however. I was confused by the extended reference to Bestor Robinson. The article noted that Robinson was a conservationist and an avid rock climber, but there was no effort to link this information to Warren. Did Robinson influence Warren's views on conservationism? If so, this needs to be stated. A second concern is the absence of inline citations, an omission that won't be difficult to rectify. There should be plenty of available online sources dealing with this prominent figure. Again, the article is fairly comprehensive. It would be stronger if the material were supported with references, preferably inline citations. I made a couple of minor style edits, all of which include edit summaries. (Be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines for punctuation.) I've also found that it's best to avoid highlighting partial dates, e.g., 1946. That said, I've come across exceptions to this rule in some sports articles, e.g., 1915. Where I encountered similar links in this article, I left them alone. Overall, this piece shouldn't be difficult to upgrade to GA standards. The most pressing issue, in my view, is a need for inline citations. I hope this helps! Thanks, again, for your feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: You could note that many historians connect Warren's regrets over his support for Japanese-American internment to his later commitment to civil rights. If I remember correctly, this observation is made in James T. Patterson's Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dweller

[edit]

If you read this at the main WP:PR page, scroll up a tad and see the comments I make about the Name of Turkey article. Almost all of this article is unreferenced. That's the first and best thing you can work on to improve it. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on it for almost 6 months now, and have had little to no insight from any other editors. I would like to get this article up a class or two but are not sure how to expand or improve it at this point in time.


Thanks,

Tiptoety (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Una Smith

[edit]
  • Well, for starters an encyclopedic article normally will have a History section. This article clearly needs one, and some topics it might address include: why was the group formed? for what purpose? did it fulfill its original purpose or has that been redefined over time? how? something many SAR units have trouble with is inclusion of women: did the original bylaws specifically exclude or specifically include women? how about black men? how about "Oriental" men? Say something about the connection with Boy Scouts; does it still exist today? how does it work? do teenagers get out of school for SAR missions? Can they respond at night? How do you handle the logistics of having many SAR team members too young to drive a vehicle on a public road? does the group in fact have a lot of young team members? Does their youth nececessitate special procedures for missions that may involve a suicide or other highly sensitive, damaging mission scenario?
  • I think Tiptoety wants to write an article about this group but has not yet "discovered" what to write. Currently it is rather a list of factoids and boilerplate info gathered from the unit's website. Is this article intended as a recruiting tool for the group? If so, it does not belong on Wikipedia.
  • The article needs references. Only one of the items now treated as references seems to be a true reference. Most of the others are external links to the group's website or to other groups' websites. Appropriate references would include historical newspaper articles about the group's adventures in SAR or local politics or whatever it does that is notable. Or, if you can get the group to deposit its old bylaws somewhere public, you could then cite them.
  • The one real reference appears after something about hundreds of homicides being solved by the group; IMO finding evidence during a search of a crime scene does not equal solving the case.

--Una Smith (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neilston

[edit]

I've listed this article (about a village in Scotland) for peer review because I have some experience in obtaining GA and FA for articles about British settlements, though find WP:PR invaluable in furthering these articles. I believe this article would meet the GA standard, and it is WP:UKCITIES compliant, but would like some additional feedback and input as to improving some of the prose and referencing.

Thank you in advance,

-- Jza84 · (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good images here: they are relevant and provide good context. Provide more context in the intro paragraph, like "...a village of 5,000 people..." - a village for me is less than 1,000 people. What kind of agriculture are they involved with? Avoid single-sentence paragraph - sounds like the "Toponymy" sub-section would make a better paragraph than section. The "History" section is weak and generalized. I'm sure its history is not earth-shattering but the story of its development would better illustrate what the village is. The best History sections I've read are written as narratives (the story of the village). Clarify the local government part: is it governed by its own mayor and council? or by a regional authority? Or to put it differently, who do the people elect? A map of the town (with roads, rail, parks, water courses, etc) is invaluable - I had success approaching government offices for them (eg. Image:PouceCoupe BC map.PNG). Can we get a demography tables that compare the settlement to the regional area and/or country. Any historical population data available? That is useful to illustrate the good times and bad. You may contact me for a copyedit when you get to the FAC stage. --maclean 01:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is fantastic advice - exactly why I love the peer review process! Thank you for these pointers. I will endevour to make these changes asap. Some however will be harder to fulfull due to Neilston's banality, but in time.... Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points (mainly from the start of the article):

  • The infobox picture manages to have most of the town in shade with the sky being the really striking thing. Would it be possible to lighten the bottom of the picture a bit so it was easier to pick out detail?

 Done

  • The infobox has a website option, you could put the Neilston.org website in here.

 Not done - per the infobox rollout, this is reserved for official governmental sites only I'm afraid.

  • I don't think it should be "Neilston" in the History section. Possibly Neilston though.

 Done

  • 'Over his grave a burial mound, according to the custom of the age, was erected, and called Neilston, from which, according to this theory, the locality ultimately received its name' - this is very clunky! How about 'According to the custom of the age a burial mound named Neilston was erected over his grave and the locality ultimately received the same name'.

 Done

  • You put a citation to each theory apart from the one about the 'supposed Highland chief, name Neil' (which should be 'named' anyway) which together with the 'supposed' and 'allegedly' makes it look very weak. Is it?

 Not done - hard to say. I've quoted the source almost word for word. Certainly the next couple of sentences discredit this theory.

  • I don't think that you need to link the 2nd Neil. Check for more of these ('football' for example).

 Done

  • 'Neilston's earliest history is unknown' - is this needed given we've just been told about pre-recorded history in the previous section

 Done

  • Is there any info about what was farmed or done in the village pre-industrial revolution, particularly if unusual

 Not done - I've purchased a new book which should help; I'll take a look asap.

  • though evidence attests that the settlement is much older than its larger neighbour Barrhead' - it would be nice to know what this evidence is or have some vague explanation. Maybe mention the age of Barrhead.

 Not done - I'd be interested to know too. Struggling for source material, but will see what I can find now the challenge has been set.  Done

  • 'The first known recorded mention' - this is clunky too, is there any reason to expect unknown recorded mentions or could 'known' be cut?

 Done

  • Link dun. Maybe doun should be in italics but I'm not sure.

 Done

  • 'prefix perhaps implying' - is this your speculation or the sources? Why not just a physically cold dun?
  • 'Neilston was the most important settlement in its region' - how large a region are we talking about here?

 Done

  • 'Despite this distinction of central importance' - apart from this being a fairly meaningless set of words I'm not sure that you've established any central importance. It had a chapel, it may have had a fort or watchtower. How many people lived there? How did this compare to other places in the area at the time?
  • I would link calico

 Done

  • 'one whole connected village' - does it really need both of these?

 Done

  • just scanning quickly through the rest there's a bit of stray capitalisation on links, you might as well link things like 'Primary school' as school systems may be a bit different in the part of the world that the reader is from.
  • Can we have a scan of the 1895 map of Neilston? Are there any older maps?

 Not done - the 1895 map which I have to hand is A2, and I have an A4 scanner. I have approached a local history group for historic photographs, illustrations or maps that could be added though.

    • Comment: Fantastic feedback! Thank you ever so much. It just shows me exactly how sloppy my text can be. I've added done and not done tags (at the time of this sig) to your points to keep track of my progress. I hope you don't mind. I will try to fix the outstanding points asap. Hope you do get chance to return! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds away, round 2...

  • 'Lying within the county boundaries of Renfrewshire from a very early time, from 1845 until 1975, Neilston formed its own parish.' - I would rewrite this as it can be read that 1845 to 1975 was the very early time which I assume is not the case. Plus how is the 2nd half of the sentence related to the 1st? Split into 2 sentences maybe?
  • Is the coor template needed at the start of the article and the Geography section?

 Not done This seems to be the standard of all place articles within the remit of WP:CITIES and WP:UKGEO. Certainly all UK FAs have them both.

 Done

  • 'Amongst the hilly areas of the village, the soil is of less fertility, whilst in all other parts, the land is moorland and mossy' - 'is less fertile'? also the land is moorland doesn't sound good and this sentence started talking about soil and finishes talking about land, has a bit been missed out maybe?

 Done

  • 'rising to a height of from' - this doesn't work, rising to the highest height maybe or reword if you want to give the range.

 Done

  • 'Long loch' - capitalise

 Done

  • "Aboon the Brae" - this needs explaining

 Done (not sure I've explained this to what you had in mind)

  • I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning the population density figure unless you say whether this is high / low etc.
  • 'There was no Roman Catholic church or chapel in Neilston between 1560 and 1861; there was no Roman Catholic community' - was there one prior to 1560? if so what happened to those Roman Catholics? Also presumably there was some community pre-1861, surely the church wasn't erected at exactly the instant the 1st Catholic arrived?

 Done - I think I've cleared this up, but this may need checking.

  • 'stretching back more than 170 years' - can we just say what date it started then it will never need updating!

 Done

  • Why 'Midge Hole'?

 Done

  • The M77 gets 2 mentions. 1 is probably enough.

 Done

  • Can you get a ref for the 2nd O’Brien sentence?

 Done

    • Comment: Again, my eternal thanks go to you. This kind of critique is fantastic constructive feedback. I've marked some of your points again with dones and not dones (at the time of this signature). I will endevour to work on the remaining outstanding issues that are either unmarked or not done. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to virus

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe that this is an excellent and accessible article that is a great introduction to the complicated Virus article. I would like to see what the world thinks of it.


Thanks,

Marlith T/C 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Think of the common question "How do viruses reproduce?" I would think this is a basic question that this introductory article should explain clearly. But the lead section does not answer it, and the only explanation in the article is this: "Replication of virus particles is the stage where a cell uses foreign messenger RNA in its protein synthesis systems to produce viral proteins. The RNA or DNA synthesis abilities of the cell produce the virus' nucleic acids by viral polymerase." No links. This does not help an introductory reader understand. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Una Smith

[edit]
  • The lead mentions in passing the big question "Are viruses alive" but this topic does not appear in the article. Some other big questions: Where did the first virus come from? How did it evolve? What did it evolve from? Do all viruses share a single common ancestor virus? Are all viruses bad?
  • A section on the history of virology would be appropriate.
  • A section on the use of viruses as tools in biomedical engineering would be appropriate.
  • Explain how viruses usually get from one animal host to another, then also explain how they get from one plant host to another. Plants don't walk around touching stuff, shake hands, copulate, sneeze, or vomit, so how do their viruses spread?

--Una Smith (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Wilmot Griswold

[edit]

Relatively obscure writers and critics from the 19th century deserve attention too! This one's a not too distant off-shoot of my usual interest in Edgar Allan Poe-related articles... Specifically, I am interested in this article being checked for NPOV, writing/grammar, and if it has the sort of breadth of coverage needed to achieve good article status. Thanks in advance! I love peer reviews! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ilse@

[edit]
Ah, infoboxes... going through a hellish FAC as we speak, I'd rather not expand the infobox only to be told later to scale it back or remove it entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't capitalize all occupations in the infobox. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters))
  • Abbreviate United States to "U.S." or "U.S.A." to make it fit on one line in the infobox.
  • Avoid the use of terms such as "famous for" and "best known for", just mentioning the important stuff is sufficient.
  • The lead should give a summary of the article, I think details such as "Born in Vermont, Griswold left his family at age 15." and "It was in Philadelphia that Griswold first met Edgar Allan Poe." should be removed. Instead, maybe try to summarize each of the article's sections in one or two lines. (Wikipedia:Lead section)
I did my best to follow the spirit of WP:LEAD, but I'm having trouble understanding how I can summarize the article without including things like "Born in Vermont..." and "first met Edgar Allan Poe". --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only to be accused of over-linking in the next FAC! I'll add a couple (certainly Philadelphia, probably not farmer and shoemaker). --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add his birth date to the "Life and career" section.
  • Is it possible to split the section about his life and career into "(Early) life" and "Career"/"Writer"?
  • Rename the section "Edgar Allan Poe" to something related to the subject of the article, such as "Argument with Edgar Allan Poe".
Hard to argue when you're dead... but I'll see what I can come up with. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! – Ilse@ 12:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pieces which I did not respond to in-line are very easy and will be done shortly. Thanks for the review, but I was hoping I could get answers to some of the questions I posed in placing this article on review: Does it have full breadth of coverage? Does it maintain NPOV? Those are, in fact, my biggest concerns and what motivated me to ask for the review. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see major problems with neutrality, but I find the prose sometimes choppy, ambiguous, and the sentences do not always follow the previous ones logically. I don't think it is efficient to review the article sentence by sentence, do you appreciate help in copyediting? – Ilse@ 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate help in anything related to this article! As you can see from the edit history, I haven't had much! =) Copy editing in particular tends to be strenuous for me. My formal writing training has been very different from the Wiki MoS! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes! I'm going to try looking at it again myself with forcedly fresh eyes. But, I'm having problems with the infobox now - the image doesn't appear and all the parameters appear bunched up. Any ideas? --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Memoir" - it was basically an essay that used the title "Memoir" (alternatively "Memoir of the Author"). Definitely not presented as an autobiography. I tried to clarify that section a bit, and was a little more careful of using the "forged" term. I think it makes more sense this way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Panthers

[edit]

Archived review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Nottingham Panthers/archive1

This is already a GA and I'd now like to get it up to FA standard. Any comments and suggestions on any further improvements that need to be made would be very welcome. Thanks PanthersGirl (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a deserved GA, and stands a good chance at FAC. Being picky as FA is the target:
  • Things which require citation:
    • First competitive game
    • secured their second English League title by one point over Streatham.
    • membership fell to five
    • the Ice Stadium decided to shut down the Nottingham Panthers.
    • modern Panthers took to the ice for the first time defeating the Solihull Barons 7–4 at the Ice Stadium.
    • The Panthers lost all four of their quarter final group games and failed to advance to the finals at Wembley Arena.
    • Some of these may be covered by a reference elsewhere in the same paragraph. In such cases there is no need to repeat the citation.
  • "Summer" means a different time of year to those in the southern hemisphere. If the exact month is not known, try "close-season" or similar.
  • Ensure that there is consistency in use of plurals. Most of the time the article uses plural form, but occasionally there are phrases like Nottingham was defeated 3–2 in the first leg.
  • Perhaps a short section about the rivalry with the Steelers could be included, as it is the biggest rivalry in British hockey.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical Review

[edit]

This article on an eighteenth-century journal is already GA. I had originally thought there wasn't enough material to allow it to become FA, but I discovered some more and now I think it can. Therefore, I would appreciate comments that will help this article along in its preparation for FAC. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BillDeanCarter

[edit]

This is actually a very lively read. I could see Robert Bolt adapting the article into a play, similar to his A Man for All Seasons just because of the tragic ending of its publisher. It's also amazing you could find out this much about a periodical from several centuries ago. This is definitely FA material. I have a few comments below which may or may not be useful.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lede could be improved to briefly summarize the sections about the political leanings and the Anti-Jacobin Review.
  • Joseph Johnson, co-founder of the Analytical Review, by William Sharp (after Moses Haughton) Perhaps the caption should explain what kind of portrait of Johnson this is, considering Sharp was a line-engraver. Out of interest, what is meant by (after Moses Haughton)?
  • Now reads: Engraving by William Sharp after a painting by Moses Haughton of Joseph Johnson, co-founder of the Analytical Review - it is hard to work all of those prepositional phrases in - do you have a better formulation? Awadewit | talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first was Dissenting theologian, clergyman, and scientist Joseph Priestley's Theological Repository (1770–73; 1784–88). Maybe rephrase this as "The first was the Theological Repository, created by the __ Joseph Priestley, for the purposes of..."
  • WillowW has already spotted this problem, I think: The first was the Theological Repository (published 1770–73; 1784–88), whose driving force was Dissenting theologian, clergyman, and scientist Joseph Priestley. Awadewit | talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This periodical ceased just before the death of its proprietor. Is ceased a common truncation for ceased publication?
  • Both Henry Fuseli and Mary Wollstonecraft reviewed their own books for the journal, for example. Did this go unnoticed at the time or did it cause some criticism of the Analytical Review? I know the Anti-Jacobin Review criticized them on other matters from your article.
  • Yet, they recognized the ultimate futility of such a project. This is interesting. Could you illustrate how they came to recognize the ultimate futility of "preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future"?
  • Unusually for its time, the Analytical Review brought... sp. should be "Unusual for its time"?
  • During Johnson's during his trial for publishing a pamphlet by Gilbert Wakefield, they wrote: sp. mistake

