Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2009

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 or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.

New York State Route 280

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after 3 failed FACs straight on other articles, I want to get a good want that'll actually pass. If reviewers could, post all their prose issues, because I cannot read bad prose as easy as others. Anyway, if you guys could, thanks.

Thanks again, Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Much as I like Pennsylvania, it seems odd to have four images of PA roads (3 maps and a sign) in an article on a New York road. The sign for the PA highway seems unnecessary to me. I also am not sure what the two maps that are so similar add - why not one map? I think I prefer File:PA 346 (1949).png.
  • Also why not show a USGS topo map of the route in New York before the reservoir was created?
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other
  • The lead does not mention the Indian Reservation, but looking at maps and the article's description, much of the highway runs through the reservation and this should be in the lead.
  • Avoid wording like "current day" - this gets out of date, try as of 2009 instead.
  • Is there any way that rough distances could be added to the Route description?
  • Is there any history of the route prior to 1930? My guess is that the road following the river must be pretty old, perhaps even as a Native American path? The state park was established in 1921 according to its article - was the road there then?
  • The history of the Kinzua Dam and Allegheny reservoir are also pretty well established and should be more detailed than just "Allegany Reservoir, constructed in the mid-1960s.[9]"
  • Watch overlinking - Allegheny Reservoir is linked several times (once in lead and in article is enough) and US dollar is too - my guess is that a link to US $ is not needed in an article on a US highway
  • The National Bridge Inventory can be linked to the online version - see Cogan House Covered Bridge for an example of this.
  • The maps you use show Corydone as being north of the Cornplanter Reservation, but the article says the community of Corydon (within the Cornplanter Indian Reservation)
  • I would see if you can get someone to copyedit it - the language needs to be polished - sorry, I don't do copyedits.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I googled "Cattaraugus County, New York History" and found this book online. It mentions a road along the river by 1821 and a previous native trail. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked the region up in a book I have access to. There was a (Native American) Cattaraugus Path that ran along the Allegheny River there (does not say which bank though). It ran from Cattaraugus down Buffalo Creek to the river at Salamanca and split there - one branch went west along the Allegheny to Cornplanter's Town (reservation?), then on to Conewango (Warren, PA) and Venango (Franklin, PA). The other branch went east to Ichsua (Olean NY). The ref is
Wallace, Paul A.W. (1987). Indian Paths of Pennsylvania (Fourth Printing ed.). Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-89271-090-4. Note: ISBN refers to the 1998 impression.

Togari (manga)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA-class.

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any development information? --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any. Extremepro (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Started development section from the info at the back of the first volume of the manga. Extremepro (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I split the chapter listing into another article? Extremepro (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I tend to wait to split until I've added in the plot summaries, (which makes the parent article too large). --Malkinann (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs a fair amount of work before GA - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be 2 or 3 paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but The series ceased production at volume 8 with no solid ending. is only in the lead (and critical response - why it ended there does not seem to be addressed). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Amazon is not generally seen as a reliable source but 16 of the 26 refs are from Amazon
  • Replaced all Amazon refs with the publisher's.
  • This seems very sparse - the level of material presented is not great. I think for GA it will have to be expanded.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are three FAs and a bunch of GAs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Recognized_articles that might be good model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Goodraise (talk · contribs)

What makes the following sources reliable?

  • Sizemore, Ed (October 27, 2008). "Togari Book 8". Comics Worth Reading. Retrieved 2009-04-20.
  • Douresseaux, Leroy (July 11, 2007). "Togari: Volume 1". Comic Book Bin. Retrieved 2009-04-20.
  • Hayley, Ken (March 9, 2008). "Togari, Vol. 6". Pop Shock Culture. Retrieved 2009-04-20.
  • Ahem, each of those listings has been heavily discussed, with most already being tested in FA/FL reviews, or where questionable at the RS/N (as noted). "Comics Worth Reading" is the website of a long time comic industry professional and a reviewer for Publishers Weekly, making it usable for reviews as a self-publisher source as it is "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". PopCultureShock is an online magazine that has been around since 1999 and has the appropriate history for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They are quoted by other reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can "ahem" as long as you want. Project discussions, project maintained source lists, RS/N threads, or FA/FL reviews are not what determines the reliability of sources, they are merely places where that can be done. Saying that "it was discussed here" or "it is used in this ...-class article" just isn't enough. Goodraise 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the whole point to have an online ressouces sub-page then? I mean if that goes all that way, people would have the re-prove the RS nature off every review single source during every single peer & external review. I just would love to create ready to use copy-paste blurbs to justify why this or that website is RS. Using a wheel is great recreating it over and over not much. --KrebMarkt 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What's the whole point to have an online ressouces sub-page then?" Don't ask me, I didn't create it. "I just would love to create ready to use copy-paste blurbs to justify why this or that website is RS." What's stopping you? :) Goodraise 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aronson, Michael. "Togari v2". mangalife.com. Retrieved 2009-04-20.

Goodraise 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Comic Book Bin's Leroy Douresseaux and Pop Shock Culture's Ken Haley commends Yoshinori Natsume's art, which features 'heavy inks, lots of crosshatching, and copious amounts of shading'." - Which one of them is being quoted here?

Goodraise 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aronson, Michael. "Togari v2". mangalife.com. Retrieved 2009-04-20. - In this, the publisher should be "Manga Life".

Goodraise 06:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Douresseaux, Leroy (July 11, 2007). "Togari: Volume 1". Comic Book Bin. Retrieved 2009-04-20. - In this, the publisher should be "Coolstreak Cartoons".

Goodraise 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Nazarene College

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been requested to do so by one of the article's primary contributors, and, possibly with the help of the reviewers' comments, will try to bring the article up to GA standards. Thanks, John Carter (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bale Out

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has succesfully passed through various formats of review including DYK, AFD, and most recently GA. Looking for some helpful input on ways to further improve the article. Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to semi-automated review
  • Actually the article does have free-use images.
  • The word doesn't appears inside a citation, not the article body text.
  • Will continue to perform additional copyediting.

Cirt (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Done. I went ahead and removed the image from the infobox [1]. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Laser brain
  1. "Piane said he was 'drawn to the musicality' of Bale's voice." Please provide some context of why Piane said this.. the statement comes out of right field as is.
  2. "He utilized the audio recording of Bale's voice, along with beats to a pulsating dance track, as well as audio clips of Barbara Streisand." We need to find a much more elegant way of describing what Piane used in the song. Something like, "Various audio elements went into the remix, such as the recording of Bale's voice, pulsating dance track beats, and audio clips of Barbara Streisand." Also, what kind of audio clips? Songs? Dialog?
  3. "The track was released to the Internet on websites YouTube and MySpace" Really, "The track was released on YouTube and MySpace web sites" would suffice. Web sites is two words.
  4. "the track on YouTube had received over 200,000 views" Much too colloquial; "the track on YouTube had been viewed over 200,000 times" is better. "had reached over one million views" has the same problem. We can't use the YouTube jargon here of "receiving" and "reaching" views. Now that I think about it, how is an audio track released to YouTube? Don't they host videos only?
  5. "A portion of the remix was played on The Situation Room on CNN on February 3, 2009, and on February 5 members of the crew from Anderson Cooper 360° danced to the RevoLucian remix." How is this relevant? Someone on a TV show dancing to the song is not ideal material.
  6. "While Christian Bale was acting in a scene ..." More specific: "Bale was filming a scene ..."
  7. "Bale can be heard screaming obscenities" is needlessly wordy. "Bale screamed obscenities"
  8. "and an audio recording of Bale yelling at Hurlbut appeared" We've already set up what the audio recording is. Therefore "the audio recording appeared" is sufficient.
  9. "Prior to releasing the audio on the internet, TMZ.com had reported on the incident on their website in July 2008." Needs rewriting. Maybe "Prior to releasing the audio on the internet, TMZ.com had reported the incident the month it happened." We can assume they reported it on their own site without saying so.
  10. "quit the film" seems needlessly colloquial and you use it multiple times.
  11. "In a statement to Los Angeles radio station KROQ ..." This whole paragraph needs work. One quotation changes the tense of the sentence and needs adjusting. The last quotation lacks logical punctuation—see WP:PUNC.
  12. "The 'Bale Out' piece incorporates audio clips of from the exchange ..." Looks like there is an extra word in there.
  13. The Reception section contains similar problems as the lead with YouTube jargon-language.
  14. Ditto the comment from the lead about the TV show crew dancing. Not particularly interesting or relevant.
  15. After reading, I am left with a feeling of a lack of comprehensiveness, but I suspect it is because I kept trying to approach this as a "music" article rather than the "meme" article it really is. Are we sure there isn't any more detailed information about the song production (method, software, hardware, etc.)? --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response

Thanks very much, I will work on addressing these above points soon. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay I believe I have addressed these above points [2] - unfortunately there really isn't much else out there in reliable sources to include, and I haven't come across much else as far as song production information. I will keep looking though. ;) Cirt (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Scartol (talk · contribs) is doing some copyediting on the article. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

Sorry for the delay here. It looks like you've found most of what can be said about this track (though I agree with the comment above that it's really more of an internet meme piece, but that's a discussion I can't really enter into here). So kudos on the relative comprehensiveness of this article, despite the general lack of info available about it. Here are some comments; feel free to change or ignore these items at will.

Lead

  • There are a lot of general-interest links in the first sentence of the lead. I'd recommend removing at least half of them to avoid overlinking.
  • The Wall Street Journal described the background as "a driving house music track". I would remove this sentence from the lead, as it doesn't really add much in the context of the other comments around it.

Background

  • Bale threatened to quit the film if Hurlbut repeated the error and was not fired. (I've revised the wording of this sentence a bit to match surrounding sentences.) Does this mean Bale threatened to quit if either Hurlbut repeated the error or was not fired? Or does it mean that Bale threatened to quit if Hurlbut repeated the error, after which he was not fired? (The sentence should be clarified to make the truth more obvious.)

Composition

  • "When I heard Christian Bale flip out I had to remix the track.... Its good to hear that clubs have already started playing it as it is very funny," said Piane. I assume the "Its" is a typo? (It should be "it's", since it's a contraction. Of course, if the original does not include the apostrophe, then it should be represented here in the wrong form. Maybe include a footnote in that case that the original source is the one with the typo?)

Reception

  • The commentary feels a little endless here. I would pick several of the most important/interesting quotes from articles about the remix, and put them together into a single paragraph. We don't need to know what every single article said about it. (The final paragraph, especially, is just a laundry list of what each person thought.)
  • Aside from being fun to listen to, was the remix important for any reason? Did it help Piane promote the RuPaul album? Did it help either Piane's career or Bale's? Did Bale comment on the remix? Those larger questions would be a good way to end the final section.

Good luck with this article. I apologize again for the delay, and of course if you have any questions please let me know. Scartol • Tok 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I addressed these above points [3], most of which I just took the suggestions and changed the article directly because they are all pretty much for the most part excellent points. As far as the last bit, I trimmed the Reception subsection down a bit, but as far as the very last point - WP:RS sources don't seem to address those specific points - but I shall endeavor to do some more research and digging to attempt to find answers to those questions. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: From the last point - added comments from McG and Christian Bale about the remix. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck E. Cheese's

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello. I've put this article up for peer review mainly to help my chances of getting this to FA. I've already brought it to GA status, so I'm wishing to now improve it further. Any and all comments/concerns will be looked upon carefully before making the appropriate change. Any concerns with the stability of the article, due to the fact that we're dealing with Chuck E. Cheese's, can be put to rest, as the article was semi-protected a month ago. Thanks!  Dylanlip  (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Quite well one in places, needs some work in others, but overall very intersting. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:FAC.

  • The lead is too short - it needs to summarize the whole article and should probably be 3 paragraphs for the the lenght of the current article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but 524 restaurants is only in the lead and infobox.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the history or some other sections are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Voice cast needs references for FAC - it may be seen as too detailed for a FA, not sure.
  • Make sure to provide context for fhe reader - the Health concerns section does not mention a year / date, for example. See WP:PCR
  • The parodies section is possibly problematic - unless the epsiode (which is the ref for each now) said "now we will parody CEC by calling it ______ E ______, this seems like orginal research. If there are reviews or other reliable sources that say these are parodies of CEC, then that would be fine.
  • What there is of the history is quite detailed - there is a gap from 1999 to the present (ten years) where nothing is mentioned.
  • Since it is a business I expected more discussion of profit / loss etc in the article (not just in the inforbox).
  • At least one place says currently where it should say as of 2009...
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FA articles on businesses at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Business.2C_economics_and_finance. Odwalla (on a food / drink company) may also be a useful model.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My opinion/points concerning the lead are on the GA Review here. Though I do agree with the rest of the concerns, and I will begin fixing them immediately.  Dylanlip  (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun improving the article, along with updating the financial information to match the first quarter report. Still looking for those voice references though.  Dylanlip  (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with the 10 year gap is that there has been no significant event that has occured in those 10 years. There's been no major change financially, no changes animatronic-wise, and really nothing overall that constitutes as being notable for the history section so-far. (Except for the 30th anniversary, which will be put in momentarily) Plus, are the up-to-the-minute 1% gains/losses in the company really that notable for multiple inclusions in the article? The only concern that still needs work is the character voice refrences, and I think I found some that will be added soon.  Dylanlip  (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Momlogic was involved in location swabbing to check for diseases, and it simply states the findings. Showbiz Pizza.com contains:
  • Images of Token cards
  • CEC Stage section which shows and proves the existence of multiple stages
  • PDFs of old news articles concerning Chuck E. Cheese's
  • Photos of CEC locations for other references
The token site proves that the CEC tokens are collected by exonumia enthusiasts. And finally, the birthday party site is a third-party source that proves the existence of the LIVE! show. Though I do agree with the Citation mix-up. I'll get working on it immediately.  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that all (or most) of the suggestions have been taken care of/accounted for, I will now close this peer review. Wish me luck in the FAN!!!  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, well, it needs to be peer reviewed to be included in the Zelda featured topic. Gary King (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "and is due to be released in 2009."-->and will be released in 2009.
  • Action-adventure needs to be disambiguated.

Everything else looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be mid priority? ISmashed TALK! 15:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Helping out in a few respects:

  • Keep with low priority.
  • This sentence is a little awkward:
    • "It was announced by Satoru Iwata, the president of Nintendo, at the 2009 Game Developers Conference and will be released in 2009".
  • Try
    • "Satoru Iwata, the president of Nintendo, announced the game at the 2009 Game Developer Conference and set its release date for late 2009."

Hope that helps. Randomran (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already a GA and I would like to try for an FA nom. Comments are welcome; I will address them to the best of my ability. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Regular season player statistics" section, you use color in the tables without corresponding symbols. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked pretty junky when I did it before, but I put them back in. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • Current ref 10 (Zolecki) has no publisher information, is it a book? Article?
    • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
    • current refs 88 and 89 (Ken Mandel) lack publisher information
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems like all the facts are here and the writing is decent, so here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks and small stuff. See if you can find someone to copyedit this or try not looking at it for a week then printing it out and reading it aloud slowly.

  • Since they won the World Series (and for only the second time in their franchise history) I would put this in the first paragraph of the lead. I know this is in the third paragraph as well, but I think it should be earlier in the lead too. The first paragraph seems a bit short as it is anyway.
  • Would it make sense to say it was their regular season record in The team finished with a [regular season] record of 92–70, first in the National League East.? Perhaps the next sentence could be something like Under Manager Charlie Manuel they won their first World Series since 1980 and only their second major league championship ever.
  • There are several places where the article needs to provide more context to the reader - for example just in the lead I am not sure a non-AMerican reader would know that the 76ers are a basketball team (I know it is linked). Similarly I am not sure "Fall Classic" would be understood by most as the World Series (although it is linked too). One more example, in Retentions I would identify J.C. Romero by his position (relief pitcher). See WP:PCR
  • The level of detail in the lead also seems a bit excessive in places - do we need to know who sponsors the Silver Slugger or Josh Gibson Awards in the lead? Sicne the lead is a summary of the article, these should be there too.
  • I prefer leads without references except for direct quotations and extraordinary claims (again because the lead is a summary, the refs should be in the body of the article for all the lead). If the lead does have refs, I prefer it be cited like everything else - this lead is sort of in between - most of the refs seem to be for things that could be seen as superlatives, but Hamels getting the MVP twice is not cited.
  • Could the first two subsections of Offseason just be combined under Players and coaches?
  • Why did they pick versions based on their 1948 uniforms for the 125th anniverary season? What is significant about 1948?
  • Unclear sentence - who is he (Rollins I assume) in Inasmuch as Beltran had imitated Rollins' 2007 preseason prediction, he arrived in camp for Spring Training and responded: I am also not sure what the whole long blockquote adds to the article - could it be trimmed?
  • I like the regualr season and NLDS and NLCS summaries - they are nice and concise. There are a few places where the language could be polished (how about recognized instead of rewarded in Having gone an entire season without losing a save opportunity, Lidge was rewarded as 2008's National League Comeback Player of the Year.[54] sounds less POV.
  • I like how the gmae log and NLDS and NLCS game results are collapsed but can be opened for viewing.
  • I think the World Series section is too detailed - why not have the box scores in a collapsed table like the previous playoff series? Looking briefly at the main article, this seems to go into too much detail on each game - see WP:Summary style
  • It was not until I got to the Breaking the curse section that I realized that the World Series win broke the curse, not the 76ers win - please change this was the first major sports championship for Philadelphia since the 76ers won the 1983 NBA Finals[3] and ended the Curse of Billy Penn. in the lead.
  • SOme of the language seems a bit POV - Light-hitting Shane Victorino exhibited home run heroics ... is one example

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from KV5
OK, I think I've completed most of these. I shifted some information around in the lead to move the World Series victory higher, and did the second comment about regular season record. I also added context for the items listed in comment 3. I did remove some extraneous information and some duplicated references from the lead. The only references remaining are for statistics (which should always be cited, IMHO) or for notes that don't appear in the article. I did combine information in the offseason section and make a minor change to the lead-in for the Rollins quote. I did feel that the entire quote was necessary to fully show the controversy, but would be willing to listen to suggestions for a trim. I have no idea why they picked the 1948 uniforms; I don't believe there was any specific signficance to that year, though it was the last year of the Phillies' MLB-record 16 consecutive losing seasons. As to the World Series, I would argue that the WS is a much more significant event than the NLDS or NLCS, much like the finals of a World Cup are much more significant than the qualifying rounds; that is the reason for the longer summaries, fully displayed boxscores, etc. I did deal with the curse issue. I'd like to leave the Victorino photo caption as is; it really is true. He only had 14 home runs during the season but came through in clutch situations in both rounds and at crucial times. Do you have a suggestion for a reword here? Additionally, thanks so much for the review; your work can always be counted on as thorough and high-quality. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better - here some more ideas (and by the way, if there are sports style conventions or model articles you are following here and I tell you something else, feel free to ignore me - actually ignore me for any reason you want ;-) ). I still think the World Series could be in the lead twice - say they won it in the first paragraph, then say who their opponent was, 5 games, maybe the delay in the third paragraph. As for the Shane Victorino caption, is there a ref that could be cited about the home run heroics? Or could the caption be more detailed / specific, something like "Despite hitting only 14 home runs in the regular season, Shane Victorino hit crucial home runs in both the first and second rounds of the playoffs."
Here's a suggested tweaking of the curse section:
The alleged curse of Billy Penn was sometimes used to explain the failure of professional sports teams based in Philadelphia to win championships since 1987. In March of that year One Liberty Place, a XXX foot steel-and-glass skyscraper, opened three blocks from the YYY foot statue of William Penn atop Philadelphia City Hall.[79] For many decades, a "gentlemen's agreement" stated that the Philadelphia Art Commission would approve no building in the city which would rise higher than this statue. The supposed curse had gained such prominence in Philadelphia that a documentary film entitled The Curse of William Penn was produced about it in YEAR.[80]
The curse ended on October 29, 2008 when the Phillies won the World Series. This was also a year and four months after a duplicate statuette of the William Penn figure atop City Hall was affixed to the final beam put in place during the June 2007 topping-off of the ZZZ foot Comcast Center, then the tallest building in the city.[81]
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've implemented all of your suggestions. Love that caption, BTW. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brave Story

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA class

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Prose/Style/Layout

  • Why isn't the article called Brave Story (franchise)? There seems to be little about the novel itself.
Lead
  • Inlines generally aren't required in the lead.
  • Removed
  • The infobox is huge. Does it need to be that big? If so, could it be auto-collapsed?
  • I have no idea how to collapse it.
I'm really only familiar with video game templates. You might need to ask someone at the anime project about the template, {{Infobox animanga}}. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Characters
  • The list form would probably be better expressed as prose. Also, consider losing this section and merging the information with Plot.
  • Merged character section into plot
Media
  • Could there be a List of Brave Story media article?
Film
  • Could the film itself be discussed in more detail? It's mostly a laundry list of release dates.
  • The Cast and Film festivals subsections are unnecessary. Merge them with the Film section and think about creating an article for the film itself, and including a {{Main}} tag here.
Games
  • There could be a {{Main}} tag for the games.
Reception
  • The Game section seems to only include the PSP version. If that's the case, it's a little big. Could there be a series template along the lines of {{VG Series Reviews}}?
Where? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed template because of Collectonian (talk · contribs)'s comment that "I'd drop the ratings table, it adds no real value to the article and is completely meaningless to the majority of readers." Extremepro (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I'm in the minority, then. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the game's individual article - people who look up "Brave Story" and decide that they meant the PSP game "Brave Story:New Traveller" will get value and meaning out of it. --Malkinann (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Make sure all of the sources are reliable—GayGamer and RPGLand are probably not, for instance.
  • Unreliable sourced removed

Looks pretty good, otherwise. I think it needs some work before it could be put up at GAN, but it's definitely headed in the right direction. The "philosophy" of the article may need to be modified, though. The article reads like a Brave Story (franchise) article, but the lead suggests that it's about the novel only. Personally, I think a franchise article makes more sense, and every entry in the series (book, film, games, etc.) should have its own article. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with Vantine84's suggestions of splitting the article. It goes completely against WP:MOS-AM. None of these formats is significantly different enough to warrant such a split at all. Nor should there be a "list of media" article, no reason for it at all. Nor does the article need renaming as it does not need disambiguating. The infoboxes are fine, though the film one needs fixes. Studio is for the original producing studio only. There are separate fields for licensors. It should only list the Japanese release date, not the rest. Now, my comments regarding improvements needed for GAN:

  • A production section is needed, if possible. Any author notes in the novels, the manga, etc? Making of features in the film DVDs? Etc.
Started production section by stating the UNICEF donations from the film. Extremepro (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot does not appear to be complete, or does it just end with then agreeing to journey together? Also, as the novels are the primary work, the listing of actors from the films is not appropriate.
Removed listing of actors from plot.
  • The novel section is missing the author and illustrator information; was it originally serialized? Where?
  • Miyuki Miyabe is both author and illustrator. I don't think novels are serialized in magazines.
  • The manga section says it was serialized and when it ended, but does not have the start date. It should include how many individual chapters there were. French release dates are unnecessary.
  • Removed French dates. I can't find when the serialization started. As for individual chapters, I can't get my hands on the last Japanese volume of Brave Story.
  • The film section has too much excessive detail on foreign language releases. Noting it was licensed in specific countries by specific countries is all that is needed. It is also very redundant, with releases being mentioned twice for every country it seems. The film award nomination belongs in the reception section. Whole section should be in country/chronological order: cover original theatrical release and home video releases first, then English, then note other language releases briefly. Film festival section should be removed - not major releases. The film's cast should be in list format and cover only the major characters.
  • Removed film festival section entirely and tweaked the main paragraph. Listed four main characters.
  • Any more details on the game? Ideally there should be a short paragraph on each giving release details, type of game, and a 1-2 sentence summary of the plot.
  • In the soundtrack section, avex trax should be Avex Trax, per Wikipedia guidelines. Ignore stylizations like that.
  • 2x avex trax -> Avex Trax and rice (Japanese band) -> Rice
  • In the reception section, the subsections seem unnecessary, particularly with each being only one paragraph. I'd drop the ratings table, it adds no real value to the article and is completely meaningless to the majority of readers.
  • Removed subsections and the ratings table
  • The article has excessive non-free images. DVD and CD cover images should be removed as they do not meet WP:NONFREE guidelines.
  • Removed both images
  • Check the references to ensure they are using proper casing (like #38), have publisher info (like #42), and meet WP:RS.
  • Done
  • Check the ELs - the first two are not necessary from what I can see
  • Removed 3 ELs
  • The lead needs tweaking to better reflect the article and meet both the MoS and WP:LEAD

Look at current GA/FA anime/manga articles, such as Tokyo Mew Mew (FA) and Fullmetal Alchemist (GA), for guidance as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I did not suggest splitting the article. It doesn't contain much information beyond what a (series) or (franchise) article would offer, anyways. It has brief summaries for every entry in the series; that's it. The article's first sentence also made me think it was about a novel, which is not true. It's about the franchise as a whole, including a little bit about the novel. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing too much about the series, this looks good, but I hanker to know more about the film, in particular. --Malkinann (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Cooksey

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it can reach GA status.

Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]
Lead
  • First sentence seems a bit garbled, with lots of run-on clauses, suggest splitting it into two, something like "....utility player. He could....."
Changed to suggested
  • "Southern Premier League" - the league is not called that, use its correct name
Changed all instances to "Southern Football League Premier Division"
  • Referring to a team as an "outfit" is very colloquial, use a more formal/encyclopedic term
Changed to "club"
Football career
  • Same comment about the Southern League as in the lead
As above
  • "at the age of 23, Iain Dowie....." could be read as meaning that Dowie was 23. I suggest "in August, at the age of 23, he made the step into professional football permanently when Iain Dowie....."
Reworded to suggested
Oops, I thought it was once per paragraph rather than section. Unlinked, also the case with Crawley Town and Carlisle United being linked twice in section.
  • "manager's Brian Talbot's plans" - stray 's there
Deleted first occurence
  • "He spent six-months" - no need for dash there
Deleted
  • "Cooksey stated he'd...." => "Cooksey stated that he'd...."
Done
  • "before joining Conference National side, Grays Athletic" - no need for that comma
Deleted
  • Is it worth mentioning what his last game was.........?
Added couple of referenced lines about his last game. "His last ever game was for Grays Athletic at home in a Conference National match, against Exeter City on 16 February 2008. Cooksey played the full 90 minutes in the 2–0 defeat."
Personal life and illness
  • "The match consisted of such former professional players" - that "such" doesn't seem to make sense in there
Deleted
Unlinked
  • "Cooksey was born in Bishop's Stortford" - seems very randomly placed there, although I'm not sure where would be a better place for it
Likewise, didn't know where else to put it. My reasons were that birth and death are of a similar topic
  • "His partner Louise, gave birth to their daughter, Isabella-Georgia Cooksey on 27 July 2008" - don't need to restate that she was his partner, this was mentioned in the sentence before, comma after her name shouldn't be there, however to make up for it, there should be a comma after his daughter's name to close the clause
Changed to "Newlove gave birth to their daughter, Isabella-Georgia Cooksey, on 27 July 2008."
Tributes
  • "Before the League Cup match between Oldham Athletic and Rochdale" - when was this?
Added date
  • "The t-shirts bore both clubs crests" - missing apostrophe on "clubs"
Added
  • "with all the proceeds going to Cooksey's fund" - this is the first and only mention of this fund, need to elaborate on what it is
I can only find info on his fund whilst he was still alive, as it went towards his treatment costs. However, he did not have the treatment and so I don't know what happened to the fund. I suspect it went to a charity called Factor 50, but cannot prove anything. Shall I just remove the line, but mention his treatment fund in the previous section?
If there's not much extra info available, maybe just change the existing reference to "a fund set up in Cooksey's name", or something like that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
Unlinked
  • "England St George's Cross flag" - don't think you need both "England" and "St George's Cross", one would suffice. The two together make it look like one wikilink, plus I don't think it's grammatically correct as it stands
Deleted England

Hope all this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for the input. --Jimbo[online] 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stu.W UK (talk · contribs)

[edit]
Infobox
  • Any way of filling in those question marks? If not, surely it's better blank than like that (unless this is an MOS issue that I don't know about)
    • There's no MOS issue. I chose the question marks as it shows they're unknown, leaving them blank could mean he didn't make an appearances. I've followed examples of other football GAs.
Lead
  • If listing all his non-League clubs, it seems fairly arbitrary to only give the year for Crawley Town, and have it in a new sentence
    • I disagree as it was the jumping off point from when he turned professional
  • The two 'then's in the second paragraph are unnecessary
    • Removed second.
  • Does his goalscoring record need mentioning here? If he had been a striker then I'd see the point.
    • Removed
  • Maybe merge the information about his cancer into the second paragraph, giving it more of a chronology?
    • I thought his death merited a new paragraph, rather than just another follow on to his football career.
Career
  • Consider having separate sub-sections here: Maybe non-League and League? Or 'early career', 'league football', 'return to the Conference'? It would make it easier to find the relevant bit of his career you were looking for. It might also be worth merging the personal info here too- that would allow the birthplace and year to come first, the non-footballing career could be mentioned in the bit about non-league football, benefit games after the end of the Grays season para followed by information on his death.
    • Added sub-sections
  • Rather than starting each paragraph with the new league season, how about doing it when he changes clubs? At several points it's a bit confusing- if I was just scanning for info on Oldham, say, I could easily think he only played one game for them.
    • I disagree, if you were scanning then the infobox would showed how many games he played
  • In the following section it says he spent 6 months in Las Vegas, here it says a spell, which is much more vague.
    • Reworded
  • Very little is made here of the step up three leagues from Southern League to old Second Division.
    • Reworded
  • Unlink Chesham in para 3.
    • Done
  • Is it necessary to keep referring to clubs by their full names? It's much easier to read Chesham and Oldham than Chesham United and Oldham Athletic.
    • Removed
  • Was his suspension important enough to have a sentence here?
    • Yes
  • The idea of 'dropping down' from Second Division to League Two is going to be pretty confusing for anyone who doesn't know the history of the leagues' names.
    • Reworded
  • If one red was downgraded, did he actually get 7 yellows and one red or was it originally 5 yellows and 3 reds? Is the sentence about the FA downgrading necessary?
    • Reworded
  • Manager should be wikilinked the first time it's mentioned (if at all), not the second.
    • Changes
  • Unlink the pound sign, and unlink fuel.
    • Done
  • League Two has 4 wikilinks in this section.
    • Deleted two links, there were three
  • Unlink Boston United in para 6
    • Done
  • Does his sending-off for Grays really merit a sentence?
    • I think so
  • There should probably at least be a mention of his death in this section
    • Added in
  • Consider merging the playing style in with the rest of the article- the bit about him playing as a defender at Grays should go with the paragraph about Grays.
    • Section was to show, I think it loses the value merging it in with the career section
Personal life
  • The sentence about former and current professionals makes it sound like all those listed are current pros.
    • Reworded
  • consider merging with career
    • I disagree, I think it would complicate the article too much. I followed the example of other football GAs
Tribute
  • Great as it is!

Iowa (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has potential to be a featured article and I don't think it's far from being submitted for review.

Thanks, REZTER TALK ø 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done
I have placed a {{fact}} 'plate for the songwriters. The article makes a strong point about Joey Jordison and Paul Gray working on the songwriting while other members had a break. It is reinforced by descripton of tensions between band members during the recording of the album. However the Track listing section ascribes all the tracks to Slipknot without individual songwriters thus not supporting this important claim. Consequently, all tracks should have individual songwriters cited.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that exact quote comes from the booklet in the CD. Slipknot never list the tracks with each individual songwriters so it's impossible to provide this information, they simply credit the band as a whole. Shall I cite that statement in the tracklisting to the CD booklet? REZTER TALK ø 11:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah do that but also find out what ASCAP says (try ASCAP Ace search engine) for each song. You may have to re-write the sentence(s) in the main text to indicate that the CD liner notes (who wrote it by the way?) claim Jordison & Gray worked on the lyrics/tune but that songwriting was finalised by all of the band during recording sessions.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That ASCAP page just lists all nine members for all the songs. Like I told you... they normally credit the band as a whole for the writing and recording of the album, even though I'm sure that isn't how it works for every song. I hope that the article doesn't appear so that Joey Jordison and Paul Gray wrote the whole album because I don't have a source for that... the information I have indicates that those two wrote a lot of material before they entered the studio and I don't know the involvement of each member after that. REZTER TALK ø 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case try: and together they wrote most of the tracks for the album. > and together they started to write most of the tracks for the album. Still use liner notes ref. In the Track listing section, All songs written > All songs credited to, Crahan, Fehn, Gray, Jones, Jordison, Root, Taylor, Thomson, Wilson, with the ASCAP ref supplied. Use full list from ASCAP rather than Slipknot as members line-up performing on an album is not always same as members who wrote a song (somebody left or joined in between).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

For #1 UK alb, try The Official UK Charts Company : ALL TH No.1 Albums or Chart Stats - Slipknot - Iowa which seem reliable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah done, thanks Gary King (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For all Slipknot singles & albums on UK charts try Chart Stats - Slipknot which should be reliable. It can be used to replace current ref #33 which leads to a Search engine where the user is required to input details. Chart Stats ref also supports #1 position for album.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved WP:GA quality status, looking for input to help improve writing style further, tweak prose, etc. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes left for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/archive1.

1995 American League West tie-breaker game

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just received GA status, and I would like feedback on how to improve the article to become an FA.

Thanks, KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Move the "Background" section to the top so that it is in crological order.
  • When refering to each of the teams after the first time always refer to them the say way. Use just "Seattle" or just "the Mariners".
  • With References, article titles should not be in all caps, even if they are in the article.
  • What makes Baseball-Reference.com a reliable source?
  • Other than the result, there is nothing in the lead about the game that is the subject of the article.
  • abbreviations need to be explained
  • "Jeff Smulyan, who had threatened to relocate the team as a consequence of its losing ways." needs ref
  • "The new stadium, now called Safeco Field, opened in July 1999." needs ref
  • "frustration and disappointment." this is POV
  • I think "Game" is a better title for the "Line score and summary" section.
  • "On the other hand" Peacock term
  • Could the game summary be exspanded?

That's all for now. BUC (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KV5
  • I was just coming to comment on this article; this peer review has been on my "list of things to get to soon...". But I notice a couple things in the above review. Referring to the team in only one way isn't necessary as far as I know. GA 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season doesn't adhere to that format either. Also, Baseball-Reference.com has been determined as a reliable source in many, many featured articles and featured lists, so that can likely be passed over. My two cents... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fungus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This important article is a core topic, and receives on average thousands of hits per day (putting it in the top 5000 on Wikipedia). I'm willing to put in the work to help it reached featured status. Somewhat related FA-topics that might serve as useful comparisons include archaea, bacteria, and virus. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to look at the article, and hear some opinions about what could be improved. This article is a behemoth, so even comments about any one particular section would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Sasata (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that this important article is not getting more attention here. From my first reading I am very impressed with its content and style and it is close to FA level in my view. Initially I had problems with Virus, because lay-readers found it hard going in places. I can't see this being too much of a problem here, but being familiar with the scientific terms probably clouds my view. This is one of those things that usually only surface at FAC, if at all. It would be nice to see some of the images on the left. A picture of a dermatophyte culture would also be nice, if you agree, and there isn't one available on Commons, I will take produce one from the cultures at my laboratory. I might have more to add later after I have re-read this fascinating article. Graham Colm Talk 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very good article. My only issues is that several of the sections are poorly referenced. ResMar 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for your comments. Malljaja, with whom I'm working, has just put in a bit about endophytic fungi, and I'll have a look over at Commons to see if I can find an image. If not, I'll probably take you up on your kind offer, Graham. I'll make sure all sections are adequately referenced before FAC. Sasata (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a nice pic of the endophyte Neotyphodium coenophialum. Still need to tweak image placement in entire article. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty close to FAC, but there are somethings that need attention before that. Here are some suggestions for improvement - mostly more references needed and nitpicks.

  • Biggest potential problem I see is a lack of references in some places - these may be "common scientific knowledge" but I still think that there will be reviewers at FAC who will want refs for these points too. A few examples: almost the entire Charatceristics section has no refs, there are zero refs in Macroscopic structures or Asexual reproduction, and there are several places at the end of paragraphs where there will be a ref followed by a phrase or sentence(s) without refs, such as This process might bear similarity to photosynthesis in plants,[28] but detailed biochemical data supporting the existence of this hypothetical pathway are presently lacking. or Historically, fly agaric was used by Celtic Druids in Northern Europe and the Koryak people of north-eastern Siberia for religious or shamanic purposes.[117] It is difficult to accurately identify a safe mushroom without proper training and knowledge, thus it is often advised to assume that a mushroom in the wild is poisonous and not to consume it.
Thanks for highlighting this deficiency. I'm going through the article now and trying to cite everything like you suggest so it won't be an issue at FAC. For the most part it's fairly easy to find sources, but there are still some statements it's difficult to back up with a reference; I may just end up taking some of these out, or replacing them. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • In the Etymology section is there any idea what root mycology is thought to be based on?
Now added. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Characteristics section I would use "Unique features" instead of "Other features" (following the topic sentence The fungi have a range of features defining the fungal kingdom, some of which are shared with other organisms while others are unique to the fungi: which might read better as The fungal kindom is defined by a range of features, some of which are shared with other organisms while others are unique to the fungi)
Have switched to "Unique features" for now, but it appears this section may be pending a rewrite. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they have helped to improve the article. Will try to help out at PR as time permits. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from early-involved-but-placing-comments-here-as-let's-strike-while-the-iron-is-hot Casliber

[edit]
  • morphologically similar - I wonder if there is any meaning lost by replacing with something similar like "structurally similar" or something. I am thinking about the old accessibility/jargon/careful not to lose meaning chestnut. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • certain fungal species - "certain" gives me no idea of frequency. "many"? "a few"? or some sort of number might be good.
  • Number of species known and also estimated might be good in lede
Am planning to expand the lede to 3 paragraphs after all the other stuff is done, will include your suggestion. Want to do an especially good job on this (i.e. "brilliant prose" to capture the reader's interest), so may have to solicit someone's help! Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Characteristics I am torn about whether it should be prose or bulletted. I can see cases for both but think the first is probably preferable. the first sentence i think needs rewording but not sure to what yet.
Having just read the article again I now see that the section "Physiological and morphological traits" repeats much of the same information in the "Characteristic" section, so these two should be combined somehow. What do you think Malljaja? Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's definitely some overlap, and this may be an issue for FAC. The Characteristics section is fairly new, introduced by another editor (I modified it a little), as way to make more accessible info that is dispersed throughout the entry. I think some redundancy—highlighting take-home-points—is justified given the size of the topic. So I'd prefer some paring down of the "Physiological and morphological traits" section and leave the "Characteristics" section largely as is (bullets are probably the way to go or else it could be made into a table).Malljaja (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, fungal fossils do not become common and uncontroversial.. - "undisputed" might be better here, certain?
I haven't changed that yet, as it appears there's some new publications on the fungal fossil record, and that section will need some updating.
  • We need to see if repetition can be reduced without losing meaning - not surprisingly, the word 'fungi' appears alot, sometimes in three sentences in a row. Trying to reduce some of these would be good.
An excellent point. I just went through and removed 40(!) instances of fungi/fungus/fungal; probably more could be dropped too. I'll be sure to read through Tony1's redundancy exercises again before submitting to FAC! Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early fossil record of the fungi is incomplete - er, yes, the fossil record of anything is incomplete. Maybe a word like "meagre" or "poor" is more apt.
Have substituted meager for incomplete. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha

[edit]

(not really my thing, but I picked up a few things en passant)

Apparent gaps in coverage
[edit]
Characteristics
[edit]
With algae and cyanobacteria
[edit]
  • there already -> "...and fungi (mostly various species of ascomycetes and a few basidiomycetes)..."
Evolutionary history
[edit]

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The entire Star Wars prequel trilogy are current GAs that lost Featured status. So, I'm trying to bring this one back to the FA. Tried to fix problems appointed in the last Peer Review and the FAR (IMDb refs, badly-written home releases, narrow critical reception), and willing to take any suggestions for improvement before nominating it again.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article would be improved greatly by the incorporation of the book The Making of Star Wars, Episode I - The Phantom Menace (ISBN 0345431111) by Laurent Bouzereau. See Star Trek: The Motion Picture for how similar books are referenced at that article in the "Notes" and "References" section. That would probably be a good start. Since this is a 1999 film, there is too much reliance on online sources where there is likely to be more coverage found in print sources. If you want, I can put a list of print sources on the film article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the featured article criteria is that the topic should be comprehensive and well-researched. We cannot say for sure that the "Production" section covers sufficiently how the film was made until the book can be reviewed for useful coverage. You don't have to buy the book; use WorldCat to find the nearest library that has it. This article will not achieve Featured Article status with a half dozen new sources and some minor copy-editing; the topic is a film that is part of a major franchise, so comprehensiveness and strong research is even more expected in this case. I am happy to critique other parts of the article, too, but I think that incorporating the book would be a strong addition to covering this topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested I have read the article and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree with the points above - FAs should have as many reliable indepedent third-party sources as possible, the book sounds like a good source and should be used here.
  • The lead is only two paragraphs and should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the video release, novelization and soundtrack (for example) are not in the lead. I would write the lead last to make sure you get everything in thaqt is needed.
    • Expanded a bit.
  • Problem sentence from the lead: Despite mixed reviews by critics, it grossed US$924.3 million at the worldwide box office, being the highest-grossing Star Wars film and the 9th highest-grossing film of all time, a credit to Lucasfilm mega-budget advertising campaign. Not sure US$ is needed here. "at the" seems odd, how about just "in"? It should give the year for which it is the 9th highest grossing film, and finally I think it makes it sound like the success of the film was entirely due to the ad campaign, but the article doesn't really say this.
  • The first sentence in the Production section starts In the early 1990s, Star Wars saw a ressurgance in popularity, ... I think more has to be done here to provide context to the reader. This is the fourth movie in the series, and Lucas was quoted back when the original three films came out as saying that he already had the plots for all six (or nine) films. I think some of this should be mentioned here. Some of it is mentioned later, but I think it owuld help to have it here at the start of the section.
    • Expanded a bit.
  • It is not clear to me if the 9 R2-D2s made for the film also include the ones later described as being built by ILM and the British special effects co.
    • Rewrote the paragraph.
  • The Bible does not describe the devil as looking like Darth Maul, nor does it say Jesus had a secret wife (nor if I recall, does Anakin have a secret wife in this film). This seems like WP:OR in places.
    • It appeared in that article, and the interview it referenced.
  • Make sure the sources meet the criteria for reliable sources - what makes this a RS, for example?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizance comments:

  • I changed "at the worldwide box office" to just "worldwide" since it's understood. Only mentioning it here because of its relevance to one of User:Ruhrfisch's comments.
  • The second paragraph would benefit from more context with regard to how the film came about. Similar to Ruhrfisch's comment about the production section.
  • The production section still needs to rewind a little. Pretend you know nothing about Star Wars other than having seen the original trilogy like everyone else on Earth - start with the question of why the "first" movie was "Episode IV". You're almost there. Just need a sentence, maybe two and you'll be at the right level of detail.
    • Added some further background.
  • When you say "Up until the production of Star Wars" I think you mean "Prior to The Phantom Menace.
    • Reworded.
  • Describing the studios who released films the same week as "the more courageous" might raise objections at FAC, however true it is. How about "the only major studios to release films that week"?
    • Reworded.
  • Where you talk about the release of the trailer, I think you should elaborate on how it "caused even more notable media hype" in the Salon article about bootleggers.
  • Again going back to the unfamiliar reader, the "nod toward his future with digital technology" should be explained as foreshadowing the switch to all-digital.
    • Reworded.
  • Big Brother/Sister Assn. sounded like a bad joke from a vandal when I first read it. Maybe it's the way the local chapter styles their name; I spelt out Association at least.
  • I added "among fans" to the controversy about midi-chlorians. Not crying fancruft - I've lurked on Wikipedia long enough to know how that goes - but the source cited does say "Star Wars fanatics".
  • What does "pre-planned" mean when you talk about the Razzies?
    • Removed.
  • Chosen One or chosen one: choose one!

The prose looks good overall. Recognizance (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32nd Infantry Division (United States)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to bring it up to 'good article' status

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TechOutsider

[edit]
  • First ref needs to be redone. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid wikilinks in title or section headings. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the redlinks, or wikilinks to articles not yet in existence, try to provide a little explanation as to who/what they are. Or create the article, if it is notable.
  • Try not to be vague; you say at one point in the article the Allies "finally" broke into the Japanese lines. I fixed that for you.

Anyways, some additional comments about the body and prose. Try to avoid informal diction; avoid using words such as "but", "got", etc. The body also sounds a little like a retelling from someone. While there is nothing wrong with that style, try to make the prose flow more coherently. Since you are covering the events of several wars, there is always logic behind an infantry's decisions. Try to plan your article like that; one action leads into another. Doing so greatly improves how the article reads. Also, try to avoid vague words, such as "hurriedly". More to come later. TechOutsider (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, try to be clear, thus concise. For example "The 32nd Infantry Division was a unit in the Army National Guard in World War I and World War II. In both wars". I suggest ommiting the "In both wars" part; as it is implied and makes the lead too wordy.

As for the external links in the Cultural Legacy section, try to incorporate information and pictures from the external links in the article. Exceptions include if the information is copyrighted.

More examples of vagueness. "The tide of the battle of Buna turned". Sounds like a retelling. Don't explicitly mention the fact the tide turned at first; give facts and supporting reasons as to why, such as turning points, etc. Imply, rather than say.

Ruhrfisch

[edit]

Interesting article with a lot of work put into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly WP:MOS issues.

  • The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and could almost certainly be four paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - I think the list of the other units in WWII is too much for the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article seems overly detailed in places and may need fewer sections / headers - much of the material could be summarized briefly here and then put into full articles on the various battles and actions. This is done nicely for Operation Cartwheel and the Phillipines battles and should be done for the others as well - see WP:Summary style
Commment: I wrote portions of the article, especially the detailed section having to do with the Kapa Kapa Trail, and considered breaking that into a separate article like the Kokoda Track. But there really is not enough information to justify a separate article, and their trek, though notable within the Division, was not even a battle or part of a campaign. So I opted to keep the detail within the body of the article. -- btphelps (talk)(contribs)07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Moved section on Kapa Kapa Trail march to that article. -- btphelps (talk)(contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Operation Cartwheel section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Commment: Added some references to Cartwheel section. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Commment: If author is known, I've included it in references. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow - these should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
Comment: As I recall, the problem with Template:blockquote is if the quote extends beyond a single parapraph, blockquote does not format the paragraphs correctly. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think carefully about organization - the Notable members section lists people by war, then Medal of Honor recipients, but there is no indication for these which war they fought in. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain abbreviations and provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

[edit]

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article which is very commendable. I have a couple of comments, though:

  • Introduction: I believe that the introduction needs to be rewritten. It does not summarise the whole article. I would suggest that the first sentence should begin differently, for example "The 32nd Infantry Division was a unit of the United States Army National Guard formed from units from the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. It was first formed in July 1917 and fought during World War I and World War II..." Also, the introduction should more clearly discuss the unit's history after the World Wars. As it is it does not mention that it was disbanded/inactivated after the war and then re-raised/formed again in 1961 leaves readers to fill that gap own their own.
Commment: The unit was not reorganized in 1961, but federalized. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox — the dates in the infobox do not include the period it existed after WWII (I think the article says 15 Oct 1961 – sometime in 1967?).
This was fixed, but seems to have been reverted — was there a reason for this? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endashes: date ranges (in Infobox and elsewhere) should have endashes;
  • In the Training in Australia section: you use two ranks for Cable (Sgt and then Corporal). Is this an error, or did the division use a double-rank system like the Grenadier Guards?
  • Also in the Training in Australia section: you refer to "four Australian territories" - this is not correct. They are most likely States. We have six States and two Territories.
  • Images: I believe that per the WP:MOS some images should be on the left, as well as the right (to be honest, I don't mind, but it is something that might come up at a later review).
  • See also section: I think that the see also section is usually used for internal links to other wiki pages. You are using it as a Further reading section. You may want to change it to that.
  • References section: I suggest making a separate Notes and References section. The notes section can be used for the in line citations (with limited bibliographical information — e.g. Rupert 2008, p. 1) and aside points and the References section could include all the bibliographic details of the cited sources.
  • Pre-World War I section: you begin the section discussing the 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment however it is not readily apparent why that is relevant to the topic of the 32nd Infantry Division. Also in that section, in the last paragraph you mention preceeding dates (i.e. 1899) after later dates (i.e. 1916 and 1917). This is confusing and probably should be re-worked to mention first things first so as to avoid confusing readers.
  • References: some of the external links in the references sections need to be repaired as they are not appearing in html.

Just a few ideas. On the whole I think you have done an excellent job on the article. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some further points:

:* In the World War II section, in the summary box there appears to be two figures given for Wounded in action: 1,680 and 7,268. Which one is correct? :* I believe that the lead section is still a bit vague. The opening paragraph is a bit confusing. It states in the first sentence that the unit was a WWI and WWII unit, then in the second sentence talks about the American Civil War. Also the post WWII paragraph does not mention when the Division was reactivated in 1961, although it does mention that in 1967 it was deactivated and reorganised as an independent brigade. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be something like: "The 32nd Infantry Division was an Army National Guard unit raised primarily from the states of Michigan and Wisconsin that served during World War I and World War II. Although it was formed in 1917, the Division takes its lineage from units that served during the American Civil War as part of the Iron Jaw Division. During World War I it acquired the French nickname Les Terribles... "

  • The infobox should also include post WWII dates (15 Oct 1961 – sometime in 1967). This was fixed earlier but seems to have been reverted for some reason.
On the whole, I think this article is progressing very nicely. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btphelps

[edit]

I moved a large section about their trek across the Kapa Kapa Trail to the article by that name and left a brief summary within the 32nd Division article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2008 timeline

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working for a while on bringing this to featured list standard. However, I've been working on it mostly alone, and I'd like to get some feedback on any minor or major issues I may have overlooked (with an article of this length there are almost certainly some problems that need addressing).

Thanks, — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:TechOutsider

Hello, I'll be peer reviewing this article. I may make some minor corrections; however I will still bring up the issue for your reference.

Some issues with the lead. Considering the article's length, you may want to expand the lead. In the body, you may want to combine the sections concerning the years 2002 through 2005; each only have one or two events and are unlikely to expand.

In the body, avoid being wordy. An article of this length should attempt to be as clear and concise as possible; it is a turn off for readers, and in that case peer reviewers. I see you were writing in present tense. Why so? Another issue with vagueness. You mention "Much of America" was introduced to Barack Obama. Try to give numbers; such as TV viewer ship and physical attendance. The phrase "files papers" is a little vague. Can you describe the process the Governor goes through? This is the November 2006 section.

The prose in the body should flow naturally. For example,


Are those two events related? If so, use a transition, such as "in effect" or "as a result". Doing so makes the prose less choppy and eaier to comprehend, and establishes a natural flow and organization of events. Since this is a timeline, organization should be a no-brainier for authors; every event is backed with logic and thus should be presented in a logical manner.

You also mention "Tom Vilsack publicly and formally". I don't know, however "publicly" and "formally" are somewhat mutually inclusive. The phrase "presidential bid" should be rewritten; the style should be more formal. You also mention "Rudy Giuliani's secret campaign strategy". Could you elaborate? Since you classified this article as an article, and not a list, you should elaborate on such points.

The symbol "%" should be written out the first time, as percent or per cent, according to the WP:MOS.

Great start. Best of luck. Hope the suggestions help. Be sure to follow the suggestions on the semi-automated review. TechOutsider (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for responding. The thing about expanding the lead is that it's difficult to go into any further detail without simply repeating information from United States presidential election, 2008. I think a good way around this might be to give a summary of the chronology of the race - that is, talk about the primaries, pre-primary period and the like rather than the election's characteristics. I'll also merge the 2002-2005 sections into one.
I think the present tense is the standard for timelines; looking through List of timelines, the majority are written in that format. I'll take a look at the vagueness issues you've mentioned here, though I think going into detail over the meaning of "files papers" would be unnecessary - I'll leave it as "forms an exploratory committee."
The simultaneous formation of Giuliani and McCain's respective exploratory committees are effectively unrelated events, there's no correlation or cause. I agree the wording seems clunky, but I think it's best to keep them as separate sentences rather than put the sentences together and risk implying that the two campaigns deliberately formed committees on the same day.
"Publicly and formally" is an example of needlessly flowery language that I've tried to eradicate, though clearly I missed that bit. Same goes for "presidential bid" - I've tried to standardise and formalise "bid" to "campaign", "race" to "election", etc. Classifying this as an article rather than a list in the nomination was, I suppose, incorrect - I have a tendency to use "article" as a catch-all term for anything in the article namespace, but I should state here that I do consider this a list, and I am hoping to bring this to featured list standard. I'll check the contents of the ref for Giuliani's campaign strategy and see if the detail given there merits inclusion here. I wasn't aware of that particular MoS item (regarding percentages), but I'll fix that. Thanks again — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, skimming WP:MoS really helps. Just a quick overview every once in a while should do. No problem, you have an especially interesting article about such a broad subject matter I was too scared and lazy to research on my own. I never knew the election of 2008 spanned back so far. Well, partly because I never took the time to actually research; and just listened to the mass media. TechOutsider (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice job. Just a few things:

  • The lead will need to be expanded to at least three paragraphs. Try to summarize the most important events of each year.
  • "The following is a timeline of major events leading up to and immediately following" Featured lists no longer begin like this. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts.
  • Why are the dates bolded? This is an improper use of bolding per WP:MOSBOLD
  • This one will require grunt work: Listed items should be separated by spaced en dashes. For example: "December 28 - John Edwards officially launches"-->December 28 – John Edwards officially launches
  • Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end per WP:CAPTION.
  • Watch your logical punctuation – for example, "Clinton knows that any woman who hopes to be elected president cannot afford to be seen as too much of a dove," – the comma should be outside the quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electron

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Following the previous PR, this article gained GA status then failed a FAC. All of the issues raised during the FAC have been addressed, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look at this article and see if anything else needs to be addressed. Thank you for your helpful input!—RJH (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:TechOutsider

  • Nothing major; may want to follow suggestions given by the semi-automated review. Edited a couple of wikilinks to avoid redirects. TechOutsider (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to expand the Etymology section, if you wish to shoot for FA-C. Or combine it with the History section. The lead of the section headed Plasma applications needs to be expanded; a paragraph will do. Alternatively, just remove the currently present sentence. TechOutsider (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I removed the one-liner from the Plasma applications section. Please could you clarify why the etymology section needs expansion? It seems to cover the topic sufficiently. What would you propose for an addition?—RJH (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is well written. Shoot for FAC, why not? Even if you fail, you probably will get more suggestions than I can ever provide you. I will continue to take a look at the article.

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems pretty much ready for FAC to me: well written, nice illustrations, good refs. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead does a nice job summarizing the article. My personal preference is that a lead does not generally need refs, becasue it is a summary - only direct quotations and extraordinary claims need refs in the lead. It is fine with the MOS if the lead does have refs, but the refs here seem sort of hit or miss - the fourth paragraph has no refs, for example. I would try to be consistent with refs in the lead, either cite it like every other paragraph or just cite direct quotes and extraordinary claims. As it is, I am not sure why chemical bonding needs a cite, but Hawking radiation does not (as one example).
    • Thank you. Mmm, yes well I've tried to follow WP:LEADCITE on this one. Everybody seems to have a different opinion on the matter. It started out well-sourced, but that made people unhappy so I culled it way back. Frankly it just doesn't seem especially important to me. :) There are citations for everything in the article; if somebody challenges a fact in the lead then I'll replicate the citation as needed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual coining of the name "electron" is reported in the history section. I am OK with the current organization, but it does seem as if the current Etymology section is a sort of "prehistory" of the electron - could it be merged with the History section?
    • That seems like a common preference, so I've merged them together.
  • The MOS suggests blockquotes be used for quotations of 4 lines or longer - the quote from Stoney on the name is only 1 line on my browser.
    • Okay I merged it back in the text.
  • In atomic theory I would mention the Stern–Gerlach experiment on the electron's spin and quantum nature.
    • At the time, the Stern–Gerlach experiment was not seen as evidence for the existence of electron spin.[4] So I think I'll just link it in the "See also" section. Sorry.—RJH (talk)
  • Would it make sense to call the current Atom section "Atoms and molecules"?
    • Yes it would.
  • Also there is a lot of material in the Atom section about two electrons per two atoms, to make a bond, but I think electron delocalization should be mentioned here, such as aromatic systems (benzene) (delocalization is mentioned later with band theory)
  • Any reason why this ref is not at the end of the sentence - it is the only ref for the whole paragraph: These electrons are not associated with specific atoms, so when an electric field is applied, they are free to move like a gas (called Fermi gas)[107] through the material.
    • No reason, other than it is particular to the name Fermi gas.
  • The paragraph on cosmic rays in Formation that starts with Cosmic rays are particles traveling through space with high energies does not explicitly mention electrons - the average reader might have bailed at this point anyway, but try to make sure each paragraph helps focus on the subject at hand
    • The paragraph is pertaining to the particles that are generated by cosmic rays, which results in the formation of electrons.
  • It seems as if the Notes should have references too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hawke

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking pity on this article - it hasn't received a peer review for four days, so here I go making my first peer review comment. Well if you want to eventually push the article to FA status, then you need more then the basics. After reading the article, I noticed there is only the basic information (early life, career, personal life, filmography and bibliography). Try reading the featured article criteria and you'd get what I mean. In order for an article to actually be featured, it has to be notable - don't get me wrong, this is a great article. It has to have some significance, you know? Has Hawke ever done some philanthropy? What's the public image of him? Try finding something more than just the average page about his career. Hopefully this advice is useful - again, it's my first time giving a peer review. Great work on the article so far though. -- A talk/contribs 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems excellent to me. It's well-written, well-sourced, and appears to be comprehensive. I have a few suggestions about prose issues and one suggestion about the image variety (or lack thereof). Nice job.

1994–1998

  • "The Hottest State mostly received negative reviews, with Entertainment Weekly noting, "Ethan Hawke ... opens himself to rough literary scrutiny in The Hottest State... ". - The "with plus -ing" construction is deprecated. I'd suggest re-casting as something like: "However, the book received mostly negative reviews. Entertainment Weekly said, "Ethan Hawke ... opens himself to rough literary scrutiny in The Hottest State...".
    • Done.
  • "his highest budgeted movie to date" - "Highest budgeted" seems a bit strained. Would "most expensive" be better?
    • Not really, it would sound like POV.
  • "Also in 1998, he appeared in Great Expectations, the contemporary film adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel of the same name. - I try to avoid link bumps like the last two in this sentence because a reader can't tell at a glance what's being linked. One simple solution would be to link this way: "novel of the same name", although either construction might be called an Easter egg link because a reader still can't tell for sure at a glance where the link might go. It might be better to simply repeat the title, thus: "novel, Great Expectations". The same argument could be made about White Fang in the "Early work" section and Snow Falling on Cedars in the "1999–2002" section. Ditto for Hamlet. Ditto Assault on Precinct 13. Another solution might be to vary the prose from case to case instead of repeating "of the same name" in every case and not to bother linking to the originals in every case since the authors are all linked. Just a suggestion.
    • Done.

1999–2002

Stage career

  • "a Manhattan theater company that is now defunct" - "Now" is a vague word corresponding to no particular time. It would be better to say when it became defunct if you can find a source.
    • This was brought up in the GA review, and like I stated there I'm gonna state here, there's no source that says when the theater became defunct, only that its defunct.
  • "for artist-driven Off-Broadway company The New Group" - Missing word? Should it read "for the artist-driven"?
    • I'm not sure on that one. But, I've added "the" to the sentence.
  • "Whenever the economy gets hit hard, one of the first thing to go is... " - Either the quote contains a typo, or the quote was incorrectly transcribed. It should say "things" rather than "thing".
    • No, the quote is correct. [5]
  • "In review of the play, the New York Daily News enjoyed his performance, writing... " - Slightly illogical since the News enjoyed his performance during the play rather than during the review. One solution would be to delete "enjoyed his performance" and just say. "In review of the play, the New York Daily News said... ".
    • Done.

Images

  • The images look good, and the licenses look good to me. The layout is fine. The only thing that jars a bit is that all the photos are mug shots of Hawke. If possible, it might be nice to break this up with something else, a mug shot of Uma Thurman, for example, or a photo of one of the theaters he performed in. Just a suggestion.
    • I think you mean adding an image of Hawke and Thurman. Adding an image of just Thurman would seem strange.