Out of personal interest, was the Anti-Jacobin anything more than an archnemesis looking back now, given history? I was amused by this section, recalling the feud between The Voice and the NYPress in the 90s. The Anti-Jacobin also came off as angry the way a Wikipedian can get when they detect POV in an article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I'd like to see something in the lead about the importance of the AR in literary history. I gather from the body of the article that this is one of the more important literary periodicals of its day; perhaps the most important? Can it be regarded merely as part of the Republic of Letters, or did it mark a new departure in radicalism, in print at least? I think much of this information can be gleaned from the body, but a sentence or two in the lead would be useful, perhaps at the end, where a summarizing statement about the magazine's importance, influence and legacy would fit naturally.
  • It is always hard to say what the most important journal was, but this was probably not it. In the eighteenth century, The Spectator (1711) would probably win that award. I don't think that the AR was a "new departure in radicalism", either - at least not new enough to make a big hullabaloo about in the lead. I want to be careful not to oversell the AR. It was important, but it was not the only periodical of its day. I have reorganized the lead a bit to make the journal's political threat clearer which may help to make its importance clearer, but I am wary of overstating the journal's significance. There are very few sources on this journal, so I feel that I need to be careful about making overblown claims. Awadewit | talk 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The additional phrase "Perhaps most importantly" is the sort of thing I was looking for -- I wasn't looking necessarily for an assertion that it was significant, just a statement of what its significance was. I think this is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking travel literature but not belles lettres seems odd; of that list, only "belles lettres" might need elucidation for the average reader. I'd link it and unlink travel literature.
Seems reasonable. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This periodical ceased publication just before the death of its proprietor. "This periodical…" is a little clunky. I'd suggest we only need to know about Maty's death if it's related to the cessation of publication -- e.g. he was ill and had to cease publication before he died because of his illness. If the source doesn't say, I'd drop the sentence completely; if it does say, I'd restructure the sentence to start with the information instead.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a vacuum waiting to be filled by the demise of the Theological Repository and the New Review. I don't think this means what you want it to: surely you mean that the demise of the TR and NR left a vacuum, which was waiting to be filled? Actually I'd cut that last clause; vacuums are always waiting to be filled. Or am I missing your meaning?
  • Now reads: The demise of the Theological Repository and the New Review left a vacuum and the arrival in London of the author Thomas Christie, who was dedicated to starting a new periodical that would replace and perhaps even improve upon these forerunners, was the primary impetus in the creation of the Analytical Review. Awadewit | talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might eliminate one use of "forerunner"; it's a highly visible word and you use it three times (counting the section title) in a fairly short space.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First para of "Founding and ideals"; the Roper cite gives us a definite "was the primary impetus", but the Tyson cite weakens this to "probably resulted in". Is there a distinction here? I'd guess the message is that Christie's arrival is agreed to be the key event, but the way in which the decision was taken to found the AR is only "probably" identified. If so, it might be easier to phrase this clearly by integrating both comments and citing both sources at the end of the paragraph (clarifying in the footnote what comes from which source, if necessary).
  • Johnson and Christie shared many of the same friends, such as Priestley, and their combined interest in beginning such a journal probably resulted in the foundation of the Review. - The "probably" is supposed to apply to the statement about their combined interest - how can I make that clearer? Awadewit | talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to stop and think about this for a minute. Initially I was going to suggest a rewrite such as "…and it was probably their combined interest…", but something about that sounds odd. It could be read as "The probable reason they started the journal is because they were all interested in starting such a journal", which doesn't sound very informative. I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, but I don't quite see what the Tyson quote adds. Please feel free to ignore my comment here if you're confident it conveys what it should. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the "probably" - I'm probably (!) being overcareful here and the point is not really important anyway. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably good enough. :o) Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criticism of Gibbon is a nice quote; can it be cited back to the original AR issue, via the source that quotes it?
  • It would actually be much harder for anyone who wanted to check this quotation to get a copy of the Analytical Review than for them to get a copy of the book I cited it from. I think it is best to cite from the book. (The Analytical Review is only available in its original form in rare books libraries or on microfilm at research libraries.) Awadewit | talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tend to like to add cites back to the primary sources in addition to the secondary ones, using a cite of the form "cite A, quoted in cite B", but you're right that it really wouldn't add much value for most readers here. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can find the original, I'll do this. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeming collusion: I'm not sure of your point. Why would collusion occur if the full names of reviewers were used? Because the authors would then know who the reviewers were and could contact them in order to collude? Is literary society at that date small enough that this would be expected? The examples you give (Fuseli and Wollstonecraft) don't seem to fit with that explanation; and in fact those examples seem to illustrate the perils of anonymity, rather than the existence of collusion.
  • Yes, the community was that small - everybody knew everybody and was friends/enemies with everybody. I agree that the example doesn't work well. Now explained better: It was also meant to prevent any unethical puffing, or false advertising, of friends' or one's own books, but this also occurred: both Henry Fuseli and Mary Wollstonecraft reviewed their own books for the journal, for example. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the sources say that's what it was meant to prevent, then OK, but I don't see how it was supposed to do that. Why wouldn't anonymity make the unethical puffing much more likely to happen (as it did happen)? Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity was supposed to represent objectivity - that it did not work like that in practice is clear. However, the theory was mixing reviewers' names with writers' names would taint the project. It is a different idea of how anonymity operates. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this since I now understand it and there's nothing inaccurate in the article. If you think other readers might fail to understand, perhaps some additional explanation of the point in the article would be useful. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, they recognized the ultimate futility of such a project. I agree with BillDeanCarter's comment, above, that this sentence piques the reader's interest. It's a pity it can't be expanded, but I think it should stay, even so. However, anything else you can find on this would be very interesting. A separate point: I don't like to see a sentence start with "Yet" followed by a comma, but perhaps this is an American usage.
OK. You'd think I'd know American usage by now, but sometimes I think that living on both sides of the Atlantic has just confused me as to what usage belongs on which side. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also emphasized the emerging middle-class Protestant work ethic, specifically tying it to scientific knowledge. Sorry if I'm being slow here, but I don't follow this. I think "tying" is not the right verb here, or at least I'm having trouble with it. Do you mean "specifically asserting that it was a natural consequence of an interest in scientific knowledge"? The subsequent quote seems to imply that reading. "Tying" doesn't give a direction or mechanism for causality, and I think you need to be clear here.
  • Perhaps "tying" is a lit crit word. How about: It also emphasized the emerging middle-class Protestant work ethic, associating it with scientific knowledge. - There is no cause-effect link - there is only an associative link - if you have one, you have the other. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was how I read "tying", so I don't think it's a lit-crit usage -- I just was unsure that that was the intention. I think I would prefer "associating". Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • several luminaries, such as: the poet William Cowper: I think that colon should go.
It's the use of "such as" with the colon which I think is wrong. Take a look at [5] which gives that as an example -- I've no idea how authoritative that source is; I just wanted to link to an example showing I'm not on out on my own on this one. I would drop the colon myself, but I think you could legitimately keep it and drop "such as". Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore, circulation numbers…:"Therefore" is a bit clunky to my ear. Perhaps "Hence", and cut out the comma?
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning with its third issue, Mary Wollstonecraft was the key editor for dramas, romances, and novels for the Analytical Review. A couple of things I would suggest here. First, I'd use a verb of change such as "became" rather than "was". Second, I think "its" is rather distracting, since the referent is deferred right to the end of the sentence. Can the AR be named at the start of the sentence instead, or another rephrasing be found?
Much better. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning Wollstonecraft wrote excoriating reviews is a little long, and you might consider breaking it at the colon. The embedded quote in the second half is also somewhat hard to parse; I assume that this is Myers quoting Wollstonecraft. The elisions within both inner and outer quotes make this a rather disrupting sentence to read. Not sure what can be done here, but if you can simplify the presentation (perhaps by eliding less?) that would be nice.
  • New version: Wollstonecraft wrote excoriating reviews, criticizing the passive novelistic heroines of the time and praising, for example, the "wise and resilient" Mrs. Stafford of Charlotte Smith’s autobiographical novel Emmeline (1788). Wollstonecraft "singles out...the knowledgeable mother figure who has felt and thought deeply", a character who resembles the women she described in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman as having "power...over themselves".[7] She derides the "derivative, prescriptive, imitative, and affected" and celebrates "natural, innovative, imaginative, and real, true feeling".[8] Awadewit | talk 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rephrasing is a definite improvement. I'm having second thoughts about splitting the sentence: you now have four sentences in a row starting "Wollstonecraft…", "Wollstonecraft…", "She…", "She…"; the repetitive form is a little wearying on the ear. It's difficult to restructure because the nature of the sentences is consecutive reporting of what Wollstonecraft wrote. I'll think some more about this and post any bright ideas I get. One possibility: is there some introductory phrase that could be used in the second or perhaps third sentence, such as "According to Myers"? Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well, but couldn't come up with a solution at the time. It will come to us. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking; it's good enough, and as you say a solution will occur to one of us. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have improved this. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extensive coverage of Wollstonecraft in the "Organization and Reviewers" section is interesting, but I feel obliged to ask if this accurately reflects the amount of scholarship on the various reviewers. Pardon me for checking, but I know Wollstonecraft is someone you know a great deal about and so would have an easy time finding sources for. Of the list of reviewers, I'd have said Cowper was the best-known, with Wollstonecraft probably second, yet there's little about Cowper in the article. So can you confirm that this does reflect the relative weight of the sources?
  • As far as I know, more information is available on Wollstonecraft than the other reviewers. I've even had trouble finding out who the other reviewers were. I keep adding information as I find it, but it is usually only a line or two. I agree that this disproportionate weight to Wollstonecraft is not ideal and I keep trying to rectify it, but so far I have had very little success. Awadewit | talk 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, then; if it reflects what you've found then there's no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have time for tonight; more when I can. Let me know if these comments are useful. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the second half:

  • The list of works at the start of the "Content" section should have an "and" between "Military Operations on the Coromandel Coast" and "Poetry and Musuic of the Italian Opera".
To my ear that doesn't excuse it, but let's leave it and we'll see if anyone else objects. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My French is weak, but I think it should be "Révolution", with an acute accent.
In the book I copied the title from, there is no accent. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journal also laid provocative facts before the public in order to provoke them to think and, if necessary, to take action—it claimed not to champion one viewpoint over another. Can you avoid using both "provocative" and "provoke" so close together? I also think the dash does not work well as a conjunction here; I think its intended meaning is something like "although", and perhaps the final clause can be parenthetical, since your subsequent examples only exemplify the laying of provocative facts, not the failure to champion any particular viewpoint.
  • Fixed "provoke" situation - changed to "promote".
  • Changed dash to "although".
  • Did not make the final clause parenthetical, as the next paragraph explains the political viewpoint of the journal. These opening sentences are meant to be a sort of summary of the section. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent with Joseph Johnson's attitudes: this sounds wrong to me. You could make "consistent" adverbial in form, though "consistently" is an ugly way to start the sentence; or you could reconstruct the phrasing to say something like "The Analytical Review tended towards a "moderate radicalism", which was consistent with Joseph Johnson's attitudes; this meant that it opposed the Pitt administration and celebrated the general values of Paine's Rights of Man."
I'm not enough of a formal grammarian to be able to explicitly detail what sounds wrong to me here. Perhaps the problem is that this is a dangling clause? My reading of examples of dangling modifiers doesn't seem to quite fit this case, so I hesitate to accuse you of such a sin. Let's just leave it that I don't like the way it sounds, and wait and see if anyone else comments. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reiterated the protections -- I don't think one can reiterate a protection; probably should be "reiterated a defence of the protections". What is the first iteration that this repeats, though?
I think that does the trick. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christie attempted to assuage these fears in his advertisement: I think this should be "an advertisement" unless you can more precisely identify the advertisement in question (which might be interesting to do in any case -- e.g. where was this advertisement placed?).
  • The sources say "the advertisement". Oftentimes, an early advertisement was released for new projects in the eighteenth century. It would not have been placed in any particular publication - it would have been a free-floating piece of paper - posted up around town, handed out, etc. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that clears it up. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Johnson chose as his theological reviewer, not a Dissenter: I'd suggest cutting the comma after "reviewer".
I'll take your word for it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back over the article, I've just realized that there are no dates for issues of the magazine. The "Founding" section doesn't give dates for Christie's arrival in London, or the discussions with Christie (if any dates are known), or the first issue. I think the lead is the only place you say that 1788 was when the magazine began. The first issue date at least should be in the body of the article.
  • We don't know the exact date of Christie's arrival in London. I'm not sure I have access to the issue information. It is not in any of the sources I have read and I'm not sure I have access to the AR itself (I don't right now - that would have to wait until I returned to my university). Awadewit | talk 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the issue information would be worth adding when you get back. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the "Founding and ideals" section. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frequently review the Monthly, criticise the Critical, and analyse the Analytical Reviews" [sic] [emphasis in original]: a copy-editing question: should "[sic]" be inside the quotes? It applies only to "Analytical Reviews", not the whole quote. And I think you can use parentheses rather than square brackets for "emphasis in the original", given that it doesn't have to be within the quotes.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sincere attitude seems to have largely prevailed in practice. Given the statement that "contemporaries perceived a bias", and particularly given the existence and the attitude of the Anti-Jacobin Review, this is a remarkable assertion. Can you just confirm that it is supported by a consensus of the secondary sources?
If the sources agree on this (and 3-4 is enough) then there's no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Johnson was convicted of seditious libel and before he was sentenced: can we have dates for each event?
  • some of his best editors: should be "two of his best editors", unless you are referring to others in addition to Wollstonecraft and Christie.
  • Can you expand the caption to the advertisement for the New Series to note that it's an advertisement? It's apparent that it is from reading it, but the caption actually misleads the reader a little bit right now. Personally I'd like to see you note where the advertisement was published. That applies to the original prospectus, and to the advertisement mentioned earlier where Johnson defends the Review's neutrality, too, but I don't know if others would find that interesting.

That's everything I can see. Overall the article is well-structured and clearly written. I found it fascinating; thanks for the opportunity to review this. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're too kind.
  • Expanded caption for the Analytical Review (New Series).
I'd assumed it was an advertisement because of the phrase "On the 1st of March will be published", but if you say it's the title page that settles that. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title pages sometimes doubled as advertisements in the eighteenth century - it lowered printing costs. Awadewit | talk 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I would have done it myself but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate on the peer review pages, where after all there are no "opposes" to strike. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevelle

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for the last 2-3 days and have expanded it vastly. I think a problem with the article is that there needs to be some copy editing, as it is a challenge to write an article of a band consisting of all brothers.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

[edit]
  • "sold nearly two million copies in the United States," Copies of what?
  • "The band originally comprised of the three brothers Pete, Sam, and Joe Loeffler, the latter of whom left the band in 2005 due to internal differences, but was replaced by Dean Bernardini soon after." Perhaps "The band originally comprised of the three brothers Pete, Sam, and Joe Loeffler, but Joe left the band in 2005 due to internal differences and was replaced by Dean Bernardini soon after."
  • Could we perhaps caption the infobox image to say which band members can be seen?
  • "their parents garage." Apostrophe use!
  • "favorite car Chevrolet Chevelle." No need for the italics, and it would read better if you said "favourite car, the Chevrolet Chevelle."
  • "received by The Phantom Tollbooth and HM Magazine," A little clarification on what The Phantom Tollbooth is would be nice.
  • "yet was criticised for its apparent repetitive song structures." Who by?
  • "Squint Entertainment shut down and were signed on to Epic Records in 2002." Squint Entertainment signed to Epic Records?
  • "the youngest of the brothers, and the bassist Joe Loeffler was dismissed from Chevelle." This implies there were two people. Use parenthesis- "the youngest of the brothers, the bassist Joe Loeffler, was dismissed from Chevelle."
  • "It is unclear whether he was fired or if he left the band due to different stories from the band members." Confusing sentence. Try "Due to different stories from the band members, it is unclear whether he was fired or left the band of his own accord." or something akin.
  • "Pete and Sam state the following: "After three years of non-stop touring and recording, Joe is taking a break to be home with family. We'll miss having him on the road with us, but as his brothers and bandmates we respect his decision and are looking forward to getting out there and playing for the fans. See you on tour."" We need a reference, and it would be nice if you said something like 'In an interview with X' or 'On their official site' 'Pete and Sam stated the following.'
  • "However Joe has a different side to the story," Maybe "However, according to _____, Joe said of his departure-"
  • "with a new permenant bassist, Dean Bernardini.[14][19]" Do we have any information about how they got Bernardini?
  • Oh, wait there, you explain that in the next paragraph- could you perhaps avoid the crossover? State that they got him as the new bassist, then talk about the tour?
  • Also, the next paragraph talks about Joe's departure. Lose that, you have already talked about it, especially as you imply he was fired, which we can't do.
  • The last paragraph in 2004-2006 and the first in 2006-present really need fixing.
  • "the band's brother in-law and long time" He isn't the band's brother-in-law. Maybe "the Loeffler brothers' brother-in-law" Still doesn't sound great...
  • "'vein liquid'," Double speech marks, and mention that it is Latin, as opposed to any other language.
  • "representing the blood Chevelle put into making the album according to Pete." Comma after 'album'.
  • "first single from the album was" Comma after 'album'- Parenthesis!
  • "The second single from the album, "I Get It" was"- Comma after closing the speech marks around the song.
  • "In July of the same year toured Australia as a supporting act for the band, The Butterfly Effect." Who or what toured Australia? Lose the comma, and link to The Butterfly Effect (band).
  • "Chevelle's band manager died of cancer," Do we have his/her name?
  • "hotel the members were staying at." I would rephrase that as "at which the members were staying", but your way may be right, I'm not actually sure.
  • "ebay" Should be eBay- I know it's a direct quote, but still...
  • Sorry, I know I'm divulging, but "Christianity contoversy" is the best section title I have ever seen.
  • "swear words" Sounds like an eight year old has written it- "swearing" or "taboo language" would be better.
  • "as Cradle of Filth, who incorporate strong satanic and anti-Christian themes into its lyrics." "who he claims incoportate... into their lyrics".
  • "The same man was" Why not "Miller was"
  • "concerned of the" Perhaps "concerned about" or "critical of"
  • "more mainstream label, Sam responded stating, "It’s something" I would rephrase this as "more mainstream label. Sam responded [at location x], stating that "It’s something"
  • "Word (a Christian record label housing John Tesh and Amy Grant), so the record (Point #1)" If those brackets are your or another editor's addition, and not something from Sam's original quote, use square brackets. Also, as we have the link to Word, I don't think the second set are needed anyway.
  • "Chevelle incoporated Christian themes into the lyrics of some of the songs on Point #1 and Wonder What's Next, but have refrained from the themes on This Type of Thinking (Could Do Us In) and Vena Sera, even adding profane language into the two latter albums. Christian themes can be heard in the lyrics of the songs "Point #1", "Mia", and "Grab Thy Hand" from Chevelle's first two albums, but on This Type of Thinking (Could Do Us In), lyrics are pointed towards society struggles." It looks as if all of that is unreferenced- either find a reference, or make it more clear that there is one if there is already one in the article.
  • "Chevelle has tried to distance themselves from the label, "Christian band", claiming" Lose the commas.

I've not finished, I'm just nipping down for lunch, so I'll save now in case something nasty happens. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Despite comparisons to Tool, many critics such as Christianity Today and The Daily Texan have stated Chevelle as having a unique sound to their music" Could we perhaps have the names of said critics? "John Smith of Magazine X" for instance?
  • You have a habit of putting commas before quotes. I am reasonably sure you don't need to do that.
  • "Chevelle is one of the most successful bands of the modern hard rock and alternative metal genres." According to whom, judging by what?
  • Sources generally look much better this time. Shame there aren't so many of them.
  • "(May/June 1999) "Chevelle". 7ball Magazine (24). Retrieved on 2007-12-24." You don't need an access date for a magazine article, but an author would be nice.