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) 20:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: I should add that I have no doubts about notability here. WP:GNG says in part, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Finetooth (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to help out with the peer review process, it is most appreciated. :) I would also like to say that I've gotten your concerns, hopefully, there's a step closer to nominating Hawke's article to FAC. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has changed substantially (for the better) since it became a GA over a year ago. I think it is approaching the FA criteria, and would like some feedback so I can give it that final push.

Thanks, Firestorm Talk 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work, quite frankly I think it is even a tad early for a peer review, but what the hey, it can't hurt to get some constructive feedback. For one thing there are a ton more sources I have yet to incorporate. Many of them are archived in the talk page archives. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:TechOutsider

Interesting article. I will be peer reviewing it. I see it is a good article; I will be looking at how to get it to FA-class.

One issue in the lead. You mention "Other critics of Project Chanology's actions questioned the legality of their methods". What methods? You fail to elaborate.

In the body, you mention "groups on the Internet". The phrase is a vague. Please elaborate on the incidents when the Church clashed with such groups. Try to define groups on the Internet. Forum members? IRC Chat members? TechOutsider (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, back to the article after a stretch break. The article brings up the noun "Anonymous" too many times in the article. It would be helpful to the flow of the article to use other terms/phrases in place of Anonymous, possibly helping readers understand and grasp what Anonymous is. You can describe Anonymous, rather than call it by name. Same with the overuse of the word "Scientology". Try "the Church".

Some informal diction in the article, such as "Guy Fawkes was an English Catholic executed for a 1605 attempt to blow up the House of Lords."

In the "Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008" table, you may want to change "Protesters" to "paticipation" or something along the lines of my suggestion. You first imply censorship, then state censorship. I know there are more reasons that than :), some of them mentioned in the article itself.

Hey, it's a great article, and I looked into it because I recently was involved with Scientology and Anonymous, patcipating in protests. Potentital to be FA-class as long as the vandalism is under control. I will be taking this article off the backlog; I believe my review is fairly robust. Best of luck. TechOutsider (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other issues in the lead. Be more specfic and elaborate on why Anon. and the Project is attacking Scientology. In the body, you mention "Scientologists are the only people who can help after a car accident". I'm wondering, can help or would help.

Per WP:MOS, avoid redundancy in the section headings; for example 2008 is used in a level 3 heading; no need to name have 2008 appear in a level 4 heading. TechOutsider (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I have fixed a few; you can fix the rest :). Well, I'll be divulging in the article some more later. TechOutsider (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you for these comments, will certainly try to do some more research to address these points over time as a longer term project. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we appreciate the reviews being given. I hope to address these concerns and then give the article a push towards FA. Firestorm Talk 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said above, I think FA is really a long ways off, and between now and that point in time we may want to consider a second peer review to reevaluate any changes before then anyways. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, FA is a ways off, but I think if we just keep pushing to improve the article, we can do it within a reasonable time frame. The subject matter is interesting, there's depth to it, and an overwhelming number of sources available. All we need is people to polish up the writing and figure out how to best use our sources (and maybe some work on NPOV issues). Firestorm Talk 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... like I said, there are a ton more sources to incorporate. It could take some time. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
llywrch comments

I always have wondered when the crackers would go after the CoS ever since I inadvertently broke thru the security of their webserver many years ago. (Let's just say it was running Windows NT 3.5 at the time, I made a typo in the URL I typed -- & the statute of limitations applies. It was really a surprising & sad thing to encounter.) Just a few points:

  • Where did the name "Project Chanology" come from -- specifically the word "Chanology"?
  • There are a few places where I felt the flow of the text began to wander, specifically when you start explaining who Lisa McPherson is, & recount the plot of V for Vendetta. You have links there -- no need to clutter the text with a needless explanation.
  • Towards the end of the article it degrades into a list of events, rather than a unified narrative. That needs to be fixed.

Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Religious and spiritual use of cannabis" was renamed to "Entheogenic use of cannabis" on 19 May 2014.

Spiritual use of cannabis

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

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

I am seeking feedback on making this article meet FAC standards.

Thanks, —Whig (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from Casliber

[edit]
...carry on a centuries, if not older tradition of the sacramental use of cannabis. - vague and nongrammatical - have we an estimate of how old the practice is?
Regarding the Tuscarora tribal tradition, this fact claim lacks citation and has been flagged accordingly. —Whig (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This claim has been removed as unverifiable and likely false. —Whig (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In ancient Germanic culture, cannabis was associated with the Norse love goddess, Freya. - I think you'd want a more reliable source than that one, that's a big claim...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added another reference. —Whig (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments

[edit]

Frankly, the article is assessed against WP:GAC rather than WP:FAC as the article is much closer to the former than the latter.

  • More detail is needed to eliminate 1 line paras. for eg. Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report has so much detail about Hindu use of cannabis plant, which is not included. Though detail is needed, at the same time, too much detail can be WP:UNDUE.
  • The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report quotes are copy-paste: they should be written in text form by the editors in their own language. The quotes are not quote worthy
  • "Charas, is smoked by some Shaivite devotees..." Explain in brief what is charas
  • Use "Cannabis" through out for consistency, replace synonyms like marijuana with cannabis, or write a brief description of how marijuana is related to cannabis.
  • Tags added.
  • References:
    • Stick to one citation style "this divine force (Rätsch 2003). " OR <ref></ref>
    • Follow a consistent reference sequence as done in "Further reading". Maybe you may want to use {{citeweb}}, {{citebook}}. Format "The Guardian, Monday 6 January 2003 10.19 GMT" ref too per ref style. See WP:REF for ref styles.
    • Never use Ibid. as another editor may add a ref in between.
    • I am not sure about reliability and neutrality of http://www.skunked.co.uk/articles/history-intoxicant.htm
    • Have not checked all references for reliability as lots needs to done even before a WP:GAN.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are helpful suggestions. In regards the excerpted quotes from the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report which use a number of Sanskrit terms and references in some cases, it might be problematic for editors to offer a translation without being WP:OR. —Whig (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of the extract is needed, not every unnecessary detail. Done quote --> text for Hindu use. Do the same for Sikh use. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil_burnstein

[edit]

I'm on vacation until Friday, but I still want to leave some notes.

  1. The lead paragraph isn't supposed to contain information that isn't in the article.
  2. I think that various spiritual groups use cannabis in different ways for different results, but I may be wrong.
  3. The way the article reads now, a better title would be "Use of Cannabis by Various Sects".
  4. By confining yourself to cannabis, you lose all the other cultures that use hallucinogens. eg Amerindians.
Thanks, Phil. While this article is about spiritual use of cannabis there should certainly be a Wikipedia article on spiritual use of other plants, or of psychoactive plants (or fungi, etc.) generally, which this article could be linked to. —Whig (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments:

[edit]

This is a fascinating -- & obviously controversial -- topic. My thoughts as I read this article:

  • You may want to find ways to tie in the history of cultivation of Cannabis with its spiritual use. For example, had I known Germany grows a lot of hemp, the claim that the ancient Germans smoked Cannabis would have passed the smell test for me.
  • Likewise, you should try to expand on how Cannabis is used spiritually. For example, there's Mircea Eliade's thesis that shamans seek to commune with God through mystical ecstasy, & Cannabis would be one of several tools used to achieve this. Adding this information will help to combat the misperception that "spiritual use of cannabis" is another way of saying "here's a list of rationalizations dirty hippies use to justify abusing drugs."
  • A minor point: in this article both BC/AD & BCE/CE styles appear. You need to standardize on one -- either would be satisfactory.
  • A bit of trivia: Cannabis use is illegal in Ethiopia. (If needed, I can look for a source for this.) Its use is mostly confined to foreigners, since the preferred non-alcoholic recreational drug is khat -- which is reported to cause the usual problems reported for drug abuse.
  • One problematic omission here -- which would keep this article from reaching FA status (if the people there look at more than how well it conforms to the MoS) -- is the lack of information on its spiritual use between ancient & modern times. (The sections on undated Muslim & Sikh use is all that covers those centuries.) If there is no continuity in Europe between ancient & modern uses, then where did the idea of this spiritual use come from? Are there no references to its use in India between the Rig Vedas & modern times?

Hope these suggestions help you. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure the legal status of cannabis in particular countries is relevant to the subject of this article, except and where there may be some sort of legal recognition or protection of religious use. I agree that dates should be standardized and changed references from BC to BCE to respect non-Christian traditions which make up a lot of the subject matter of this article. —Whig (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned its legal status in Ethiopia due to the Rastafarian connection -- & for entertainment sake. If it doesn't fit, no need to add it. :) -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewood massacre

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would like to bring this to FA status, and I am still consulting sources to do it. If you take the time to read the article (thanks) I am thinking about expanding the following areas:

  • Much of the testimony about the survivors' claims in 1993 and 1994 centered on the fact that they had to start over; their lives were destroyed. Many of them became manual laborers making minimum wage: domestics, shoe shiners, etc. Almost all of them had a low education level. I am wondering how much of that to include.
  • How much information should be included regarding how the survivors and their descendants viewed faith as an essential component of their lives?
  • Any suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cherry Springs State Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Featured Article, and are looking for some feedback before it is submitted to WP:FAC. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, and Colton Point State Park, which are all featured articles that we have worked on. We will make articles for the red links before FAC. This park had more sources available than any we have worked on - hopefully the article is not too detailed.

Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Mellencamp

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be a great article, maybe even one of the best on Wikipedia. However, I feel that it needs just a little more work. Thanks, BillyJack193 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through some of the article and here are some suggestions to begin improving its quality:
  • The lead is a decent size, but I think it could stand to have some links to certain concepts (such as themes in his music, i.e. politics, morality) to give it some context. I feel as though the article is written from an American perspective (which is understandable), but if the themes in his music typically deal with say, American politics, then an appropriate link would point the reader to the American politics page or a page on topical moral issues being discussed in the US today.
  • Some more factual citations in areas, such as his early life would be helpful to support the statements being made (ex. "...he later got a job in Seymour installing telephones, which he eventually lost for using foul language.")
  • The sections contain many small paragraphs and one-sentence statements and step-by-step explanations of his exploits. Condensing those into larger paragraphs that can summarize his exploits without providing unnecessary detail will improve the writing style of the article. There are ways to condense these items without removing important details in his development as an artist/individual. These sections are quite long, so trimming may be necessary.
  • I would consider integrating his non-music "early life" into his "personal life" section.
  • For quotes from his webpage/blog, cite the actual page or entry if possible. If not, consider removing them or attempting to find an archive of the entry online. You can find out more at Wikipedia:Citing_sources.
  • The induction speech from the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame seems a bit excessive. Try to edit it down to its most notable or important aspects or try integrating segments of the content into a rewrite.

Hope these suggestions are helpful!Luminum (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article is fairly comprehensive, but if your plans are to move towards featured status it is going to need a fair bit of work still.

  • The lead is a good size, but it does not summarize the entire area well. I would suggest adding an additional paragraph to include more information his entire lifetime.
  • There are many short paragraphs throughout the article, they should be merged to flow together better and combined.
  • Inline citation are lacking throughout most of the article. There should at minimum be one at the end of every paragraph.
  • Some more images would a be very nice addition.
  • Although the article is well wrote enough to probably pass a GA review, the prose is going to need more work to pass a FA review. There are several of choppy areas in the text.

Hope this helps. :) Happy editing. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton 360

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to bring this article to GA-class. The main issue is probably the context the article was written in; I think it was written for someone familiar with Norton products and Symantec.

Thanks, TechOutsider' (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look to give some feedback.

  • It might be useful to pull out some of the technical details from the Version sections to make a "Product specifications" section since right now it looks too heavily weighted towards version data.
  • It could probably use a round of copyediting, some of the shortest paragraphs should be merged to make a more even flow.

Hope that helps. MBisanz talk 00:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...excellent pointers :). Have a question about the specifications though. Should there be a section about each version? Because the features change each year TechOutsider (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, I agree with the points made above. Here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the year the software was introduced is not in lead, nor is Project Genesis mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Refs that are the same can be combined, for example current refs 18 and 19 could be combined. Ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this.
  • Avoid the use of words like "now", also see if similar sentences can be combined, so Norton 360 version 3.0 now shares the same base as Norton Internet Security 2009. As a result, Norton 360 shares the performance improvements Symantec made to Norton Internet Security 2009.[16] could be As of 2009, Norton 360 version 3.0 shares the same base as Norton Internet Security 2009, as well as the performance improvements Symantec made to the base.[16]
  • I do not really understand this sentence PC Magazine highlighted version 3.0's weak spam filter, letting half of spam e-mail in the inbox misidentifying valid e-mail.
  • Still needs a copyedit, for example Similar to version 1.0, it include[d] the same features found in Norton Internet Security 2008.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illmatic

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this is a great article. It was a featured one in the past, and I think this article totally deserves this. I hope it can become one again and just thought it might be an idea to place it hear, because it has lost his status for a reason and I think the criteria have changed since then. Now I'm just looking for your feedback concerning improvements in this article, so fell free to speak your mind!

Thanks, DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would closely at the FAR which led to the article being delisted as an FA and make sure all of the concerns have been addressed - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Illmatic/archive1
  • There are 11 free images of Nas on Commons - they are from later than the recording of this album, but I think some of them could be used here - see here. I would imagine there are also free images of some of the guest artists, etc.
  • The hardest criteria for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, a professional level of writing. This article needs some major ploishing to get to that level. As two examples, just in the lead "renown" is used where "renowned" is meant It features production from several renown hip hop artists, ... or from the lead again However, due its critical fame, Nas's subsequent work has been weighed against it, despite it serving as Nas's lowest-selling release. In 2001, the album was certified platinum by the RIAA. Some places here are not garammatical (due its critical fame) or are just awkward (despite it serving). These sentences also combine two ideas that are not necessarily related. So perhaps something like this would be better However, its critical fame has led to Nas's subsequent work being weighed against it. Despite it being Nas's lowest-selling release, in 2001, the album was certified platinum by the RIAA.
  • The article still seems to overuse quotations and has real WP:NFCC concerns - does it really need five audio samples, two extensive quotes from lyrics, and two non-free images?
  • I would look at some current album FAs for ideas - they can serve as model articles for examples to follow - see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Jacket Required

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for Featured Article Review, but I'm not 100% sure that even after a GAR, one peer review, and numerous copyedits by numerous other users (With a HUGE helping hand from User:Realist2 as well,) if it is ready or not. I am listing this article so that I can see if anything else needs to be done, any improvements need to be made, and I want to see if the article is ready for a FAR. The article has come a long way from its original status before I began working on it Click here to see what it looked like before I began my work on it in December. Thank you, and I appreciate any comments that anyone can give me about this article. Have a great day! :)

Thanks, CarpetCrawlermessage me 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article is generally well-written and clear. I have concerns about quoting so much copyrighted work from a single source and about the relative lack of images. Here are my comments and suggestions:

Lead

  • "The record has been certified diamond in the US, and has reached 6x platinum in the UK." - For readers who might not know what "diamond" or "platinum" refers to, you might consider slightly recasting and then linking, thus: "The record has been certified diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and has reached 6x platinum in the UK." Specifying and linking the entity that awarded the "6x platinum" designation would also be helpful. I don't actually know whether "6x" is part of a designation or certification or whether 6x stands for "six times". done
  • "for appearing at both the Philadelphia and Wembley Stadium Live Aid events on the same day." - Delete "both"? done

Album title

  • The quote from Playboy is unusually long. A rule of thumb followed by newspapers is to use no more than 100 quoted words from any single source. This quote by itself is about 200, and the problem is compounded by the two other fairly long quotes, one of about 50 and another of about 100 words, from the same Playboy article. This use of so much quoted material may be outside the bounds of fair use under copyright law. Are the long quotes really necessary to understanding the material? Are they justifiable for their content, or is their main purpose simply to improve the layout?
  • "The singer would often appear on shows such as Late Night with David Letterman... " - Suggestion: "After the incident, the singer often appeared on shows such as... " done

Production

  • "considered one of his more popular songs to have not been released as a single" - Suggestion: "considered one of his more popular songs not released as a single" done
  • ""Take Me Home" is another song where the meaning was originally very vague." - "in which" rather than "where"?done, I agree with that choice, too. CarpetCrawlermessage me 07:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of Collins recorded work did not appear on the original album. However, "We Said Hello Goodbye", which appeared as a B-side to "Take Me Home" and "Don't Lose My Number" originally, was added as an "extra track" on the latest CD releases." - What year does "the latest" refer to?
I have no clue, honestly. Do you know where one can find information on when the CD was re-released with such track information? My hunch says it happened in 1998, but I could be wrong. I don't have the CD in front of me. CarpetCrawlermessage me 07:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see what I can find. In fact, maybe even the original CD release had the song... CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Found it, thanks to the powers of the Allmusicguide! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 06:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the song was not released until it appeared as the b-side to "Sussudio" in the UK, and as the b-side to "One More Night" in the United States." - Capital B on B-side (in two places). done
  • "which also did not appear on the album, originally appearing as the b-side" - Ditto. done

Critical reception and influence

  • "Geoff Orens of Allmusic, in a review written years after the album's release, said that while some of the songs are "dated", the album contains "standout tracks", where he describes "Long Long Way to Go" as "one of Collins' most effective ballads", and "Take Me Home" as "pulsating". - This is awkwardly glued together with "where". Better would be: "Geoff Orens of Allmusic, in a review written years after the album's release, said that while some of the songs are "dated", the album contains "standout tracks". He describes "Long Long Way to Go" as "one of Collins' most effective ballads", and "Take Me Home" as "pulsating". done

Chart performance and sales

  • "Meanwhile, "Don't Lose My Number", a single that Collins only released in the US, peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100 charts during late September 1985,[44] and the b-side of the single was "We Said Hello Goodbye"." - Another B-side. done

References

  • Citation 34 has a date, Oct. 29th 2008, that should be 29 October 2008. done

Images

  • The image is OK and the license is probably OK. It would be good if you could find additional images, perhaps taken by people at concerts and uploaded to the Commons or to Flicker with Creative Commons licenses.
I have found an image from Flicker. However, the user does not provide the date, but does say that they attended that concert, and has other pictures from other concerts they attended, so they may have taken the photo. How would I be able to get permission from the user to put the photo on Wikipedia, and how would I be able to contact that user to do such a thing? CarpetCrawlermessage me 06:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions and ones that I have wondered about. I have never actually added a Flicker photo to any of the articles I've worked on. However, I would do so if I found it useful, and I've seen quite a few perfectly fine, properly licensed photos on Wikipedia that are sourced to Flicker pages. Quality and content questions aside, the Flicker photo license tag is the key to deciding whether it can be used on Wikipedia or not. To be used, the Flicker photo must have a public domain or Creative Commons Share-Alike license with no commercial restrictions. Here is an example that I found this morning of a photo that could be used on Wikipedia: sample photo. Under "additional information" in the right-hand column, you will see a line that reads, "Some rights reserved". When you click on that, you will see the license page that gives details about the CC-by-SA 2.0 generic license. It's this license that makes it fine to use the image on Wikipedia as long as the source is acknowledged (and linked to from the Wikipedia image description page) and the license replicated. For this, you don't have to write to the photographer or anyone to ask for permission because the license gives permission. In the case of a Flicker photo that has copyright restrictions that do not allow replication or that do not allow commercial re-use (which might appear as NC, meaning "no commercial" in the license tag), you would have to persuade the copyright holder to re-license the image as CC-by-SA. CC-by-SA 3.0 is a more recent version of CC-by-SA 2.0, and that is what I would suggest to the photographer (copyright holder). I have not ever tried to write to a Flicker photographer, but I'm pretty sure there is a way. You might have to set up a Flicker account, or maybe there is another way I'm not seeing this morning. I'll leave this part of the problem for you to figure out, and I'd appreciate knowing how you solved it. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status again. Since December 2007, when the last nomination failed, there has been significant improvement to the article. Please suggest any ways to improve this article, rather than negative comments.

Thanks, Andrewmc123 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: A lot of effort has gone into this article, but it is not FA-worthy and should not be re-submitted to FAC in anything like its present state. The problem that leaps out and which must be addressed is the problem of sourcing or the lack thereof.

  • A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and anything that is reasonably likely to be challenged. At a glance, I can see that many paragraphs list no sources and are in violation of WP:V, one of the core principles of Wikipedia. The first paragraph of the History section, for example, is dense with information that is not common knowledge and must have come from a source or sources. Figuring out where something came from is a complex and time-consuming task if multiple editors have added unsourced information to the article and then disappeared from the scene. I have sometimes spent hours trying to track down a source or sources for a small number of unsourced claims that sounded plausible and important, so you have my sympathy. To fix the problem, you have to do your own research, find your own reliable sources (explained at WP:RS), delete the unsourced material and add new material with proper sourcing.
  • Further down in the History section, I see a related sourcing problem. The paragraph starting with "The 20th century witnessed both decline and renewal in the city" has one citation, and at first glance it seems to apply to the whole paragraph. However, it turns out to be a source only for the claims in the last sentence of the paragraph. This leaves the rest of the paragraph, with much information that is not common knowledge, with no sources. Again, you have my sympathy because to source this properly, unless you are one of the original main contributors to the article and have kept your notes, you have to re-do the research. I can think of no other way to fix the problem.
  • Other editors have noted the same or similar sourcing problems during earlier reviews. The "citation needed" tags are further evidence of sourcing problems that need to be addressed.
  • Citations to web sites should include, where possible, the author, title, publisher, publication date, url, and access date. Many of the existing citations are incomplete.
  • Quite a few of the citation links are dead. They must all be replaced with live links or links to other reliable sources.

I hope these comments prove helpful even though they provide no easy route to success. Such a route does not exist. Finetooth (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Hantuchová

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like an view of the shortcomings of the article from some folks outside of the Tennis Wikiproject. I'm aware of the maintenance tags and citation issues but I would like some comments on the style of writing, the level of detail included, and anything else that may have an impact on getting this article up to GA standards.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While a lot of work has gone into this, it is nowhere near ready for GA. I agree that with the tags here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but as an example, Martina Navratilova being her mentor is only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I think that the article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Watch overlinking - for example, Martina Hingis is linked four times in the article before the tables. See WP:OVERLINK
  • I agree this needs many more refs - for example the 2002 and Endorsements sectrions have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The article is poorly organized and incomplete in its coverage - in "Personal life" we are not told anything about her birth or much about her family besides her parents' divorce. We do not learn when she started playing tennis (what year) or when she turned professional there either. Her long time coach Sears is not mentioned until 2003 - when did she start with him?
  • I agree the level of detail in the article seems excessive in places, especially without references. Perhaps some of this material could be put into subarticles per WP:Summary style
  • Captions of images need to be more descriptive.
  • I have not really commented on the language as I think the article needs to be organized to tell a story chronologically and in less mind-numbing detail first.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso

I agree with Ruhrfisch's points. Further comments:

  • The lead seems incomplete. What has she won? Has she done anything of note in Grand Slams? Is she primarily a singles/doubles player? How long did she spend in the top ten? What is the "Partners for Success" program, and does it matter enough to be in the lead? The first paragraph has incomplete parentheses and a run on sentence.
  • to father Igor, a computer scientist and mother Marianna, a toxicologist. something wrong with commas here, as to me it reads like she has three parents, Igor, Marianna and a computer scientist.
  • Her tour debut and early results were auspicious. When was her tour debut? Why was it auspicious?
  • Early life is more personal life. Of that section only her birth relates to her early life. The ref for the Wimbledon loss does not put her defeat solely down to her parents splitting.
  • She is thought to be a perfectionist and places a lot of pressure on herself during her training. "Thought to be" is highly weaselly. I don't particularly follow tennis, but I would have thought any pro of note would try to make their training intense in some way.
  • The Overall part of the career section reads more like a lead, in fact it is more like a lead more than the one currently serving as the actual lead of the article.
  • Playing style. The original research tag is deserved. Totally uncited and makes a series of subjective claims.
  • The jump from "doubles" to "2002" is highly disconcerting. The doubles section needs far more than one solitary citation.
  • Hingis and Hantuchova only played once (reaching the semifinals of Miami) due to Hingis's subsequent injury which kept her out until Wimbledon. Thereafter she partnered Nadia Petrova and Ana Ivanović - Hingis or Hantuchova?
  • 2002 was Hantuchová's breakout season; Through the start of the 2008 season; Hantuchová rebounded in the Tier I Charleston event Some of these examples, more of which occur throughout the article, might be valid American English for formal contexts, but I suspect that some are sports magazine style informal terms that we should avoid.
  • From my familiarity with ice hockey I know that North America uses win-loss figures (i.e. "went 6–8 for the rest of the year") quite widely, but they will be baffling to a large section of readers.
  • A very boring one. Endashes in scorelines are inconsistent.
  • I dislike the division of sections by year. I don't know of any sports biography GA/FA that uses it. For example while motor racing divides seasons by calendar year none of the autosport biography FAs do things by season. I think in that respect some of them might be good models for structure, or perhaps some of the cricket ones.
  • Once the by year sections start, everything gets monotonous. She did this in tournament A, then did this in tournament B. It doesn't make you want to read on. While it doesn't involve dates, it reads like proseline. Unremarkable tournaments need not be mentioned. Certainly scorelines are not required except when they are of particular note. In rewriting it, perhaps a useful approach would be to note down the most important events in each part of her career, and build it around them. It needs to be a narrative, not a catalogue.
  • While you've said you are aware of the citation issues, a review of this article would be incomplete without mentioning them. Things need citing for all sorts of reasons. Some aren't controversial and should be simple, like results and world rankings. Others are original research concerns (i.e. "Hantuchová started 2003 solidly", "Serena Williams, who had entered the tournament with a lack of match practice and questions over her fitness"). Most pressing, however, are statements with WP:BLP issues such as those about anorexia.
  • Excessive detail. Yes, there is far too much detail on comparitively minor things. The sections get increasingly verbose the more recent they are. Some of it could be eliminated very easily. Take the example Hantuchová spent the month of May and most of June recovering from a stress fracture in her right foot, which resulted in her withdrawal from the Tier I Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome,[16] the Tier III Istanbul Cup,[17] the French Open,[18] [19] and the Tier III Ordina Open in 's-Hertogenbosch,. Listing every tournament missed is serious overkill. Simply putting "several tournaments" instead of listing them all cuts that in half, and makes it far easier to read. Reading through lists of tournaments gets tiring quickly. The featured article criteria for comprehensiveness uses the phrase neglects no major facts or details. Not playing a tournament, or getting knocked out in the third round of a run of the mill tournament is not a major fact. The major facts get lost in the sea of minor ones. I felt that I didn't learn anything new after about the 2004 section, it all seemed like it was repeating itself.
  • Daniela showed what she is capable of producing the week before Stuttgart - this isn't a fansite.
  • That a modern day sportsperson appears in a sports videogame is entirely unsuprising and doesn't merit mention unless, say, a game is named after them like Madden NFL or Brian Lara Cricket.
  • All those coloured tables could do with checking for colour blindness and other accessibility issues. It looks like the key is a copy and paste, as some of it isn't used and can be omitted.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Order: Final Fantasy VII

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to bring it to GA status. I'm wondering what sections I should improve and expand, as well as what information I should by looking for. I'm aware that the "Cultural impact" section is quite short. This comes from the OVA not being released separately; it was release with Advent Children, and because of that doesn't have many reviews. However, it does have a healthy development section, and the article's notability comes more from being in the FF series, and part of the Compilation of FFVII. Also, I will be listing the article for a copy edit soon.

Thanks, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Spell out abbreviations on first use, so Last Order: Final Fantasy VII ... is a 2005 original video animation (OVA) produced by Madhouse... I would also add "in Japan" to this sentence, since it describes only the Japanese release (I think)
  • Links should also be on the first use, so link Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII in The music of Last Order was released with the music of Before Crisis...
  • One of the biggest problems with the article is providing context for the reader - there is very little on the background story of FF VII so that we know who these people are or what is going on. Perhaps a brief background section could be added, giving the overall plot and how this fits in, as well as detailing how the success of the original led to the making of this.
  • As noted above (add "in Japan" to lead sentence), there are also places where more context is needed for clarity. Another would be 77,777 copies of Advent Pieces: Limited were released, and had been sold out months in advance before being officially released. - this was only in Japan too and should say so.
  • The other major problem is writing from an in-universe perspective - ideally the plot and article should be written from an out of universe perspective. I have not played the game or seen the videos and I had trouble following what was going on.
  • Language is unclear in places - not sure what this means for example Last Order was hand-drawn and hand-drawn, causing the crew to make certain lines thinner or simplified. two hand-drawns? Try printing it out and reading it aloud.
  • Give the Japanese release price in Yen, not "about 300 dollars" (although it is fine to give a conversion to US $). Also for the US price, use "$39.95", not "39.95 dollars" (assumes I am correctly recalling the prices, but you get the idea)
  • Why is there no link for Final Fantasy VII Advent Children Advent Pieces in the article? Part of the background might be to list the game, then all of the spin offs in some order so those not familair with all things Final Fantasy can follow it.
    • Sorry - I confused Advent Pieces and Final Fantasy VII Advent Children.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback!
  • I noted the abbreviation for Last Order, and will find a way to skillfully not toe abbreviations for the other games/film. I'll also work on adding in context and linking on the first use.
  • Context is definately tough for this one, since there is so much background information on it. I'll make a section about background information, and I believe I know some interviews where the crew talks about their decision to create the Compilation in general.
  • I'll read through the plot section and fix that up.
  • I've also noticed some mistakes scattered around. I'll take your advice on that one.
  • The only price I could find was written in "about 300 dollars." I did the conversion, though I kept the about to be safe, as well as the English conversion.
  • Advent Pieces is the same thing as Advent Children; it's just a special release. I've noted that in the lede, and will check the rest of the article to make sure that's clear. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead for the FF VII article has a nice brief summary of the overall plot: Set in a dystopian world, Final Fantasy VII's story centers on mercenary Cloud Strife who joins with several others to stop the megacorporation Shinra, which is draining the life of the planet to use as an energy source. As the story progresses, the situation escalates and Cloud and his allies must battle the game's main antagonist, Sephiroth. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daydream (Mariah Carey album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that I did a good job passing the last week working on this. I don't know why, but I believe that it is not good yet for a featured article review, I am more sure about a good article review. Feel free to give me any constructive comment about my work. Regards, Sparks Fly 17:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I will try to be as objective as I can since this is one of my favorite albums EVER.

Lead

  • The lead section is too short and does not provide enough information about the album, on Featured Articles for album the lead mentions release date, artist, producer, singles released, tour, "legacy" and it expands for two or three paragraphs. Also there is a comma after the reference, should be the other way around.

Recording date

  • I do not see the relation in the refs 1 and 2 and the recording date. One is for a christmas rehearsal (and truth be told is from the Daydream era), and the other is a link to the article for "Always Be My Baby" (the album third single in US).

Reception - Commercial

  • I do not know if this claim is valid anymore: "That week also still remains the record as the highest non-debut-week sales for an album by a female artist" and is unreferenced.
  • "The sales of Daydream during 1996 made it the second best-selling album in America in that year, behind only Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill." In one of the last sections (End of Year charts) you have refs for this, you should include one here.
  • There is no info about the recording sessions and the background of the artist to this point (1990-1995) you should put a section for that info.

Reception - Critical

  • The first part of the critical reception section is unreferenced and also, too short. I know that there is not a lot of reviews for this album, I remember that since I researched for the EW review, but maybe a little reword could work.

References There is a proper format for references, and currently the refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 20, 29, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, do not have it.

For the GA status you will also need to be more specific about the singles released: "Fantasy" was the first worldwide, "One Sweet Day" was the second, but "Open Arms" was the third in Europe while "Always Be My Baby" was the third in US. Also you should mention that "Forever" was an airplay-only release and "Underneath the Stars" was a planned released, but it was withdrawn (nevertheless it appears on her Greatest Hits album).

I will stop here, if you need any help, just ask. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second review. Since you asked to review it again, I will do it... Comments

  • Contratulations, this article now looks very good, but I have some comments about it:
    • Thank you! It was a long week that I will never forget.
  • Maybe a little rewording with this part "and less pure pop sound" in the lead.
    • I will think something better, but now nothing comes in my mind. =/
  • And also in this part "One of early choices to appear on the album was the pop ballad "Fantasy."... this song it is not a ballad.
    • done . LOL. Sorry, I think that I thought to put other song which is a ballad and instead I put "Fantasy."
  • For this section: "some critics felt the lyrics were a controlled exercise, with little emotion or heart"... who did it? which critics?.
    • Well, I retired this sentence from the NME article, which did not stated anything else beside they claiming something generalized, so I don't have the answer that you want.
  • I do not remember very well, but the "Daydream Interlude" in the album booklet is only credited to Carey and the remixer, since they do not use the Tom Tom Club sample, I will check it out.
    • I think that you made a mistake. According with the sources, this sample is used in the "Fantasy" track (#1), not in the Daydream Interlude (#11).
      • Yes, I looked at the album booklet and the tracklisting in the article is fine as it is.
  • Where are the succession boxes? This album peaked at number-one in US, UK and some other markets, a reliable source for that is www.lescharts.com. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • done . I forget the reason that I had to delete this. And BTW its a good source? Good, I didn't know that.
  • In Latin America the track 13 was "El Amor Que Soñé" (Open Arms) with a spanish adaptation by Manny Benito and it is not included. In UK the bonus track was "Fantasy" feat. ODB, maybe you should mention that too.
    • I googled and I did not find anything good-to-wikipedia reporting this. So I do not have the writers, the lengths and etc. But if you think if its fine to put it without these informations I will do without problems.
      • It is interesting, I have the Latin American edition of the album and includes "El Amor Que Soné" as track number 13. The spanish adaptation was made by Manny Benito, in México this version was released as a single with a video from her Madison Square live performance. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • done. Thank you for the informations.

I will stop here... if you need more help, just ask. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg, Illinois

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, it has alot of potential, and I need help not only cretiquing the work, but helping make this page better. Any controbutions you want to add to the page, rewording or so forth to help avoid POV problems or Plagarism problems are completely welcome. This article could be a very well done article on a town of it's size with none equal to it's caliber. In which there aren't very many. Thanks, Ruhe1986 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Harrisburg sounds like an interesting place. Sad to say, the article has serious problems. They can be fixed, but it will take hard work and considerable writing skill.

Plagiarism

  • You asked for advice about plagiarism. Checking more-or-less at random, I found this in the "Government, health care, and education" section: "The City of Harrisburg operates its own water distribution system. It has a storage capacity of 6,000,000 gallons in elevated tanks. The water processing plant has a capacity of 4,000,000 per day, while average daily consumption is about 2,500,000 gallons. The city's water treatment plant has a design capacity of 3,125,000 gallons per day. It's average load id 1,200,000 gallons per day." This is sourced to a commercial company's profile for Harrisburg. The source says: "The City of Harrisburg operates its own water distribution system. It has a storage capacity of 6,000,000 gallons in elevated tanks. The water processing plant has a capacity of 4,000,000 per day, while average daily consumption is about 2,500,000 gallons. The city's water treatment plant has a design capacity of 3,125,000 gallons per day. It's average load id 1,200,000 gallons per day." As you can see, this part of the text in the Wikipedia article has been copied entirely from the source document, even including the typo "id" instead of "is" in the phrase "average load id". This is plagiarism and also a copyright violation. Please see WP:COPYVIO and a recent dispatch on plagiarism for more complete explanations and ideas. You should carefully compare all of the sourced claims in the article with the source documents to make sure the article has no more instances like this.

Sourcing

  • While sections of the article appear to be well-sourced, other sections or large blocks of text lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and anything that is not common knowledge and is reasonably likely to be questioned. Specific examples of claims that need sources are the entire second paragraph of Industrial origins", the first of the two Kennedy quotations in "Slow economic decline", the second and fourth paragraphs of "Post-coal economy", most of the "Harrisburg neighborhoods" section, and the first paragraph of "Climate". I see more examples further down in the article.
  • I have by no means checked all of the sources, but a random sample makes me uneasy. The sources need to support the claims made in the article, and at least some of them don't seem to do so. For example, the first sentence of "Media" says, "The Harrisburg Daily Register has been providing coverage of news and sports for southeastern Illinois since 1869." The citation links to the newspaper's web page, but it says nothing about 1869, or at least I don't see it. No one is apt to doubt the newspaper's existence, but the 1869 claim is not common knowledge and might easily be questioned. Where did the date come from?

Copyediting

  • The whole article needs the attention of a skilled copyeditor. I found and fixed 25 or so minor errors, but I see more. In the "Industrial origins" section, for example, a sentence says, "Several planning mills and flour mills also dotted the city." This must be a misspelling of "planing". The next sentence begins, "Robert King, an early proprietor, opened a brick and tile factory on South Main st. in 1896... ". Here "South Main Street" should be spelled out with a capital S on "Street". Two sentences later, the text reads, "The Snellbaker and Company Saw Mill and Lumber Yard opened in 1895, as well did J.B Ford Harrisburg Planning Mill the same year." Here "Planning" should be "Planing" and "well" should be deleted. All of these little errors need to be tracked down and fixed.

I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfrapp

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA status. Thanks, Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, what is here is pretty well done, but I think it needs some work before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think it is odd that all of the photos are of just one member of a two-person group - she is the better looking one, but it seems an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Since there are at least three images on Commons showing both Will Gregory and Alsion Goldfrapp or just him - why not use one of those too?
  • I realize that the fact that the group is named Goldfrapp and one of the members is Alison Goldfrapp makes it difficult to refer to her or the band unambiguously, but the article needs to do a better job on being consistent on the name used for Alison Goldfrapp. I think the word "Goldfrapp" alone should be sued to refer exclusively to the group, but sentences like The studio's walls were covered in neon lights and Goldfrapp used them to write down her song ideas.[16] are unclear until we reach "her". The singer Alison Goldfrapp is referred to as "Alison Goldfrapp", "Alison", and just "Goldfrapp". Somehow calling her "Alison" sounds too familiar and not encylopedic to me, and we have already ruled out calling her just "Goldfrapp" to avoid confusion with the band, so I think calling her "Alison Goldfrapp" throughout is best. You may think differently (perhaps you prefer just "Alison") but pick a naming system and stick with it consistently (obviously first use and direct quotations may be exceptions).
  • Article seems generally well referenced, but for this sentence: The band's sound has progressed from an ambient sound in Felt Mountain, through electronic music in Black Cherry to a more glam rock sound in Supernature, and most recently to a blend of ambient, folk, and electronic in Seventh Tree. However, they have experimented with other genres of music, such as cabaret ("Satin Chic"), electroclash ("Slide In", "Koko"), folk ("Clowns") and bossa nova ("Human").
  • Writing is decent, but needs some polish before FAC - for example, watch verb tenses in sentences like The album featured Alison Goldfrapp's synthesized vocals over cinematic soundscapes[11] and is influenced by a variety of music styles including cabaret, folk, and electronic music.[12] (since it is featured, why not was influenced?)
  • Another clunky sentence Following several months of phone calls, they decided to form a musical band and began performing under Goldfrapp's last name.[9] " form a musical band" sounds odd perhaps just "form a band" or "form a musical group"? Perhaps it would read more smoothly as something like Following several months of phone calls, they decided to form a band and began performing, taking Goldfrapp's last name for the name of their group.[9]
  • I don't write music articles, but it seems to me that this article needs more on critical reception. For example the section on Seventh Tree has a few reviewers' quotes on two of the singles, but nothing directly on the overall album.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic encephalopathy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this is a important topic in the field of neuroscience/medicine. I don't know if it covers the topic in detail enough. Is it broad enough in its coverage? How can it be improved to gain B-class or GA status? Thanks, Edward130603 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting start, here are some suggestions for expansion and improvement.

  • The lead is just one sentence currently. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The lead here should probably be two paragraphs, more if more material is added. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I am concerned about the images - they need to have links to the specific webpages where they were found. It may well be that they are free images as works of the US Government, but the source URLs are required.
  • From looking at the second figure it is clear that this is a disease of long term exposure - decades elapsed between the intial exposures and the symptoms. While it says in one place Toxic encephalopathy is caused by extended exposure to toxic chemicals... it later says things like The substances diffuse into the brain rapidly. When they are not detoxified immediately, the symptoms of toxic encephalopathy begin to emerge. which makes it sound like it is near instaneous. This needs to be clarified.
  • The second figure also seems to indicate lead (Pb) is a cause - I did not see this in the text anywhere.
  • Language needs to be cleaned up / polished in places Due to the fact that some of these chemicals were once used with railroads as solvents, those who worked in the railroad industry were particularly exposed.[5] how about "at risk" instead of "exposed"? Or here why not combine these sentences Toxic encephalopathy has a wide variety of symptoms.[3] Symptoms can include memory loss, small personality changes,... so you get Toxic encephalopathy has a wide variety of symptoms, which can include memory loss, small personality changes, ...
  • A few places need refs, such as Toxic encephalopathy is caused by extended exposure to toxic chemicals, including 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The refs which are cited are an odd mix - I would use the most rigorous reliable peer-reviewed medical sources possible, but "Massage Today" hardly seems to meet WP:RS
  • A model article is useful as a source of ideas and examples to follow. Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience has 14 FAs listed that could be useful models for expansion and there are many more at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Featured_articles - perhaps Schizophrenia would be a good model (brain disorder)?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Ruhrfisch. They were a great help. --Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I do not see where the images are free to use here. The journal is published by an arm of NIH, but the actual authors of the article are from Harvard, and are not NIH (federal govt) employees. The journal is available free (at no cost) online, but I do not see any notice that its contents are free (without copyright restrictions). See the article link. I will ask at the Wikiproject Neuroscience page - I am not an expert on the journal by any means and I may be wrong or may have missed some notice, but short of a notice I missed that these are workd of federal employees, I do not see where the images are free. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I missed the copyright notice before but the Wikiproject Neuroscience talk page set me straight - see [copyright info. They are free in all senses, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diocletianic Persecution

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey-oh! Back again for a good round of hard-core peer-on-peer reviewing. I am expecting some peer reviews to drop in hot and heavy! Do not spare me any of your fierce rhetoric, caustic judgments, or painful grammatical correctives. I am ready for all of them, those things. Yes.

Ealdgyth told me to do this one thing (obtain some comparative information on the position of similar religious minorities (soothsayers, magicians, et al.)), but I didn't do that thing, and I'm feeling kind of naughty for having said I'd do it. I'm still planning on doing it! Just not yet. Is that okay? If it's not, then, hey, withdrawn. Otherwise, I'd enjoy some of the aforementioned peer-on-peer reviewing. I'd love to see you kids give the prose a good once-over!

Hugs and kisses from our very own Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments

A couple of points:

  • First, I have a serious problem with the comment towards the beginning, "In the first two centuries of its existence, Christianity and its practitioners were loathed by the people at large." I feel the word "loathing" oversimplifies a very complex & imperfectly understood situation. Yes, one can find numerous examples of attacks on early Christians during those years, but there is also evidence that individuals converted & apostated without suffering any especial prejudice -- or hostility. Also, an objective reading of the acta of the early martyrs (for example, the Scillitan Martyrs) results in surprise, on the one hand, of how far the authorities went to permit the accused to avoid being punished, while, on the other, the accused went to secure their own executions. About the only contemporary source for the general public's dislike of Christians is Tertullian -- who frequently employed the rhetorical tropes of sarcasm & hyperbole in his work -- who cannot be completely trusted. Lastly, "loathing" implies that Christians were subjected to worse treatment than Jews & African-Americans in living memory -- routine discrimination, mob violence & lynching -- which would have snuffed out this religion long before the end of the second century. A better -- & easily justifiable -- word would be "mistrusted" or "unpopular". Either word would be understandable when one considers the general population's reaction to a new religion practiced by people who are usually strangers.
  • In the "Legacy" section, there is no mention of Donatism; it is buried in the section about North Africa in "Regional Variations". Donatism, the belief that the traditores could not be restored to communion by forgiveness, but needed to be rebaptized, IIRC, was not limited to North Africa but has been attested elsewhere in the Empire (in particular, Egypt); it is just that in North Africa it took firm root. Further, & most importantly, its presence there fueled the irreconcilable internal conflict which weakened the local Imperial authority -- & led to the Vandals successfully gaining control of the province. These factors are greatly played down by not discussing them in the "Legacy" section.
    • Ah! I'm so embarrassed that I forgot to put that there! I'm not sure the material I added meets your needs; I neglect to mention the geopolitical effects of the Donatist schism, as you do. I can put that on my "to do" list if you'd like. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. -- llywrch (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (responding) The addition looks good. If you can insert more detail on the geopolitical effects without disrupting the flow of the article, that'd be good. And there's no need to be apologetic about mistakes: this is a subject with lots of primary & secondary literature, & its easy to miss some details. While looking at the footnotes, I did find two new things to pick at:[reply]

  • At note 233, you make a citation to Mommsen's Chronica Minora, but do not provide more detailed information in the primary source section. (Since it's an edition of a text, although it's the work of a someone removed from the event it is properly considered a primary source.) Looking at the context, however, I think the best solution would be to drop this citation. You are providing a source for John Curran's opinion here; the text he is commenting on is not relevant, & citing Chronica Minora only confuses the reader. (Besides, I would expect Curran has a citation to this source, so the interested reader will look there for it.)
    • Done. I do like to cite the works that historians are relying on, especially when they're making explicit reference to textual details. I think, though, that in this case I modified Curran's citation because Barnes, in his review of Curran's book, noted that Curran's citation here was inaccurate. Given the dispute, cutting the citation is probably for the best. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar issue is at notes 223 & 226 above it: you cite Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, but do not provide bibliographical information about this massive tome (IIRC, it is a series of volumes, & still being worked on). In one case, you mention it only because Barnes translates the relevant inscription. I'm not entirely confident how to handle this, so you should either consult a standard style book (like the The MLA Style Manual), or ask at WP:MoS & see if you can get a response from one of the more sensible people there. (Although based on my recent experience with the regulars there, I'd consult the printed style guides first, & only ask there as a last resort.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll probably supply bibliographic information for this set instead of removing the citations. It shouldn't be too difficult to get the details on the single volume we're using. I'll check the CMoS on citation style. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZetaTalk

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while it began merely as a document of one rather peculiar internet phenomenon, in recent years that phenomenon has grown out of all control and taken on a life of its own (As an example, Googling "Nibiru" and "2012" produces 444,000 hits). As the 2012 date nears, this page will only become more important. So should it be renamed? If so to what? How do I go about defusing some of the more ridiculous claims without violating NPOV or NOR? And what constitutes a reliable source in this situation?

Thanks, Serendipodous 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Wow, what a can of worms. Thanks for working on this - here are some ideas and suggestions for improvement.

  • There are lots of MOS issues with the article (in addition to the other problems).
    • There are many names bolded in the lead that should not be - see WP:ITALICS.
    • The article is overlinked in places, or has links to dabs - Nibiru is linked to the dab Nibiru and to Nibiru (hypothetical planet) (itself a redirect) in just the lead. Planet X is linked to the FA Planets beyond Neptune, which is a great article and says Planet X cannot exist, but makes no mention of these kind of modern odd theories. Similarly Wormwood links to Wormwood (star), which is an OK article, but again makes no mention of this theory.
    • There are a lot of short paragraphs (one or two sentences) that need to be combined with others for improved flow, or perhaps expanded.
    • The references are a mess - most of them are to ZetaTalk itself, not to independent third-party sources. I agree that most of the current refs do not seem to meet WP:RS and there is not sufficient information given for several refs (current ref 11 has no publisher and seems to in no way meet WP:RS).
  • I think the main problem with the article is that most of it is not about the ZetaTalk webpage itself, but rather on aspects of the 2012 Doomsday prediction. My guess is that one way to deal with this article would be to trim it down so it is just about the webpage, and put a notice pointing to the 2012 Doomsday prediction article at the top of page - currently it is in the section of the web page's ideas and a see also (another MOS issue).
  • The New York Times mentioned ZetaTalk briefly in 1997 - see here, There are some serious books that mention the website briefly - see this in "Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases".
  • Perhaps another way to go with this would be to move this article to something like 2012 Doomsday predictions on the web or 2012 Doomsday predictions in popular culture or something similar, then have a section on ZetaTalk, a section on Hercolubus, a section on the Project Camelot website, etc. followed by debunkers and their evidence.
  • I think for reporting claims made by Lieder or others on or about ZetaTalk, it is OK to use ZetaTalk as a source. My guess is the refutations section would be much better referenced than the claims made part. Since this seems to be tied into the Mayan 2012 stuff, making this part of a larger article might be easier to treat too.
  • As for ways to defuse ridiculous claims, I think putting several mutually contradictory claims in one article helps show their goofiness. The history of the website (2003, no 2010, no 2012, it is all white lies) helps t00. There are lots of reliable refutation sources out there - see the FAQs at NASA's Ask an Astrobiologist web site, for one. CNN had article on 2012 that refutes the claims too - see here. Also realize that nothing would dissuade some true believers.

I will keep thinking about this problem. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that making this a redirect to the 2012 article is probably the best way to go. It would be easier to keep an eye on one article on all these theories than a bunch of little articles. The other option as I see it is to make this very strictly on just the website and its history and then pruning all the extraneous stuff - if applied strictly this would probably leave only a stub on just the website, with links to the 2012 article and perhaps see alsos. Just my two cents, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point there, and under other circumstances I would certainly do that. But there are a number of hiccups in trying to do that with this particular theory, the biggest of which is that it really doesn't have anything to do with 2012; it just became associated with 2012 because someone decided it should be. And also, this theory as picked up so many different associations (from Planet X to Eris to Nibiru), that dealing with each individually requires some care; so I daren't remove any info from this page. Serendipodous 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see your point but was hoping to simplify things by a merge. Oh well. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell more or less ,I'll use there own words,
The fight the bad service to self aliens
From what I can tell more or less ,I'll use there own words, 24.220.171.167 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pole shifts causing extinction is there main premise and helping ppl to maximize human potential for the betterment of mankind before it's to late is there premise 24.220.171.167 (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Farm

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it for FA soon. Please note, though it's nice to have suggested improvements in the nitty-gritty details of the prose, that is not the purpose of requesting a peer review. I am asking if other editors think this article is comprehensive, neutral, and ready for FA candidacy. For example, some questions arose in a Good Article review months ago that the article is one-sided and fails to present a realistic description of the Brook Farm society. Thanks in advance! Midnightdreary (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jackie Robinson

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

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

We're coming up on Jackie Robinson Day 2009 (April 15). In advance of a lot of anticipated views on and around this date, I've done a lot of cleanup work on this page in the last week.

This article was semi-restricted in 2008 because of multiple lazy edits, and was a confusing article up until this year, to say the least. I'll save the details for later discussion, but my edits involved a lot of cite-checking, reference additions, citation standardization, removal of weasel words, cut-and-pasting of sections to make more narrative sense, some additons to Jackie's life between the military and baseball, etc..

In particular, I'd like someone to cofirm the Duberman book citations, because I can't find the book itself or an internet preview of it. The other book citations I've verified to my satisfaction. I took out one citation to the Duberman book because it was an obvious misquote: "the Black newspaper 'New Age' remarked that 'being Jim Crowed by Washington's infamous lily white hotels In 1963'", citing pages 361 or 362 of the Duberman book (on the subject of the Robinson-Robeson HUAc incident). Possibly the book says something like this, but the events took place in 1949 rather than 1963, so something's amiss. Plus, there are enough other citations on the Robseson issue, IMO.

Let me know your thoughts. I'd like to take this article to featured status as a tribute to Robinson.

Thanks, BillTunell (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) BillTunell[reply]

Comments from KV5
  • African-American is linked twice in quick succession in the lead.
  • "The next year he played for the high school's basketball team." - comma after next year
  • "shortstop and leadoff batter for the baseball team" - leadoff hitter is the preferred term
  • "While playing football at PJC he suffered a broken ankle," - comma after PJC
  • "he was arrested for questionable reasons" - this is vague, is there no further info?
  • "All-Southland Junior College (baseball) Team" - this could be better written by either removing the parentheses and capitalize Baseball, or by writing All-Southland Junior College Team for baseball.
  • "Thereupon Robinson was awarded a gold pin and was named to the school's 'Order of the Mast and Dagger'" - I don't know if thereupon is the correct word here, I'd consider a change if it's not.
  • "Robinson transferred to the nearby University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)" - comma after (UCLA)
  • "on the 1939 UCLA Bruins football team," - comma should be a semi-colon
  • "Robinson’s worst sport at UCLA —" - don't space em-dashes. Either use a spaced en-dash (which you use earlier, so I recommend this for consistency) or change to an unspaced em-dash.
  • "he went 4-4 and twice stole home base" - has to be 4-for-4 because non-baseball readers will not know what this means, also change home base to home plate
  • "racially integrated Honolulu Bears" - don't the Honolulu Bears have an article?
  • "— including Truman Gibson, an African-American advisor to the secretary of war —" - more spaced em-dashes, see above
  • "After his commisison" - commission, and I believe it should be commissioning, as the two words have different meanings for the military
  • "the bus's driver" - this could be a little confusing. If it's supposed to be possessive, it should be bus'; however, then it just looks like bus driver, which would be appropriate in any case. I'd say change to the latter.
  • "After his discharge, Robinson briefly returned to his old football club the Los Angeles Bulldogs." - comma after club
  • I think that the "Post-military" section could be one paragraph instead of two.
  • "In Sanford, Florida, the police chief threatened to stop the game if Robinson did not leave the field; in Jacksonville, the stadium was inexplicably padlocked shut on game day; in DeLand, the scheduled day game was called off on account of faulty electrical lighting." - two semi-colons make a really long run-on here, I would make three smaller sentences. I don't know that the lighting issue can be attributed to Robinson's race, so I don't know that it merits inclusion.
  • Per WP:DECADE, "1880's" should be 1880s.
  • "less than stellar" is a compound adjective, change to less-than-stellar
  • "Reese also once came to his friend's defense with the famous line" - comma after line
  • "off season from a Vaudeville tour" - off-season, and vaudeville should be lowercase
  • Another linking of African-American ("the famous African American athlete and actor Paul Robeson")
  • "th Dodgers were able" - the
  • "Also in 1952" - could be changed to that year
  • "from addressing racial issues publically" - publicly.
  • "62 runs, a .311 batting average, and seven steals" - 7 steals per MOS:NUM, these are comparable quantities
  • "It's the swimming pool . . ." - change ". . ." to the ellipsis character …
  • "partly because Gilliam had staked a claim on second base" - remove link per WP:PIPE
  • "decided to play Gilliam at second" - see above
  • Baseball color line is linked a lot in the article, it only needs to be linked on first appearance
  • "He stole home 19 times in his career; one of the most difficult feats in baseball, and none of them were double steals." - change punctuation to He stole home 19 times in his career, one of the most difficult feats in baseball; and none of them were double steals.
  • "Martin Luther King, Jr. to defend the Johnson Adminstration's policy there" - I didn't go back to check but I think this is the first mention of MLK, so he should be linked, and Johnson shouldn't be linked to LBJ
  • "Hall of Fame bound player" - hyphenate, Hall of Fame-bound
  • "as of 2007 the number of African-Americans in the major league has been on the decline for decades." - an as of statement needs a reference, and it reads awkwardly
  • "In 2008, the percentage of back players rose to 10.2% (up from 8.2% in 2007). [105]." - double punct and no space between statement and ref
  • "The Yankees' Mariano Rivera will be the last player in the major leagues to wear #42." - is, not will be
  • "The tribute was continued in 2008, when, during the April 15 games, all members of the New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, Washington Nationals, and Tampa Bay Rays wore Robinson's # 42.[134] In 2009, all uniformed personnel wore # 42 on April 15. [135]" - no spaces in "# 42" or between statement and refs
  • Reflist should be 2 columns max per MOS.

Hope that these comments are helpful. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 20 2009 Changes

Thanks KV. All changes made with the excepetion of the "lighting issue" allegation, which is original to the source.

Is it original to the source that race and faulty lighting are related? That's the connotation in the article right now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the connotation in the source artcile as well, which states that Robinson was "unwelcome" in DeLand. I've limited the characterization in the wikiarticle as "refused to host games involving Robinson" to be literally correct. Maybe some other wording could be used.
I've found an additional cite, which is probably the original, and used its language instead. BillTunell (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

First off, you're doing great work, keep it up. Secondly, you should study and understand WP:NPOV and WP:Peacock, which the article struggles with and which will shut down a FA nom before you can blink. The most important thing to remember is to "let the facts speak for themselves". You don't need to say things like "he had a great season" when instead you've already said "he won the MVP". Then just make sure the facts and statements you use are sourced and verifiable. In most of the instances in this article, the POV and Peacock statements just need to be deleted because the facts and sources are already there. Now for some specifics:

While I would have preferred to make these changes in the FA review stage instead of holding up the peer review for two more weeks, most of your changes are good. I'ven noted my changes in bold.
  • "While not the first African-American player in major league history, Robinson's debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers organization broke the baseball color line, ending a nearly sixty-year era of segregation in professional baseball, in which African-Americans were prohibited from competing in Major League Baseball and its affiliated minor league systems, and relegated instead to the Negro Leagues." ~ long and wordy sentence, break it into multiple sentences
changed
This section still seems clunky to me, but I'll try my hand here:
While not the first African-American player in major league history, Robinson broke the baseball color line when he debuted with the Brooklyn Dodgers organization in the mid-1940s. Prior to Robinson, African-American players were prohibited from competing in Major League Baseball or its affiliated minor leagues. During this nearly sixty-year era of segregation, they had played instead in the Negro Leagues. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, segregation dominated many, if not most, aspects of American life." was it many or most? what do sources say? i would use a term more specific that either of those myself
changed
  • "As such, Robinson's arrival in Major League Baseball had a major cultural impact beyond sports, and helped to shape the subsequent Civil Rights Movement." ~ As such is unnecessary and adds to the wordiness; is 'shape' the best word there; was it "Robinson's arrival" (as is currently the subject of the sentence) that helped to shape or was it Robinson (he, the person) that helped to shape?
changed
  • "Apart from his cultural impact, Robinson had an exceptional baseball career." ~ Peacock sentence, delete
I've left this unchanged for a few reasons: (1) it's a topic sentence for the paragraph, (2) it's a notability claim in an article header, and (3) the "exceptional" designation should be well within perameters of WP:Peacock ... he's in the Hall of Fame.
From the lead paragraph of WP:Peacock, In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section.
This sentence, and the one below, are pure peacock. If you still want to set the tone for the paragraph, topic sentence as you put it, simply begin the first sentence: During his baseball career, he played on six World Series teams,. That way you can establish the focus of the paragraph without any POV or flattering comments. Just let the facts (ROY, MVP, All-Stars, HOF) speak about his career without editorializing the article. The guideline is to "show, don't tell." Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robinson also enjoyed success outside the baseball diamond." ~ Peacock, delete
another topic sentence, but I've scaled down the language.
See above, this is still Peacock. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1935, Robinson graduated from Dakota Junior High School and enrolled in John Muir High School ("Muir Tech")." ~ is graduated the right word for junior high?
As I underrstand it, yes. "Graduated" can be from any grade within a school or a school itself. I don't see a WP:MOS treatment on the issue.
It's a minor issue really, but both the wikipedia article (Graduation) and my favorite dictionary define it as the act of receiving a degree. I would use progressed or some similar word instead, myself. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackie played shortstop and catcher" ~ why his first name?
changed, along with any other "Jackie" references that are not in quotes or are useful to distinguish Jackie from his brother.
  • "starred as a quarterback," ~ starred is pov
changed
  • "After leaving Muir," ~ did he graduate? leave is ambiguous here
changed
  • "where he continued to excel in sports." ~ Peacock statement
changed
  • "Among other accomplishments," ~ Peacock statment
changed
  • "Jackie suffered a broken ankle," ~ why his first name?
changed
  • "On February 4, 1939, he played his last basketball game for PJC." Is this notable? If so, then why isn't his last football game, baseball game, and track meet notable?
I'm leaving this as-is for now, having added a source for the statement. It's not terribly germane, but it gives some context for the timing of Robinson's enrollment at various schools, which otherwise is a bit lacking.
  • "An incident on January 25, 1938 illustrated Robinson's tendency towards belligerence when confronted with perceived racism; on that date, he was arrested after vocally disputing a black friend's detention by police." ~ this phrasing may come from the sources (which I don't have the books) but "tendency towards belligerence" is POV. instead just state what happened in more detail if the sources provide it, let the reader decide if he was belligerent
The Linge book citation actually says "belligerent" (although the Google Book Preview linked in the footnote has scrolled to a different set of pages at this point -- most books cited have a preview link if anyone wants to check books). But I scaled back the language.
This is really a major concern for me. The article is implying Robinson had a "tendency to become upset when confronted with perceived racism" based on just one example. Scaling back the language from belligerent to upset doesn't really fix the problem. A source needs to be found, and this incident needs to be described in greater detail, and without the POV. Just present the incident and let the reader decide if he became belligerent or upset or especially if its a tendency of his. Using a quote from a good source here would be quite helpful to convey any belligerence without POV. Lacking a source with more detail, the phrase "illustrated Robinson's tendency to become upset when confronted with perceived racism" should be removed. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After leaving PJC in 1939," ~ again did he graduate or just transfer, its ambiguous
Don't know, so I copied the language of the UCLA Bio link.
  • "In an ironic twist, given his subsequent role in history, baseball was Robinson's worst sport at UCLA." ~ I suggest putting 'worst sport' in quotes since the source says it and remove 'in an ironic twist' which is POV; the sentence may need to be reworded after that to keep syntax
changed.
  • "Robinson left college in order to alleviate" ~ you use 'left' (leave) again, this time i guess he dropped out, right?
Yes. The citations verify this.
  • "had previously been Jackie's pastor at Scott United Methodist Church while Jackie was at PJC." ~ first name again, twice
changed
  • "Kansas City Monarchs, then the most successful team in the Negro Leagues," ~ POV, just say Kansas City Monarchs, a Negro Leagues team,
changed
  • "Jackie had grown used to a structured playing" ~ why use his first name here? or "Jackie played 47 games at shortstop"
changed
  • "Ironically, the last Major League team to integrate blacks onto its roster, the Boston Red Sox, held a tryout at Fenway Park for Robinson on April 16, 1945,[64] though even with the stands limited to management, he was still subjected to racial epithets." ~ ironically is Peacock and this sentence is confusing; how did a team have blacks before Robinson? explain. then sentence is a run-on too and should be broken up
changed -- the use of the word "last" to "final" should clear up any confusion.
Ok, so I understand the meaning now, before I thought they had been the last team with a black before segregation. But they were the last team to desegregate. Still think it is written poorly though. Try this way:
The Boston Red Sox held a tryout at Fenway Park for Robinson on April 16, 1945. Even with the stands limited to management during the tryout, he was subjected to racial epithets. The Red Sox did not sign Robinson following the tryout and would not integrate their team until 1959, the last major league team to do so. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Satisfied with Robinson's response," ~ what was Robinson's response? he was arrested at PJC and court martialed while in the military, what did he say to alleviate Rickey's concerns?
changed, with an additional reference to Robinsons's autobiogrpahy.
Great exactly what I was looking for. But here I noticed that in the Notes section the references are to simply the author Robinson. But there are referenced books by both Jackie Robinson and Sharon Robinson. These notes need to be clarified. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the designation of "Triple-A" for the highest level of minor league baseball was first used in the 1946 season) ~ is this even relevant to an article about Robinson?
I've left this alone for now. I originally inserted this parenthetical when the article referred to other "AA" black ballplayers surreptitiously inserted into MLB games, to avoid confusion. Now that this reference is gone (deleted because it was badly sourced, and cumulative statements made it duplicative), the parenthetical is probably not that germane, but it might help readers to understand the referenced sources.
  • (the Dodger-controlled spring training compound in Vero Beach known as "Dodgertown" would not open until the spring of 1948) ~ again is this relevant?
I think so, because otherwise the Dodger organization would have been able to host Robinson's games itself, without any need for politicking.
  • wikilink Sanford, Florida & Jacksonville & DeLand
changed
  • "allowed to host a game involving Robinson in Daytona." and "debut in organized professional baseball at Daytona's City Island Ballpark" - should be Daytona Beach in both cases
changed
  • "Robinson's performance soon rebounded," ~ Peacock statement, besides how does his performance rebound in the first game of the season
I've left this alone. The claim is sourced, and it's not a subjective stretch. "Improved" may be a more literally correct term, but I don't think that reads very well. The "first game" refers to the regular season, as opposed to the preceeding spring training season.
Still think its POV myself. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackie proceeded" ~ why the first name
changed