Ok, that's all for the first review- that should give you some things to be working on! J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not starting my own section, just want to make one point. "Kieth Miller of Evangelsociety.org" - is he notable? If not, why he is being quoted? You may just as well write "User:Kingboyk said..." --kingboyk (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Kieth Miller is a Christianity Today critic and is notable, you might not know who he is because you don't go on the website (I don't know if you do or not) but if you did you might know who he is. It would be like if I was unfamiliar with All Music Guide I might not know who Greg Prato is. Just to clarify.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

[edit]
  • Chevelle started in 1995 - formed
  • Split first sentence of Formation into two
  • their good friend - remove good "friend is enough
  • The band recorded for 17 days in Electrical Audio studios, and on May 4, 1999 Chevelle released its first full length album titled Point #1, and released two singles from the album, "Point #1" and "Mia". Music videos were made for both songs, and both received Dove Awards for "Hard Music Song" with "Mia" in 2000 and "Point #1" in 2001. -> The band recorded for 17 days in Electrical Audio studios, and on May 4, 1999 Chevelle released its first full length album titled Point #1. Two singles were released from the album with accompanying music videos, "Point #1" and "Mia". The songs received Dove Awards for "Hard Music Song" with "Mia" in 2000 and "Point #1" in 2001.
  • the album In Utero by Nirvana as well as many other artists.
  • The Phantom Tollbooth, a Christian music website, and HM Magazine,[ -> say who the reviewers are no need to mention christian music website for Jesus Freak Hideout
  • The album also received -> no need for also
  • The band released the single titled "The Red", and made a music video for it as well. The song which reached number three on the Mainstrean rock charts, and the video was played in regular rotation on MTV.
  • number 14 - number eight - keep consistent with chart positions
  • certified gold - link to RIAA certification
  • A music video was made for the song and received rotation on MTV and MTV2. notable enough to mention and include?
  • peaking at number three - which chart?
  • en dash for date ranges not em dash see WP:DASH
  • Christianity Today has reviewed -> who was the reviewer
  • en dash for date ranges under former members M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt Luke Zorn

[edit]
The band uses American spelling elsewhere so the band is a singular - "is", the plural form is British English, so this change was incorrect. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Loeffler brothers should each have their last name spelled out in the lead, and all of the members should have their instruments in parentheses after their names.
  • "Chevelle released its first full length album titled Point #1." should be "Chevelle released its first full length album, titled Point #1." (with or without the "titled")
  • "Dove Award" should be "GMA Dove Award".
  • "The album was produced by Steve Albini, who was known for producing the album In Utero by Nirvana." This sentence should be earlier in the paragraph.
  • "criticised" should be "criticized", as the band is American.
  • "apparent repetitive" - remove "apparent"
  • "The songs received Dove Awards for "Hard Music Song" with "Mia" in 2000 and "Point #1" in 2001." should be in the second paragraph of the "Point #1 (1995–2002)" section, with the other sentence about Dove Awards.
  • "the single titled "The Red"" should be "the single "The Red""
  • "Chevelle released two more singles from the album titled "Closure", and "Send the Pain Below"," should be "Chevelle released two more singles from the album, "Closure", and "Send the Pain Below","
  • "its first live album, titled Live from the Road and a DVD titled Live from the Norva." should be "its first live album, Live from the Road, and a live DVD, Live from the Norva." Also, link DVD.
  • Tours (Music as a Weapon II tour) don't have quotes around their titles.
  • "In 2004 Chevelle returned to the studio..." This sentence sounds like the band recorded only at one studio their whole career. Reword.
  • "Prior to the release of This Type of Thinking (Could Do Us In)" if it was prior to its release those paragraphs should be ahead of the paragraphs about the album's release. The section should be retitled "The departure of Joe Loeffler and This Type of Thinking (Could Do Us In) (2004–2006)"
  • Put "{{sic}}" after "your fired" in Joe's quote.
  • "In 2006 Chevelle returned to the studio" Reword, as per what I said earlier.
  • "the album sold 62,000 copies during its first week of release." should be "and sold 62,000 copies during its first week of release."
  • Any further information about Vena Sera's sales information?
  • "as a supporting act for the band, The Butterfly Effect." - no comma needed.
  • "Christian fed lyrics" sounds weird. How about "Christianity-influenced"?
  • ""The Clincher" written about the band's view of the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ." should have a comma after "The Clincer".
  • "Chevelle has tried to distance themselves from the label, Christian band, claiming they are Christian individuals, but not a Christian band." should be "Chevelle have tried to distance themselves from a Christian identity, claiming that while they are Christian individuals, they are not a Christian band."
  • claymation should be linked.
  • "first three albums praising them as" should be "first three albums, praising them as"
  • "and have been compared to Tool" Why would being compared to Tool be contrary to success? Have they been accused of being too derivative of Tool?
  • "Geno Lenardo: bass (2005, live fill in)" should be "Geno Lenardo: bass (2005, live fill-in)" --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the lead. I'd recommend expanding it to three paragraphs. The first paragraph right now is fine. A second paragraph could draw from the "Influences and style" and "Christianity controversy" sections. The third paragraph could include a basic outline of the band's history, plus the second paragraph of the current lead. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on this page is  Done Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to nominate it to GA, and perhaps FA one day and am looking for feedback specifically to get it to GA status. I believe this is one of the most developed articles regarding a Civil War regiment. Thanks for your time, Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies

[edit]
  1.  Done Needs to be longer: it's currently unsatisfying short. It hooked me in but didn't deliver :)
  2.  Done Under-wikilinked (first mention of Abraham Lincoln, Union, Confederacy etc). Not everyone knows who they are.
  3.  Done Dates: Days/months/days should be wikilinked so they appear correctly in browsers ie some people use month/day format, others prefer day/month. (It's a setting in Preferences). Months should be written out in full.
  4.  Done Perhaps a paragraph or two something on the history/origins of original zouaves (in general)
    Reply: I added a paragraph on Ellsworth's intro to the Zouaves.
  5.  Done How did the zouave idea get from Colonial French Africa to New York?
    Reply: See above, article explains the origins of the 11th. Other Zuoave units had other influences.
  6. A description/explanation of the colorful/eccentric uniform?
  7. Glorious color picture of the zouave in his finery would be good.
  8. I thought the battle honors detail was insufficient.
    Reply: I expanded Bull Run, which was their only major combat. Other skirmishes were noted, but I am currently lacking in a lot of resources other than those found online.
  9. Any explanation for their incredibly light fatality rate (around 5%, using your figures)?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKBrooks85

[edit]

I'd strongly suggest taking a look at some of the fort articles I've created. The 11th New York is frequently mentioned in a lot of the sources I consulted, and I've got a few pictures in them that might be useful to you when building this article. I don't recall offhand if the 11th New York participated in the construction of any of the forts around Alexandria, but in either event, they're considered one of the first units to cross the Long Bridge into Northern Virginia in the days following the secession of that state. Also, I'd be happy to volunteer to copyedit the article if/when you need someone to do so. Drop me a line on my userpage, and I'd be happy to do so. I do think there's a lot of room for expansion first, however. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia

[edit]

I've made a few typo fixes and grammar corrections. Some remaining issues:

  • More interwiki links are needed.
  • In the section about Marshall House, "on the way down the stairs" could use some clarification.
  • "O'Brian was also short lived" is unclear - I presume you mean he was replaced, but it could be taken to mean he was killed.
  • The sentence about Hampton Roads is in dire need of a rewrite.

Thanks for an interesting read. I hope you're able to expand it per the others' comments above; I'd be happy to copyedit it more thoroughly later if needed. Maralia (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Jespersen

[edit]

I have updated the article with some minor mods. As a general comment, if you are intending to seek FA status, you should attempt to find some secondary sources as refs, such as books about the battles in which they fought. I am not too excited about these regimental histories that are often simply rehashes of web summaries.

  • Unit histories generally include the dates of command for their commanders.
  • What is the meaning of "distinguished themselves for their foul conduct"?
  • "O'Brian was also short lived" -- does that mean he died?
  • It is not good practice to hardcode thumbnail sizes because users can set their preferred size; I removed these.
  • Note that Ellsworth was the first 'conspicuous' casualty of the war, as it says in his bio article. Daniel Hough at Ft Sumter was the first. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AZPR

[edit]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelsht

[edit]

This article struck me as well written, well organized, and well referenced. I'm no expert on this historical period, but the article seems fairly comprehensive. I did have a couple minor concerns, however. First, there are stylistic inconsistencies in the references section. Look closely at the two published secondary sources in this section (Foner's overview of Reconstruction and the 19th-century historical text). This problem can be handled in a minute. Secondly, you might mention that cynicism about the war was common among New York's working-class whites well before the draft riots. The draft riots were an expression of longstanding attitudes of resentment and disillusionment toward the war. This terrible episode raises a couple of questions. Why were so many of the city's poor whites out of sympathy with the stated ideals of the Union cause? Why did they target African Americans, who were, if anything, worse off than them? Answers to these questions will shed light on a question more central to your topic: Why did volunteer recruitment "stall." Overall, I think this article should have no problem meeting the standards of the GAC. I believe it has the potential to achieve FA status. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Flames

[edit]

After spending a considerable amount of time rewriting and citing this article, I believe it is nearly ready to be a Featured Article candidate. There is still some work to go (i.e.: removing the red links for the Flames' owners), but at this point, I believe the article is ready for any advice on what may be missing or require changing to bring this article fully up to FA standards. Thanks! Resolute 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, this is definitely a good article, and it's quite close to FA. Now I have few concerns just by taking a small glance:
  • Section names like "Decline" and similar are POV. A rename is in order.
  • The lead looks choppy; four very short paragraphs. That should be combined.
  • A copyediting looks useful. I might do help out with that.

Cheers, --Maxim(talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • A copyedit would be most appreciated. I'm great with lists, not a much with prose. I had thought about the POV nature of the section titles. Without titles though, I feel that the dates come across as completely arbitrary. That said, "Growing pains" and "Decline" are probably the only two section titles that are POV, I would think. Not sure how else to name them, but I'll think on it. Same with the lead. I might just remove that "only team to retain its name" bit and combine to three paragraphs. That really is just trivia, and hard to source. Thanks, Resolute 05:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked a bit on the lead, hope you like it. Resolute finished up. Alaney2k (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare for WP:FA nomination. I've looked at this article for the better part of a year, and I need a fresh perspective. I have received brief comments about the length of the Table of Contents, but it appears that this is properly sectioned. I would like detailed comments on how to improve the sectioning especially. Regarding references, there is a section on the talk page that details the choice of references and weight given to certain sources.


Thanks,

Twigboy (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main sequence

[edit]

This astronomy article on hydrogen-fusing stars like our Sun has recently undergone expansion and I think it has become a reasonably complete discussion of the topic. (It is essentially a sub-page of the more general Hertzsprung-Russell diagram topic.) What do you think needs to be improved to turn this into a quality article?

Thanks, RJH (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Birmingham City F.C. players

[edit]

A few days ago I found a couple of players I'd missed out, after which I've checked again through my sources and am fairly sure now that this list's complete now. The idea is to get it to featured list status, so please have a look and let me know anything it's missing or could do better.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to pop out shortly but at a very quick first glance, I have to say the image caption with all the links in it looks really silly. Personally I'd shorten/amend it to: "Maik Taylor, the club's most capped player" ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done does look better your way, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Struway2, just got back from holidays so apologies for belated comments, but, for what they're worth, here you go:

  • While you've got objective reasons for including most players, I can't see a reason for Frederick Speller. I understand he played "back in the day" when appearances were hard to come by but I'm not sure that his inclusion isn't POV, he's the only one that doesn't meet any specific criteria.
  • "no other player comes close." - is this necessary? It'd be worth stating who came second and how far behind they were I reckon.
  • "still active for the club" - not sure this is really a football term. I think it's probably an Americanism, maybe just "still play for the club" would be more Brit-Eng?

Other than that it looks very good to me, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian metal

[edit]

previous PR

The Rape of Nanking (book)

[edit]

Preparing the article for FAC. Please check for any WP:MOS problems. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BillDeanCarter

[edit]

Well, writing about this book is definitely a worthy endeavor albeit a horrific topic. It makes me wonder how many terrible massacres have occurred throughout human history, and especially most recently. My comments are:

  • The lede should state where the massacre took place right away, which is in the then capital of the Republic of China. Perhaps copy something out of the Nanking Massacre article. Also maybe mention the historical context of this massacre. Was it the only massacre done by the Japanese Army. Also, why were they doing it? Why were they there? Maybe even convey what the book revealed that had been forgotten. Although this article's about the book, it presents important facts and you want the lede to basically give the reader a complete picture. So because the history is so important, the lede should tell you more about it.
  • Also, mention in the lede how Chang took her own life which is sad.
  • See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article, starting with In the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, she wrote that throughout her childhood, the Nanking Massacre "remained buried in the back of [her] mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil."
  • Why didn't The San Francisco Chronicle publish her rebuttal? Was it cowardice or something else? Surely, they should have. Who did publish it?
  • In the lede mention that the book was published in English, and that a Japanese language edition was never published due to the controversial publishing practices, and Chang's refusal to submit to them.

Overall excellent and really the only issues are with the lede, and you definitely know this topic inside out. Best of luck as you proceed towards FA.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, especially about how to use quotes - that has always been confusing to me but was one thing I was too lazy to go and read about. I'll see about implementing the changes you suggested and reply again later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John Smith's

[edit]

I would personally not mention Chang's suicide in the lead, though it may be relevant somewhere else. If I'm right she was so traumatised by the research on the massacre that it was the main reason she "lost it" in her last years?

I would propose merging the criticism section with the "reponse to criticism" bit. The critical review mentioned in the latter is confusing to lead off a section titled "response". Put that review in criticism and then have a sub-heading for the attempted response. It slots in much better that way. John Smith's (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff

[edit]

This list has four columns of what I think are the most important data: Opus, Title, Instrumentation, and date completed. I don't know if it is clear enough to read, and if it is organized effectively. ALTON .ıl 08:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

[edit]

Failed FLC. Might nominate again after this.


Thanks,

Buc (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4
  • Current season. First of all I would lose this sentence It does not however include full details of the current season. in the lead. Then I would lose the current season details. It looks confusing and is unnecessary. It will need updating regularly, which isn't necessarily too difficult, but also readers who aren't au fait with everything football might not realise the season is complete or Leeds have already been knocked out of the FA Cup, etc.
  • I'm unsure what the picture of Billy Bremner adds to the article except for simply putting on an image for necessity's sake, unless you change the caption to say something of Bremner's accolades at Leeds and the seasons he played.
  • Certain sentences in the lead probably need referencing
    • Leeds United A.F.C. were founded in October 1919, taking the place vacated by Leeds City Reserves.
    • They have played their home games at Elland Road throughout their history.
    • All these honours were won under the management of either Don Revie or Howard Wilkinson.
  • As does the did not enter FA Cup in 1919-1920. Otherwise the FA Cup record is in sources below.
  • The lead section flits between Leeds as they, it and they.
  • Same for the club has and the club have.
  • The footnotes and references section looks horrendous. As The Rambling Man said at the FLC split them back up and maybe directly add references where necessary.
  • Footnotes 11, 16 and 17 need full stops.
  • Footnote 15 ought to be after the points tally not the position since it refers to a reduction of 10 points.
  • Footnote 17 same as above. But the line really needs removing anyway.
  • Any chance of finding the top scorer and average attendance in 1919-1920?

That's all for now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

  • only had two prolonged spells. I'd quantify this to something like only had two prolonged spells of more than ten years or whatever is appropriate. It looks vague otherwise. Prolonged to the likes of Everton or Arsenal is entirely different to Swindon or Barnsley. Peanut4 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Trail Blazers

[edit]

I need to see how the article can be improved to GA status, and ultimately FA status. I will fix any nuisances that are mentioned here. The last peer review was almost no good (as it was reviewed by a bot). The Chronic 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

[edit]

Random thoughts, as I come across them.

  • Problems with informal language:
    • In lead: "laced up sneakers" very informal.
    • In History section: "did not achieve much success" exessive verbage. Try "were unsuccessful"
    • Same section: "reverse the team's fortunes in a dramatic way" informal, uses peacock words
    • Section title: "Plunge to the lottery": rather jargony. Non-NBA fans have NO idea what this means.
    • Probably lots of other language issues. I am NOT a good copy editor. Consider seeking the help of the league of copy editors for help with this.
  • Organization issues:
    • summary style issues. When you split a section into a new article, there is no need for the section to remain as long as the daughter article. For example, the "History" section is WAY too long and excessively detailed in places. Consider paring it down to the highlights, and move the details to the daughter article. Think about "lead" sized (or maybe slightly larger). I would think you could pare the history section down to like 3-5 paragraphs total. If its long enough to have subsections, its too long in this case.
    • The section on transactions also has the same problem. Consider reducing ALL sections on players down to a single section. "Notable players" and spliting info to other articles. Under notable players, it is probably OK to significantly limit this to players of real distinction (such as Hall of Famers or Top 50 all-time players, like Pippin). We don't need every single draft pick the team has ever made here.
    • This article should be the kind of article where someone who knows next-to-nothing about the Blazers would get a general overview of the team. The daughter articles (like a Players article, and a Seasons article and the like) would be the place to get more details. Consider the following organizational scheme:
      • Name and branding (condense the Blazermania stuff into here)
      • History (condense some of the "and the media" stuff into here too...)
      • Players
        • Notable past players (keep it about MAJOR players, such as retired numbers, hall-of-famers, and Top 50s (like Pippen)
        • Current players
      • Coaching staff
      • Front office
      • Media personel (keep on the personalities, like radio and TV play-by-play etc.)
      • Team and league records (include team record holders, league record holders, championships won, overall and playoff records, etc.)
      • Venue
    • Consider the following "Daughter" articles to take up the details from this one. Some of these probably already exist:
      • History article
      • Players and coaches article (include sections on draft picks, all stars, major trades, retired numbers etc.)
      • Seasons article (several NFL teams have featured seasons articles... try Chicago Bears seasons for a great example)

That should give you enough to work on. If you need any more help, drop a line on my talk page! Always glad to help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday (Doctor Who)

[edit]

This article passed GA last month and I'm looking for ideas on how this can be improved to FA level. Will (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Martin

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I love it


Thanks,

Vikrant 07:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug_Flutie

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because User:Student7 and I disagree as to the worthiness of the inclusion of something known as the "Curse of Doug Flutie". This "curse" is analagous to the Curse_of_the_bambino. However, this "Curse of Doug Flutie" is said to affect the Buffalo Bills.

Personally, I do not believe in this curse - I am a scientist and engineer - but it has been discussed at various websites and has been eloquently described at ColdHardFootballFacts.com. Here in Buffalo where I am, it is commonly discussed. Considering that the Bills playoff drought may extend another year this year and that the Bills are tied with the Lions for the second longest playoff drought in the NFL, it should be understandable how, in a city famous for losing, such a "curse" could arise in the consciousness of Bills fans.

Below is the specific text that I wish to add to the Buffalo Bills section of the Doug Flutie article, but that Student7 subsequently deletes:

BEGIN ARTICLE ADDITION The Bills have never won a playoff game since Phillips replaced Flutie with Johnson and some say this began the "Flutie Curse". Coldhardfootballfacts.com has a more detailed description of the origin of the curse in their article Icy Issues: Curse of Flutie & Peyton Whats-it? END ARTICLE ADDITION

I cannot speak for Student7's reasons for deletion. However, I do not see how the Flutie Curse is any less worthy than the Curse of the Bambino other than the Bambino Curse is more well known having existed for decades, while the Flutie Curse is, so far, not quite 10 years old.

Thanks,

Vincent J Ree Jr (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andover F.C.

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently Start class and I would love to get at to at least GA status but I'm unsure of how to proceed.


Thanks,

B e t t i at a l k  16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I plan to give it the full look-over when I've got a bit more time, but the main thing that jumps out is the lack of in-line references, of which there's only one in the whole article. I realise that there are sources listed at the bottom, but a GA/FA is expected to have in-line references against all the key facts. See WP:CITE for more on this, and feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you need any assistance ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In progress
  • The references was the main thing I noticed. A couple more things really jump out as per WP:MOS are linking to relevant pages, like competitions (particularly in the honours section), years in football, and the ground section; making sure years use endashes, e.g. 2007–08, and in results e.g. 1–0; and I'm not sure you need all the club officials, e.g. marketing manager, masseur, etc, etc - just the key ones.
    • Done
  • Notable former players is also WP:POV. If you can change this section to either prose, or as a list of players who went on to play league football with maybe the header to see the relevant category.
    • Done (and to be expanded with further players)

Peanut4 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-Automatic Review

[edit]

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keymaker

[edit]

I tried to avoid sources which IMO may contain original research. The article needs mainly some copyedit from a native speaker, but any suggestions are highly appreciated.