There's a bunch of stuff for you to look at, I'll read through the rest next time I get and check for any counterpoints you may have. I suggest just searching for any place "Jackie" is used and changing it to Robinson to be more formal. I think it might be alright in the sentence with his brother's name also. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I added additional comments above where I thought necessary and I'll continue looking through the remainder of the article. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment continued from Timpcrk87

  • "Robinson became the first player since 1887 to break the baseball color line." ~ Rather simple statement, it should be stated more in depth as it is in the lead. Also, I don't know how this should be termed myself, but was he the "first" player to break the color line or did he alone break it? Did subsequent players also break it? Could it be broken more than once?
References in wikipedia refer to other players breaking the color barrier on other teams, or, as in the case of Larry Doby, the American League. So I think the statement is probably fine, if a bit terse.
  • "In front of KeySpan Park there is a statue of Dodgers shortstop Pee Wee Reese with his arm around Robinson. It commemorates a piece of baseball folklore: that in 1947 Reese put his arm around Robinson in response to fans who had shouted racial slurs at Robinson before a game in Cincinnati. This story stood for decades as a symbol of racial tolerance but later became a source of controversy. That Reese put his arm around Robinson is not in dispute, but it probably happened in 1948. Reese also once came to his friend's defense with the famous line, "You can hate a man for many reasons. Color is not one of them." ~ This paragraph seems backwards. It should lead with the story, explain the significance of the act, and then include that a statue commemorates it.
changed
  • "Robinson took over his natural position at second base," ~ Natural position may be POV, especially since the article says he had played shortstop until 1946
changed
  • "Robinson had turned to George Sisler for batting help." ~ Is 'had' needed in this sentence
changed
  • wikilink Buddy Johnson
changed
  • 4 games to 1 does not need to be in parentheses but it maybe should be hyphenated
changed to "in five games"
  • "The summer of 1949 contained an unwanted distraction for Robinson." ~ Just make sure the source says it was 'unwanted' so as not to be POV
The sources are clear that Robinson was reluctant to testify, so I think this is a fair characterization.
  • "The time became right for a film biography of his life," ~ POV that the time was right
changed
  • (and another World Series loss to the Yankees, this time in six games) ~ doesn't need to be in parentheses does it?
I've left it as-is because the tone of the sentence changes from success to failure in the parenthatical.
  • "Predictably by this point, Robinson's continued success spawned a string of death threats." ~ predictably by this point is POV
changed
  • "This animosity did not dissuade Robinson, however, from addressing racial issues publicly." ~ however is unnecessary
changed
  • "after what was ironically the worst year of his career." ~ POV stuff
changed
  • "This, and a disagreement between his friend Rickey" ~ awkward way to start a sentence
I've reworked this whole paragraph
  • "Beginning his career at the relatively advanced age of 28, he only played 10 seasons, all of them for the Brooklyn Dodgers." ~ Major League Baseball should be in that sentence somewhere to be clear
changed
  • "In 1999, he was named as a member" ~ 'as' is unnecessary
changed
  • "a feat equivalent to a Gold Glove, " ~ POV, the Gold Glove does not automatically go to the player with the best fielding percentage
removed
  • "and is the only way that most current players will attempt to steal home." ~ POV
changed
  • "Although Robinson played his rookie season at first base, Robinson spent most of his career as a second baseman." ~ use 'he' instead of Robinson in one of the instances so it reads better
changed
  • "In his first seven seasons, from 1947 to 1953, Robinson averaged over 110 runs." ~ It's POV to selectively limit his stats to only certain years to make the average look better
I'm leaving this alone for now. This was a heavily-negotiated and much-edited passage in the prior peer review of this article. In support of the factoid, the last three years of Robinson's career had significantly less plate appearances than his first seven.
  • 'Boys of Summer' ~ I don't know how this is supposed to be formatted or if it's a book or something else, but this doesn't seem right to me
I was really tempted to leave this passage out altogether, but I've researched the citation.
  • "I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me ... all I ask is that you respect me as a human being." ~ this would be great for a quote box, see Ozzie Smith, maybe other quotes in the article too
Good idea.
  • "He nevertheless was installed on the first ballot," ~ nevertheless is sort of POV here and 'installed' is an awkward way to say it, why not elected?
changed
  • wikilink Cooperstown
changed
  • second paragraph of post-baseball life is out of order chronologically
These paragraphs involve overlapping time periods, so I don't see any change that would be an improvement.
  • "In 1970, Robinson established the Jackie Robinson Construction Company to build housing for families with low incomes." ~ why is it there as a paragraph all by itself, i would suggest adding it to the second one in this section
changed
  • "Despite the success of these two Robinsons and other black players, the number of African-American players in Major League Baseball has generally been on the decline since the 1970s." ~ needs a source
This is a summary passage with a "further information" tag following it.
  • "Robinson's widow, Rachel Robinson, has had a extremely successful career" ~ peacock statement with extremely successful
changed
  • "Robinson's body, which had served him well as an athlete, failed early." ~ POV
It should not be controversial to assert that Robinson was a good athlete, or that he died young. I don't see a NPOV issue here, and the line is meant to impart literary flow. So I've left it alone for now.
  • "Robinson's contributions have been recognized in a number of ways." ~ this sentence is not necessary, the section is already called Awards and recognition, just delete it and change 'he' to Robinson in the first sentence
changed
  • "He ranks highly in a number of polls and lists." ~ this is a peacock statement
It's a topic sentence, and eliminating it would make the paragraph clunky. The statement is immediately supported with references, so I see this as a pretty neutral comment. Reciting the fact that Robinson is a highly regarded individual is not the same thing as trumpeting him.
  • 100 Greatest African-Americans is redlinked and probably not worthy of its own article anyway for just Asante's opinion
I'll leave this question for the wiki adminstrators
  • "On June 25, 2008, Major League Baseball replaced Robinson's plaque at the Baseball Hall of Fame to commemorate his off-the-field impact on the game as well as his playing statistics." ~ needs to include 'with a new one' to be clear
changed
  • "The Yankees' Mariano Rivera is be the last player in the major leagues to wear #42 on a regular basis." ~ typo
changed
  • "Dodgers' de facto spring" ~ i have no idea myself but is de facto suppossed to be italicized
WP:MOS is not very detaield on what cosntitutes a non-italicized "loanword," but the article on the phrase "de facto" italicizes it

Well, there you have it, I don't know crap about refs so if there are issues there I don't know. Timpcrk87 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We have some remaining disagreements, particularly on "peacock" issues. While I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on those issues, I'll leave those to the (eventual) FA review process administrator to resolve. BillTunell (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'm a bigger stickler on some of those issues than is probably necessary amd I can see the counter view on many of them. I want to note though that I strongly feel that there is a POV issue with the statements about his arrest while at PJC that need to be resolved. But good work on the article and good luck promoting it to FA status. Timpcrk87 (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-wording the PJC arrest line a little bit more, but I consider the event, and Robinson's character trait associated with it, notable. The PJC arrest is only the first instance in which Robinson blew a gasket -- the military court-martial events being the more substatnial example -- and this charcter trait, for good or ill, was a major concern of Rickey's before signing Robinson. The commetn on his character trait is a sourced observation rather than a gratuitous one. So I'm leaving it in for now. If it comes out differently in the FA nomination process, that's fine.BillTunell (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of Germany

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the revision is on my user page. it's a major rewrite of an existing article that was listed as in need of revision, citations, etc. I'm a newbie at creating new articles, and major revision, although not a newbie at writing. so I need some guidance Thanks, Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't paste the whole article here - there is a limit to the size of peer review and doing so strains it. Peer review is also for actual articles, not versions in user space - why not be WP:BOLD and put the version at User:Auntieruth55 in the articel? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now I cannot find the peer review space to remove it though. Or did you do that? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review is also transcluded (shown) at WP:PR, so I removed the article from this peer review (and thus from the overall "peer review"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Auntieruth55, I think peer review is a bit premature. Wikipedia's "peer review" is for articles that are bordering on "featured" status. But I'll move this along in a more appropriate manner. Thanks for hitting my talk page so I knew to keep an eye on this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel and others, there is still a problem with the article that I cannot fix (don't know how, don't have access, don't have technical ability to manipulate a map). The map showing German colonies also has a colony labeled "Little Venice" (dates in the 16th century) in present day Venezuela, which I find more than odd. I think this should be removed, or redone -- eliminating the Little Venice would do the trick. The other colonies in Africa look about right. If Little Venice were to remain, half the United States should also be marked as a German "colony" which would be silly. As near as I could tell, the map may be in a template, thus inaccessible for me.Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about File:Map of the German Empire - 1914.PNG, which has a key in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America. The legend for the blue square says "Kolonien des 2. Kaiserreischs" or "Colonies of the German Empire" - there is nothing about Little Venice in German or English. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - I see Jmabel has made a new version of the map for you - the "Little Venice" version (no longer in the article) is File:Map of the German Empire.PNG. SOrry for the confusion, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a very good start, there are still some issues that need to be resolved for the article to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I always assume people eventually want to get articles to featured status, so here are some suggestions for improvement.  Done*The article needs more references, for example there are whole sections anmd paragraphs without a ref, such as The Zollverein or Founding a unified state. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.  Done*Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

  • Sources also need to be reliable - not sure that the Historyman website would pass muster at WP:FAC and this is a topic with many well done books on it. See WP:RS
Historyman is simply a compilation of original documents, or at least the page I used was a compilation of documents. the History man himself did not write them. I picked that, over, for example, other locations for those docuemnts because they are immediately available.

 Done*Headers need to follow WP:HEAD better - no links in headers (Zollverein or Germanization of German Jewry), avoid articles if possible, and don't repeat the title (so The Contributions of the Prussian Kings to Unification could just be "Contributions of the Prussian Kings"). Many of the headers could also be much more concise.  Done*I think there may be too many headers / sections as well.

I removed some, consolidated some, added some to make it clearer.

 Done*Watch needless repetition - the crown of mud story is in at least twice - I am not sure the whole "The Contributions of the Prussian Kings to Unification" needs to be there at all (most of it could be integrated into the rest of the article). Keep the focus relentlessly on the topic at hand.  Done*Watch that the tone and language are neutral and encyclopedic - so a sentence like ". During the 100 Days (which was actually more like 110 days), a largely Prussian force under the command of the wonderfully eccentric Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, contributed to the victory at Waterloo." is problematic for a couple of reasons: do we really need the aside that the 100 days were more like 110 days in an article on German Unification? What purpose does it serve here? Also the phrase "wonderfully eccentric" is not really neutral in tone. Note that it is OK to say something like "von Bluecher, whom noted historian Joe Smith called "wonderfully eccentric", ...[1]" but the question is, does it help the reader to understand German unification to know that Napoleon ran around Europe for a bit more than 100 days or that von B was an odd duck? See WP:NPOV

I have looked at that NPOV page, and did take things out, as you've requested. It seems oddly inflexible however; there is a difference between boring text and neutrality. One can remain neutral without losing all sense of what these men and women were like. Especially with our friend vB, who imagined he saw elephants in his tent.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Wars

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, you know, the 'ole shebang. DLC is forthcoming, so the section is gonna' be stubby for a while, but that's about it. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random commentary as I see it. I already took a stab at rewording a few of these; feel free to tweak/revert as necessary.
  • Lead: "The game is set in the Halo science fiction universe, 20 years before the video game Halo: Combat Evolved, which was released on 2001." don't mix your fictional years and your real-life years in the same sentence. Additionally, it's awkward to have Halo's release date mentioned before Halo Wars'.
  • Lead: "The game was an attempt to bring together Halo first-person shooter fans to play a real-time strategy game and experienced strategy players to play a Halo game." Awkward construction, seems to be done solely to avoid repeating the developer's quote later on.
  • Gameplay: "...units are trained and upgrades resourced." - You mean researched?
  • Gameplay: "The UNSC build reactors..." took a stab at rewording this.
  • Plot: Assorted ambiguities, especially in the realm of pronouns. Attempted to fix some of them up, others not so much because I don't know the plot: "Anders formulates a plan to destroy the planet by detonating the ship's faster-than-light reactor." - Which ship?
  • Reception: "More neutrally, 1UP.com's would not say..." This sentence's is missing.

More generally, my only other comment is that the section on audio development feels a little long, comparatively. Otherwise it's a very well-researched and pretty well-written article. Nifboy (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of middle schools in England

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list article for peer review after a considerable overhaul. I have collated up-to-date information on each school, and am now wondering if it might be suitable for making up to Featured List standard - all a new thing to me! Can anyone suggest improvements that might move it in that direction? Thanks, Tafkam (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: This looks an impressive effort. However, there are numerous issues which require attention:- Lead:

  • The lead should start with a clear definition of a middle school, rather than a statement about them being a recent "phenomenon" (phenomenon is not a good choice of word anyway).
  • It should be made clearer that although Edward Boyle's 1964 Education Act opened the pathway to the establishment of middle schools, it did so rather grudgingly; it did not, for example, recognise middle schools as a formal category. As you say in the article, middle schools that were established were for legal purposes "deemed" either primary or secondary, this remaining the position as far as I know to this day. You should say in the article what the determining factor was that led to schools being deemed one or the other.
  • The circular to which you refer should be identified as Circular 10/65, a rather notable British educational document (it even has its own Wikipedia article, to which you can link). This circular, incidentally, was withdrawn in June 1970 by the incoming Conservative government, but as your figures show, most of the growth in middle schools occurred after this withdrawal, which might be a point worth making.
  • The minister had requested a review of the age of transfer to secondary schools as part of the Plowden enquiry - the report came two years later.
  • It would be better to explain what "combined schools" were, rather than relying on a link
  • Numbers can rise "continuously", "regularly" or even "continually", but "repeatedly" is strange.
  • The term "National Curriculum" should be linked. Since the National Curriculum was not introduced until 1989 (and was phased in over several years), is there another explanation as to why the number of middle schools started to fall in 1983? It would be useful to have some indication of the rate at which the number diminished; was the decline gradual until the National Curriculum really kicked in?
  • Since you yourself have listed 265 schools, the number of middle schools in January 2009 should be given precisely as 265, not as "fewer than 300"
  • MOS issues: 1,400 not 1400; five years not 5 years; 900-pupil not 900 pupil

Tables

  • All of the following statements need citations to sources:-
    • Cambridgeshire has only one middle school, which is effectively part of the Bedfordshire three-tier system.
    • All Harrow middle schools will close on 31st August 2010.
    • All Isle of Wight middle schools will close on 31st August 2010.
    • All three Kent middle schools will close on 31st August 2009, to be replaced by a new academy on the Isle of Sheppey.
    • Northumberland County Council has begun a process of closing middle schools across the authority in stages.
    • Poole Borough Council intends to close all of its middle-deemed-primary schools in August 2013.
    • Suffolk County Council intends to close all middle schools in its authority by 2013.
  • What is the purpose of giving individual geographical coordinates for every individual school, especially when, in urban areas such as Harrow, Poole and Windsor, the schools are practically next door to each other? I appreciate that much work has gone into including this information, but I think it clutters your tables with data of only marginal usefulness, and would recommend you take it out.

General point

  • With FL in mind, you have to face the question of an inherent instability in this article. Of 265 schools listed, more than half are scheduled to close by 2013, many on dates set before that (in Harrow, for instance). So what will this article look like in a year's time, or in two years? Do you intend to continually update it? Even so, there may not be much of an article left in a few years. You need to decide how you are gong to answer such questions at FL if you take it there,

Don't hesitate to ping my talkpage if you have queries or problems in dealing with any of the above. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is my first page on wikipedia -- I've edited other articles for a while but have never taken a stab at creating one from scratch. This is topic I'm very passionate about. I've tried very hard to cite sources correctly, and I've added information, but I really just need guidance on where to take the article next. I love feedback on my written work (I'm an English major, so I love when people read my work) and I love to review other work, so I will review other articles as recommended to get some feedback on this one.

Specifically, I want to know how it feels stylistically, and what the reader feels like they want to know more of after reading but the article is lacking. I'm more than willing to put in the work on this article and other articles in the future related to harm reduction, etc., as I work in the field and have a lot of access to information.

Cheers! AC (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments

Just a few minor points:

  • You have broken this article into too many sections. Its actually better on comprehension -- & the eyes -- if you try to make sections no shorter than 2-3 paragraphs; you have only one section that is longer than a single paragraph.
  • It would greatly improve the article if more examples of what they have done to advocate their goals were provided. Do they give lectures or offer other forms of education -- or are their activities limited to political statements? And when was the 100 crosses put in Oppenheimer Park? (BTW, which Portland is the Portland Hotel Society based in? Portland, Oregon?)
  • The formatting for the external links in the footnotes is broken somehow. I'm not familiar with the template you use here, otherwise I'd fix one to show you how to do it.

Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Memorial Church

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded greatly to the point that I believe that it has the potential for FAC. There has been a great deal of research done on this article in the past several months. There is a surprisingly large amount of sources about this special church on the Stanford University campus. It's a beautiful building with an intriguing history. (Yes, I'm using all the peacock terms here that I couldn't use in the article.) A few editors have worked tirelessly on this article, but it could use some extra eyes, especially by experts in architecture. There are very few FAs about church buildings, so the improvement of this article will make an important contribution to the encyclopedia. Thanks, Christine (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Get Up Kids

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review for this article as a first step to nominating it for Featured Article status. It recently became a Good Article, and I am looking for suggestions for what I should improve before nominating it for FA.

Thanks, Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am trying to figure out if I know any songs by this band - article is decent but needs some work before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye towards FAC.

  • Several places need references - this is a must fix before FAC. For example, the last paragraph of the Influence section or all but one sentence of the After breakup (2005-2008) section needs refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Current ref 25 is a dead link.
  • Make sure the refs used meet WP:RS
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way , so the lead probably needs to be expanded a bit.
  • A near professional level of language is the hardest FAC criterion for most articles to meet and this could stand some polishing of the prose too. For example, there are a fair number of places that seem needlessly wordy and/or repeat words, such as The album would be the first album to be recorded in Black Lodge Studios, the recording studio in Eudora, Kansas, [which was] renovated and owned by The Get Up Kids and producer Ed Rose. The Black Lodge Studios article says the Pope brothers and Rose own the studio (not the band and Rose). Or this In March 2004, the band released their fourth and what would be their final studio album, Guilt Show, produced by Ed Rose.
  • Watch overlinking - Ed Rose is linked five times in the article (once for the studio) - see WP:OVERLINK
  • The caption The Uptown Theater marquee on the night of the final Get Up Kids show. should probably give the date of the show - also since they have since performed other shows and gotten back together, should the caption reflect this too?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I started working on pretty close to it's creation and I have watched it grow. It seems like GA material and maybe even FA material but I figure a PR would be appropriate before I nominated it for anything.

Thanks, N.G.G. 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gears of War 2/archive1.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through several failed FA nominations in the past. However, it's also been recently revamped and it would be good to see it become FA. Any changes to be made to the article would be welcome, so that it can be improved before taking it to FAC.

Thanks, EclipseSSD (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a small comment before a larger review later this week: The article still contains the problematic "audience consisting of pre-teens and adolescents" passage that was discussed on the talk page. Can we be sure, after this instance, that the other references really back the sentence(s) that precede it? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it'd be better to remove it.--EclipseSSD (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: This article is classified under "Everyday life" (!) Films etc are normally classified under Arts. I don't suppose it matters, but it seems a bit odd. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Sorry about that. I couldn't remember where to put it, but oh well.--EclipseSSD (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article overall! I see a few problems with this group of sentences: "Initial critical reception of the film was mixed, receiving both praise and criticism regarding the atmosphere, story, characters, and graphic content,. It however was a strong commercial success, grossing $30.8 million at the United States box office. Despite this reception, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has gained a reputation as one of the greatest and most influential horror films of all time". 1) The comma after "graphic content" at the end of the first sentence needs to be deleted. 2) The beginning of the third sentence is a bit confusing. Sentence 1 states that initial critical reception was mixed. Sentence 2 states that it was a commercial success. Sentence 3 states that "despite this reception, TCM has gained a reputation as one of the greatest...". If the film was a commercial success, how did the film go on to gain a great reputation "despite this reception"? Either the "despite this reception" needs to be reworded or the sentences need rearranging.--Pisceandreams (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the following sentence seems to be out of place: Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, "In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask.". This appears at the end of a paragraph that seems to include critical reaction to the film shortly after its release, and the fact that this is a review from a web site and that it mentions Freddy and Jason exposes it as critique made well after the film's release. I would suggest moving this sentence further in the "Reception" section, or perhaps even in the "Legacy" section. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Tasmania

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to help the article improve and to know how to set it out, as I'm the only contributor.

Thanks, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Very informative, and tables well set out. I do have a number of issues, though.

  • Structure: You have crammed most of your information into the lead section. That is not the function of the lead; it should act as a concise summary of what's in the main body of the article. As a general principle, things touched on in the lead should be developed at greater length in the main article. If you read WP:LEAD you will see that the lead should not have more than four paragraphs (yours has six) – I would expect not more than two or three a shortish article like this. Climate of Florida and Climate of North Carolina are two Good Articles in the same subject field as yours, which might help you to develop a more appropriate structure.
  • Few wikilinks in lead. All the placenames, except Australia, should be linked, also Southern Ocean. "Temperate climate" should be linked here rather than later in the article.
  • There are numerous examples of dodgy prose, starting with the lead:-
    • "Autumn lasts between March and May and experiences changeable weather..." Autumn brings changeable weather, which we, not autumn, then experience.
    • "The winter months are between June and July and are generally..." There's nothing between June and July. I suggest you begin this statement: "The winter months of June and July are generally..."
    • "Winter maximums..." → "Winter maximum temperatures..."
    • "thanks to" would be more encyclopedic as "due to"
    • "Although snowfall is still common up until October." Not a complete sentence, needs to be attached to the previous one.
    • "...rather analogous to that found on large continents at the same latitude in the northern hemisphere." Which particular land masses did you have in mind for this example?
    • What do you mean by "a strong winter maximum"?
    • "January and February typically averages" – should be "average"
    • "50 years", not "fifty years
    • "...on 7 June-June 1954" should be "on 7–8 June 1954", with ndash not hyphen
  • Hobart section
    • What does "(Koppen Cfb)" signify?
    • "highest maximum and "lowest minimum". Tautologies? Also, do these refer to highest and lowest ever recorded?
    • second lowest, rather than "second least"
    • Do cities "receive" snow? I'd say they "experience" it
    • "...it has received unseasonal snowfalls" – need to clarify what "it" refers to here
    • "did receive" → "received"
    • Also: hardly any of the statements in the Hobart section have been cited.
  • Launceston section
    • "...in short amount of time" → "in a short period of time"
    • Can you explain what "Ti Tree Bend" is? Is it a weather station, a village or district, or what? Is there a particular reason why weather is measured there?
    • "has received in a year was..." is a conflict of tenses. Either delete "has" or change "was" to "is"

OK, that'll do. I hope that you find these comments helpful in you efforts to improve the article.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep going. Main article or See also templates are not placed above the lead. They are either placed just under the header of the section where they best apply, or if there are none which apply relatively well, under a See Also header towards the end of the article. Also, a link to you recent GAN article, Launceston, should likely be placed within a Main article template just under the header for the Launceston section. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inveresk and York Park Precinct, Launceston

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can receive feedback to improve the article.

Thanks, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editors are restricted to one PR nomination per day. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Infobox

  • More details, the coordinates for example, would be good. You could look at the Launceston, Australia infobox for ideas about what might be added.

Lead

  • "Australian Football League" should have the abbreviation on first use so that AFL by itself makes sense to readers unfamiliar with the league. Here's what I mean: Australian Football League (AFL).
  • Similarly, TAFE needs to appear on first reference as Technical and Further Education (TAFE). The sentence in which TAFE appears also needs an "and the" inserted, thus: "It is home to Aurora Stadium, the only current Australian Football League venue in Tasmania, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Tasmania and Academy of Arts."
  • "An Australia Technical College campus is currently under construction at the site and is expected to be opened early next year." - "Currently" and "next year" are both inherently vague. Five years from now, what will they mean? It's generally better to find a way to be specific by using phrases like "as of 2009" or "in 2010".

Aurora Stadium

  • Bolding in the main text of Wikipedia articles is generally limited to the repetition of the article's subject in the first line of the lead, per WP:MOSBOLD. The bolded words in this section should probably be in normal type.
  • "It is primarily used to host Australian rules football and has a record crowd of 20,971, when Hawthorn played Richmond in an AFL match in June 2006." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Primarily used for Australian rules football, its record attendance was 20,971, when Hawthorn played Richmond in an AFL match in June 2006."
  • The first two paragraphs are unsourced even though much of the material is not common knowledge. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that is unusual or that might reasonably be questioned. The "record crowd" claim, for example, is a statistic that might reasonably be questioned. It needs to be verified with an in-line citation to a verifiable and reliable source.

Upgrade plan

  • ... application to the Federal Government’s Strategic Projects Program for a new Northern Stand, after fire damaged part of the existing heritage-listed structure." - This is the first mention of the North Stand and its status as a heritage-listed structure. A bit of background would be helpful, and most readers won't know precisely what "heritage-listed" means. Either a wikilink or a brief in-text explanation would be useful.
  • Citation 3 is apparently being used to support the claim that the estimated cost of the upgrade is $4.2 million. However, the cited source doesn't mention the upgrade cost. Citation 2 links to a source that supports the cost claim. It's important to be careful that cited sources actually support the claims they are attached to.

Inversk Showrounds

  • Citation 5 supports only a small fraction of the claims made in the paragraph it is attached to.
  • "A popular feature of the show is the sideshows which feature showrides, foodstalls, games of skill, and showbag stalls." - "Feature" is singular while "sideshows" is plural. "Showbag" is a special term that needs to be linked or explained. "Showrides" is also a word I have never seen before. Does it mean carnival rides like the ferris wheel and bumping cars, or does it mean animal rides?
  • "MS fest" needs be spelled out and explained. Does MS stand for multiple sclerosis?
  • The entire second paragraph is unsourced. Please see WP:V.

Australian Technical College and Past proposed projects

  • Both sections are much too short to stand alone. The college section looks like a good candidate for expansion. It might be possible to expand the past projects section to include more details as well.

References

  • Citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Some of the existing references are less complete than they could be. For example, citation 4 might include the publisher, The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and citation 7 should include the author, John Caples. I like using the "cite family" of templates partly because they remind me of all the categories of information that might be included if available. The templates live at WP:CIT. If you use them, don't mix the "cite" templates with other template families in the same article.
  • Newspaper names should appear in italics.

Images

  • What makes the RAIA model of the Tasmania School of Architecture "free to use" as claimed on the image description page?
  • The sources for the other images can't simply be the English-language Wikipedia. Fact-checkers need to be able to verify that source images do not have copyright restrictions that prevent their publication by Wikipedia.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs a little guidance from a third party (other than 1ForTheMoney and myself) before it gets a GA Nomination (which I have removed per advice from Someone another).

Thanks, Unionhawk Talk 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/RuneScape/archive5.

CE-HTML

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was rated B in the computing category class, and needs to be peer-reviewed for advancement. It is deemed complete for the casual reader to get an understanding of what CE-HTML is.