Thanks,

Brand спойт 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass spectrometry

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel it is a good article. It has a lot of information but it's missing that extra little bit in terms of formating for wikipedia (which should be fairly straight forward for someones that's used to it)

Thanks,

CyclePat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's quite FA-ready yet. Here are a few suggestions:
    • The bulleted list at the end of the lead should be converted into prose. Also the lead isn't really a consise summary of the article.
    • A number of the sections are inadequately referenced, or not at all. I should expect to see about 1-2 references per paragraph.
    • The first usage of a unit should be wikilinked, as per "23u".
    • Please run the page through a spelling/grammar checker. I'm finding errors such as "travelled", "accelarates", "ionisation", "analyser" and "Labelling". (Unless these are British English spellings.) Is "quantitation" a word?
    • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Most of these should be expanded or merged. There may also be too many one-paragraph sections. In the "Other Separation Techniques Combined with Mass spectrometry" section, for example, I'm not sure I see the benefit of three different one-paragraph sections. That would work just as well with wikilinks in place of the "See also the main article on...".
    • I shouldn't be seeing the article title repeated in the table of contents, per Wikipedia:MoS#Section_headings.
    • Most of your references appear to be in decent shape, with the exception of note #29, which consists of just a link.
    • You may need to clean out some of the External links section per the tag.
    • I'd like to see a few more illustrations in the article to help out with the concepts.
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester

[edit]

I want to get a more thorough review by peer review for a list that I want to nominate at FLC sometime soon. All ideas welcome. Rt. 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  DoneWhy are the table headers in a blueish colour?
  •  DoneIs there a particular reason why the former Bank of England is not linked?
  • The location column does not give much insight to someone unfamiliar with the city. Perhaps a map indicating the location of each building would be a useful addition.
  • In spite of Manchester's medieval history - not sure about this phrase. It provokes the question "what medieval history, and why is it important"?
  • This may be due to my personal preferences for this type of article, but I think a longer prose section would be beneficial. Something like a paragraph which briefly explains what each building is, so the reader does not have to go to each building's article to find out.
    • How would that be written? It would be hard to write about everything, but at the same time, trying to prevent it from being too long. Rt. 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going completely off the top of my head here, but a starter might be "The oldest listed building in the city is Manchester Cathedral. Completed in 1421, it is one of three Grade I listed religious buildings in Manchester..." Presumably construction of the commercial buildings in the list (Liverpool Rd Station, former Bank of England) coincided with a period of prosperity. In essence, the themes from the second paragraph could be integrated with information about some of the items in the list. As I say, this may be a matter of personal taste, I like list articles with meaty prose sections.
      • Another thing I've noticed - none of the buildings in the list are Edwardian seeing as the most recent is 1899. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Chris (rapper)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to help with the article, and others opinions would be useful

Thanks,

Topspinslams (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Japanese Alliance

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the content and added images and thus I believe it deserves promotion from Start-Class to Good-Article class. Please feel free to correct any spelling mistakes or improve the syntax if need be. All the references seem to be perfectly sound.

Thanks,

Rupa zero (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LordAmeth

[edit]

Overall, a strong treatment, well-written, detailed, well-organized, and well sourced. A few points:

  • Though the intro mentions the diplomatic significance of the treaty for Britain (the end of splendid isolation) it does not say anything about the significance for Japan.
  • It is stated that negotiations began when Russia began to move into China. What war/battle/conflict was this? Can we describe it a bit further or provide a wikilink to the appropriate conflict article?
  • A great many events, including the Triple Intervention, the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese acquisition of German Pacific territories, and of Korea, are described only in passing, with extremely little detail given. I'm not sure whether or not it would be appropriate to suggest that expansion be done on these points... if there are relevant things to be said in regards to Japan's relationship with the UK, they should be said. But I'm afraid that I'm not so knowledgeable on this Alliance and its impact.
  • The cultural interactions between the countries could afford to be explained further; or, a few links could be placed in a See Also section. Can we work in a mention of the Japan-British Exhibition (1910)?

I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow the article overall seems a bit too vague, and too scattered. It's a fine start, but somehow or other I feel it needs to be both expanded upon and tightened up. Still, thanks for your excellent work thus far. Keep it up!! LordAmeth (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, I want to make this a Featured List. I think the only citing I am lacking is Roy A. Young birth date, William P. G. Harding death date, and Charles S. Hamlin birth and death date. I also was seeing if photos would add to this list. As well as anything else to ensure it will become a featured list.


Thanks,

PGPirate 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redskins seasons

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because with a little more work, it can compete for Featured List status. I think its up-to-par with other like it (Cleveland Browns seasons and New England Patriots seasons) and would be a valuable part to the rest of the Team season pages. Any comments, criticisms, or questions would be appreciated.


Thanks,

Jwalte04 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Twigboy

[edit]

I am aware that some of these issues are also present in your referenced lists, but that does not conventionalize them:

  • I'm not a big fan of the self-referential statement This is a list of .... Consider rewording.
    •  Not done I could not think of anything other than that to start it, but since its the same on all similar pages, I decided to just keep it.
  • The Redskins won the ... also played in and lost can be condensed to pipe-link the years, i.e.: won the 1937 and 1942 NFL championships and Super Bowls ...
    •  Done done.
  • Only three teams have appeared ...: change Redskins' five to just Redskins. Express the count of five in the next sentence, adding something like with five to the end.
    •  Done completed.
  • The "periods of success" should be refined (as a nontitle year could still be considered successful) to state, for example, All of the Redskins league titles were attained during two ten-year spans. From 1936 to 1945...
    •  Done Did it, but could not think of anything for period of failure.
  • A brief explanation of the differences in division titles (pre-1970, post-1970), league titles (Super Bowl era/before) and Wild Card qualification (pre- and post-realignment) would aid the understanding. Wikilink to History of National Football League Championship, because it doesn't need to be an exhaustive explanation.
    •  Not done not sure what that means
  • Abbreviations—such as COY, ROY, BBA—should be defined in a footnote or next to the color key. Or better yet, spell it out (there's enough room) on at least the first reference. Per WP:EGG.
    •  Done I wrote them out in full during their first reference. I don't know if I like too much how it looks, but if people want it, they got it.
  • Spell out Cleveland in C. Rams. I would also spell out L.A., but I could concede based on the ubiquitousness of the abbreviation. Maybe note somewhere about your convention of listing the city name if the opponent has since left that city.
    •  Done completed.
  • Conventionally, postseason is used rather than playoffs when referring to win-loss records of such. Divisional Playoffs and Wild Card Playoffs are proper terminology. Also the header for that column should be one word Postseason.
    •  Done completed.
  • The Eastern Division playoff existed as a tiebreaker, as a variant of the modern tiebreaker system. Therefore, the 1st in 1943 does not require unique highlighting. It should be highlighted as a division title. Those games are considered by the NFL to be equivalent to the Divisional Playoffs of today. Remove the one-game playoff from the key as well.
    •  Done completed.
  • Use footnotes to explain tiebreakers, much like Browns and Patriots, just not as wordy as those.
    •  Done completed.
  • Thumbs up for thorough references.

—Twigboy (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qaumi Tarana

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached what I feel is the best it could be given the dearth of reliable information on the topic. In particular, I'd like the article to be checked for neutrality and grammar, and whether it is heading in the right direction for good article status.

Thanks,

Green Giant (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ilse@

[edit]

Some comments about the article:

  • I think the article is not really about the flag of Pakistan or Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I'd suggest you remove these images and move up the other images of the lyrics and the sheet music. If available, you could use portraits of the authors of the national anthem.
  • I think you don't need the "See also" section for this article. I would suggest you'd remove it entirely.
  • You could wikilink some dates that give context, see Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates) for more info.
  • I think you should, generally, wikilink more words in the article that are relevant to its topic, such as the words "music" and "lyrics" in the lead.
  • I am not sure the lead section is a good stand alone summary of the article. I'd suggest you make sure all information in the lead section is also in the article, then delete the lead and write a new section that summarizes the complete article. See for more info Wikipedia:Lead section.
  • I noticed that not all facts in the article have references.

Success with the article! – Ilse@ 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting Bull

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done some substantial editing and adding of information from the standard sources on Sitting Bull (Utley's biography, a few other military sources). I was hoping to get some feedback on the progress so far, how to go about editing the sections on the Little Bighorn and Fame, and whether anything needs to be cleaned up. I also was curious about some feedback on whether the source list was too long, too short, etc. Thanks so much, poroubalous (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BillDeanCarter

[edit]

Here's a short review from me. In the lede:

  • killed by police on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation during an attempt to arrest him. - you should tack on the reason he was arrested.
  • During a struggle between his followers and police, he was killed by the police. - instead of .. "he was killed by the police" which sounds repetitious explain in more detail his gruesome death in which several officers did this and that.
  • His body was taken to nearby Fort Yates for burial, but in 1953, his remains possibly were exhumed and reburied near Mobridge, South Dakota. Why the possibly? Incorporate the explanation into the sentence.
  • As a youth, Slow excelled at foot races, games, and was an expert horseback rider and was very accurate with bow and arrow.[3] What kind of games? Monopoly, paintball, ...?
  • For this, Slow earned a white eagle feather, symbol of a first coup, and also received the name of his father. His father changed his name to Jumping Bull, and henceforth Slow would be known as Tatanka-Iyotanka, or Sitting Bull.[5] It was also at this ceremony that Sitting Bull received his shield. Add some extra description about the tradition of taking your father's name after a triumphant battle, just like you explain other traditions very well in the following paragraphs. I would also explain the receiving of the shield.
  • The Early adulthood section is stubby. Maybe elaborate on the two sentence paragraph?
  • However, Sitting Bull also knew techniques of healing and carried medical herbs, though he was not a medicine man. Is it medical herbs or medicinal herbs? I myself am not sure. Maybe you know?
  • Briefly explain the reason for The Dakota War of 1862. You tackle the warrior life well, but there's a lack of historical context given and the reader will want to know. Was it all to stop some general campaign by the U.S.? What were the times Sitting Bull lived in?
  • In 1863, Hunkpapa warriors (probably including Sitting Bull) joined with Dakota refugee warriors to fight against the military. However, Col. Henry Sibley defeated them at the Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake on July 26 and at the Battle of Stony Lake on July 28.[16] Sitting Bull also possibly took part among other Hunkpapa warriors in the Battle of Whitestone Hill, on September 3. Explain the reasoning behind "probably including Sitting Bull" and "possibly took part". Maybe historians which think so, and a statement from them? A quote from an author of a respected book on the subject. Or the evidence contrary or supportive. It's just when facts are dubious you want to know why.
  • The last two paragraphs of the Fame section are unreferenced.
  • Excellent Legacy section.

Hope this helps.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rastafari movement

[edit]

What improvements does the community believe this article requires to be suitable as a Featured Article? Whig 13:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This article is pretty good (well done!) but wasn't it at Rastafarianism? There was a long and rather acrimonious debate about moving it but there was no consensus to move. Has there been a second debate to test the consensus again? If not, why was it moved? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There was substantial discussion on the Talk page about moving it away from Rastafarianism, because that term is offensive to many and inaccurate, resulting in a NPOV title dispute. The move to Rastafari movement has been largely acceptable to all parties. Whig 16:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renewed peer review

[edit]

There's been a lot of improvement of this article over the past two and a half years and it would be good to get some new input on whether it qualifies yet for resubmission to be considered as a featured article candidate. —Whig (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This article requires a lot of work, particularly when it comes to POV and sourcing. It is heavily dependent on only one significant source, that being the Owens book. In addition, most suggested changes or improvements are quickly reverted by a zealous editor base. Requests for citing or clarification are removed and ignored. I can't see how this article, in is present (largely unsourced) state even merits an assessment of "B". Bulbous (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Avenue

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC, but had little actionable changes. Any feedback that would enable me to get a more favorable WP:FAC review would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ununoctium

[edit]

I know this is a very short GA article, about an element that isn't much known about, but has anybody any idea why it should not be an FA? I believe it contains almost everything is known, or presumed, about this element, therefore it should pass the broadness criteria. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have a tough time getting featured because of the length, even if it covers the topic comprehensively, but that's just my impression from other FA discussions on obscure technical topics. But I suppose it's worth trying...
My main comment is regarding the references. The article already cites most of the scientific literature on the topic, which is great, but there are also a lot of citations to websites that may not be as reliable (apsidium.com, webelements.com, and lenntech.com). Now, I don't know of any fact from these websites that is demonstrably wrong, but it would be better to quote a more "solid" source if possible. Done The problem may be that most of the information taken from these sites is of the "seemingly obvious but speculative" kind, such as the likely oxidation state and physical state that the element would have if it actually existed in macroscopic amounts. It is likely that the primary scientific literature will not provide such information because of a reluctance to speculate, but maybe there's a good article somewhere that could be used.
A specific fact that really needs a better source IMO is the claim that Moskowium (Mk) is one of the proposed names for the element. I haven't been able to find any source for it that doesn't seem to trace back to apsidium.com or Wikipedia. Also, proposed by whom? Perhaps this proposed name has only been discussed widely in the Russian-speaking world? The Russian version of this article seems to have some references for the name, but I really have no idea because I don't read Russian. :) I think it's the line that says "Российские учёные, синтезировавшие элемент, а также политики предлагают назвать его московием". Done
I believe this link would be useful [6] if anyone could translate it.Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify status of that site. This is a private site, it contains many doubtful statements, and I would not trust it unless the statements have independent sources. While working on the articles on superheavy elements in Russian wikipedia this summer I removed many suppositions based on the info from that site (an anonymous editor, probably the author of that site, has returned some links and info, and I don't have enough enthusiasm to argue with him). Nevertheless, I think that author of those materials has some contacts in JINR, so the info is often based on rumors circulated there. Done
As to the name Moscowium, I don't know any info published in scientific journals (please let me know if you find some), but there were many publications in Russian press (like refs 9 and 10) based on info from Itkis and Oganessian, so I think it should be mentioned in the article. Kv75 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a couple of minutes, could you translate these references (9&10) into english? Just the title and the publisher. Thanks.Nergaal (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. NewsInfo (2006-10-17). "Periodic table has expanded" (in Russian). Rambler. Retrieved 2007-12-09.
10. Yemel'yanova, Asya (2006-12-17). "118th element will be named in Russian" (in Russian). vesti.ru. Retrieved 2007-12-09.
If there are some grammatic errors in my translation, please correct them. Kv75 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ok. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, something that could make the article look longer, more attractive, and maybe more readable would be to include pretty figures representing the decay chain for ununoctium. I'm thinking maybe something like the figures in [7], specifically figure 6b at least. Done Maybe also a figure representing the position of the nuclide in the chart of the nuclides and its relation with the predicted island of stability. Done --Itub (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more

[edit]
  • Some little things.
    • Spelling: thier, nucleii Done
    • Dashes: use n-dashes (–) in page ranges and minus signs (−) in negative numbers (see Wikipedia:MOS#Dashes
    • In the lead, I would hyphenate "noble gas" to show it is being used as an adjective, or rephrase in some way ("the synthetic, transactinide element and noble gas...") Done
    • "until it will is confirmed" Done
    • "less than one part in 100,000" missing period Done
    • "undergo spontaneous fission or undergo alpha decay into 282Uub" second "undergo" unnecessary Done
    • "noble gas above it" maybe "above it in the periodic table"? Done Lesgles (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Downs Line

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because, a number of editors have made substantial changes since it was last reviewed. I would welcome feedback on the changes and additions which would be required to bring the article up to GA status.


Thanks,

Mertbiol (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ilse@

[edit]

Tarkan (singer)

[edit]

I think the article is well written and comprehensive, covering all aspects of the topic with a detailed discography. I wonder how it can be inproved to reach a featured Article status. I guess some of the photos might be an obstacle. waiting for your opinion and help. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Tarkan had actually broken into America with his English-language album, that extra newsworthiness could've made it a Featured Article (or at least put it somewhere on Wiki's front-page). Short of that, I don't know. It is a competant article. Maybe someone could read a bunch of Featured Articles at once, to see if there are any particular qualities or trends that set them apart. Also, I've entered "Tarkan" on Wiki's Suggested Feature Article page. Does that help? Maybe we can all do that, and with the same suggestion coming from multiple users and IP's, Wiki will listen. --68.164.83.80 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) a random Elizabeth (tongue nowhere near cheek)[reply]

No Way Out (2004)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want this article to reach at least GA candidate status.


Thanks,

TrUcO9311 (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned about the reliability of some of the sources. My understanding is that Wrestleview, Lords of Pain and Gerweck are considered unreliable. In addition, I don't know much about Wrestling-History, Body Slammin 4 Ever, Power Wrestling, Wrestling Attitude, Click 2 Houston, Wrestling DB or Steve's Wrestling. I suspect there may be some reliability issues with some of them, so I would recommend asking about them at WPT:PW. Tripod sites are also generally frowned upon. Finally, Angelfire and 100megsfree4 are also usually considered unreliable, but the sites you've used on these servers are reliable. I'll change the names listed to the actual website names instead of the server names (eg. Wrestling Information Archive instead of 100 Megs Free). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through the Background section and did a copyedit. I have a couple more things I wanted to being up:
  1. The picture of the poster in the infobox has no Fair Use rationale. Done
  2. The final sentence in the lead paragraph is unsourced. Done
  3. I found this sentence very confusing: "Heyman announced a triple-threat match at No Way Out for a WWE Championship match at WrestleMania XX between the Big Show, Kurt Angle, and John Cena on February 5, 2004." Could it say, "On February 5, 2004, Heyman announced that a triple-threat match would take place at No Way Out to determine who would face the WWE Champion at WrestleMania XX. The triple-threat match featured the Big Show, Kurt Angle, and John Cena." or something along those lines? I think it would work much better as two sentences. Done
  4. Who is Jorge Paez? It would be nice to include a brief explanation of why he accompanied Rey Mysterio. Done
  5. Left hook seems like jargon that might need to be explained with a wikilink or replaced with something simpler like "punch to the head". Done
I'd like to help you get this to GA level, so I'll go through the rest when I have a chance. You've done a very good job so far, and I think this can make it to GA with a little work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, Ill get right on to those issues with the article.TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence: "Soon after, Shaniqua had control over her opponents until she tagged in the Bashams, when they were clotheslined over the top rope by Hotty." This is about the Bashams getting clotheslined? If so, I don't think the word "when" works. Perhaps "Shaniqua retained control over her opponents until she tagged in the Bashams, who were quickly clotheslined over the top rope by Hotty."? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that sounds good, thanks for all your help, i REALLY appreciate it.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lombo Pocket Watch

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get some feedback on how to improve.


Thanks,

LPWRHR (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some feedback:
  • Note WP:LEAD - for an article of this length, there should be a max of about 3 paragraphs.
  • WP:HEAD suggests that headings should avoid having links; see if you can move the links to some part of the prose. Also, it looks like the text could use a couple more links.
  • WP:MOSNUM discusses the usage of conversions, eg. 1 m (3 ft). I added &nbsp; already.
  • The footnotes need proper citing; there are now {{Cite web}} templates, could you fill in the parameters? For example, title, author, date of access, etc.
  • Have the article fixed for spelling and grammar mistakes (suggest that you request that somebody else helps, since having a pair of fresh eyes is good). Couple of examples: (use cursor to hover over underlined)
Lombo Pocket Watch is a grey harness racing colt, gaited a pacer he was foaled 16 October 2003.
The second sentence is too long and should be split up, as its rather hard to follow the subject of the sentence.
1st of June 2007 - WP:DATE - avoid using 'st' 'th' for dates
As at December 7, before his McInerney Ford Classic victory, Lombo Pocket Watch sat at 28th on the all-time stakes winners list, and Australasia's youngest millionaire pacer.
Also, there are a bunch of typos. In the fourth paragraph 'in' needs to be capitalized. Also spell-check, contributer (contributor),prestigous (prestigious).
Do you think you could find a free picture? That would be nice.