Thanks, Thrill59 (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Good start and clear that a lot of work has been put into the article, but this has a very long way to go before I think it would be seen as a good article (which would have to go through WP:GAN, not just WP:PR). So here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GAN.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Refs are not needed in the lead unless it is a direct quote or an extraoridnary claim (although it is OK to have refs in the lead)
  • Because it is a summary of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Web4CE is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase so fix things like DOM level 2.0 (Core [8], Style [9], Events [10], HTML [11])
  • Article needs more references, for example almost all of the History section is uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Provide context for the reader - for example the history section does not give any dates, when did all the developments occur? ANother place is the code section - all that is there to explain it is Typical CE-HTML code looks like this [13]: but then no explanation for the code that follows is provided. See WP:PCR
  • Article is very list-y and much of it could be converted to prose for better flow
  • Another thing to improve flow is to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs by combining them with others or perhaps expanding them.
  • Spell out abbreviations before first use so that their menaing is clearer to the casual reader - this is done nicely expaining what CE is CE-HTML[1] is a language for creating user interface pages for Consumer Electronics (CE) devices such as televisions. but HTML is not explained. See WP:JARGON too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fletch (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for some time and would like any suggestions or contributions to help beef up the Production section which is lacking in info. I've exhausted all the resources I can think of and would welcome any help to improve this article

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I like the movie, here are some suggestions for improvement of the article.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - I am not sure how including Fletch's pen name (Jane Doe) helps someone who has not seen the movie understand it, and I am also not sure why the basic premise (rich man approaches Fletch in disguise as a bum and asks the "bum" to kill him) is not in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the soundtrack is not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The movie seems to be based mostly on the first novel, but the lead says "novels". Which is it?
  • Several places need references (fact tag). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The refs that are used do not give enough information - for example ref 1 is just "Foreman, Jonathan. "Fletch Fanatics". New York Post." but needs the date and year of publication, as well as the page number or URL.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The current plot section is too loose in structure and tone and is inconsistent in some things. I would start by identify the title character, so I would start with something like Investigative newspaper reporter Irwin M. "Fletch" Fletcher is undercover on a Los Angeles beach investigating drug trafficking when he is approached by a well groomed man, Alan Stanwyk. Stanwyk asks Fletch to kill him ... There is a cast and characters section after identifying who pays each role, so either identify everyone (Chase after Fletch, etc.) Only three of the characters are listed in the plot.
  • Does the DVD have more information on the production? Have you looked at magazines from the time the movie was released? It was a pretty popular film and there may be backissues somehwere with the information you need.
  • There is way too much information on the prequel film - it should be its own article or part of the Fletch Won book article.
  • Provide context for the reader - for example, give the year the novel was released. See WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abismo Negro

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm going on vacation and thus can't respond to more comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on expanding it and getting the best possible sources in the hopes of making it the first Lucha Libre article to reach GA status and who knows, maybe even FA status one day. I'm hoping people will give me constructive feedback to improve the article and I will listen to everything and anything. Since English isn't my primary language any copyedit review comments would be greatly appreciated, but all comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance, MPJ-DK (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the following automated review comments
  • Person data
  • Contractions
I've yet to work on the lead, but I'm on it now, also the fact that "Abismo Negro" is both the article title and a headline is unavoidable. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikki
  • Use endashes (–) between dates instead of dashes (-). For more, see WP:DASH.
  • In the first paragraph under "Professional wrestling career". I'd either wikilink gimmick or change it to character.
  • It might make the first sentence under "Winners" make more sense if it was mentioned that Pena was CMLL's head booker.
  • "made him visibly very striking" - sounds like original research or POV
  • I didn't actually come up with the expression on my own, it was from a wrestling magazine that did a tribute article on him. I added the source to prevent any misunderstandings over the use of the term. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Outside the ring" section, all the sentences start with his name. Mixing it up would make it sound better.

I also did some minor copyediting. Nikki♥311 23:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by NiciVampireHeart

-- ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of Life (manga)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA-class or later, FA-class.

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I feel that this article has been brought to peer review prematurely, as much more work needs to be done before it can be considered for GA-class. At present the prose content is so slight as to be not much more than a stub. I think in all honesty that the B rating is overgenerous.

Take a look at Kashimashi Girl Meets Girl. This is a manga article that has achieved GA, and could be used by you as a general model for the development of your own article. Note that it has a proper lead summarising the whole article, a detailed plot section, and other developed sections dealing with production, media and reception. Yours needs to approach this level of detail.

Within the little prose that is available, I have problems with sentences such as "Digital Manga Publishing released the manga's four tankōbon of the manga between January 17, 2007 and May 20, 2009." You also have three consecutive sentences of the Reception section beginning: "Comics Worth Reading's Johanna Draper Coulson..." Maybe you should get a little help with the prose as you develop the article. I also think that the ISBN table is an awkward and unnecessary intrusion.

I would like to see this worked up to a good standard, so I hope you won't be discouraged by what I've said, and will continue to work on it.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for peer reviewing this. But I only created the article, Malkinann (talk · contribs) did most of the work. Wonder if you could look at the Brave Story peer review as well? It is slightly larger than Flower of Life (manga). Once again, thank you. Extremepro (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Illinois earthquake

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make any corrections, as I plan to send this article to FAC.

Thanks, Ceranllama chat post 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]

I will jot some ideas here - I was in the middle of something so will return to this later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok this sentence - Millions within the region were affected in some way. is really vague. I know what you mean but I think it is a bit 'fluffy'
  • Records of seismic activity in Illinois date back to 1795, when a small event shook a frontier area. - be good to add where this happened - sounds vague as is and leaves me wanting to know more.
  • Link 'epicenter' somewhere. If not on WP, then to wikt.
All done. Ceranllama chat post 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can the earthquake be felt in approximately 23 different states? Either it was 23 or some other number, right? :)

Some copyediting for flow:

  • McLeansboro in particular experienced extensive damage, though minor. - sounds odd, could probably reword it and leave out the 'though' or maybe just "McLeansboro in particular experienced extensive, though minor, damage" - flows a little better...
Rewritten.
  • Its local high school reported nineteen broken windows in the girl's gymnasium along with cracked plaster walls. A majority of classrooms also sustained fractured walls. --> "Its local high school reported nineteen broken windows in the girl's gymnasium along with cracked plaster walls, and most classrooms sustained fractured walls."
  • The First United Methodist Church had a facade that was damaged; --> "The facade of the First United Methodist Church was damaged;"
  • One home had three chimneys felled - 'felled' makes me think of trees, maybe 'collapsed' or even 'toppled' is better
  • Other damage occurred, such as fallen chimneys, foundation cracks, and reports of collapsed parapets and overturned tombstones. - I'd rephrase and remove bolded bit, patently obvious it is damage. Maybe just say "There were reports of fallen chimneys, foundation cracks, collapsed parapets and overturned tombstones."
  • The most severe evidence of this - the evidence is not severe, but the damage is.
  • Also, is there any information on insurance payouts etc. from the quake?
Not that I'm aware of. All finished. Ceranthor 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Field

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We would like to get this article up to Featured article class. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thank you, blackngold29 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Sunderland A.F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Right, I'm gearing this article up for FAC, where I'm aiming to finish the future FTC. I'd like thorough review to remove any problems. Please point out prose points, but I will likely ask someone to run over the article after for a copyedit anyway. Fire away. :) Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll endeavour to have a proper look over this later, but one quick thing that jumps out - the refs section needs to be re-organised. The section should simply be headed "References" and have the books, etc. first under a subheading of "General", followed by the inline cites under the subheading "Specific" (see for example Gillingham F.C. records). Currently you've got things like "Days p100" but you have to scroll much further down to find out what "Days" actually is....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It's an interesting football history, but at pesent there are many problems with the prose. The following long list relates only to the lead and first section. I have also done some tidying of commas and some small fixes, but really the article needs a full copyedit. Most of the points I raise are quite minor in themselves, it's just that there are so many of them.

  • Lead
    • At present the lead is too short to be a summary of the whole article, and will need to be expanded, but I suggest you deal with the prose issues first.
    • "Sunderland played "solely" in the FA Cup." Is this literally true? So that if they were knocked out in Round 1, they played no more football that year? I imagine they must have played in local league competitions, or perhaps they played a series of friendlies. Whatever the case, you need to clarify what you mean by "solely". Done - I've cleared this up.
  • Early years etc
    • The opening, "Sunderland were founded..." etc, is a bit awkwardly phrased. Personally, I would rephrase, losing the intrusive mdashes, to something like: "Sunderland AFC began life as "Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club", founded in 1879 by James Allan, a teacher at Hendon Board School. His object was to provide "recreational amusement" for the area's schoolteachers." Done - Changed to that.
    • Is "all blue" really a "sharp" contrast to red-and-white, or is it simply different? Suggest delete "sharp" Done - Removed sharp.
    • Blue House Field should not be italicised Done - Removed italics.
    • Their first ground wasn't a change, so I suggest you should say they would change their home "four times", rather than "four more times" Done - Removed "more".
    • In 1881 "the club's name" rather than "their name" Done - Changed to that.
    • I don't think you need to link "Scotsmen". Can you say in what way these players were "internationals"? Had they all been capped by Scotland, or were they merely the club's first players from outside England? Done - Changed to "internationally capped".
    • Say when Allen left the club, and if it was this that led to the appointment of the club's first manager Done - I've added when he left, but there isn't really any information on why he was appointed.
    • Sunderland joined the Football League in time for the 1890–91 season." That's a bit sudden. What was the background to their joining the league? Presumably it was some reflection of their perceived abilities, but we need a little more history here. Done - More detailed.
    • "Sunderland's admission to the league effectively made them the "thirteenth" team in English football." I don't see much value in this sentence. Readers won't necessarily know that the League was founded by 12 clubs, and I don't see much point in telling them now. I would simply lose the sentence. Done - Removed.
    • "The Football League should be "the Football League" (no capital T). Reference to "the league" should be to "the League", throughout. Done
    • Preston North End should be wikilinked
    • The painting shouldn't be labelled "famous" as that is opinion. Just delete "famous" (I'm not saying it isn't famous, just that it's not encyclopedic language to say so). Done - Deleted famous.
    • I've put a "fact" tag against the apparently uncited assertion that Hemy's painting was the first ever of a football league match. Presumably you can easily supply the citation. Done - I misread this in my book, changed to "one of the earlist recorded".
    • "They completed three league titles..." – "Sunderland completed three league titles..." Done - Changed.
    • "...when they finished above Everton." – well, they presumably finished above everyone. Done - Removed that part.
    • I don't think "Championship of the World" should be italicised Done - Removed italics.
    • Give year of Watson's resignation, rather than attaching it to his replacement's arrival. Done - Added season.
    • It doesn't seem to me that Sunderlad "suffered" a financial irregularity, rather that they committed one. I suggest the opening sentence is rewritten as: "In 1904 Sunderland were involved in a financial irregularity, in which the club's board of directors gave their right back Andy McCombie £100 (£13,600 today) to start a business, with the view that his benefit game would enable him repay the money." Done - Changed to that.
    • "Additionally, the records of Sunderland showed financial irregularities, and so violated the rules of the game." I suggest this is simplified to "The club's records showed further breaches of the League's financial rules." Done - Changed to that.
    • Grammar problem with the second half of this sentence: "McCombie would go on to sign for Newcastle United, and help towards their spell of league success of the era." Done - Changed to "McCombie would go on to sign for Newcastle United, and help towards their spell of league success.".
    • "In 1905 they were involved..." "They" needs to be specified. Done - Changed to "Sunderland".
    • The 9–1 victory against Newcastle appears only to equal their record League win. Didn't they earlier beat West Bromwich by the same score? Comment - The West Brom score was a mistake, it was actually 8-1, I've corrected this now.
    • "one of the first clubs to win the league and cup double" - there can only be one "first" club to win the double. Do you mean "one of the few clubs..." etc ? Done
    • General point: I'm not sure it's necessary to give the updated value of every individual sum you mention. It rather tends to spoil the prose flow...bu I'm sure someone else will say the opposite, so it has to be your call.

If you can deal with the above I'll be happy to continue with the review. If it's OK with you, in future I will make general fixes as I go, rather than listing them for you to fix. It'll save a lot of time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS please ping my talkpage when you want me to look again, as I can't watch all the peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Later): I have copyedited up to 1959. It may be a day or two before I can continue. Meantime:-

  • Please give the date for McGregor's comment about Sunderland being the team of all the talents.
  • Also give the date of Sunderlands friendly victory of League champions Preston
  • You need to say more about the "dispute" involving Buchan and Clunas being called up for international duty. Why do you call this a dispute? Were there heated arguments, threats etc?
  • The Broadis story likewise needs expanding. What do you mean when you say the player transferred himself? In those days players' transfers were entirely at the behest of the club, the individuals having little or no say in the transaction.
  • £458 thousand should be written as £458,000. You should change all similar money values to this notation.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished copyediting this article, except for the last paragraph of the last section, which is a jumble of often undated facts and really needs to be rethought. In the main article there are numerous no-break space violations which need to be fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after suggestions from people on FLC who thought this article was not ready for FLC. Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am using Timeline of the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season (a WP:FL) as a model article as I am not an expert on meteorology. While the structure follows the model closely, the languiage needs to be cleaned up, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • First off this article seems to follow the model timeline very closely. There is a citation to what appears to be a reliable source for every entry, the images are helpful and seem to be free (did not check all of them).
  • There seems to be a lack of detail in the description of the storms here compared to the model - for example of the first 10 entries in the model, 4 have wind speeds, but here there are very few such wind speeds given. My guess is that this is because the monitoring is different (aircraft flying into storms in the Atlantic, satellite monitoring in the Pacific), but could there be a note on this in the lead or somewhere?
  • There is also information on damages in this document - the model timeline mentions the most desctructive storm and the total lives it took and damages done in the lead. This does not.
  • The real problem I have with the article is the language - this needs a good copyedit to clean things up and I think it needs some additions in places to better provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Exmaples (not a complete list) follow:
    • I am not really sure what this sentnece means (I understand part of it, I think): The timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning information from post-storm reviews by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on. Would it make sense to express it as a positive instead of a negative? Perhaps say something like "In addition to the information made avaiable at the time, this timeline also includes analysis released later by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS). I am not sure what "such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on" really means.
    • Plurals do not use an aprostrophe - it should be "dissipations" in This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation's during the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season.
    • I would identify who runs the JTWC (since Fiji and New Zealand are identified for the others)
    • This seems misleading: During the year, 16 tropical disturbances, 15 tropical depressions, 4 tropical cyclones and 3 severe tropical cyclones formed. It makes it sound like there were 16 which only became disturbances, plus 15 which were depressions, plus 4 cyclones, etc. Could it be something like "Of the 16 tropical disturbances during the year, 15 became tropical depressions, and 4 of these developed into tropical cyclones, 3 of which were severe tropical cyclones.
    • The table starts with the "2007–08 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone year" - could this be mentioned in the lead for those who do not understand how it is different from the season?
    • Another sentence that just needs to be cleaned up (both twice): Within this basin both RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington, both use the Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale.
    • One last example: two entries in a row read as follows:
    0000 UTC (1200 FST, January 19) – Severe Tropical Cyclone Funa intensifies into a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone.[15]
    0600 UTC (1800 FST, January 19) – Severe Tropical Cyclone Funa reaches its peak winds of 95 knots (110 mph, 175 km/h) which makes Funa a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone.[15]
    • Since the first entry already makes it a Category 4 storm, the second entry makes no sense (to me)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review ill get around to the comments later today or tommorrow Jason Rees (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Council's Literature Prize

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to Featured List status, if it is eligible.

Thanks, decltype (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Added fact tags to the article. Personally I think all winners need to be referenced but if you can't find any, then fair enough.
  • The committee members section could be written in prose.
  • I suppose, but I'm not sure I like the idea. It is basically just a list of people. I can't think of a way to write that without it being awkward.
  • The article needs to be expanded to even reach B-class.
  • Comment below
  • See if any of the works of the winners have a corresponding English article. If not, then translate the titles into to English if you can.

Extremepro (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave the titles untranslated. On a 1024 x 768 screen resolution, the table looks cramped enough. If the translated title column was added, the pictures next to the table would be pushed down for some users. Extremepro (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things that still need to be referenced:
  • Established in 1962, the prize is awarded every year, and is worth 350,000 Danish kroner
  • Timo Hämäläinen is a committee member
  • Bergur Djurhuus Hansen is a committee member Extremepro (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for your comments. It seems rather pointless to provide inline cites for all the winners, since the external link verifies all of them. It is true that the article is too short for a B-class article. But from what I can see, a featured list usually has less prose than a B-class article. Writing articles for some of the winning titles is something I am definitely considering doing. decltype (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using the external links as references, then they should be in the references section, under a "General" section. See List of New Jersey Nets head coaches#References as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Awadewit

In general, this article needs to be expanded. Here are possible areas for expansion:

  • Is there a physical award handed out along with the money? A statute or something?
  • How are the nominees selected precisely? Is there a longlist and then a shortlist?
  • When are the nominees announced and when is the winner announced?
  • Have there been any controversies with the nominations and/or winners?
  • Do the winners usually become famous and sell many more copies of their books than they had before (as with the Nobel)?
  • Are the winning books frequently translated into English as a result of winning the award?

I hope this helps you! Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will try to address these when time permits. decltype (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Dead

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm just wanting some pointers on how to improve the prose before I nominate it to FAC. Sceptre (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Would it help to wikilink denouement in which serve as lead actor David Tennant's denouement as the Tenth Doctor?
  • I think the lead should make it clear that the robbery and bus ride begin in London (on Earth). I have not seen the show and was confused by The episode depicts Christina fleeing the police from a museum robbery by boarding a bus that accidentally travels to the desert planet of San Helios, trapping her, the Doctor, and several passengers on board a damaged bus. initially
  • Clarify this - not the first episode of any show ever in HD - "Planet of the Dead" is the first [Dr. Who] episode to be filmed in high definition, ...
  • Unneeded phrase consensus among critics that reviewed the episode was that it was enjoyable as a whole but that it was only an average script
  • Not sure what the sandstorm is doing here The Doctor and Christina decide to scout the planet and an approaching sandstorm while Nathan and Barclay try to fix the bus. How do you scout a sandstorm?
  • Is the plural form correct? unintentionally awakening a stingray that kills the Tritovores. It is just "Tritovore" elsewhere.
  • I would make it clearer it is stingrays that come through the wormhole in Taylor quickly closes the wormhole but not before three of them pass through it.
  • I like giving the year of the revival in the lad, why not here too Russell T Davies co-wrote the episode with Gareth Roberts, the first writing partnership for the show since its [2005] revival.[4]
  • How about adding "citing the series" or "citing the serial" to clarify Arc of Infinity in he was cautious to ensure that each element had to "feel precise and defined ... like we meant that", giving [citing the serial] Arc of Infinity as an example - I thought it was another episode title
  • WP:MOSQUOTE says block quotes are for four or more lines of material or more than a paragraph, but You be careful, because your song is ending, sir. It is returning, it is returning through the dark. And then Doctor... oh, but then... he will knock four times is only one line on my browser / screen
  • I also know in the MOS it says refs for a quotation should be at the end of the sentence the quote is in, but there are several places that seem to violate that. WP:CITE
  • Are there more reviews from print sources - do newspapers review Dr. Who in the UK?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good. Long time no see Dr Who at FAC! (I almost bought some used Dr Who magazines the other day when I was used bookstore shopping... I knew then that FAC was taking up too much of my time...)
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I like to see the article promoted to GA once again. Actually I can see it becoming an A-class article in the nearer future because the content is rather complete as I see it. If you review this article suggestions about what you think is missing towards GA would be very welcome. As English is not my mother language a general notice of "copyediting required" would not be too useful, though (to me at least).

Thanks, OdinFK (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well-done article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Gambling or Deck construction sections have no refs, and there are none for 6 of the 7 paragraphs in the Tournament structure section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Mnay of the internet refs do not identify the publisher, which seems to be "Wizards of the Coast" quite frequently. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Wherever possible use independent third-party sources as refs - see WP:RS
  • The article has five fair use images, but one of them contains six separate images of cards, so it really has 11 copyrighted images. This seems to me to be too much - see WP:NFCC
  • Be consistent in how things are presented - so are there quotes around the word planeswalker(s) or not? As of the Lorwyn expansion, a new card type, "planeswalker", has been introduced to the game. These cards represent planeswalkers—similar to the player—with their own magic abilities, one of which can be used each turn.[14]
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which should be combined with others or perhapos expanded to improve flow.
  • Provide context for the reader - the History section does not mention a year until the end of the first paragraph. There is no mention there of the various expansions (new sets of cards) so As of the Lorwyn expansion, a new card type... above comes out of left field. See WP:PCR
  • One of the things to watch out for is writing from an in-universe perspective
  • Ask someone who is a native speaker to see if they can copyedit the article, just one example: The best decks can identify its own weakness and find ways to account for it. First off, the decks do not play or identify (the people / players do). Second, "decks" is plural and "its" is singular.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to floow - not sure what would be a good model here, but History of the board game Monopoly is an older FA and might work.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Voorhis

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA and I'd like feedback

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Another excellent report from the wider shores of the Nixonapolis. I have only a few comments:-

  • "Voorhis" is an unusual name. Would it be possible to say something about its origin, which I imagine would be Dutch?
  • Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "receiving clerk", and why would Voorhis have to hire a room to be one?
  • You say he "soon married". It would help if at least the year was given, to assist with the overall chronology.
  • The Voorhis School for Boys disappears rather quickly from the article. Would it be possible to add a sentence summarising its later history, like when it closed down?
  • In the Record and campaigns section you have: "Voorhis' 12th district leaned Republican..." followed soon after by "Despite the Republican leanings of his district..." A slight rephrasing would avoid this repetition.
  • The story about Voorhis introducing his opponent to the crowd needs a citation
  • Years ago as a politics student I read a copy of Voorhis' Nixon book. I seem to remember that during the 1946 campaign, Nixon claimed that Voorhis' Congressional voting record was identical to that of Vito Marcantonio, the communist (?) congressman from New York. Is this so, and if so, worth commenting on?
  • Could the "bibliography" be renamed "Further reading" to avoid confusion with cited sources? Also, Voorhis' Nixon book shouldn't be listed here as well as with the sources.

That's it, really. (Still think you should do Dick Tuck, though) Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. My responses:

  • Being originally from North Jersey, which has a Dutch influence on place names (including Voorhees), it didn't sound odd to me, but you are right. I will see if I can lay my hands on a copy of Jerry's biography of his grandfather, and see if it includes any interesting info on that.
  • Receiving clerk checks stuff coming in, kinda the opposite of a shipping clerk. I'll see if I can be more clear once I am home in 8 days and lay my hands on my copy of Bullock. Voorhis was living in University housing, and since he was graduating and staying on to work in New Haven, had to find housing.
  • Will check Bullock for year of marriage.
  • They shut it down and donated the land and buildings to Cal Poly-Pomona, I think, will doublecheck. Some of the buildings still stand. The farmland is a nature reserve named for the Voorhises.
  • Attribution on the "shy" is the same as the following sentence, but I will add.
  • It's not a very good book, is it! I gave up about a third of the way through and just skimmed it, looking for the good stuff. Lot of hate there. Yes, though Marcantonio was by comparison a minor issue. One of Nixon's backers caused editorials to be put in local papers about a week before the election, calling Marcantonio a Communist and saying Voorhis was closely associated with him. Nothing compared to what would go on in the Nixon/Douglas Senate race four years later, where both sides were slinging it. Remember that Voorhis had been given a martyr's crown by then as the first victim of Nixon, and that everything was seen through the prism of the Nixon/Douglas race. I'll drop in a comment. I'm afraid of going overboard on the 1946 race, even though that is very likely what the reader will want to read.
  • I'll do the renaming.
  • Thanks again. I'll consider Tuck if I can find some good refs that separate fact from legend on him. I'll look at the LATimes archives. Next from Nixonland is Checkers speech which is now at GAN, then I'll probably wrap that up, though I'm considering doing a from-scratch article on the 1950 Senate race, but I don't have all the references yet. The way I look at it, if I have Chotiner at FA and Voorhis just about ready for FAC, without a single complaint about POV, I must be doing something right! Once Franklin Knight Lane clears off of FAC, I'll probably nom this next, then the puppy dog after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things more as I close this peer review. I see Karanacs has been looking at the Lane article, meaning it may well be promoted shortly and this is next up:

  • I've added details re Voorhis' marriage. Voorhis, as quoted in the Bullock book, described his job as a receiving clerk in a late life interview as keeping track of everything that came into the building, buy any means including the mails, and he described it as a lot of responsiblity for someone his age.
  • I'll reserve the Marcantonio bit for the article on the 1946 election I have started.
  • I've consulted with the people at Cal Poly-Pomona on the fate of the Voorhis campus. They say it is now owned by a Buddhist organization, and that Voorhis' son is very pleased by that, because that particular organization has goals similar to Voorhis' views (not the religious aspects). They wee kind enough to give me the address in San Dimas. I will likely be going to California sometime this summer and will try to visit there and get a photo or two of the original buildings if they are still extant.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Malaysian Grand Prix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to develop it to at least GA status, and would like the opinions of fellow editors. I believe the article is half-way there, and input by more experienced editors would help me towards the GA goal.

Thanks, Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial (talk · contribs)

Really the best advice I can give is to go and model the article on other GP articles, particularly FAs. So to start off with, merge practice and qualifying, add a post-race section, drop the trivia section, cite the classification tables the more common way, and increase ref density. You are right, it is about half-way there, but the second half is always the hardest. :) I'm always here (though my talk page may be better) if you have any questions. Apterygial 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the classification properly now. How do you mean "merge practice and qualifying"? What heading would I put it under? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The featured articles, e.g. 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, have them simply under the heading 'Practice and qualifying'. Schumi555 20:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tee-hee... I'm tired today; thanks for pointing out what was staring me in the face :) Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did it BTW. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review by Darth Newdar (talk · contribs)

Right, here are some things you need to do: scrap the notes section, if you think that the stats are good, you could fit them in under either the race or post-race heading, with a ref of course! You need a post-race section, I find that looking at the post-race press conference always throws up some useful quotes. The refs also need to more widely used.

Infobox A new thing on the infobox has recently been "discovered", which is a way of having a ref for the infobox. If you put this

|Details ref=

Then put a ref after the equals sign you'll get a ref for the whole infobox.

Lead

Background

Practice and Qualifying

  • The following has been hammered out on the '08 GP articles:

The qualifying session on Saturday afternoon was split into three parts. The first part ran for 20 minutes, and cars that finished the session 16th or lower were eliminated from qualifying. The second part of qualifying lasted 15 minutes and eliminated cars that finished in positions 11 to 15. The final part of qualifying determined the positions from first to tenth, and decided pole position. Cars which failed to make the final session could refuel before the race, so ran lighter in those sessions. Cars which competed in the final session of qualifying were not allowed to refuel before the race, and as such carried more fuel than in the previous sessions.[1]

Worth putting into this article.

Race

  • In general the race sections are most other articles are slightly longer.
  • I was told while editing the German article that each team and driver should linked only once after the lead; in this article several teams are linked multiple times in the report section.
  • "Hamilton pitted on lap 19 and the team had a problem getting his front right tyre off, forcing him to stop for almost twenty seconds, and in the process lose around twelve seconds to the Ferraris, meaning he came out behind Webber in 11th." "lose" should be "lost".
  • "He would open up a lead of almost over four seconds in the next six laps." You can't say "almost over" here.
  • You need to track Kovalainen's race in this section a lot more.

Hope this helps!

Darth Newdar (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Darth Newdar. I'll work on the more lengthy bits tomorrow. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Rivera

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to nominate the article for WP:FA status. I believe the article is very detailed, well-referenced, and neutral, but written so a non-baseball fan can understand the article. But I would like to get feedback before I proceed with the WP:FA nomination. Thanks, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments - I'm a Yankees fan, so it's very hard for me to review this objectively. That said, I see a few things that can be improved before an FAC nomination.

  • The only sources I would question are Baseball Almanac, The Baseball Cube and Beyond the Boxscore.
  • Reference 72 is a bare newspaper citation. The New York Daily News archives are now online, so it should be possible to find a link for this story.
  • Printed reference publishers (such as USA Today and the Sporting News) should be in italics, while non-printed publishers shouldn't be. I saw three refs that need italics removed.
  • Early life has an uncited quote. Just re-use the reference at the end of the paragraph.
  • Reference 98 should be formatted like the book reference it is. I have the paperback version of the book; ping me if you need a page number or other help doing this.
  • The most important factor at FAC is the quality of the prose. As an FAC regular, I know this better than anyone, and I also know that good copy-editing is vital for any featured article candidate to be successful. Here are several examples of what will be required at FAC:
    • "In 1990, a 20 year-old Rivera". Missing hyphen.
    • Comma after Herb Raybourn.
    • Spell out miles per hour. Also give full names of a couple of these minor league teams.
    • One thing that will be considered baseball jargon is the blown save. I fear that my fellow FAC reviewers will see that as showing a negative point of view toward Rivera, when in reality it's a common baseball term. Wish we had an article to link to, but no seperate blown save article exists. Perhaps you should consider linking to a section of the save article.
    • The bit about Enter Sandman seems like thrown-in trivia right now. It needs to have more context, namely how it became part of his identity as a closer.
    • POV concern: "However, Rivera's year ended with one of his most disappointing moments".
  • Organization comment: I'd like to see the Personal life section moved above the tables.
  • Is there any more information out there on his early life? It would be helpful if such info exists to flesh out the section.

The main point to pay attention to above is the need for a copy-edit, preferably by an editor unfamiliar with the article. Somebody who is not a baseball fan would be even better, at least in terms of catching baseball jargon that readers may not understand. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samus Aran

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to receive feedback on how can I improve this article, thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the picture of the gunship be part of the article? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but the article would probably do fine without it. I'm not partial to any of the article's images, except for the one in the infobox. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi's comments

Prose/Style/Layout

Lead
  • The lead seems a litle short for an article of this size. It doesn't mention her reception at all, for instance.
In the series
  • Metroid Prime 3: Corruption doesn't have a release year.
In other media
  • "In the comics, Samus is seen as brash, money-hungry, and fiercely independent." - "Depicted" might be better than "seen" here.
  • Super Smash Bros. Brawl doesn't have a release year.
Reception
  • The first sentence seems a little out of place, because the following sentences don't discuss her reception as a sex object. Maybe it could be moved to the beginning of the second paragraph, because of the references to babe lists and such.
  • "Despite Nintendo's intentions, Samus is considered by many to be a sex object." - True, but the sentence only cites one source, calling into question the use of the word "many". Also, where can we read about Nintendo's intentions?
Miscellaneous
  • Could the publishers be wikilinked in references?