Good luck, AZ t 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in making this GA or FA status and to update it like the Characters of Final Fantasy XII article and I have been interested in helping out. I have requested it for copyediting at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests. Any suggestions on improving this would be appreciated for GA status and even FA status and for our WikiProject Final Fantasy. Greg Jones II 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (May the force be with you...)[reply]

  • Where do I start? Expand reception using reviews of the game. Perhaps you could mention the GameFAQs character contests. The article desperately needs images, perhaps just a cutscene screenshot with all of the characters. I think you should defy whoever said not to include images identifying characters - it's not a policy or guideline, and it's perfectly fair under fair use laws. --Teggles (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a little to deatailed...

[edit]

I found the information so detailed and complete that it is incredibly long. I think that you need to do some editing and comdensing to shorted the length. Also the information was very overwhelming...Historybuffc13 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didsbury

[edit]

Promoted to Good Article status back in October, I was wondering what to do the Didsbury article next to make it FA. I know there is a lot to do. I've been adding some other language versions, 7 in total. Any and all comments welcome. Also, I would like to say that since I'm trying to get another list upto FL and reviewing articles I may be a bit slow to respond over the next few weeks. Thank you. — Rudget contributions 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will participate more tomorrow. Need to get off this site! :) — Rudget contributions 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Muchhal

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because... This little girl deserve to be featured on wikipedia. Since the age of 6, she started raising funds for child heartpatients and she has saved at least 234 childrens. She also raised funds for 2001 Gujarat Earthquake victims, Orissa cyclone victims. She raised funds to provide shelter to 39 childrens of sex workers. She has appeared in almost all print, TV channels in India and she has received many awards including highly prestigious Rajiv Gandhi award. But at the end of the day, she is just happy when she receive one doll for saving one life. I never heard child prodigy saving life of other childrens. This is unique example of its kind on planet earth.


Thanks,

MATRIX 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin and Kell

[edit]

This article has recently passed GA, and I want to try to get to FA status. I am not sure which areas need improving, but any help is welcome.

Thanks,

ISD 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes while I wait for the caffeine in my system to wear off:
  • In the reception section, the phrase "Some like it because" is weaselly and doesn't properly attribute the opinion. It's more appropriate to simply launch into who the reviewer is and what that particular reviewer specifically said.
  • "However, since this review was made in 2004, more diverse characters have been included." - Refuting an argument with a primary source is mildly OR. I'm not sure if this sentence really belongs.
  • Same section, "Another review for The Offical Time Waster's Guide by a reviewer calling themselves "EUOL"" is both redundant and strikes me as slightly negative against the pseudonym. A quick check on the About Us link would have turned up the name Brandon Sanderson.
  • An instance of a quote not quite matching the subject of the sentence: 'Zampzon and Daku, discribed Kevin and Kell as, "One of the few anthropomorphic strips that I actually like,"' <- Who is doing the saying here?
  • The "places of note" section/paragraph can probably be moved into the generic "about" section.
  • Not to be a WP:FICT snob, and not that it has to do with the article itself, but six sub-articles (one list plus five Dewclaws) is too much.
  • Snag a copyeditor, I found a couple minor mistakes in the prose (aside from the above).
It's a much better article than most of our webcomics offerings, but it's far from perfect. A lack of quality sources really hurts, but it's good to see an article work with what's out there. Nifboy (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in general suffers from too much in universe information. Besides the middle paragraph, the about section is entirely in universe. What is needed is sales figures, readership, information on impact etc. (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). If the problem is that there are no reliable sources about that, then the problem is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't create a FA if there aren't appropriate sources for a topic. Use all available out of universe information and shorten the in universe information until it is an appropriately small proportion of the article. - Taxman Talk 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the Megatokyo article thoroughly to see what kinds of information and sources it uses? It is a webcomic FA, and so looking it over may prove useful. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed a Featured Article nomination in the past, but has been greatly altered since then. Several daughter articles have been forked from it, leaving the mother article shorter and in better shape. Many references have been added and a period of semi-protection has reduced vandalism and led to a good period of stability.

I would like to move towards Good Article nomination and ultimately Featured Article, and see this peer review as a helpful step to get some feedback. Thanks, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at Wikipedia:When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca? Is it recognised in any country's censuses? Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca? How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca? Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections? -Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt

[edit]

This article has been massively expanded and rewritten in the last two months, and needs a MOS check badly. I'm interested in comments about the scope/coverage as well as readability. I'm looking for advice on how to structure the "ancient achievements" section and the "open problems" section. Do we need to include anything on fringe theories and the culture's legacy? My goal is to take this to FAC in a month or so. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of good stuff here but I will only comment on what I perceive as the weaknesses:
    • It has an ambitious History section that gets (dare I say) 'too long'. Continue summarizing, focusing on the sub-article History of ancient Egypt and less on the sub-sub-articles (listed in the "Dynasties of Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt" box - 'Dynasties'? the box looks like it is listing 'periods').
      • I'm working on it. Is the material up to and including the middle kingdom section succinct enough? (~JD)
    • There is an {{expand}} tag in the Language section but its presence is not explained on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. Is the wrong tag being used?
      • I think the section probably needs to be re-organized into a 2 paragraph section with no subheadings, but should include a little more coverage, so I'll rewrite. (~JD)
  • On your specific questions: I cannot answer on quality of coverage. On the "ancient achievements" I would frame it less like "achievements" and more like "technology of". Song Dynasty#Technology, science, and engineering is an example. On the "open problems": maybe a Historiography section framed to illustrate what being academically debated. Don't have to include fringe theories. --maclean 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to your questions, you don't need to include anything on fringe theories unless there is verifiable evidence that those theories are important in some way, in fact so important that they require coverage. But the legacy of Ancient Egypt would be a very important since it's one of the ancient civilization's that has a significant legacy and mindshare.
    • OK. In fact there is actually an article on Egypt in the Western imagination! I'll include some material about the "Egyptomania" craze in Europe, and the more direct legacy they had on greek and arab civilizations. (~JD)
  • Basically it's an issue of prioritizing - what can you justify as a major subtopic relating to Ancient Egypt and what not? I think "Open problems and scientific inquiry" should be condensed to "Ongoing research" or something and you would again need to prioritize what goes in that section by the most important ongoing research. Every section needs to include only the most important information on that subtopic.
  • A general category needed when discussing an ancient civilization would be the economics. You have a little on trade, but it needs to be more general to include what activities were most common, what information is available on the size of the economy, distribution of income, etc. Also demographics (slaves, free, foreign, etc) to the extent it is known.
    • Good suggestion about the economy, I can think of several important things about price and payment schedules and bartering that ought to be included. As for distribution of income, I'll add material that shows how the taxes were distributed, but nothing in terms of the percentiles that sociologists like to obsess over. As for demographics, I resist adding its own section because the history section already mentions when large numbers of foreigners/slaves came into the country; again doing percentiles is not the right approach due to the long span of time and vast changes involved, even though there is actually a decent amount of data available. I'll add demographic material about the total population size (which maxed out at 3 to 4 million in the new kingdom) and maybe some other general stuff but I want to keep it to a "broad-brush" approach. (~JD)
  • You've got your work cut out for you on researching to prioritize and justify what is important, but congratulations on working on such an important article. - Taxman Talk 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, your perspective helps, especially with the socio-economic sections. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capybara

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because the article is thorough, well-referenced, had ample images to enhance the article, and is of a topic interesting. I believe that it meets the barest minimums for Featured Article status, but needs some polishing, primarily in the area of formatting references to meet FA standards (using the long cite versions rather than simple inline ref tags). There is little more information that could be added to better the article, but it stays away from extraneous or trivial information for the most part. Could this be a potential Featured Article? I would like to know!

Thanks,

VigilancePrime 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a great start, but it needs expansion. I'm not sure what all the best subsections are to make sure it's comprehensive, try surveying the best other animal related FA's and see what major sections they use. The best way to expand it is to get a hold of some more reliable sources. Books and or the latest important research articles would be very helpful. - Taxman Talk 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, right off, the list of where to find capybaras in zoos is out of place in an article. Instead, replace the "captivity" section with a paragraph or two about issues concerning cabybaras in zoos, and link to a separate List of captive capybaras or something similar. Also, the gallery is long, distracting, and not necessary. Simply make sure all images are on The Commons and link to it prominently; having a gallery is unneeded. There also needs to a section (or sections) on capybara biology and physiology. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User:SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Have a look at some featured articles in the Biology section; Bobcat is an example of the increased content that will be needed. There is some WP:OVERLINKing (see WP:MOSLINK), citation formatting needs to be completely reworked (see WP:CITE/ES), there are dead links, see WP:ITALICS on foreign phrases, the gallery should go (see WP:MOS or WP:GTL, can't remember which), review Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s redundancy reducing exercises, the list under captivity should go (see WP:NOT), WP:DASH fixes are needed. Named refs aren't used correctly (see WP:FN), and be sure to ignore the automtated script when it tells you to overlink common words and terms known to most English speakers. See WP:MOS#Images on image sizes, and WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation after sentence fragments on image captions. I left you quite a few sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User:JayHenry

[edit]

Hi VigilancePrime, I think you're off to a really good start. I've done some work on some animal articles, and here's an outline that I think might work really well for Capybara:

  • Lead section & infobox (of course)
  • 1 Taxonomy and naming -- to discuss how scientists classify the animal and what names are used.
    • 1.1 Evolution -- it's nice to know how the species evolved (but hard to research)
    • 1.2 Looks like most scientists think there are two species of capybara, so you'll want a section discussing that.
  • 2 Description
  • 3 Behavior -- you've already got a start to this section.
    • 3.1 Diet
    • 3.2 Reproduction
    • 3.3 Social life (if there's enough info)
  • 4 Habitat
  • 5 Conservation
    • 5.1 In captivity

That's just a general outline that might work well for this article. And the good news is that you've already got a start to all of those sections! That's just a rough outline, and if you see sections in articles about other animals that might work, you can definitely add them.

I think the biggest challenge will be finding good sources. Right now most of the sources are zoo web sites. Zoo web sites are usually fairly reliable because zookeepers now a lot about the animals in their collection, but the information usually isn't very detailed. In order to get that in depth, really comprehensive information for a Featured Article, you'll want to learn about scientists and conservationists who study capybara and see what the newest information is. Once you start finding some of this research, you'll start finding more details to add to the article. Good luck with it and if you ever need any help, let me know! --JayHenry (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aryl hydrocarbon receptor

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively worked on the scientific aspect of the article but would appreciate a grammar review.


Thanks,

Demantos 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff

[edit]

A good start: the facts are here and the refs are very thorough. Rewriting (not just punctuation and spelling) will improve the article significantly.

  • The article should put information into context better, so that the average reader can understand what is going on. For example:
  • "Non-ligand bound Ahr is retained in the cytoplasm as an inactive protein complex consisting of a dimer of Hsp90 " the phrase 'Non-ligand bound' is incomprehensible to the average reader, but if I write:
  • "When no ligands of the receptor are present, Ahr is retained in the cytoplasm as an inactive protein complex...When a ligand enters the cell and binds to the receptor, this inactive protein complex dissociates, allowing importation of the receptor into the nucleus so that it can interact with the cell's DNA."
  • This sentence can be the lead of the paragraph or section, after which you can discuss the details. The idea is to tell the big story first so we can understand it in context, and only then can you explain the details.
  • This receptor is responsible for activating the body's response to xenobiotics, right? So this should be explained clearly in the lead.
  • The opening sentence is: "The Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) is a member of the family of basic-helix-loop-helix transcription factors." Is this really the most important thing about this protein, and does it help explain the essence of the receptor to a casual reader? Consider replacing with the suggestion above.
  • The lead should summarize all important aspects of the receptor, such as who discovered it and when, what the receptor's purpose is, and why scientists are still researching it.
  • There is a problem with licensing of Image:AhR.jpg. This has a half-written fair use rationale, but a free version can be made! We can't have fair-use material if free versions can be made. In fact, I will volunteer to make a free version of this, but I'm going to tag the existing version as a copyvio. ("reprinted with permission" where is the documentation? What is the permission given, and who gave it? if permission really has been given, should have an OTRS ticket). As for Image:AhRSignaling colour.png, I'm not entirely happy since it is almost an exact re-drawing of the original and a free version could easily be made. I'm not quite sure what to do with that one, so I'll leave it alone for now.
  • Are there any crystal structures available? How about any structures or models of any of the binding domains? I can access Sybyl and Chem3D for rendering structures if coordinates or other structure information is available.
  • Abbreviations: I recommend not using abbreviations unless you really need them, so if you only use a term once or twice, why bother abbreviating? Abbreviations are very hard to read, and make the article look like an alphabet soup. On the other hand, there are things than should not be spelled out, such as CYP1A1, Hsp90, XAP2. Just say: "...the metabolic enzyme CYP1A1..." (no need to say "cytochrome P450, family 1, subfamily A, polypeptide 1" or spell them all out). The choice of what words to spell out should be made carefully.
  • Abbreviations: Even more annoying than an unnecessary abbreviation is re-defining the abbreviation over and over: "...aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator(ARNT)..." and later "...AhR Nuclear Transporter (ARNT)..." (note inconsistency) Why say it more than once? Clunky abbreviations are a pet peeve of mine in journal articles, so I'm sorry if this sounds terse. For ARNT I would suggest saying: "...AhR's dimerization partner, a nuclear transporter called ARNT." Also use consistent CAPS on AhR or Ahr.
  • "...the end result is a variety of differential changes in gene expression." add perhaps 2 sentences summarizing what these changes are.
  • Avoid sentences like "reviewed by[8][9]." and "as shown in[52][53][54][46]." (don't use a footnote as the object of a sentence!) and the period should come before the refs.
  • I hope I don't sound too harsh; I don't mean it to be. The article needs some rewriting so that non-experts can read it, but the content and refs are good. I would suggest one more image, if possible, would be a structure or model of the receptor, or at least one of the subdomains. And perhaps a structure of a typical aryl hydrocarbon with a caption like "Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins such as TCDD activate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, activating the xenobiotic response element" I'm happy to answer more questions, take another look, and help out if I have time. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. 1) The lead needs to be made accessible to non specialists. It's a detailed topic, so the whole article doesn't need to be accessible, but the lead section should be maximally so. The first sentence "Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) is a member of the family of basic-helix-loop-helix transcription factors." tells me absolutely nothing about the topic, and I have a fair amount of science background. The next sentence and the rest of the lead don't provide much more; it's not until the very last two words that I can tell what the topic is related to. Luckily the article is short, so there is a fair amount of room to add context here and there. Particularly in the lead you should minimize the use of overly complicated terms where possible, and define them in context when not. For example I can read the Transcription factor article to find out in general what AhR is, but in general the reader shouldn't have to. Also the lead section should be 2 or 3 paragraphs, see WP:LEAD. 2) In all that research, which is impressive by the way, would you say there are no other important bits of material you have left out? Without references and markup it's pretty short for a featured article candidate. - Taxman Talk 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (2007)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because It is currently B-Class, and I at least want it to reach GA status. Please comment and contribute to improve this article.


Thanks,  LAX  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a PPV like SummerSlam, the background needs to go into a lot more detail, especially with the ECW feud. Also, you should have info on HHH/Booker and Rey/Chavo, as they were the other two big feuds. Davnel03 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines destinations

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… nothing is cited. It's a disaster

Thanks,

Basketball110 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM destinations

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've flown TAROM, but in the magazine I didn't find hardly any of those destinations. I think it needs to edited, especially the Cluj section.

Thanks,

Basketball110 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Donoghue

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because i want an outside opinion on raising its quality.


Thanks,

Sunderland06 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • checkY done Use the en-dash for year ranges (see WP:DASH).
  • checkY done Introduce the player as a footballer before saying he's a defender.
  • checkY done "contracted to" - odd terminology in UK football - try "currently plays for"...
  • checkY deleted *"highly rated" - by whom? Citation required.
  • checkY done Use the {{convert}} template for height in the infobox.
  • checkY he has played for ireland under-19 In fact, this article is verging on being up for WP:AFD - has he actually played any professional football?
  • checkY replaced words A few too many peacock terms like "gifted", " good first season ", "very quick recovery" - need removing or citing.
  • checkY bracketed what it meant in first mention What's DDSL?
  • checkY changed to Donoghue Not "Gavin does this blah..." use "Donoghue does this blah..." - it's an encyclopaedic article.
  • checkY done Numbers below ten need to be written out "eight months"....
  • checkY tagged sections " Donoghue combines very good aerial ability with a classic approach to playing central defence. His reading, patience, and excellent long range passing being his best assets" - whoa. NPOV required.

Needs serious work. The Rambling Man 18:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • checkY doneI can still see at least one instance of "Gavin does XYZ", which should be "Donaghue does XYZ"
  • checkY done "defeats" is spelt wrong in the "international career" section
  • checkY i have tagged this, and requested a copyedit "Donoghue combines very good aerial ability with a classic approach to playing central defence. His reading, patience, and excellent long range passing being his best assets." - this is all very POV and possibly OR - what does "a classic approach to playing central defence" even mean? Unless a citation can be provided to say that a significant figure in the world of football has specifically praised the player for these abilities then the whole section has got to be removed
  • checkY done "the 2007 season" - 2007–08 season, surely?
  • checkY done "Donoghue was included in the 2007 1st team precurrently plays forseason tour of Ireland" - what on earth does this mean? Firstly there's no such word in the English language as "precurrently" or "forseason", plus the whole thing just reads as gibberish
  • checkY done "Donoghue decided that a move to Wearside suited him best" - says who? This is just one of a number of statements which desperately need a citation (in fact almost all of the "early career" section is completely unreferenced
  • checkY done "He plays as a central defender. Donoghue is an Irish defender" - don't need to say "defender" twice in consecutive sentences

Hope all this helps! ChrisTheDude 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that this article needs a copyedit as i have put one in.--Sunderland06 16:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Woody (talk · contribs)
  • This article needs quite a bit of work. First off, you need to remedy the problems that have led to tagging. It needs a lot more citations, it needs a bigger WP:LEAD and you need to clarify some points in the text. (where it says {{clarify}}) *The lead can only be expanded once the information in the main body of text is beefed up. You need to expand it.
    • Some points for expansion:
    • Why did he choose Wearside over other Premier league clubs. (Is that accurate?)
    • checkY 'done Expand the international career section, talking about the games, (when were they?)
  • Other problems:The NPOV problem is a big one. Wikipedia is not a fanzine and phrases such as in time to return to action make it seem like a football fanzine and not an encyclopedia. Also the second paragraph in the Sunderland section needs to be completely refactored in order to remove the POV bias.
  • It is a good start, but it needs quite a bit of work. Woody (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)
  • checkY done His name is being used too much. It needs replacing with pronouns (e.g. he, him) to free up the flow.

Not much else to recommend, as most things seem to have been dealt with already. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godsmack discography

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a great band and deserves to have a featured discogaphy. I also am trying to get the band's page (Godsmack) featured.


Thanks,

Skeeker [Talk] 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion,

  • This article should be merged with the Godsmack main article.