Comprehensiveness

  • It's mentioned that Aran has been infused with Chozo DNA, but what effect did this have on her? Did she gain any special abilities, or did her appearance change?

All told it's a great article. I'll watchlist this peer review in case you'd like to discuss any of my comments. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did three of the things suggested above. Lychosis T/C 20:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by David Fuchs

I totally forgot about this, so I'm sorry I can't provide a great review at this time, but some thoughts:

  • There should be at least two paragraphs in the lead, and as it reads now it's a tad stilted, more a collection of facts than a cohesive flow.
  • File:Gunship screencapture.png: can't see much of a defense for the image per WP:NFCC.
  • You could break the development up into multiple paragraphs, too.
  • The reception could do with some more impact information, rather than just website's rankings. Not sure if it exists, but there has to be some scholarly information on them.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the peer review, but here are some comments:

  • I'd like to see a little more mention of appearances in the lead. For example, maybe a sentence about non-video-game media?
  • "The characters were created by Makoto Kanō, while Hiroji Kiyotake designed them all" I don't think "created" is the best word here.
  • Some of the Characteristics section is a bit in-universe. For example, "The team's leader, Ridley"—what team?
  • "Metroid: Zero Mission, which"-->Metroid: Zero Mission, in which
  • "Samus bonds with a Metroid, before it sacrifices itself to save Samus from Mother Brain." Remove second comma.
  • "destroys Mother Brain, in a scene that is "more than a little emotionally charged"." No comma.
  • "while the Galactic Federation see her as the protector of the galaxy, which she considers herself," Second part's a little confusing. Perhaps "which she also believes"?
  • What is a mutagen?
  • The first two sentences of the Reception section seem to belong in the Development section. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments were copied from Talk:Samus_Aran. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay everything on this page should be done now. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 94

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we have expanded this article extensively, and we hope to make this the very first WP:MMA featured article one day. We have also currently nominated it for Good Article status, so if we can get more eyes on to the article before the GA review, I think it would be beneficial.

I think what needs reviewing is the prose in general, to make sure it flows well, and we'd also like to know what we can do to get the prose closer to the Featured Article standards.

Thanks a bunch, Bad intentionz (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Love the idea of making a UFC-related article featured. That said, it still needs a lot more work to get there. Following are some general thoughts on the article from an FAC regular:

  • The first major stumbling block I see is the sourcing. MMA websites such as MMAjunkie.com, Bloody Elbow, MMA Weekly, MatRatz.com, Five Ounces of Pain, MMAontop.com, and MMA FanHouse all need to either be proven reliable, or the sourced information needs to be re-sourced or removed. At the Fedor Emelianenko FAC, even Sherdog was questioned. I think Sherdog can be proven reliable, but I don't believe that's true for most of the other sites.
  • Copy-editing is vital before an FAC nom, especially for a topic that is relatively new to FAC. I'll provide a few brief examples:
    • "The main event featured the UFC Welterweight Champion, Georges St-Pierre successfully defending his title with a 4th round TKO over UFC Lightweight Champion B.J. Penn." What is a TKO? We both know, but many of the site's readers won't. I recommend spelling it out and adding a wikilink; otherwise this will be seen as jargon. I have trouble identifying jargon in articles, but this is a glaring case. Also put a comma after St-Pierre.
    • "The contest was heavily promoted, which featured a publicity tour to Canada and Hawaii, as well as the introduction of UFC Primetime, a preview show that cost $1.7 million to produce." What is "which" referring to? A re-write would help here.
    • "Rounding out the main card was a lightweight contest between The Ultimate Fighter season five winner, Nate Diaz and contender Clay Guida." Would be helpful to explain that The Ultimate Fighter is a television competition, and provide a link to the season. Also remove the comma.
    • A couple of the sentences above have little punctuation errors. Copy-editing is extremely helpful in this respect, particularly from uninvolved editors.
    • "The event's five preliminary bouts all went the distance ending in decisions." People who aren't fighting fans will get lost here. Try "The event's five preliminary fights all went the full three rounds, ending in decisions (link)" or something similar.
    • "Tavares went for ground-and-pound after takedowns, while the smaller Gamburyan tried to push the pace on the feet but was unable to counter Tavare's more powerful strikes." This is a confusing sentence due to the MMA jargon. Also a grammar error (should be "Tavares'")
  • Score ranges should use en dashes. That isn't part of the GA criteria, but the FA reviewers expect that.
  • References shouldn't be titled in all capital letters, even if they are presented that way. Also, printed publishers, such as the Los Angeles Times and Las Vegas Sun, should be in italics.
  • References 46 and 69 need publishers.

Also pay attention to whatever advice you get from the GA review, as that will help improve the article further. Hopefully, these comments will help prepare the article for that review. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Cain

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved for a GAN.

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the liberal use of commas in the plot summary, it feels rather "breathless". It's almost like an overload of information in as few sentences as possible. As the 'theme' is noted by a reviewer, rather than by the author, it should probably go in the reception section. Also, I am confused by the series - Forgotten Juliet, The Sound of a Boy Hatching, Kafka and The Seal of the Red Ram were collected under the name The Cain Saga, which was followed by the sequel series Godchild... as a whole they're known as Earl Cain? --Malkinann (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the series as a whole is Earl Cain; the first four Series is grouped together makes up The Cain Saga. I think the author herself commented on how confusing it is. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. :) I forgot to mention this, but well done on the lengthy and interesting development and reception sections!! :D If you've any French, you might want to try investigating some of these sites, but that would only really be if you're looking for completeness's sake - I don't think you'd need this for GA. The article might fall down a bit on explaining jargon and words to avoid in places, so it might be worthwhile reading through those guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to nom this article for GA now? Extremepro (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malkinann, about the words to avoid. I know the article uses a lot of "notes" (as in this reviewer notes this particular fact). What other word(s) do you suggest using in its place? Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your use of "note" to be a particular problem in relation to words to avoid - the guideline is saying that Wikipedia should not "note" something, or lecture on the correctness of whatever. --Malkinann (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use "comments" or "feels" and "criticises"/"commends". Extremepro (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. (I changed one back though, because the sentence had have two "on"s to make sense and that drove me crazy. :)) I moved the theme section to the reception, too. So, like Extremepro said above, is it okay to nominate it for GA now? Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and nom it for GA. Be prepared for possibily harsh comments from the reviewers. Extremepro (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay! :) (Went ahead and nominated it). Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try and strike the things you have done against my checklist at the bottom of the article's talk page. Extremepro (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phaistos Disc

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, Pergamino (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: very interesting artifact and article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be more than one paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Since there are decent photgraphs of both sides of the original disc later in the article, and the replica images are missing the diagonal strokes and have other changes, why not use the photos of the original in the info box?
  • Similarly, give captions for the detail images in the gallery - even if it is just side A or side B.
  • Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of the Discovery section has no refs - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Currently the article mixes two styles of refs (inline numbers and author and date). The WP:MOS says to pick one style of refs and use it consistently throughout.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are two tables that repeat all 45 characters - is there any reason why they cannot be combined?
  • Most of the further reading seems like it could be converted into references.
  • A model article is helpful for ideas and examples to follow - Rongorongo is a WP:FA on a writing system which has not been deciphered and may be a useful model.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucus I Nicator

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I improved the article based on the Finnish version (FA) and want now to receive feedback. Perhaps the article can be further improved to GA status?

Thanks, Mvaldemar (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments
  • First sentence of the second paragraph in the section "The Satrap of Babylon" reads: "At Triparadisos the soldiers the mutinous and close of murdering Antipatros." What are you trying to say here?
  • The chief problem I have with this article is that instead of presenting a biography of Seleucus, it reads like an account of the wars of the Diadochi, with long sections devoted to the activities of his contemporaries -- often with no sense of relevance -- rather than to Seleucus himself. Obviously you need to provide background information at various points, but when I reach the section "The Second War of the Diadochi", & encounter "the Satrap of Media", I am not certain if this is Seleucus -- & if not, why I should care about him.
  • At times the style becomes a bit too purple. An example is the ending of the same section: "The events of the Second War of the Diadochi showed how Seleucus had the ability to wait for the right moment. Blazing into battle was not his style." While once or twice helps to break the usually grey Wikipedia style, it feels that the end of each section ends with a pointed comment like this -- which I feel hurts the article & weakens their impact.

I hope these brief comments help you. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Castle

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Last Castle was a very good movie starring Robert Redford and James Gandolfini. The article has been through a lot of improvements. From merely a plot of the film to a comprehensive, encyclopedic article with ratings, production and reviews information. There has been a recent peer review where all issues were addressed and now I'm listing it again for the last time before a GA nomination. Thank you for your reviews.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope to comment more later, but at first glance, the "Plot" section seems a bit long at over 800 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT, it should be between 400 and 700 words (and this is not a complex-narrative film like Pulp Fiction). Try to capture the broad strokes of the film rather than give a blow-by-blow account of the events. If you need help with this, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened it a bit. Don't know however how I should shorten this more.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but the article still needs is a complete top-to-bottom copyedit. I fixed a dozen or so minor proofing errors through the beginning of the "Cinematography" section, which is where I stopped. Here are some specific suggestions for improvement.

  • The movie title and the names of newspapers need to be italicized throughout. I fixed a few of these, but I see several others in the main text and in the citations.

Lead

  • "grossing a total of $27,642,707 worldwide" - Maybe "about $28 million" would be better here just to make the number easier to comprehend. The infobox could keep the exact number.
  • " Clifton Collins Junior was also nominated... " - Drop the "also" since he hasn't been mentioned before this?
  • Wikilink Clifton Collins, Jr.?
done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • Unlink "maximum security", which is probably self-evident in its general meaning?
  • Wikilink Burundi?
  • "Irwin insults the prison's warden, Colonel Winter (James Gandolfini), regarding his extensive collection of military memorabilia and overall competence, he is visibly angry and his previous admiration for the General turns immediately to animosity." - Run-on sentence. This could be fixed by using a terminal period after "competence" and starting the next sentence with "Winter is visibly angry... ". Also, "general" should be lower-case. It's only capitalized when part of a formal title as in "General Irwin".
  • "that the prison guards would utilize during an actual uprising" - The Manual of Style suggests "use" instead of "utilize".
  • "that is the trump card for the guards in case of a riot" - Slang. Suggestion: "that is the guards' biggest weapon during a riot"
  • "The prisoners call the Generals head quarters and inform them that there is a riot" - Four problems here. "General's" gets an apostrophe since it's possessive. It should also be lower-case, "general's". Headquarters is one word rather than two. Instead of "them", this should be "him".
done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "with exemption from the state's 6% state sales tax" - The Manual of Style suggests spelling out "percent" in simple cases like this one.
  • "The vantage point at Colonel Winter's office with a large picture framed window, allowing the warden to survey the actions of the inmates, was also built and designed for the production." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Also needed was an office with a large window through which the warden could watch the inmates."
  • "Director Rod Lurie insisted on having the prisoners' cells facing each other, which is not the case in the Tennessee State Prison, and had therefore a set built by Production Designer Kirk Petruccelli in a warehouse near the prison." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Director Rod Lurie insisted on having the prisoners' cells face each other, which they do not at the Tennessee State Prison. To solve the problem, Kirk Petruccelli, the production designer, created cells in a warehouse near the prison."
done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematography

  • "or power in contrast to the robbed colors from the yard which does not signify strength" - What is a "robbed" color?
robbed means probably washed out. This is what the costume designer used in his description of the choice of color.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Finetooth comments:You asked me to take a second look. At a glance, I can see that the article still needs copyediting. I no longer have time to do complete copyedits, but it would be worthwhile to track down someone to help with this. For instance, I see that the film or series titles such as The Sopranos are still not in italics, and neither are the many names of newspapers. These all need to be fixed, not just the couple I fixed by way of example. Also, after reading your explanation above, I would suggest changing "robbed" to "washed-out", which I think readers will be more likely to understand. I would advise against nominating the article for GA until, at a minimum, the article has been cleaned up to make it clear and correct. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the great review and I adressed the issues with the newspaper and washed-out part. After the first review I asked some Users to help in the copyedit however not much attention was received. I tried myself to copyedit a bit but because I'm the one who added most of the information I don't have a neutral view and can't see something that much wrong with the grammar and language of the article. Plus because English isn't my first language I have some difficulties finding the best way to phrase a sentence. Again thank you for your dedicated review.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. It's hard to find good copyeditors, but you might try asking someone on the list at WP:PRV#General copyediting. Finetooth (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another place to try is Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Finetooth (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCombs School of Business

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just finished a rough outline of the campus section. It still needs work along with the rest of the article. I need help figuring out what to do next (approprite information in the History section, changing the the rankings to a subsection as part of a new academics section along with information about Admissions, Endowment and Organization.)

Thanks, NThomas76207 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

I have the impression that this article is still being worked on. Here are a few more points to help you on your way. It might be an idea to bring the article back to PR when you are more satisfied that it is approaching its final form.

  • At present, the article reads more like promotional literature than a neutral encyclopedia article. Specific examples of non-encyclopedic language include:
    • "...one of the most renowned business schools in [the] United States" (self-promotional)
    • "It's the first building..." (It is...)
    • "...some of the best companies in the world..." ("best" is not adequate as a description)
  • In general the prose has a bit of a "ra-ra" feel about it, as though you were selling the school in some way. It may be advisable to tone down the narrative a little, to make it seem less like a list of achievements (first this, biggest that, etc)
  • The lead section is at present inadequate. The lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, not a couple of introductory sentences. See WP:LEAD for further information
  • The history section is sketchy, with vague statements such as "the next few decades" and "the school quickly grew". A fuller history should be given, with fewer lengthy gaps in the chronology and less emphasis on the very recent past.
  • There are numerous no-break space violations, e.g. 6,000 students, 25 years, 297 hotel rooms, etc. See WP:NBSP for further information
  • I think the layouts for the information in the Awards and distinction section could be made more interesting.
  • Many of the online references are not properly formatted. The minimum information for each is title, url, publisher and access date. If other information, e.g. author, is available, that should be included too. If in doubt, follow WP:citation template and look for the cite web format.

I hope you find these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NThomas76207 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1998–99 NBA lockout

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article I've attempted to bring to good article standards, and I want to receive some pointers before a GAN nomination. This is an article that I created less than two weeks ago, and one that two editors have already suggested I nominate for GA. All comments are greatly appreciated and will be acted upon.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The lead is a bit short.
  • "work stoppage" is used many times - perhaps it needs to be rephrased
  • link "U.S. team" to the US national basketball team
  • "The 1998–99 season, which began in February 1999, was shortened to 50 games per team, as opposed to the normal 82." - maybe good to be specific on the date
  • "29 percent ... 24 percent to 22 percent. Twenty-five percent ..." - be consistent on using numbers; also need non-break space in between
  • More images if possible

—Chris! ct 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I expanded the lead to two full paragraphs, attempting to use facts from every section.
  • I saw four of them in the article and changed three.
  • Done
  • It was February 5. That's now in the article. I'll get the other two later. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spelled-out number began a sentence, which is one time when a number over nine should be spelled out. Fortunately, it was easy enough to change it to one-quarter. Non-breakers have now been added to all of the percentage numbers in the article.
  • I added one of Patrick Ewing, the president of the union at the time. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Kellogg Lewis

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…the man seems to be an important philosopher and the tags on the article indicate some direction or work is needed. There are constructive comments on the talk page, but no clear suggestions on how to make the article a good one. It's currently rated low importance. Should it be higher? Anyone have citations?

Thanks, Levalley (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that I think this article is not of low importance. I'm speaking as a non-philosopher, but as someone with an academic background. Kellogg Lewis is an acknowledged influence on Kripke, which should raise him above low level - just my opinion. Would like to hear yours.--Levalley (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes, I second Levalley. I'm more than a little biased, though. But since by an unbelievable coincidence I happen to be writing up some of his work into the methodology of my dissertation atm, I can pretend I'm actually working on it while I review the article. Gimme a few days, I'll make some suggestions for future work. Gimme twelve months and I'll implement those and more. Feature this man! P'raps I could recruit support from the David Lewis fan club at Facebook. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed Brian Weatherson has been slated to write up the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on David Lewis. In fact, they are planning two articles on him, one dedicated to his metaphysics. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with the cleanup tags at the top - this needs some major work, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of references - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Language uses a fair number of peacock terms that seem to be possibel violations of WP:NPOV. If these were referenced or used as direct or indirect quotations, that would be much better. Examples: The formidable intellect for which he was known later in his life was already manifest during his years at Oberlin High School, when he attended college lectures in chemistry. or this At Princeton, Lewis was a gifted mentor of young philosophers, and trained dozens of successful figures in the field... I don't doubt these are true, but back the statements up by saying who thinks this or even quoting them (with refs of course)
  • The use of block quote for "Had I made that shot our team would have won the game." violates WP:MOSQUOTE (four or more lines of text)
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Publications should come at the end
  • Don't bury details in references - the NYT obit has details that should be in the article, not in a note
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the article by combining them with others or perhaps expanding them
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Hilary Putnam is a WP:FA and may be a good model article here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments as always Ruhr. Thank you and agreed. Major work needed is a fair assessment. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1906 Tour de France

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on a road cycling race article. In WikiProject Cycling, there is need for standardisation of articles. There currently is one featured article on a cycling race, (Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race), but this is about a one-day event and not about a stage race. Many articles in this project are about cycling stage races. I would like to have feedback on the general standard of a road cycling stage race article, and chose the 1906 Tour de France as an example. I chose the 1906 Tour de France article because I think it is close to the preferred style, but this is just my opinion. The 1903–1911 Tour de France articles have the same style.

Although feedback on the content would also be nice, I am really asking for feedback on the general layout. Some things about the layout:

  • The infobox is standard for the wikiproject.
  • In the lead, the most important aspects of the race and the overall winner are mentioned.
  • Then a section with changes from the previous version.
  • Then a section with race details.
  • Then a section with results, divided in two sections:
    • Stage results, where for each stage the date, stage type, length, winner and race leader is given.
    • Overall results, where for each cyclist that finished the race the rank, country, name, team/sponsor and points/time is given.
The first cyclist is indicated in bold and with a yellow colour. Yellow because in cycling this indicates the leader of the general classification in the Tour de France.
The other rows have alternating background colours. (I don't know why, but this was chosen once.)
Only the top ten ranked cyclists are directly shown, the rest is collapsed.
    • After that, the other classifications are mentioned, preferably with the top 10 in a table. In this case, the only other classification was the team classification, and only the winner is known, so no table is used.

Everything here is open for discussion. From the big outline to the smallest details, such as which hyphens to use, where to add/remove spaces, table alignment. What would please me the most are remarks that are not specific to the 1906 Tour de France article, but that apply to all cycling race layouts.

Thanks, EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

First, I found the article rather slight, lacking in detail. Secondly, I don't think the structure of the article is right, and thirdly, the prose is rather rough and, in many cases, unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. I have provided a list of detailed comments, mainly relating to the prose, but your main tasks, I believe, are to expand and restructure the article. Here is my suggestion for a revised structure:-

  • Lead, written as a summary of the whole article per WP:LEAD
  • A Background section, briefly summarising what happened in earlier tours, and bringing in the reasons for the changes made for the 1906 tour. You should also mention here the reasons for the protests which had apparently disrupted earlier tours and which continued in 1906.
  • A section giving a general description of the 1906 course, not over-detailed, but so that the reader gets a better idea of the sequence of the stages and their characters.
  • A section introducing the main riders. It would be good to know more about these guys, their career backgrounds and previous performances on the Tour
  • Main section giving details of the race. We don't need an overdetailed stage by stage account, but try to expand on interesting features; for example, the dismissal of four riders for taking the train sounds quite a story. This section should be the core of the article.
  • An Aftermath section, briefly describing the effect this race had on the subsequent history of the tour, and perhaps mentioning something about the future careers of the main 1906 riders.
  • The tables

The following are my detailed prose points. Some of these will be lost in the rewriting/expansion, but they give you an idea of where I think the prose problems lie, and should help you in tour rewriting:-

    • Examples of non-encyclopedic prose in the lead include "spectators still got a good laugh", "didn't", and "obliterating the opposition"
    • I think the "point system" should be the "points system"
    • The "winning time" in the infobox doesn't give a winning time
    • More precise prose needed, for example "the introduction of mountains" should read "the introduction of mountain stages"
    • Ungrammatical sentence: "The point system in the 1905 Tour de France had been successful enough in reducing cheating, that the Tour organizers used it again in the 1906 Tour de France."
    • Unencyclopedic: "It was however changed a little bit". You shouldalso explain the nature of the changes that were made.
    • "completely" is unnecessary emphasis
    • A clearer explanation is needed for the way in which the race classification was "cleaned up". I think you mean that the points for the first eight stages were redistributed among the remaining riders in accordance with their positions in those stages. If this is the case, it should be stated plainly, avoiding phrases like "cleaned up".
    • Alsace-Lorraine does not need a "the". Its German name at the time was Elsass-Lothringen.
    • "The 1906 saw..." presumably should be "The 1906 Tour saw"
    • What was the purpose of the protests that disrupted the first stage?
    • What does the phrase "direct concurrents" mean?
    • "several minutes" is vague - isn't the exact time known?
    • Awkward prose: "he was halfway already leading by one hour" Suggest: "...he was leading by one hour at the halfway point"
    • Again awkward: "When the first other cyclists passed him..."
    • And again: "Trousselier however refound himself in the second half, and won the 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th stage, and was suddenly going towards second place." Possibly amend to "Trousselier, however, rediscovered his form in the second half of the race, won the 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th stages, and was challenging for second place."
    • "...the race was closed with two timed laps". I think you mean "was followed by two timed laps" - you could describe them as "exhibition laps"
    • Careless: "Hundred cyclist had entered themselves..." You mean "One hundred cyclists had entered..." ("themselves" is redundant)

Please note that I am not able to watch peer review pages, so if you wish to take up any point with me, I will respond if you ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback! The comments about structure are really helpful, I will use them for other Tour de France articles. It is hard to get information on this event more than 100 years ago, so expansion will be difficult until I find a new source. The prose comment will be dealt with after the structure is reorganized. Other reviewers: this is enough information for me, I will now try to Archive this review. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Treasures of Japan (Shrines)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I created it from scratch and would like to get some feedback also with regard to a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Thanks, bamse (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

  • The title has been moved since this article was nominated for review. It has been changed from something consistent with other lists in this series, to something ungrammatical and inconsistent. At present the title shown in the text is different from the formal article title. I strongly recommend you revert to the previous version. done, all list titles are now consistent bamse (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main map of Japan is floating in unenclosed space, with no textual description and no explanation as to what the different coloured areas signify. No explanation is given for the small enclosed map alongside. done
  • There is virtually no text to this article (94 words of readable prose outside the tables). Although this is also the case with the others in this series, most lists have rather more descriptive text than this. There are many facts that you could include in the lead to make the list more interesting to the general reader. For example:-
These, and possibly other facts, could be the basis of a proper, informative lead.
  • The main table is broadly in line with those of others, but lacks important information, such as the age of eachdone, and the "remarks" column seems unimaginatively used.
  • The biggest problem with the list is that it all seems to come from a single source, a Japanese-language website with no English translation. It is therefore impossible for non-Japanese speakers to check anything in the list. This is English Wikipedia: are there no English websites, or other sources, that can be linked to the list?

This is about the limit of what I can say, being unable to verify the information. I hope it will be of some help to you.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. I will try to improve the list accordingly. As for the source, yes it is in Japanese, but it is the official source (from the government agency that decides on the nominations), therefore not outdated and likely less prone to errors. I am not aware of a complete list in any other language. bamse (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Rawls

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the overall importance of Rawls's contributions, his place in the history of philosophy, and various viewpoints on his work are not included or well-emphasized.

Thanks, Levalley (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has lost its focus and is something of a mess. It needs an expert editor.CDart (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big problem with the philosophy related articles on Wikipedia is that the descriptions of the philosophers' arguments are almost exclusively original research. We cannot use primary sources to explain a philosopher's position, but should seek out secondary sources and cite those. This is also a problem with this article. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not know anything about the man or his philosophy, here are some suggestions for improvement based on the article itself.

  • The current lead is two sentences and needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Pres. Clinton's award of the medal to him is only in the lead.
  • Article needs more references, for example the sections on Career, Later life, and Contribution to political and moral philosophy have no refs at all. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Provide context to the reader - as one example, the books do not even have the year they were published to give some idea of when he wrote them. Or the Presidential medal could be put somewhere in addition to the lead to explain how people viewed him and his contributions.
  • Since he's dead, a photo of him could be added under WP:FAIR USE
  • See also is for links not already in the article - A Theory of Justice is already linked prominently and should not be a see also.
  • Usually there is some sort of critical reception section in articles on people who produce written works - what did others say about his books / articles/ ideas / theoeries?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a few FAs on Philosophers and Bernard Williams might be a good model article here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Reports: The Homosexuals

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because with a recent expansion I believe that it comes close to if not meets the Good Article criteria and would like for a reviewer to look it over before making the GA nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I think your chances of passing a GA review are good. The article is generally well-written, seems factually accurate and verifiable, is broad in coverage, seems neutral to me, and is stable. The single image is OK, and I think the license is OK, although the description page might say how the image was captured (and from what) and give a link to the source, if possible. "Source: the episode" is hard for a fact-checker to verify.

Infobox

  • The blank fields for episode number and chronology look a little odd. I wonder if they can be filled with data or, if not, removed entirely.

Lead

  • "a public television station out of San Francisco" - "In" rather than "out of"?
  • "The Homosexuals garnered mixed critical response, with the network garnering praise from some quarters and criticism from others for even airing the program." - The "with plus -ing" construction is ungrammatical, and "garnered, garnering" is repeated. Suggestion: "The Homosexuals garnered mixed critical response. The network received praise from some quarters and criticism from others for even airing the program."
  • Link "sting" to sting operation?
  • Perhaps a link to gay?

Production

Segments

  • I'd be inclined to render the numbered list in straight prose without numbers. Presenting it as a list draws attention to it as something special, which it doesn't seem to be. Presenting it as straight text would make it no more or less important than the other paragraphs. It would still be a list and would convey the same information.
  • The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than % for simple constructions such as the ones in this article. If you make this change, the "10" and the "percent" need to be nailed together with a no-break code (nbsp).
  • "Washington D.C." should be "Washington, D.C.,".
  • "He contrasted the comments of the previous subject, saying that he had come out to his family at age 14 and, far from being treated like a sick animal, they treated him with warmth and understanding." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "In contrast to the unidentified person on the couch, he said that he had come out to his family at age 14 and, far from seeing him as a sick animal, they treated him with warmth and understanding."
  • "Following remarks from Socarides " - Maybe "after" would be better here to break up the repetition of "following" that starts two other nearby sentences as well as this one.
  • "Goldman asserted that homosexuality "is just one of a number of...things all tending toward the subversion, toward the final erosion, of our cultural values." - Even though the source for this is probably the same as the Vidal quote, it would be good to give the source here as well.

Participants' response and personal fallout

  • "Consequences" rather than "fallout"?
  • Perhaps "Amster Yard" could be explained. The red link doesn't help, and it's not clear from context what it refers to.
  • The two Wallace quotes should probably be sourced right after the quotation marks in each case.
  • "Despite this personal knowledge, Wallace relied on the American Psychiatric Association's categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness rather than his own experience in creating the episode." - Delete "rather than his own experience" as redundant?

Notes

  • I believe et al. should be in italics since it's Latin rather than standard English.
  • Citations 12 and 22 could be combined by using ref = name. It might be possible to combine some of the others by tweaking the page numbers slightly, but this is pretty nit-picky and not necessary.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback. As always, very helpful. Couple of things:
  • There does not appear to be a way to delete the episode chronology information from the infobox. The relevant fields are Prev and Next; when removed we're left with the blanks and arrows. I have been unable to find out what the surrounding episodes are or another television infobox (Infobox television special would be good but it doesn't exist). So either the fields remain blank pending somehow locating the ep information, something like "Unknown" goes in the fields or I switch to a different infobox, for example Infobox Film. No real good solutions.
I was afraid that might be the case. I played around with the infobox a bit and didn't find a solution either. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the segment list, the reasons I have it as a list are 1) I didn't realize I had the more detailed summary until stumbling across it a few days ago and 2) since I haven't seen the episode myself I don't know for sure what fell in each segment. I think it would look even more odd to put the list into prose form (along the lines of "The episode consisted of segments called..." or whatever) and then not really tie the segments to the description that follows. Do you think losing the list entirely would be the better way to go? Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of deleting it entirely, but that sounds like a good idea. The detailed description seems sufficient by itself. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Revisions made Based on the automated review above, I have created a more comprehensive lead, inserted a relevant image from Commons, inserted non-breaking spaces, and deleted contractions. The suggestion about summary style is apparently irrelevant and I will review the suggested style guidelines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • It passed the good article nomination.
  • I asked the reviewer what changes to make for featured article status.
  • I made said changes (dashes and sources)
  • I think the article is of the quality and comprehensiveness of a featured article, so I would like any constructive feedback on what is keeping it from getting there.

Thanks, —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeagler comments

  • The "Release history" section is redundant. Every version of note is covered in the prose "Release" section.
Comment This is in keeping with Wikipedia:ALBUM#Release_history and this section has unique information (e.g. catalogue numbers and digital formats.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though WP:ALBUM mentions such a section, it's trumped by WP:NOTDIR. Catalog numbers don't help to further our understanding of an album, neither does the date that the album was made available on Napster, etc. Again, you've already covered the relevant information perfectly in the "Release" section.
  • I don't believe the prologue to the "Reception" section is necessary. Also, the "Awards" subsection would be better in prose form (appended to the "Critical reception" subsection) with a few of the most important rankings explicitly mentioned. Then end the paragraph with something like, "The album appeared on a further ## year-end lists", with a reference that encompasses the rest.
Comment Prologue deleted. I modeled the awards after similar lists (e.g. There_Will_Be_Blood#Top_ten_lists); making it prose is a bit too cumbersome in my opinion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might try a table, as done with the FA Blood Sugar Sex Magik.
  • Let's remove those red links.
Comment I deleted a few red links that seemed unlikely to be made into articles, but I have left some that are appropriate (e.g. the album personnel.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One little, often-overlooked MOS comment: full dates require commas after the year (e.g. "The album was self-released on August 18, 2008, exclusively....").
Done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeagler (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can the "Personnel" section be condensed by listing each contributor once? I'm not sure it's necessary to know who contributed what on every track...
e.g.
  • David Byrne – vocals, guitars, clavinet, piano, surdu, percussion
  • The quote from Jim DeRogatis is probably too long to constitute fair use. I would cut that down to a sentence and give additional short quotes to back up the common threads you've found running through the reviews. Also, I've never been a fan of slipping in a reviewer's overall rating when introducing his/her quote (e.g. "Audra Schroeder, writing for the The Austin Chronicle gave the album two out of four stars noting..."), but I don't know that there's anything wrong with doing that.
  • Another thing that just might be me, but all those short phrasal quotes in the "History" section break up the flow. I think it would be beneficial to rewrite 1/3 to 1/2 of them in your own words. Tell us the story yourself instead of guiding us from quote to quote.
  • I've seen the actual deluxe edition, and it doesn't look as detailed as the current picture. Nothing major, but it'd be an improvement to have a photograph of the real thing.
  • You might ask User:Ealdgyth to scrutinize your references. Also, check out this guide to help you with the prose. Taking care of this stuff now will save you a lot of consternation at FAC.