Demantos 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lord of the Universe (documentary)

[edit]

Lord of the Universe (documentary) was recently successfully passed and listed as a Good Article. The documentary film won the Alfred I. du Pont/Columbia University Award in Broadcast Journalism in 1974. The article cites twenty-five sources, and covers topics including content of the documentary, background on production, and reception. I am looking for comments from some fresh readers to the article and previously uninvolved editors, so I can get a new perspective on it and see what else can be done to improve the article's quality further. Thanks for taking the time to give it a read. Cirt 19:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-automated Peer Review

I will address points from the Semi-automated Peer Review, here below. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  1. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] -  Done - There was only one instance of this in the article, in the lead/intro, which I fixed. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] -  Done - I checked, it looks like all full-dates within the article itself are linked, but some within citations are not, I will get to linking those full-dates later, but I'd imagine this review point only applies to dates within the main article text. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3. *Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) -- I will continue to copyedit the article, and may also solicit help from some fresh readers to go through it for minor changes as well. Cirt (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jurassic Park franchise

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what kind of things this article would need to be an FA.

Thanks,

Limetolime 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

  • Separate information about Jurassic Park IV from the "Films" section -- at first glance, it would seem that a film had already been made about it. It'd be better at the end of the article in a "Future" section.
  • Provide some prose about the box office performances of the three films, such as the descending trend (using reliable sources, of course).
  • Provide some prose about the critical reaction to the three films. A good idea would be to look at reviews for the third film, which will usually go back and comment on previous films. If this doesn't work out, try to find reviews from film critics that have watched all the films and string them together to reflect their opinions.
  • Provide some prose for the "Video games" and "Books" section -- just look at that respective article and provide a summary about what exists there.
  • The paragraphs for the second and third films could be expanded somewhat.
  • Maybe a Development section could be created, not for the specific productions of the films, but why Jurassic Park was made, why they decided to follow up with The Lost World, and again with Jurassic Park III. You may need to utilize print sources for this -- not all your answers will be online.

Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hell Is Other Robots

[edit]

This article was recently passed as a good article and I would like to see what it takes to get it to Featured Article status. Any suggestions along those lines would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Stardust8212 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you to Stardust8212 (talk · contribs) for starting this Peer Review! (We worked together to get the article to WP:GA status.) I think the article is close to featured status actually, it covers a wide range of topics and is well-sourced. I am just curious if there is anything more that can be added from the DVD commentary that is not already in the article? I have not listened to the DVD commentary myself so I don't know what's discussed on there. Cirt 16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I took notes on the commentary for interesting things they mentioned, most of them are already represented in the article but I'll post them on the talk page if you'd like to see them. They're my personal confusing shorthand style though so they may not be useful. Stardust8212 16:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, just so that we can draw as much information/background as possible out of the DVD commentary. Thanks again for starting this peer review and suggesting the move to FA status, there is a good amount of analysis presented, and I think it can be a good FA candidate soon. Cirt 16:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We discussed this in other places, but I decided to get it to the peer review,and amplify a bit. So my references make sense, I am discussing this version.

The article, and its sourcing, are weak. References 1, 3, 4, and 8 are from DVD commentary. This is a compensated source, so it doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if they did, the statements supported are that the audio was recorded late, the Beastie Boys didn't perform a song, and that the producers liked the writers. Not very important statements, and certainly not establishing any importance for the topic.

Reference 2 is essentially a plot summary. Nothing about impact, nothing about how the world changed in any way as a result of this episodes existence. The closest it comes to having anything from the outside is Billy West refusing to name who the episode satirizes.

Reference 5 is used to explain plot points. The headings may say "theme" and "cultural references", but they are really part of the plot summary.

Reference 6 and 7 actually references things that ties it into the larger world.

Reference 8 and 9 support statements about a Simpsons episode, and it's questionable whether it belongs in the article at all.

Reference 10 supports the concept that the producer liked the episode. Not a particularly important statement ... very rarely will a producer come out and say he disliked it. Again, the producer is not a reliable source ... the inclusion of this episode was undoubtedly a balancing act of any number of marketing pressures. Whatever his actual opinion of an episode is, if the DVD is labeled "Matt Groening's favorite episodes", he isn't going to contradict it publicly.

References 11, 12, 13 and 14 are used solely to support that fact that the episode came out on DVD.

References 15 and 16 are reviewers statements, and are legitimate.

So, in summary, the article has very little well-referenced material supporting its statements, the statements that are supported are trivia, and the article fails to even demonstrate that the subject is of sufficient importance to warrant an article.

Not only would I not promote this to FA, I wouldn't rate it a GA. If it came to AFD, I'd vote "delete."Kww (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response
  • Thanks for moving this here, I think this is the appropriate place to discuss these issues and I knew Cirt would be interested in seeing this as well. I wanted to get my thoughts in order before responding but failing in that I'm going to try not to ramble.
  • DVD commentary as a source: While I agree that DVD commentary should not be used to verify anything contentious I don't see a problem with any of the claims that are cited to these sources. WP:EPISODE specifically notes that production information should be included in the article. A brief look through the current FAs of TV episodes shows that many such articles rely on either DVD commentaries or other DVD featurettes for this type of information. Is this good practice? It could be argued either way but that seems like an issue for a wiser venue. My personal view is to regard DVD footage in the same vein as self published sources which are acceptable if the person is established as an expert on the subject matter. I can see no greater expert on the subject of making a TV show than the people who actually made it.
  • I agree that reference 2 doesn't add much to the article but it does back up many pf the statements from the DVD commentary and demonstrates that the episode received more than the usual press coverage.
  • I disagree with your portrayal of the themes section as a restatement of the plot. I think there is an important line between a statement of the plot and an analysis of the plot. The themes section discusses the plot and how it portrays religion in modern culture. A section describing the themes of a work of fiction is also common practice on Wikipedia (See WP:NOVELS) so I don't see a problem with including it. If we're going to include it then it should be sourced, which it is and I don't see a problem with the reliability of the book itself.
  • The inclusion of a cultural references section is a contentious point among editors and I won't try to claim that it's strictly necessary from an encyclopedic point of view however once again it seems to be common practice to include such a section when the items in it can be sourced, as these are.
  • "Reference 6 and 7 actually references things that ties it into the larger world." - Honestly I'm not clear on what the complaint is here.
  • References 8 & 9 were added by Cirt I believe to verify some notes connecting this to the rest of Groenings body of work, showing that it's part of a larger topic. Do they belong in the article? I could go either way on that and perhaps Cirt will address it.
  • Reference 10 - I disagree with the general statement that the producer is not a reliable source, as addressed above, however I understand where you're coming from with this particular sentance. Perhaps it would be more appropriate wording to say the DVD was marketed as one of Groening's four favorite episodes.
  • References 11, 12, 13 - Yes, we could probably just use one of those rather than all three to source that statement. My theory when working on the article however was to include all relevant sources so that people working on it in the future would be able to find the same articles and see if there was anything else useful in them. There's probably not but that was my thought process.
  • Reference 14 does not back up that the DVD was released, it is a third party stating this is one of the best episodes and is thus relevant to the reception section. There's no weblink so I cant't view it myself at the moment but it shouldn't be lumped in with the other three.
  • 15 and 16 - At least we agree on something. :-)
I'm sorry you feel that the article is generally not encyclopedic but obviously I am prone to disagree. I think a lot of the items you take issue with are not things that only address this article and so I am not really sure how to address them but I have tried to answer them to the best of my ability. Stardust8212 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't complaining about 6 and 7 ... they are the only two references that I think were both appropriate and appropriately used. You are right in the larger sense ... any episode article I review will come back with a review like this at best, and frequently much worse. Please don't take personal offense at my review. As episode articles go, this is clearly one of the better ones. Most episode articles would fare much worse, but the comments I made do illustrate why I don't think episode articles should be in Wikipedia at all. If the same class of references were used in a science article, the author would be flamed for weeks. Kww (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take offense, I've found this discussion and the one it sprang from to be one of the most overall civil discussions I've witnessed where episode articles are concerned. Perhaps someday the question of whether episode articles are ever notable will be discussed in full and we will be on opposite sides of the line but for now I'll just keep making what we have the best that it can be.. As for science articles..."Physicist A thinks this is the best theory he ever came up with"... that makes me giggle. Stardust8212 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-automated Peer Review

I will begin to address some of the points from the Semi-automated Peer Review, here below. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] --  Done -- Though the Lead/Intro could maybe use an extra sentence or two, it's an episode article and doesn't really need that much more, and it adequately summarizes the current material. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] --  Done -- There was only one instance of this, in the infobox, which I fixed. Other full dates are in the citations, but these don't usually have to be wikilinked, though they could be. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) “In the year [of] 3000” --  Done -- It looks like this has already been taken care of through copy-editing by other editors. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) -- Of course we will continue to make touch-ups and copy-edits to the article, and may also seek out some fresh readers to take a look at the article as well. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judge John Deed

[edit]

Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Judge John Deed/archive1

Relisting. Same as before. A request has been put in at WP:LoCE for a copyedit. Brad 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC | Talk

[edit]
  • The first sentence, which says the show is a "BBC television drama produced by the BBC ...for BBC One", is unnessarily redundant. I'd lose at least first instance of "BBC" (you can always pipe link "television drama" to BBC television drama if that's necessary); the third reference could be moved to another sentence.
  • The second sentence in the lead is very choppy, with lots of short clauses and two parenthetical statements. It needs to be simplified, either by reordering the clauses, or by breaking them into two sentences—something along the lines of "Created by G.F. Newman, it follows the exploits of a High Court judge—Sir John Deed, played by Martin Shaw—as he tries to seek justice in the cases brought before him." You later mention the fact that Newman is well-known as the creator of Law and Order, but you probably don't need to do so in the lead; it's not really relevant to this article.
  • There are multiple wikilinks to the same articles; per WP:MOS, only the first instance should be wikilinked. Examples include Martin Shaw (three times in the first three paragraphs), High Court (twice in the first three paragraphs), G.F. Newman, Law and Order and many others.
  • Commas are missing in lots of places. Some examples:
  • "As of 2007 there have been 29 episodes..."
  • "In later years the series has shifted to a serialised format..."
  • "Ratings for the series peaked with its first episode at 9.1 million[33] but it still ..."
  • "the BBC had announced an intention to use Martin Shaw in a range of new projects and it was apparent..."
  • The sentence "The series remains on a break until the style is changed and due to Martin Shaw's involvement in a new series." is not well-written grammatically.
  • All single dashes need to be converted to em-dashes, per WP:MOS.
  • "Deed has been accused of hypocrisy..." Is it the character or the show that's been accused? It's unclear from the article.

Glad to hear you've approached the LoCE; that will probably clean up a lot of these issues. I'll try to add more comment about the content of the article (as opposed to the writing) if I get some time over the holidays. Good luck with your drive toward improving the article! MeegsC | Talk 12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Memorial Bridge

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as a Good Article candidate. I've added many new references and pictures to expand upon the existing sections. Other sections may need to be added, so I would like input on that and where I could add more sources or expand on information already in the article.


Thanks,

Cumulus Clouds 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[From MeegsC]: I'll start by saying this is my first bridge article review, so if any of the following doesn't seem appropriate, feel free to ignore it!

  • There are a couple of problems with the lead. First, it's recommended that you don't include anything there that you don't also include in the article. That's a bit tough with one this short, but you might want to move very specific details, like the bridge dimensions, down into the article itself. That said, the lead is currently a bit short. Generally, you want to include salient facts from each section of the article, so you'll probably want to briefly mention something about it becoming a "suicide bridge". Not sure if you need to mention the accident, but you might give it a sentence in the same lead paragraph.
  • Is there any information about why the bridge was named for Washington?
  • Are there any details as to what, in particular, justified its listing on the National Register of Historic Places?
  • Are any stats available re: amount of traffic per year, whether that's increasing or decreasing, etc. How many was it projected to carry? Is the real total higher or lower? Stuff like that.
  • The article says the design "was awarded to" a local architecture firm. Did they design it? If so, this statement is confusing and should be reworded. -  Done
  • Were the builders local? Any trouble with schedules, deaths during construction, etc.? (Just trying to think of ways you might expand the article a little, if appropriate...)
  • You should replace the double dashes "--" with em-dashes "—" to meet WP:MOS standards.  Done

Good luck getting it to GA! MeegsC | Talk 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Guthrie

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know where it may be deficient before submitting it to be considered for Feature Article rating.


Thanks,

Kmzundel (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell's observations

[edit]

This is great, and I'd love for this to get featured. It still needs a lot of refactoring, however. I went through and made a lot of minor changes here. I suspect those are uncontroversial, but if you disagree or don't understand any of these changes, we can discuss them. The larger changes needed I'll list here:

  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. The first 2 paragraphs are fairly good at that (although the list of his jobs is never really mentioned in the article), but that third lead paragraph is problematic. It goes into detail about his disease, adding undue weight in the lead, and covering a lot of info not covered in the article. Instead, I would recommend the following for the 3rd paragraph of the lead:
  • I have a few citation concerns.
  • In the "Early life" section, it's a little confusing about how old Guthrie was when certain things were happening. When Guthrie was on his own and learning to play harmonica, was he 7 or 17? You say he didn't complete high school, but then later, after he moved to Texas, you say "Guthrie was still reluctant to attend class". What class? Was he back in high school?
  • In that same section, you mention a blues player, but don't give his name. He is later referred to as "the shoe shine man", which seems a little unprofessional. If his name is not known, the article should say that.
  • The music sample is of someone covering a Guthrie song, but the ogg box doesn't indicate that -- I expected to hear Guthrie's voice and was quite surprised. It's nice that we have a free version of the song, but it seems a bit irrelevant, like including a free image of someone dressed up like Woodie Guthrie. Instead, it should have an ogg of a sample of Woodie's singing and playing.
  • The last sentence in the "Pacific Northwest" section makes it sound like the Catholic Church granted him a divorce. I'm not sure how you want to reword it.
  • "Further Reading/Listening" is awkward. With the PBS link, should it be "Further Reading/Watching/Listening"? ;-) No, it should be "Further information" or something similar. Also, there's no need to have "Retrieved on", since they're not references.
  • It's redundant to have {{sisterlinks}} and the individual links to sister projects. Which do you prefer?
  • Why does the "Selected Discography" list albums by latest publishing date, rather than original publishing date or original recording date?
    • This is because the recording catalogue was one song at a time rather than with a planned album format. Most all Guthrie releses are cobbled together from a variaty of recording sessions. This ends up being many different releases of the same 40 tracks on diffrent mediums (78s,LPs,Cassette,CD, etc), so this seems to be the most logical way to list them. Tho I will reword the into paragraph to point out that the dates are the original publishing date of these particular releases. This is the catalogue as it is avaliable today. I have created the linked discography page if anyone is interested in the recording dates of particular tracks. Does this make sense or should I try to do it another way. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some serious wording problems in the "Almanac Singers" section. What does this mean? "Pete Seeger handled the bookings around New York and booked so many shows that when one could not book the Almanac Singers and expect to have Seeger, Guthrie, Lampell and Hays." I'm guessing that means you couldn't expect to see the four most famous singers because the group was double-booked, but I'm not sure. What does "the group would be get a set" mean? When you say "The house too was founded on their common socialist ideals", what is the "too" signifying? Was something else founded on their ideals? Did they found the house, or just come upon it?
  • Since the article is about Woody Guthrie the person, I think the last two sentences of the "Bound for Glory" section should be combined into "A film adaptation, released in 1976, won two Academy Awards." If more should be mentioned, then it should be mentioned elsewhere -- in a "legacy" section, or on a separate article on "Bound for Glory".
  • In the last paragraph of the "Mermaid Avenue" section, it says "Elliott studied extensively with Guthrie", but is "with" correct? Was Guthrie studying anything (and if so, what?), or what Elliott just studying Guthrie?
  • And finally, my biggest problem with the article: in parts it reads like a list of people who want to be associated with Guthrie. The article should include material on Guthrie, but not a "Best Cinematographer" win for a film adaptation of his book; not every barely-notable musician who ever covered one of his tunes or wrote a song about him; and not the fact that a water tower has "Home of Woody Guthrie" painted on it. Way too much trivia. One particularly galling example is the highlighting of Jefferson Pepper (who?) in his own sentence as having covered "This Land Is Your Land", complete with album name and year, before listing the 26 other presumably-less-notable performers (such as Bruce Springstein and Bing Crosby) that also covered the song. It's obvious someone wanted to promote Pepper. Since This Land is Your Land has its own article, it's enough to say in this article that the song has been covered by many artists, and maybe name the two or three most famous. For the same reason, everything from "Musical Legacy" on is a mess. See how Woody Guthrie Folk Festival is its own article, with just a link and a summary in this article, and no tedious lists of performers cluttering it up? Do the same with The Woody Guthrie Foundation, mentioning "Mermaid Avenue" I and II in Woody Guthrie, but leaving out every other half-notable adaptation. In fact, I'd be inclined to make a Musical legacy of Woodie Guthrie article, taking lots out of this one. Any way you do it, the listy sections "Tributes" and "Songs about Woody" should really go, as should the list of topics discussed in Guthrie songs.
    • This is a result of several add ons, I didn't know if I should remove (for example) the pepper refrence just because I didn't know who he was, I'll attempt to clarify these. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved the Songs about woody information to the individual artists pages that mention it, should we leave the tributes section as it doesn't really have anywhere else to go? Otherwise I guess we could remove it entirely, maybe leaving info on the Leventhal concert (post death). As for the Topics of Woody Guthrie songs, do you think this would be a good thing to make into a category? --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see the "songs about woody" section go, but think the Tributes section is relevant and, since it's not as list-y, should stay. Kmzundel (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Topics of Woody Guthrie songs is inherently trivial and subjective. I don't think it should be kept at all. But I like what you've done with the entire post-death part of the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree! Hated that long list. Kmzundel (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, I liked this part, I'd hear the song and think what the heck is the chisholm trail. Ah well I suppose they can look up these topics via the search. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a lot, but hopefully it'll help get this featured. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Quadell! Kmzundel (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, nice work! I think the only thing left is to add cites to those few questionable statements. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, We should be good at this point I think? --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil's observations

[edit]

I'll post more when I've read it properly, but:

Thanks, Ceoil! Kmzundel (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work so far, I forgot to say that. Ceoil (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brightman

[edit]

Previous peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarah Brightman/archive1

I am considering running this through FAC sometime in the next few months (it has to be in a few months because she has a new album coming out and the thing needs to be stable first.) It's associated with the Musical Theatre WikiProject, and has gone through substantial editing. It's already been through one peer review, but I'd like some additional feedback before I do so. Thanks in advance. Crystallina (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a firm idea how musician articles should be structured, but this one doesn't feel properly laid out. Perhaps that there is so much on career and little else. The section on music and voice is a good idea, but it should probably be broader and a greater proportion of the article. It should include more description of here vocal quality, acting ability, etc, such as the best reviews that cover those. Try checking the other FA's on musicians, find the best ones, and see if you can distill an improved layout from them. - Taxman Talk 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective catalytic reduction

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the improvements made to it, and what else would have to be done to it to make it even better (more pics, I know)

Thanks,

DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jeff

[edit]

This is a pretty good start, but I have bone to pick: the term selective catalytic reduction certainly covers more than just reduction of NOx. Imagine if the article on reduction only talked about catalytic converters. In fact, the catalytic converter is itself an example of selective catalytic reduction. Consider changing the title to 'Selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides' or something along those lines. Many things can be catalytically reduced in a selective way; industry buzzwords don't always make good article titles; you might have to think hard about which title to go with.

Sources: You need a lot more. I see only 4 or so unique sources, you probably need about 15 at least, including scholarly publications, books, and other print sources, not just websites. Your sources should be properly cited as well, including page numbers, year of issue, access date, etc. Suggest using the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. Other sources to add might be mentions in the press, such as newspapers and articles.

Consider adding information about the history of the development of the technology. If the article is only going to talk about SCR of nitrogen oxides, then add information about how many plants are in operation, worldwide distribution of the technology, and any other things you can think of to make the coverage more thorough.

One good thing I see is that the article is fairly balanced. Often, industrial technology articles with environmental applications are written entirely from the perspective of the environmentalist, with much less emphasis on the actual technology. Still, I do get the sense that the article was written in a power plant, or at least from that perspective, because much of the article relates to the technology as it applies to plant applications. Try to keep the article balanced, with a wide perspective not limited to just one application of the technology.

As for images, I would only be looking for one more: a picture of a unit in operation, or perhaps a picture of some element of the unit. A good start, plenty to work on. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Pakistan

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because although I have expanded it from just a list, I feel it needs a fresh set of eyes poring over it. Specifically, I'd like the article to be checked for neutrality and grammar, and whether it is heading in the right direction for good article status.

Thanks,

Green Giant (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the automated review:
  • checkY Expanded lead to two paragraphs
  • ☒N No appropriate infobox exists for the article and I don't think there should be one
  • checkY Added non-breaking spaces
  • checkY Links have all been double checked for relevance and important dates fully linked
  • checkY Footnotes moved to immediately after punctuation marks
  • checkY Left article for two weeks and then copyedited
  • checkY Looked at National symbols of Belarus - that article has fewer citations and is shorter overall
  • checkY Going to nominate for Good Article status
  • Once again thanks for the suggestions Green Giant (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Storm One (1982)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… this article is my best by far and is getting a Peer Review for any suggestions before FAC. So comment away.


Thanks,

Mitch32contribs 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • checkY done - The infobox says the image was when the storm was located off of New Jersey; it is clear the storm was well south of there at the time
  • checkY done - The lede could be better written. The first sentence is a bit bland (perhaps just say it was the only subtropical cyclone of the season). Also, since the total number of characters in prose in the article is less than 6,000, having just one lede paragraph would suffice.
  • checkY done - The article varies between saying that two and three people were killed by the storm; please fix and clarify.
  • The writing needs to be better. formation by forming (redundant), the Yucatán (Peninsula or Mexican state?), Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico were favorable for tropical storm formation, however westerly wind shear forced the system to not strengthen. - This seems to contradict itself. Wind shear would imply that conditions were not that favorable, and furthermore, forced is a poor word choice, since it is more of a human action. A subtropical depression formed - a location would be good. After crossing the Outer Banks of North Carolina on June 19 - whoa, we just went from gaining SS status over Florida to it jumping to be over NC. Saying that it tracked northeastward, and giving an explanation of why it did so, would be useful. Even though the pressures remained low, the storm expanded and became distorted - this sentence is unclear and vague. minimal - minimal or minimum central pressure?checkY done (Control of tropical cylcones was given to the Canadian Hurricane Centre in 1985.) - Is this important to this article?checkY done In the preps section - including a tornado - there is no parallelism between the words, so either it should be "tornado, severe thunderstorm, and special marine warnings" or clarify what type of warning occurred for each event.checkY done Three people were killed in Florida in association with the subtropical storm with thirteen injuries - this implies that three people died from injuries; clarification is needed.
  • The storm history needs to be organized, and it should go in order of events; thus, the earliest event (the Caribbean disturbance - the article does not specify where it came from nor when it developed) should be listed at the beginning of the section. The first paragraph does not say what the three systems were. Try and organize the second paragraph better to avoid having so many short sentences together.
  • checkY done - Metric units and consistency between units are needed. When the original unit is rounded (inches, for example), the converted unit should be as well; 4 to 6 inches should be read as 4–6 inches (100–150 mm).
  • checkY done - More wikilinking would be useful (Recon, LPA, a link to Florida would be much more useful than linking peninsula). on the morning of June 18 - Due to user preferences, the date needs to be Wikilinked, or, to avoid redundancy, avoid mentioning the date and say the storm made landfall later that day.
  • checkY done - The two paragraphs in the Florida section could be better organized. It appears there are a lot of words, but not a terribly great amount of information. Perhaps merge the paragraphs and rewrite it as one (or, since they are slightly separate meteorologically, rewrite all but the tornado info as one paragraph, then split the tornado).
  • checkY done - Small formatting issues need to be better, particularly with non-breaking spaces
  • ☒N not done - I'd like to see some more sources, particularly newspaper sources.
  • Please copyedit the article thoroughly; I do not believe it passes Criterion 1a on the FA criteria. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to reach FA, would it be the first subtropical FA? Juliancolton (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Charley

[edit]

This article is currently a GA, and I would like suggestions for how to take it to FA status. Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks very much. Regards, Keilana 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains

[edit]

I've listed this current GA, former FAC article for peer review because, it is looking very good now but I still think there are some minor glitches.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

[edit]

Comments There's some POV within the article, and other issues;

  • "The title track had moderate success on metal-oriented radio, preparing the way for the release later that year of the group's first studio album, Facelift, which debuted at #42 on the Billboard 200 charts.[3]" - "Moderate success"? According to whom? Whether something is deemed successful or not is an opinion. For example, others may have deemed it a minor success, or a major success, and not a "moderate success". By stating the "title track had moderate success", you're casting judgment which means that is your own personal opinion. Such a personal observation means you're nominating yourself as a music critic, so this is therefore POV. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song "Man in the Box" had success as a single and the music video recieved rotation on MTV." - Yet more POV per the reasoning given above. Stick to the facts please. Instead of stating the song is a success, tell the reader what positions the single achieved (and which charts they achieved this / these on). LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both of these singles had success on the United States singles charts.[7]" - Yet more POV. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Facelift was certified gold by the United States RIAA, with access sales of 500,000 copies by the end of the year." - When an album is certified gold in the US, it means 500,000 copies have been shipped to stores. It doesn't mean the album sold that many. Therefore, the sentence is misleading. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The successful debut was supported by a tour opening for well known artists such as Van Halen, Poison, and Iggy Pop.[3]" - "Successful"? And yet more POV - whether the debut was "successful" is an opinion as I said. Stick to the facts. Also, how do you measure whether these artists Alice in Chains supported are "well known"? Album sales? Chart positions? Television appearances? Whether they're "well known" is your own personal opinion. In some territories, they may not be well known. The words "well known" should therefore be removed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The EP contained five acoustic songs (one being a hidden track), in order to keep the band in the public eye between the albums Facelift and Dirt.[8]" - The reasons for Alice in Chains releasing the EP is a personal opinion, and in this case the opinion of Rolling Stone. They may have released the EP as they thought the material was strong? They may have released it as new product to plug while on tour? See, so this is where personal opinions can mislead people. Such an opinion as Rolling Stone's needs attribution. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is the band's highest selling album and considered by many fans and All Music Guide, Alice in Chains' best album.[3][14]" - "Considered by many fans"? According to whom? How did they come to such a conclusion? Did they do a survey? The fact many fans allegedly consider it to be their best work is merely a personal opinion of a critic, so therefore should be attributed as such. This is not factual, so shouldn't be presented as such. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the above examples have been sufficiently addressed, I'll take a second look at the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

[edit]
  • In 1986, Layne Staley's band Sleeze, featuring bassist Jim Sheppard now of Nevermore, had just broken up - The stuff in italics is unnecessary and the sentence could be reworded to something like " In 1986, Layne Staley's band Sleeze had disbanded and he wished to start a new one the following year.
  • He went to the 'Music Bank' practice studio to watch musicians play, and met guitarist and song-writer Jerry Cantrell. - practice studio gives the impression they are playing instruments
  • and playing clubs in Seattle - playing at clubs
  • Their name - again is the band a singular or plural
  • In 1989 Columbia Records signed Alice in Chains - comma after the year
  • After recording a series - tell the reader how many "series" also sounds awkward
  • The title track reached number five metal-oriented radio - missing words in this sentence
  • preparing the way for the release later that year of the group's first - awkwardly worded "preparing the way" is not encyclopedia language
  • The band also appeared in the film
  • The album also featured a song titled "Iron Gland" with guest vocalist Tom Araya of Slayer. -> The album featured a guest appearance by Slayer vocalist Tom Araya on the track ""Iron Gland" .
  • While the band was touring to promote Dirt, Starr left the group due to the band's nonstop schedule,
  • once again in 1993 - they already entered the studio in 1993 before this?
  • Still the problem with the images - saying its a girl in the sand won't be good enough for fair use, did it create controversy, is it significant, and the band's logo is still in the infobox, which was part of the objection on the FAC last time. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is significant (like his last performance with the band) it, then yes it will probably qualify as fair use. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug

[edit]

Long way from FA The main problem right now are the sources you've used. Amazon.com (customer reviews?!), blogspot, rockdetector, rockonthenet, cduniverse, cd.ciao, discogs, loisville.edu, isound, metal archives, historylink, geocities ... Also, you dont need to reference stuff like Grammy nominees, track-listing, whether the song was in a soundtrack etc... Indopug (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Rockdetector is an excellent source. Secondly, of course that stuff needs to be referenced- it's very important that Grammy nominations are referenced, and soundtrack/tracklistings need to be referenced as much as any other fact... However, I completely agree with you about the non-reliability of many of the sources you listed. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockdetector isn't an excellent source J Milburn, actually. Their biographies are riddled with edits, and are mocked in the metal community. In the past, I have spotted many many mistakes in their articles. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has an article (Rockdetector) which at least suggests some prominence/importance; that's not to say your misgivings about quality are valid or invalid :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it falls under our definition of a reliable source, but, obviously, you've [LuciferMorgan] got a much better knowledge of the metal community than I have. I'll avoid it in future. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

[edit]

Ok, I'm not going to go into the prose in detail in this initial review, it looks as if LuciferMorgan and M3tal H3ad have already had a good go at that.

  • I am not convinced about the fair use rationale on Image:Laynemtv.JPG. I know copyright fuss is something that bothers a lot of people, but it is something that we need to pay attention to. Firstly, there needs to be completely seperate rationales for each article that it is used in, and secondly, the rationale needs to explain explicitly why it is not replaceable (not so difficult in this case) and why it adds a lot to the article. Non free images that aren't something obvious (screenshots, album covers, logos, that kind of thing) are often a lot more trouble than they are worth. Have you tried contacting someone and requesting a free image? Take a read of this and this if you fancy giving that a go- that is one way of getting a free image that often works, but not something that people try very often.
  • Ok, I'm going to go through sources which I think need removing, as they are unreliable, to go into a little more detail from Indopug's point above.
  • I'd say that the other references are fine, apart from one or two to the same sites that I skipped because I didn't want to repeat myself. But, as that shows, the article really needs gutting of weak sources. Because of my two (rather serious) concerns above, this article isn't even worthy of its GA status, despite the fact it is so professionally formatted.
  • There is no need for the absolutely huge logo- it should be small, and at web resolution, and the rationale is a little weak.
  • In the discography section, 'Upcoming album' isn't the album's name, and so should not be italicised.
  • "On 1992-03-21 Alice in Chains released" I wouldn't format dates like that in the prose itself. Try "On March 21, 1992..."
  • "During the band's reunion shows, they enlisted Comes With the Fall's William DuVall, who previously performed with Cantrell's solo band, to sing lead vocals. Velvet Revolver's Duff McKagan joined the band for the tour, playing rhythm guitar on a few songs.[38]" Single sentence paragraphs don't look good, at all.

Although to the untrained eye this article may look excellent, the poor sourcing and image use drag it down. Clean that out, and it may rise again to featured status. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources for a second time-

  • First of all, please correct me if I'm wrong, (I know I've made at least three mistakes tonight...) but I think, when formatting sources by multiple authors (say John Smith and Joe Bloggs) it should be formatted like this- "Smith, John; Bloggs, Joe." In other words- [Surname1], [Firstname1]; [Surname 2], [Firstname2]. You don't seem to do this all the time- look at citation 40 for example. "D'Angelo; Vineyard; Wiederhorn, Joe; Jennifer; Jon (2002-04-22). MTV.com – "'He Got Me To Start Singing': Artists Remember Layne Staley". MTV.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-08."
  • Consensus above seems to be that Rockdetector isn't a reliable source either- may be worth trying to find another citation for whatever you have cited to it.
  • Another typo! "Singles - Souundtracks and music scores. Aliceinchains.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-28."
  • http://aic.gsg2007.de/biography.html - Looks like a personal site to me.
  • http://www.still-in-chains.de.vu/ - Another personal site.
  • "Directed by Joe Perota. (1996). Unplugged - Alice in Chains [Television production]. MTV." Seeing as we can't immediately access this, perhaps quotes which back up what you are citing would be appropriate, providing they aren't too long.

Sorry, but they still aren't all looking good. Well done on replacing some of the problem citations so quickly though. Logo is now much better, the other fair use image still needs work. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Johnson (publisher)

[edit]

WillowW and I have worked up this article on an important and interesting eighteenth-century publisher. I intend on taking it to FAC, so comments along the lines of its readiness for that venue would be much appreciated. (This article is currently nominated at GAC as well, but they are very backlogged over there.) Awadewit | talk 07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Scartol

[edit]

I'll skip the usual platitude about how this is another fine article from two of Wikipedia's finest editors. Anyway, it is. I doubt I can offer much substantial constructive assistance, but I am good at picking nits. Therefore, let us begin!

Lead

  • The last three sentences of ¶ one and the first sentence of ¶ two all start with "Johnson". I don't know how or if it's possible, but some variety would be good.

Early life

  • These two characteristics of his home—Dissent and commercialism—remained an important part of Johnson's character… "characteristics … remained … [a] … part": I dunno, it feels wrong to go from plural to singular. (But then "these characteristics remained important parts…" also looks weird.) You make the call.
  • it was unusual for the younger son of a family living in relative obscurity to move to London and become a bookseller. I removed the final "to" here, but then it occurred to me that maybe it's intentional; if so, please re-add it.
  • Scholars have speculated that Johnson was bound out to Keith because he was associated with local Liverpool Baptists. Presumably the "he" refers to Keith, but maybe it needs to be clearer?
  • The Ladies New and Polite Pocket Memorandum Book – is there no apostrophe after Ladies?
  • The appearance of religious books is rather sudden; maybe say: "…religious texts began to dominate his book list…"?
  • …he also published works relating to Liverpool, his hometown, and medical texts. For purposes of series continuity, maybe make the last item "medicine"? (Unless he was publishing works about other works about medicine?)
  • The bit about the congers feels out of place; I expected the blockquote to relate to it somehow. Maybe put the congers sentence after the quote?
  • Fuseli was Johnson's closest friend until his death. Whose death?
  • Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society. Whose induction?
  • Yeah, I know. Sometimes I slip away from logic and go into pure sentence-structure mode. I trust you to decide if it needs revision. Re-reading this sentence, I don't think it does. – Scartol • Tok 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newly independent, with an established reputation, Johnson did not struggle as he had before. This is the first we hear (unless I'm mistaken) of previous struggles. Include a mention earlier?
  • It's just a general struggle. Sentence changed to: Newly independent, with a reputation, Johnson did not need to struggle to establish himself as he had early in his career. Awadewit | talk 11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I supposed to know what the Chapter Coffee House is/was? The quote makes me feel like I ought (and makes me want a cup of joe).
  • While Johnson looked to his business interests, he did not necessarily publish only works that would enrich him. I didn't want to remove "necessarily" in a unilateral fashion, but if I owned the article, I'd take it out.
  • …he helped Priestley publish the Theological Repository, which was a financial failure, but which called on its contributors to submit… How about: "…Repository, a financial failure which called on…"? (Again, I didn't feel safe making this change myself.)
  • I changed it because "occasional travel narratives" sounds to me like the narratives are occasional (each one produced periodically).

More to come after I shovel the walk! – Scartol • Tok 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just rain here. :) Awadewit | talk 11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous – you can't shovel rain! Silly person. – Scartol • Tok 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1770s: Establishment

  • I don't know why, but it seems like the subtitle "…and advocacy of Unitarianism" would be better.
  • He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790… The end of this sentence is a bit confusing (two possible subjects for the verb "publishing").
  • (insert facile joke here about Disney)
  • This probably isn't the place for it, but I feel compelled to say that the internationalist in me always bristles when "American" is used to refer to people in the US. I know American Revolution is the most widely-used term, so it's not a big deal. I just have to always be difficult. (By splitting my infinitives, for example.)
  • I split infinitives, too, by the way. Do you know why English has that rule? In the eighteenth-century, when grammarians were codifying English grammar (part of nation-building and imperialism projects), they looked to Latin and since Latin doesn't split its infinitives, they decided English shouldn't either. However, the Latin rules make sense for that language while they don't for ours. The grammarians just wanted English to be more Latinate. So, I don't feel bad about splitting. Awadewit | talk 11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really interesting to watch everyday English gradually morphing back into German, putting its verbs at the ends of clauses, with the adverbs just before. I hope I live long enough to see it fully completed. ;) Willow 12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that. Did you see the story about the language is Mexico that is dying because the last two living speakers are refusing to speak to each other? They got into a spat. Awadewit | talk 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • …and the inalienable right to liberty of conscience", rights he viewed Dissenters as fighting for as well. Is it not possible to just say: "rights Dissenters were fighting for as well."?
  • "Important early publications" seems like an odd subhead title, given all the other important publications which have already been mentioned.
  • I assume no author was listed for Laws Respecting Chicks? (Do I have enough street cred as a feminist to make that joke? Am I going to be assaulted on my way home?)
  • Oh I'm so ready to work on EG. I forced myself to grade some papers this morning, but now I can work with a clear conscience. Boring side note – When I got back from the libraries the other day I realized that in my zeal I had checked out the same book from two different libraries! I've got a problem. – Scartol • Tok 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1780s: Success

  • I don't know if you need the sentence: Johnson had begun his career as a relatively cautious publisher of religious and scientific tracts. The earlier parts of the article seem to make this clear.
  • Why is only one of Cowper's books redlinked?
  • This is Cowper's major poem. It deserves a page - there is tons of stuff written on it. I'm not totally sure you could write a page on the others. I would have to look into it and see how much scholarship there is. Awadewit | talk
  • Quotes like "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England" which aren't attributed in the article make me uneasy; I much prefer the Chard emphasizes that it "was held together…" variety. Maybe this is WP:ILIKEIT.
  • This kind of quote does not need to be attributed in my opinion because it is not just one person's theory on Linnaeus. The only reason I have it in quotation marks is because I am using the precise words of the author. However, the idea is widely held. I only attribute quotations or ideas that belong (intellectually) to an author. Otherwise, the prose just becomes weighted down. Awadewit | talk 11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I trust you on it. I suppose I've just trained myself to attribute every quote within the text itself. Personal preference, I guess.
  • I don't know how relevant the deviance from 90° of the house's walls is. Or how grammatically correct that sentence I just wrote is.

1790s: Walnuts Years of radicalism

  • and he raised money for Thomas Paine's bail. How about: "When Thomas Paine was arrested in 179x for [reason], Johnson raised money for bail."?
  • Johnson's periodical, the Analytical Review, published a summary and review within a couple of weeks and a mere month after Burke published, Wollstonecraft responded with her Vindication of the Rights of Men. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something, or does it need to be split in two?
  • The bit about printers censoring books is fascinating, but I feel it's something of a tangent here.
  • 4550 is a rather precise number to be used with a word like "around". Maybe 4500?
  • After being forced to testify at the trial of Paine and Thomas Hardy,… Was it one trial for both men?
  • In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley. This sounds as though it's related to the previous sentence (about Barlow's radicalization), but that seems wrong. Reword?

1800s: Declining years and death

  • Maybe a word about how he came back after the second fire? (It just feels jarring to see discussion of what he published all of a sudden.)
  • The pound symbol is, I believe, used several times before "Johnson's remaining £60,000 fortune". Is it an oversight that it's linked here for the first time? (Is this a different symbol from the one in the Godwin sentence? Am I showing a colossal ignorance of lbs?)
  • I'd like to know what the "torture and malady" in the epitaph refer to – is it the government clamp-down?

Legacy

  • Awadewit dislikes infoboxes; my peeve is the blue pull-quote box. Can't that be worked into the article or something?
  • Does it have to be such a dark blue? As a reader, too, I'd prefer to have some sort of context if it's available – maybe a word on who Edgeworth was (she's only listed among other people) and why she felt compelled to write it? – Scartol • Tok 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I thought all quote boxes had to be in that blue. I'll try to find a lighter blue. I don't know much about the composition of the poem. I'll see if I can track something down. Awadewit | talk 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He didn't own Richardson's works? Good. Richardson was a third-rate idiot hack who got lucky and accidentally helped to invent the novel. (After I was forced to read Pamela – scribbling angry notes in it with a Sharpie™ all the while – I stabbed it, tore pages out, set it on fire, and threw it out of my second-floor dorm room window. True story.)
  • OK, now I have to read that book. By combining a page-turner with a bodice-ripper, Richardson produced a page-ripper. ;) It's very good, though, that an English teacher and writer should feel so passionately about literature and the craft. :) Willow 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's one way of putting it. =) I believe the police called it "willful defacement of historically canonized literature". (Just kidding. The police never got involved.) Awad: Find the eighteenth-century charm? I'll be honest and admit that I have no interest in looking. Every person gets to be closed-minded about something; Pamela is my something. – Scartol • Tok 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wollstonecraft caption feels a little flat compared to the others.
  • Does the part about how much his books cost to produce (and their quality) belong in "Legacy"?
  • Well, it's there: In repackaging other publications for its readers, the Analytical Review was part of the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century. The journal shared in the desire to organize and classify knowledge for its readers while at the same time recognizing the ultimate futility of the project. In so doing, the journal's editors believed that they were preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future. Awadewit | talk 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff! I've learned a lot, and I thank you for inviting me into this project. Now go away! I'm finally ready to work on Red Emma! =) Good luck with this, y'all. – Scartol • Tok 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See, about a year ago, when I first joined up with wikipedia, people actually got reviews over at GA. :) Now they have an inhuman backlog, though. Also, going to GAC forces me to slow down on the way to FAC and meticulously rework the prose. Awadewit | talk 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Markus Poessel

[edit]
  • "often called the "father of the book trade" in England" – called that in England, or father of the English book trade?
  • "issued primarily religious works" - did he issue works that were mostly religious in nature, or did he mostly issue works that were religious? (I'm not saying this needs to be changed, just probing for possible ambiguities.)
  • "particularly at his famous weekly dinners (the regulars subsequently became known as the "Johnson Circle")." – is there a nicer way to append the sentence in parentheses? "(the regular attendants of which later became known as" – also, I would like "later" better than "subsequently", since there is no clearly defined point in time for the "subsequent" to attach to.
  • Now reads: He fostered the open discussion of new ideas, particularly at his famous weekly dinners, the regular attendees of which later became known as the "Johnson Circle".
  • "supporters of the French revolution and" – probably a comma after "revolution"?
  • "Religious Dissent marked Johnson" – is this precisely what you want to say? The subsequent statements sounds like "J grew up in a climate of Religious Dissent" or similar.
  • "Practice of Innoculation [sic]" – should the "[sic]" be in italics?
  • I know the meaning, and I know it's usually italicized when added to ordinary, non-italic text, so I was wondering whether it needed to be non-italic when added to text that is, itself, in italics. Admittedly a minor point. --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opened his own business; however" – why "however"? In what sense does the account of him moving shop limit the validity of the statement that he opened his own business?
  • I found it hard to formulate this sentence - moving his business made it hard for him to establish himself. One isn't a stable businessman if one is moving about so much. :) Awadewit | talk 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't moving to a better location as far as I know - when he was, we try to say so: "By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." Awadewit | talk 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, as a publisher Johnson did not just sell books." – not quite what it is meant to be. Probably should be something like "However, it should be noted that, in Johnson's time, the role of a publisher included much more than just selling books" or similar (I don't like the "role" in my sentence, but you can see what I mean).
  • Coming back to this, I guess that no publisher just sells books – after all, per definition they arrange for the editing, the printing, and so on, as well. Hm. How about something along the lines However, Johnson did more than just tend to the logistics of publication. He also...? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • congers: briefly explain in the text. Readers should be able to understand this article without clicking on wikilinks.
  • "which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms" - This is not enough? (By the way, I think wikilinks are one of the best things about wikipedia - I don't think that everything can possibly be explained inside a single article. For example, I can't explain the French revolution in this article. The balance is tricky, I admit, but the fact that readers can so easily be taken to further explanations is one of the best parts of the online experience, in my opinion.) Awadewit | talk 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's enough, since the reader doesn't automatically know that the "which spread" is the main reason for forming a conger, not just some additional side effect you mention here. "congers, that is, special syndicates set up to spread the risk of publishing..." might be better. I think a WP article should be written in a way that it is readable without the average curious reader feeling compelled to follow any wikilink. That reader has heard about the French Revolution, but not necessarily about congers. --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson formed two friendships that shaped the rest of his life." – as they probably didn't immediately shape the rest of his life: "two friendships that were to shape the rest of his life"?
  • "Fuseli was Johnson's closest friend until his death." – the only concrete date given is the beginning of the friendship, so perhaps "was to remain J.'s closest friend" would be better?
  • "This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism, as well as other forms of religious and political dissent." – help me out on this: wasn't Baptist faith a form of dissent, too? In which case this sentence appears to build too much of a contrast (Baptism here, dissent there).
  • "Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society." – what logistics were those? It would be great if this could be re-written in a way that the average reader immediately understand why this was a sign of trust.
  • I don't know, unfortunately. Priestley just let Johnson handle a lot of his correspondence and a couple of the biographers made a bit of a deal out of him letting Johnson handle this particular element of it - probably because becoming a member of the Royal Society was such an honor and it meant a lot to Priestley. Nothing very interesting, there, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. We should trust the sources, but in cases like this, where the source apparently doesn't give us sufficient information for at least a plausibility check how the interpretation came about, we should be careful. Which, here, could mean just attributing the interpretation explicitly – including it as a quote. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events" – how come we're talking about events now? What events?
  • The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies. - I think the whole sentence makes it clearer - the John Wilkes election fiasco and the beginning of the American revolution. It is important to make sure that readers know what is going on at each point in history, I think, and what the person's relation to it is. In this case, it is even more important, since Johnson becomes more active politically later. Awadewit | talk 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "in any of the events taking place"? I just don't think (small point, admittedly) that the reader can be expected to know that the "growing radicalism" was tied to specific events. It could have been a trend in publishing, in the way laws were introduced in parliament, etc. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're asking for a redundancy to be inserted - events always "take place". We don't need to tell readers that. I think that we can safely say that readers will assume that the events are the ones listed and will tie "events" to "radicalism". Awadewit | talk 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite redundancy, but possibly not the best way of putting this. The proper way of doing this would be to say that it was a time of radicalism, indicate that this radicalism can be tied to specific events, and then take J didn't take part in those events. "The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, crystallizing in events such as the John Wilkes election fiasco and <please insert another event here>. Although Johnson did not actively participate..." --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really quite comfortable with this sentence as it stands. I think it is quite clear; it defines the growing radicalism through the events that Johnson didn't participate in but published works about, a fair and accurate statement: The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies. Awadewit | talk 06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." – again, somehow "where he would remain" sounds better to my ear, may be because it fits better with the preceding tenses.
  • "Starting in the 1770s, Johnson published fewer generalized religious tracts" – "generalized"? From what? "Fewer tracts on the subject of religion in general"?
  • "Johnson actively participated in efforts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts" – I keep trying to think of a way you can "participate in efforts" other than "actively". But may be it's just me.
  • "Although Johnson became known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews." – I know what you mean, but it sounds a bit off. The "Although" refers only to the fact that most people know him as a publisher of X (while he was also a publisher of Y), but as it is written, it sounds as if being known for publishing X would somehow restrict the publishing of Y. Either "it is a fact that he also" or something about his other activities being less well-known?
  • "a political risk as the American colonies were in rebellion" – an additional "by that time" would be good, seeing that we're tracing developments starting at a time before the revolution.
  • "because Dr. James's Fever Powder was quite popular and his fellow bookseller John Newbery made his fortune from it." – "had made his fortune", probably. And how? Did the bookseller sell medicine, as well? Had he sold books about it? A brief explanation would be welcome.
  • Changed to "had made his fortune from selling it". I don't want to go into a big tangent here on Newbery's fortune. I plan on writing the Newbery article someday - all will be explained in more detail there. (Hopefully the reader remembers the quote about publishers selling medicines in particular from earlier in the article!) Awadewit | talk 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson also contributed significantly to the development of children's literature in the eighteenth century, a genre that was just then emerging." – reads a bit strange. The genre is "children's literature in the eighteenth century"? Or "children's literature"? May be this should be two sentences. Or a different construction ("the newly emerging genre of...").
  • "become the center of a radical and stimulating intellectual milieu" – can something become the "center" of a "milieu"? Or is that a mildly mixed metaphor (literally, I suppose a "milieu" is itself the "center of the place")?
  • Oh, it can't? Hm. The definition is just "the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops", so I think there can be a center. I've always had the feeling that "milieu" is pretty diffuse. Awadewit | talk 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know – but in cases like this, where the exact attributes of some vague term like milieu are not universally known (as I conclude from our small sample-of-two), one should probably refrain from using the term
  • Well, the exact attributes of all abstract words in historical and literary articles are not universally known. Definitions are notoriously tricky things in language. This one doesn't strike me as very odd. I asked a few other people and they didn't think this was a strange formulation, but they were literary types like myself. Let's see if it gives anyone else pause. Awadewit | talk 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he usually had only one assistant and never hired an apprentice" – were apprentices "hired" at that time? Weren't they indentured or something? "never took on an apprentice" probably covers everything.
  • "Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk" – isn't that the norm rather than the exception, publishers publishing at their own risk? I assume that this is not what you intend to stress here; it's more about the risk, in this case, being larger than usual, right?
  • Ah, OK. That is an important information that should definitely be in there for the non-18th-century-savvy reader. How about "at his own risk; a remarkable step in an age where most authors published at their own risk" or similar (it can certainly be put more elegantly). -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reads: Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk (a generous action at a time when most authors published at their own risk), and was rewarded with handsome sales of both volumes. Awadewit | talk
  • "where they would be sure to see his wares and this helped establish him" – comma after wares?
  • "James Edward Smith, "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England".[57]" – any reason why this should be a direct quotation? To me, that's suspiciously close to overdoing it.
  • Is credited with bringing the Linnaean system? Introduced the Linnaean system? Remembered for bringing the Linnaean system? Whose claim to fame is to have brought the Linnaean system? Was instrumental in bringing the Linnaean system? Was responsible for bringing/introducing? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's just it - simply replacing the verb can still be considered plagiarism. I'm just changing one or two words. Until the entire phrase can be changed, the quotation remains. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd guess that, for small sentences like this, you cannot define plagiarism that strictly. "credited with introducing the Linnaean system of taxonomy to English scholars"? I just think that making it a quotation introduces an emphasis that is confusing. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I'm going to have to be a stickler about this. Plagiarism in the humanities is taken quite seriously and I cannot afford to write anything that has even the whiff of plagiarism about it nor am I interested in doing so. Awadewit | talk 06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "book on lithotomy was illustrated by William Blake as well" – comma before "as well". Assuming that whoever wrote this has run out of commas, here's a free sample: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
  • "notions of the element and the compound" – I'm a bit bothered by the definite article (but again, may be that's just me). "of an element and of a compound"?
  • "By bringing inventive, thoughtful people together, he "stood at the very heart of British intellectual life" for over twenty years." – this sounds, once more, odd. How can you stand by bringing people together? I think this links one too directly to the other. Especially since the first is true of many people, the last of very few.
  • I don't really sense the oddness - he's not "standing by" - he's "standing" metaphorically (also meaning "representing"). I also don't think very many people bring together "circles" like Johnson did. Awadewit | talk 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a bit uneasiness about bringing metaphors too close together. The very heart is metaphoric, and he's standing metaphorically. How about "secured for himself a position at the very heart of"? I won't push this, it was just something that struck me as slightly oddish. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did he do this "securing"? That has whole different connotations for me and in an eighteenth-century context, it sounds like he influenced people to get his position, which he didn't exactly. One usually "secures" positions at court or employment, if you see what I mean. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is believed to have written some 200 articles for his periodical, the Analytical Review" – why the uncertainty? Few copies survive? Articles written under an assumed name, or anonymously?
  • "Johnson offered Wollstonecraft work as a translator, prompting her to learn French and German." – what's the order here? Did he offer her work despite her not knowing any foreign languages? That sounds a bit odd. Or did he offer her work for some languages she already knew, encouraging her later to widen her linguistic range?
  • "Johnson encouraged Wollstonecraft to work as a translator, prompting her"? Not exactly the same (doesn't say that he actually offered her concrete projects – I didn't want to repeat "work"), but, in my view, less confusing. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did offer her translation projects, though, so that has to made clear. How about: Johnson provided Wollstonecraft with translation opportunities, prompting her to learn French and German. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Society for Constitutional Information" – please add a half-sentence explanations. Readers shouldn't have to click.
  • Added "which was attempting to reform Parliament". I usually only add these when I think they will be helpful. I'm not sure this one explains anything. Sometimes people just have to read more if they really want to know, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his willingness to publish works that reflected the "challenging new historicist versions of the scriptures"" – is "reflected" the right word here? Can works reflect a version?
  • Edmund Burke – again, think of your poorly schooled readership and please add some epithets: "the well-known statesman and philosopher E.B."?
  • "bestselling poetical works of Cowper and Darwin" – I think most readers will not remember the single earlier mention of Darwin, namely that this is Erasmus Darwin. Somehow, Darwin falls from the sky here, without introduction. I think this should change, including a more explicit statement that we're talking with nature-inspired poetry here. Cowper and his work are properly introduced in earlier parts of the article; why not Darwin?
  • Are you saying there should be more on Darwin and Johnson overall? One reason for the most extensive Cowper information is that Johnson and Cowper had more of a personal relationship than Darwin and Johnson. (I've added "Erasmus Darwin" to avoid the confusion.) Awadewit | talk 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were apparently close enough friends for Coleridge to leave his books at Johnson's shop when he toured Europe." – how does this indicate close friendship?
  • According to the sources it does. I suppose you have to think of how expensive books were at the time. They were not easy to replace. Johnson was like Coleridge's safety-deposit box. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and tried for seditious libel and many" – comma before "and many"?
  • "several others were tried for selling" – personally, I think that "were put on trial" sounds better in this context.
  • "Johnson also asked that his portrait of Priestley be given "to an American College or Institution for promoting knowledge"." – so where did it end up?
  • "one of the women writers Johnson promoted and assisted, who also thought of him as a brother and a father" – where does the "also" come from? What else are we told she thought? Or who else thought of J. as a brother and a father?
  • "this was expected at the time" – "this did not surprise his contemporaries" – or did they come to expect, which always carries a bit of its other meaning of claiming something as ones right, shoddy quality?

--Markus Poessel (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairspray (2007 film)

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached GA status and I would like to someday see it become a featured article. I'm a bit unsure as to what needs to be done to this artice before it can reach this status, and I was hoping that a peer review could help to improve the overall quality of the article.

Thanks,

Mears man (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can review the article to help improve it, though I don't have the time today. A few points, though: 1) Remove the YouTube video external links -- they are both potential copyright violations and inappropriately embedded in the article body. 2) Reduce the length of the Cast section to only the major roles. This is an encyclopedia, so we should not indiscriminately list every actor in the film. We have the the film's end credits and IMDb's electronic copy for that. 3) For critical reviews, can you specify more about what film critics liked or disliked about the film? I think that the reviews could elaborate more on the pros and cons rather than their general opinion, such as "well-paced story" or "badly developed characters". I've put the peer review on my watchlist, so feel free to respond (which will help remind me to review the content more closely). Hope you can make these changes! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the YouTube links from the Deleted Scenes subsection, but I'm tempted to remove the section entirely, seeing as it doesn't significantly contribute to the article and really only serves to take up space. What do you think? Also, I believe that the Council Members portion of the cast list could be removed, seeing as they're mostly non-notable actors who's only line in the film was to say the name of their character, but what are your views on the Cameos section? I personally find this section to be interesting (I certainly wouldn't have picked up on a lot of it on my own), but I can also see where it might need to be removed. I'll try to work on the critical reviews section as time permits, but I do have a few real world obligations to deal with at the moment (the term is coming to an end and quite a few papers are due), so it may be a bit before I'm really able to sit down and sift through them. Still, I'll see what I can do. —Mears man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to go ahead and remove the Council members subsection, but I've left the Cameos part up for the moment until I hear what others thoughts on that are. —Mears man (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested by the script, I went ahead and expanded the lead section to comply with the guidelines set by Wikipedia:Lead section. I tried my best to cover the remaining portions of the article in what I added, but would you mind taking a look at it to see if you have any suggestions for improvement? —Mears man (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody posted a comment on the article's talk page, suggesting that the Cast section be removed, seeing as it's somewhat redundant. They argued that, because the actors are covered in the infobox, plot section, and pre-production and casting section, having a separate section to only list the actors and their roles seemed a bit unnecessary. While they do make a good point, it seems to me that most film articles include a cast section, so I'm still a bit unsure. Any thoughts or suggestions? Also, if the cast section were to be removed, would the cameos section be removed along with it, or is there another part of the article that that could fit in with? —Mears man (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, a straightforward Cast section does not add a whole lot to a film article. There are other sources that compile the entire cast, such as IMDb. My approach is to write real-world context about the cast in the film. I've done a "Casting" subsection under the "Production" subsection (see Fight Club (film)#Casting) and a "Cast" section in which there is prose and a list of bulleted entries that contain some real-world context for each character (see Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast). I consider it a more unique and encyclopedic approach. That's my $0.02. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone through most of the reviews and tried to add more information about their specific likes/dislikes (I think there may have been one that I didn't expand on because I couldn't find much else worth mentioning). Any thoughts, suggestions? Did I add too much, not enough, or just the right amount? Was this the kind of stuff you were looking for? (Sorry about all the questions, I guess I'm just trying to get some feedback) —Mears man (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/January_2008&oldid=399873513"