Zeagler (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-ana

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello there! I've done some cleanups of this article, and tried to address everything raised in the previous review. Could someone eyeball it to see what kind of work it still needs? Cheers.—Nailbiter (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I don't have the time to make a full review, I would say that if your intent is to get it to FAC (as you wanted to when you applied for the previous review) you are unlikely to be successful; the article is far too short and brief. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]

The big quandary really is how much context to place in the article - anorexia is a serious diagnosis with a 25% mortality, and the way the article reads now it is completely trivialised. However, I am wary about overloading the article with general info on anorexia as well.

What is really lacking is some scholarly sociological material on groups of people with anorexia and advocacy. I am sure some has been written. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WhatamIdoing

[edit]

It would be interesting to see whether any sources could be found that describe anosognosia (lack of insight into your own disordered behavior) as a characteristic of this eating disorder. The pro-ana line about it being "just" a lifestyle choice certainly has some features in common with people that have no insight into their psychotic episodes. I know this is talked about, but I'm not sure whether we'll find any proper sources on the subject. Here are some that come close:

  • A book on mental stigma that says common pro-ana views deny any biomedical causes and attributes the choice solely to personal/political preference (p. 234)
  • A chapter in this book (starts on page 75) connects anorexia to the feminist movement. It also describes pro-ana claims about being "not sick", "anti-recovery", and "choosing not to recover", with connections to female empowerment (p 84) and goes on to discuss the identity of pro-ana persons construct for themselves as a person who asserts personal power through choosing powerful pain. (Sort of a "I hurt, therefore I exist" identity).
  • This book asserts that the two common (among professionals) ideas are that anorexics have a "false consciousness" or that they "are sick", and the impact of this false-consciousness theory on anorexic people (who then feel like no one understands them, which the author relates directly to the creation of pro-ana communities as a way of connecting to people that understand them) (p 60).

Here are a few other sources that might be useful in this article:

  • PMID 16984715 (not free) discusses the way the Internet communities identify themselves, their subgroups, and outsiders.
  • PMID 16313524 (not free) compares the pro-ana explanation for this disease to medical, psychosocial, sociocultural and feminist models, along with ethnographic and interview material at a large pro-ana website.
  • ISBN 9781843105978 (p 103) could be used to support the assertion that pro-ana website have disclaimers.

I hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survival horror

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed its Good Article review, and we are hoping to improve the article to achieve featured status. The main issue will be quality of prose and any formatting and style issues. Most of the feedback from the Video Games Wikiproject feels that the article is pretty comprehensive, and it's more or less stable.

There should be no issues with the FUC or the references, which should all be reliable. But if there are ways to make this more clear (by amending the images, or by amending the citation templates), I want to know in advance to prevent any misconceptions.

Thanks, Randomran (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a very good article. As far as prose and structure go, I didn't see any outstanding problems. A light copyedit will probably be required for the sticklers at FAC, but the casual reader would have a hard time finding a problem with it. Aside from that, here are a few things I noticed:
    • Its sourcing is mostly excellent, but could use more scholarly/book sources, and perhaps more print sources in general. There is a slight bias toward online sources, particularly IGN, which probably isn't necessary given the genre's coverage from game design theorists.
    • On that note, a deeper analysis of the genre, using scholarly sources on game design theory, would be nice. The practical aspects of the genre are covered well, but greater coverage of its cultural and psychological foundations would enrich the article. I recently read an article at The Escapist discussing a cult of female fans dedicated to Silent Hill's Pyramid Head, as a result of his being an icon of sexual violence. This is an example--although I'm not saying you should use that article--of what I mean.
    • The article speaks generally too often. Some aspects of the genre, I admit, are universal. But several times I noticed the use of generalization when the article should have been specific. I'll give examples shortly; this is being typed from a non-PC device, which would cause copy/pasting to quickly become tiresome.
    • Greater coverage of survival horror elements in non-horror games would be a welcome addition; the famous horror sections in the Thief games are an example. The Condemned series could also be mentioned, as a hybrid of action and horror elements. In general, the genre's influence should be covered in greater detail.
    • Finally, deeper coverage of the genre's Japanese origins vs. its Western evolution would be nice, if the information exists.
  • Some of these might not be actionable, due to the lack of examples cited. When I get back to a computer, I'll remedy this. But all-in-all, a very well done article, despite being a little slight on the coverage of certain elements. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey there. Thanks for the feedback. I found a scholarly source that talks about some of the psychological/emotional aspects of survival horror. I also managed to explain the Japanese influence upon the genre, and really tried to explain the Western/Japan tension that led things to really change in the early 2000s. I hope you think it's an improvement. I'd appreciate any feedback about copy-editing or what not.
    • On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake for the article to drift too much further into other action games, as the article already covers games like Doom 3 and The Thing. I haven't found any sources that note more than a passing similarity between Thief and Resident Evil (let alone earlier horror games). I think it's important that the genre sticks to the gameplay and history of survival horror, rather than becoming a genre about horror in video games in general.
    • I've also had trouble turning up any additional book/print sources, and a lot of scholarly sources I've found test the limits of WP:RS. Obviously I'd love to add more scholarly stuff, but I haven't really found much. If you can direct me to any research that you think would improve the article, I'd really appreciate it.
    • Let me know about those overgeneralizations, though. And by all means, if you have further ideas to improve the article, don't stop there. Thanks for the review! Randomran (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has definitely been improved. I understand what you mean about digressing into action games; I'd only suggested it because there is no "horror games" article, and thus no other place it could be cover. But if you don't think it should be in there, it's not a huge deal. I would, however, include a mentioning of Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem; it's one of the most famous Western horror games, and its experimental scare tactics were fairly revolutionary. As for scholarly and print sources, here's some good stuff I dug up:
          • On Google books, I found a chapter of the book Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear covering survival horror, and considering its origins in board games. If you have access to Google books, I recommend you check it out, even if you don't have a subscription to it (neither do I). But here are a few highlights--there's more, but I'm not willing to type up a chapter:
            • "Survival Horror" is generally understood to be a game in which the player leads an individual character through an uncanny narrative and hostile environment where the odds are weighed decidedly against the avatar. There is huge diversity within this broad definition. Some avatars have psychological depth and their wits pitted against elaborate puzzles, while others are little more than first-person shooters; some narratives have complex temporal structures while others are unabashedly experiential; some games construct enormous spatial environments while others take place behind the closed doors of a neo-gothic house. -- Could be used in a statement regarding genre diversity.
            • Not only have many games attempted to replicate the Resident Evil formula, it could even be argued that all subsequent survival horror games are obliged to take a stance in relation to it.
            • Overblood (RiverHillSoft, 1997) centres on an amnesiac awaking from cryogenic suspension. This was the first survival horror game to implement a fully three-dimensional virtual environment. [...] Other stylistic triumphs include the elaborate gothic world of Clive Barker's Undying (EA, 2001), and the remarkable hybrid of futuristic anime and Chinese mythology in Fear Effect (Kronos, 2000) and its sequel (2001).
            • As the list of survival horror titles is seemingly endless, many of the game designers start borrowing from computer game genres such as action adventure, first-person shooter, and role-playing games.
            • It may be the setting, the mood or the violence in a game that make it horror. It may be the structuring of the narrative, characterisation, or the experience of gameplay that make it survival horror.
            • The beginnings of the survival horror game genre can be traced back to other game media. The perilous journey of the classic Snake and Ladders board game is a precursor to the survival horror game narrative. -- What follows is an extremely long and detailed analysis regarding the genre's origin in early video games, board/P&P games and even literature. I recommend that you read for yourself; it would take forever to type up.
            • Many survival horror games, and action/adventure as a whole, are structured around the boss encounter -- Continues into a more detailed description.
            • There is a sub-chapter entitled "The Intensification of Atmosphere: Japanese Influences on Survival Horror", which looks like good reading. It includes this quote from the Silent Hill 2 developers: "To make a death scene, you know, somebody died or a monster's died ... if we make that kind of scene we tried to mix erotic essence. This is ... a visual and ... core concept." Ito Masahiro acknowledges Francis Bacon influence on his monster design. The section also further explains the connection of sex and horror in Japanese games.
            • There's even a section on the films that have inspired the genre.
            • There are a ton more parts, but I recommend you find them; I'm about to burn out before I even get to the second book.
          • Here we have Level designs for games: creating compelling game experiences. It discusses the survival horror genre and its origins, but Google books isn't letting me see how.
          • Here's a book called "Music, sound and multimedia". It contains a chapter of detailed analysis of the use of music in survival horror games, using Silent Hill as a case study. It's long and academic; better to read in full (on Google books) than to excerpt.
      • This is the end of part 1. I need to submit this, for fear of losing it in a browser crash. I'll begin on part 2 immediately after. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Digital gameplay: essays on the nexus of game and gamer contains scholarly discussion of survival horror, but Google books won't let me read it. As for scholarly sources, Google Scholar (in a search for "survival horror game") is bringing up quite a few things that look interesting and probably reliable (Wikipedia is fairly lenient when it comes to scholarly sources). Unfortunately, the computer I'm now on is using a version of Acrobat so ancient that the PDF ones don't display properly. So, unfortunately, I can't give you excerpts. I can, however, recommend that you scan the first several pages of results; they look good. In this non-PDF Game Studies article [6], for example, we have the section entitled "Silent Hill". It deals with music in horror games, and I recommend you include it in the article; it's a very comprehensive analysis. Besides that, though, I'm going to have to leave you to wade through the ocean of academic double-speak that is Google Scholar.
  • Finally, in my search for overgeneralization, I couldn't find much. There seemed to be more the first time through, probably because what I thought of as generalization is actually just description, which I can see now after reading all that stuff about the genre. However, one line I took issue with the first time still sticks out to me: "Levels are also designed to be dark and claustrophobic" -- not always the case. The Horror Film excerpt about varying level design should allow you to change it to something like "Levels are often designed to be...", or somesuch.
  • If I think of anything else, I'll mention it. As of right now, I think the addition of print and scholarly sources should flesh out all the elements that need be covered. As for a copyedit, I don't know who you'd ask; on my most recent project, it took like 6 talk page "cold calls" before I could find anyone willing to help. I could comb it over the next few days, if you want. I'm not much of a copyeditor, but a fresh pair of eyes is usually helpful. Anyway, that's it for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now that I notice it, the image of Resident Evil used in the lead could probably use a "purpose of use" rationale, in line with the other two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope these little additions aren't too annoying, but I was looking at your First-person shooter article, where the Game design section has several subsections. I thought that, particularly if you include scholarly material, it might be a good idea to do that here. For example, the description of survival horror's use of visual/aural cues could go into a "Presentation" subsection, or something. And if you cover the psychological side of the design, which the designers of Silent Hill love to talk about, that could have its own subsection. Just some suggestions. Sorry about the commentspam. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, thanks a lot for the suggestions. Sorry it took me a couple of days to get to them. Give them a look and see what you think, and tell me if you think there are any outstanding issues. As for the copy-editing / prose, let me know if you think it's safe to try for FA, or if you think I should get a little more help. I know they'll end up asking for a lot of changes anyway, but I'd hate to see it quick-failed for being miles short of their standards. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's looking really good. I'd still try to fit a presentation subsection into the "Game design" section; the article doesn't cover horror music or the common visual cues designers use to induce fright. If you haven't found anything like that, I could try one more time to dig up some sources. But other than that, it's fairly complete content-wise. As for the prose, I think you'll need another pair of eyes. I noticed a few things that the FAC prose brigade will definitely raise a fuss about. For example:
            • "These boss encounters give meaning to the narrative by drawing upon elements of antagonists seen in other horror fiction." -- Vague.
            • "Games typically feature a variety of monsters, which all behave differently." -- A little stilted. Maybe, "Survival horror games typically feature a variety of monsters with unique behavior patterns"?
            • "Areas of the game world will be off limits until the player gains certain items, although levels are sometimes designed with alternative routes." -- "Certain areas of the game world often cannot be accessed until the player gains a specific item. Occasionally, levels contain alternate routes." Or something like that.
            • "Direct combat is de-emphasized, and players must often run and hide from enemies, or turn the enemy's environment against them." -- "Confrontation is de-emphasized; players must often run and hide from enemies, or use the environment to their advantage."
          • These are just some examples, but if User:Tony1 and co. see these or anything like them, they'll oppose for sure. I could try doing a little work on it, if you want, but I probably won't be more than a minor help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • A lot of the graphical stuff is kind of incidental, when talking about trying to horrify people. I'm not really sure what more to say than that, and I haven't found many sources that talk about it. But thanks for the advice on the copy-edits. Do you see any other parts of the article that need attention? Randomran (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if you don't want a Presentation section, then no. After the copyedit is finished, you should be set for FAC. Good luck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about mentioning Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem somewhere.
  • Was just going to add about prose - try to reduce mentions of the words "survival horror" if possible. A common problem is repeating the term which is the subject of the article alot. I might tweak the prose. and revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Crawl discography

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is intended to put it forward as a Featured List candidate in the near future. I believe that it satisfies the requirements but would appreciate any other editors input.

Thanks, Dan arndt (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments - Discographies are a group of pages that I have no experience with, but I didn't want this to be archived without any feedback. Here are some thoughts on the prose in the lead:

  • Openings like "The discography of" are actively being discouraged at FLC. To avoid issues with the beginning, just start it off like an article on the band: "Australian Crawl was an Australian surf / pop rock band. The band released...". The current third sentence would also need an adjustment with this change.
  • Done First sentence adjusted; note I avoided repetition of 'releases' in second sentence. Started third sentence with, These include releases credited to...
  • "with Little River Band's guitarist David Briggs producing." A better sentence structure would be "which was produced by Little River Band's guitarist David Briggs." Also add a comma directly before this.
  • Done Note subsequent sentences were re-written slightly. Maintained wikilinks on LRB and DB.
  • Comma after "and ahead of AC/DC's Back in Black".
  • Done
  • "Their third album, Sons of Beaches released in 1982, also reached number 1." → "Their third album, Sons of Beaches, was released in 1982; it also reached number 1.
  • Done Added Kent ref.
  • Comma after Between a Rock and a Hard Place.
  • Done
  • This was followed by the announcement that they would disband after another tour, the live album, The Final Wave recorded their last performance on 27 January 1986, which was released in October and peaked at number 16." Split this in two sentences, with the first about the announcement and the second on the album.
  • Done Added a ref for first sentence, slightly reworded second sentence.
  • "After, Lost & Found in 1996" Remove comma following "After". In addition, the article already has this album's release date in the previous paragraph.
  • Done Also deleted in 1996.
  • Another comma after "followed by the live Reckless 1979-1995".
  • Done
  • Last sentence of the lead should be split into two sentences.
  • Done Split sentence at 1998. Keeps the two Australian Crawl and David Reyne releases in the same sentence.

Hopefully these will help polish the writing for a future FLC nomination. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen toxicity

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it may be close to becoming a featured article. This is my first request, but I think that the article may benefit from suggestions on writing style and comments on layout. Obviously contributions addressing any inaccuracies and omissions would be welcome.

Thanks, RexxS (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me as a potential FA, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  1. Is there a better image for the lead? I could swear I saw a photo years ago of someone holding a small dog that had O2 toxicity - the dog was rigid and they were holding it by a leg or foot and it was like a stiff board. I have tried looking for it online with no success.
  2. I would split up this sentence: It is also known as oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, hyperoxia, or the Paul Bert effect and Lorrain Smith effect, after the researchers who pioneered its discovery and description in the late 19th century. I would make the Bert / Smith part its own sentence - reads oddly as it now stands. I would also say that the Bert effect is for CNS toxicity and Smith is for pulmonary toxicity.
  3. I would combine the first two sentences in Classification to one paragraph: The effects of oxygen toxicity are commonly classified by the organs affected. There are three principal types of oxygen toxicity:[1][2][3] In general try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, either by combining them or perhaps expanding them.
  4. I think it makes sense to have the History section much earlier in the article than it currently is - perhaps after Signs and symptoms?
  5. It was years ago, but I read Dr. Ox's Experiment by Jules Verne and I think it had oxygen intoxication in it. Might be worth looking it up and a mention in Society and culture section if it is about this
  6. Perhaps add a word here Treatment of seizures during oxygen therapy consists of removing the patient from [external? supplemental?] oxygen, thereby dropping the partial pressure of oxygen delivered.[16]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address points 2, 3, 5 as suggested and I've added extra context to clarify point 6 (please pardon my numbering of your comments). Point 1, the lead image, has been a "running sore" throughout, particularly in the GA Review. I wish I could find a image illustrative of the condition, but the circumstances, rarity and unpredictability of oxygen toxicity seem to make it unlikely. I'd love to find that image of the dog in tonic seizure, but as you say, google has shown nothing so far. Point 4, the placement of the "History" section was dictated by WP:MOSMED, but I'll ask a question there to see if its position can be changed. My sincere thanks for taking the time to do this peer review; it is much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Some suggestions by mav (talk)

Signs and symptoms
  • Some long sentences in this rather info dense section may be improved by breaking them into more digestible pieces. A couple examples:
    • Suggest breaking up (perhaps a full stop after 'contraction') to improve readability and flow: "This may be followed by a tonic-clonic seizure where intense muscle contraction occurs for several seconds followed by rapid spasms of alternate muscle relaxation and contraction producing convulsive jerking, which is followed by a period of unconsciousness (the postictal state)."
    • This sentence also may be a bit long, or at least needs to be segmented by a comma or two: "The onset depends upon partial pressure of oxygen (ppO2) in the breathing gas and exposure duration but experiments have shown that there is a wide variation in exposure time before onset amongst individuals and in the same individual from day to day."
  • Explain jargon inline (putting the jargon in parenthesis at the end of the sentence or phrase works well in other parts of the article): vital capacity, retinopathy of prematurity (I know this is explained later, but it is first mentioned here)
History
  • Needs an inline cite: "Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) was not observed prior to World War II, but with the availability of supplemental oxygen in the decade following, it rapidly became one of the principal causes of infant blindness in developed countries."
Prevention
  • Reconsider if use of "scare quotes" is appropriate. Single or no quotes might be better.
Thanks for your most helpful suggestions. I've re-written the two long sentences to try to break them up into chunks. I think they were the worst in the "Signs and symptoms" section, but I'll certainly review throughout for others. Any suggestions welcome!
I've re-written to try to explain vital capacity and ROP as succinctly as I think I could; if you think they still needs improvement, I'm happy to work more on them.
The scare quotes have been eliminated. I think it reads much better without any of them.
I have a problem with how to deal with the requested History cite. The whole of that paragraph on ROP is sourced from Clare Gilbert's article[7], which is cited (currently number 46) at the end of the paragraph. Should I repeat the same cite after the first sentence? Or do I have to find another source that says the same thing? Any help you can offer to solve this would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero: On Tour series

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is actually a combination of two previous Good Articles, but due to the similarities in the original games and the lack of significant change in the upcoming third game it was decided to merge the articles with this as one part and then a separate list article. As the third game is not yet out or reviewed, I can't really take this to GA yet, and thus to keep the Guitar Hero Featured Topic complete, I am seeking a peer review for this article.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 18:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This sounds like an interesting and difficult game. I have some suggestions about the lead, some of the prose, and some of the images.

Section heads

  • The Manual of Style recommends against repeating the main words of the article title in the section heads. A lot of the existing section heads repeat the phrase "Guitar Hero" or "On Tour" or both. Some of these like "Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades" could be shortened to "Decades" to solve the problem, though you'll want to avoid using the same heads later in the article. In other words, you won't want to use "Decades" twice.

Lead

  • Wikilink fret on first use?
  • Wikilink stylus on first use?
  • The lead should summarize the central ideas of the main text sections. I thought it striking that nothing about gameplay appeared in the lead. I kept wondering how the game was played until I reached the gameplay section. I would even consider moving "Gameplay" up just under the lead as well as adding something to the lead about it. In addition, the lead should include something about the critical reception.

Development

  • "Bala claimed that they had gone through more than 20 different combinations of software... " - It's not clear who "they" refers to. A possible fix would be to substitute "the developers" for "they" here, and then "they" would make sense in the subsequent sentences.
  • "This peripheral is not compatible with the Nintendo DSi due to it lacking the GBA slot to insert the grip into, but Vicarious Visions has stated that they are eager to continue development of the series on the DSi." - Suggestion: "because it lacks" rather than "due to it lacking". Also, Vicarious Visions is singular while "they" is plural. Vicarious Visions is an "it".
  • Wikilink peripheral?
  • "According to lead designer Jeremy Russo, the team had the largest number of playtesters brought in for any project in order to refine the touchscreen "strumming" action, using a range of testers... " - This claim needs a citation. Did he really say "any project" or did he say something like "any Vicarious Visions project"?
  • "RedOctane wanted to see On Tour as a "polished AAA title on a handheld" and insisted on the "Guitar Duel" be a key feature of the game... " - Maybe "insisted that" rather than "insisted on"?
  • "Vicarious Visions developed a method to overcome the 2,000-polygon drawing limit imposed by the Nintendo DS hardware in order to allow the characters, each composed of about 2,000 polygons, still be recognizable." - "to be recognizable" rather than "still be recognizable"?
  • "While Bala has not revealed what plans they have for the DSi for Guitar Hero, they have used their experience... " - "It has" rather than "they have"? Twice.

Guitar Hero: On Tour

  • "Activision revealed that the game would both be sold as an individual game... " - Delete "both"?
  • Wikilink dog tag?

Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades

  • Wikilink and uppercase Wi-Fi?

Guitar Hero On Tour: Modern Hits

  • "but Vicarious Visions stated that they have continued to work on strum detection on the DS touchpad" - "It has continued to work" rather than "they have continued to word"? Also, wikilink touchpad?

Gameplay

  • "Four fret buttons, instead of the normal five (the orange fret from other Guitar Hero controllers is excluded) are located on the side of the unit near the cartridge slot." - Suggestion: "Four fret buttons are located on the side of the unit near the cartridge slot. This is one less than the normal five frets, included an orange-colored one, managed by other Guitar Hero controllers." Wikilink "controller"?
  • "... uses a special guitar pick-shaped stylus to strum on the touchscreen of the DS with their free hand" - "his or her" rather than "they" since "player" is singular?
  • Wikilink touchscreen?
  • "After the player has successfully hit a selected series of notes, they will... " - Ditto here on the singular-plural disagreement.
  • "This is activated by yelling or blowing into the DS's mic, by pressing any of the face buttons on the DS, or by tapping the meter on the touch screen." - Spell out and abbreviate "microphone" on first use? Spell "touch screen" as one word, as you have earlier?
  • "These requests task the player to complete songs with certain requirements, such as hitting a minimum number of consecutive notes or hitting a minimum percentage of the notes in the song, while others are based on the effects players use in multiplayer mode, such as playing an entire song at "Hyperspeed" (notes moving on screen faster than normal) or by using the whammy bar on every note." - A bit too complex. Suggestion: "These requests prompt the player to complete songs with certain requirements, such as hitting a minimum number of consecutive notes or hitting a minimum percentage of the notes in the song. Other requests are based on the effects players use in multiplayer mode, such as playing an entire song at "Hyperspeed" (notes moving on the screen faster than normal) or by using the whammy bar on every note."

Soundtracks

  • "Each game in the series contains more 25 songs, considered to be the larger number of game songs for any DS-based music game." - Needs a source. Considered by whom?
  • "The songlist vary depending on the region of release, with some songs replacing others." - "Songlist" is singular, but "vary" is plural. Also, the "with plus -ing" construction is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "The songlist varies; some songs replace others depending on the region of release."

Reviews of Guitar Hero: On Tour

  • "In general, critics felt the game captured the majority of the elements of the Guitar Hero series,[22] and IGN commented that the note tracks are well done as to provide "a great challenge with a solid difficulty curve"." - It would be best to stick to one tense rather than switching in mid-sentence from past ("felt" and "commented") to present ("are well done").

Reviews of Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades

  • "However, reviewers also noted that with the songs presented in chronological order, the difficulty curve presented in other Guitar Hero games is not present." - Here's another verb-tense switch, from "noted" to "is". I might have missed other instances of the same thing, so you might check to see if you can spot any more.

References

  • Some of the full dates in the citations are wikilinked, while most are not. Your intent seems to be to unlink them all, which is fine.

Images

  • Three fair-use claims in one article may be hard to support. In addition, if you have a digital camera or can borrow one, you might get higher-quality photos than these and set them up to illustrate exactly what you want. For example, Image:Holding GHOT front.jpg is blurry. For better lighting, you might set this up outside against a neutral or dark background. Just a thought.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Poppin' Daddies

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I started editing this page about two years ago, wishing to create a comprehensive encyclopedic article for a band that has very little information about them available on the internet, and because their history is interesting enough and their sound is varied enough to (hopefully) warrant an extensive biography. Unfortunately, I have been - for the most part - the only person to edit/add to this article; with no one else to reign me in (it's quite addictive to keep adding onto an article), it makes it rather difficult for me to realize when I'm following WikiPedia's standards and when I'm not.

I would very much like to see this become featured one day, but if not, that's okay. I'd just like for an official to give it a quick glance over and lend some pointers to set it on the right track, hopefully to FAS or at least Good Article Status :)

Thanks, Skibz777 (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work Skibz, don't have time to review so much good stuff just now, but you've answered lots of questions I had, having encountered references to the band in various places. Good luck with review processes, they can be exacting and time consuming. I'm guessing, but I think a quick review to GA, followed by a more leisurely and comprehensive review to FA might be the way to go. Best luck. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeagler comments

  • The article needs some serious copyediting. Far too often ten words are used where one will do, and the accompanying floweriness makes this article somewhat of a chore to read for a non-fan. Read and understand WP:TONE and WP:PEACOCK.
  • I removed the album cover (it violated Wikipedia's fair use policy since it's already used in the album article).
  • Claims made about the rise and fall of various genres' popularity need citations.

That's about as far as I'm willing to go right now...you already have plenty on your plate :) —Zeagler (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack King (NASA)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have any improvements necessary made prior to nominating it for GA.

Thanks, TJRC (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting guy, but this article seems much too brief to me to meet the "broad in its coverage" ctrierion for WP:WIAGA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. is about another non-astronaut NASA person and seems like it would be a great model article here.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Voice of Apollo and other things are only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • We don't have a date or even year of birth, no mention why he left NASA in 1975 (or even when he left exactly), very little except in the lead on which missions he worked on - this is a start class article and nowhere near ready for GA. There needs to be a lot more detail here.
  • Look at the refs used and see what is still there - for example ref 7 says he won the Kolcum award, but this is not in the article (seems like it should be). Add what the award is for in a sentence and did a little to find out when he won it and what for and you have some more detail to add. Or what does he say / talk about in the interview that the second picture is taken from? Go back and look at these things more closely and see what else can be gleaned.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Time Missionary Baptist

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the editor that has been helping me rebuild the article, John Carter, told me that the next step in perfecting the article is to request a peer review. My eventual goal is to get it nominated for Featured Article, but I know that won't happen anytime soon, so my immediate goal is to improve it's letter grade from C to A. Any comments or contributions would be helpful. Thanks, Joshua Ingram 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

An interesting article, but not as yet conforming to the requirements of an encyclopedia entry.

  • The article should be a neutrally-phrased account of this organization, covering its history, its doctrines, its present activities and its relationships with the outside world. The accent is on neutrally-phrased. At present the article reads more like promotional literature, a justification for the church. I recognise that efforts have been made to remove or modify POV content, but much more needs to be done.
  • All cited material seem to be internal to the organisation, and cannot by its nature present a neutral standpoint. Is there no material from outside the church that can be drawn on, to give an external perspective?
  • A number of "sources" are listed which are not cited, so there is no indication as to how these have been used in the text. Unless specific material from them has been used, and can be cited, these works should be listed as "Further reading".
  • The citations which you have given are too imprecise; they need to be to specific references within books, e.g. page numbers, not to the whole book. You should look at WP:CITE to see how citations should be made, and how the list of sources should be formatted.
  • There are several citations to the King James Version of the Bible. Citing the Bible as a source of quotations, giving book, chapter and verse, is OK, but you cannot cite the whole bible as confirming statements in the article.
  • I imagine that the list in the "Fundamental doctrines" section sets out the basic beliefs of the church, and that the wording is taken from Carroll's book. If this is so, the list should be introduced by a neutral statement, making it clear where these statements have cpome from. You should not state that these are "according to the bible", as this is pure POV.
  • Apart from questions of POV and internal perspective, the article is somewhat untidily presented, as a mixture of text and lists. Lists should be used sparingly, and where possible converted to prose. If the list of doctrines is thus presnted in Carroll's book it can be retained in that form, but it should be made clear that it is a quotation. The three-point list in the Characteristics section should be converted to prose, while the list of Associations should be at the end of the article.

I see no reason why this shouldn't develop into a quality article, but there is a way to go yet, I'm afraid. I'll be interested to see how you go about it.

Violet goby

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's my first article. I think I did a good job on it, however I want other editors suggestions. After it has completed peer review I'm hoping to get it into the Featured Articles.

Thanks, Drew R. Smith (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sasata

[edit]

The article needs a lot of work. I saw up at WP:GAN; I suggest you remove it from the queue to avoid a quickfail:

  • article should be renamed to Gobioides broussonneti (specific epithet isn't capitalized; also fix this in the taxobox)
  • all instances of scientific name in article must be italicized (in taxobox too)
  • that taxobox picture has got to go - try to find a free pic from somewhere (shouldn't be too difficult, as it's an aquarium fish)
  • the lead section shouldn't be labeled as "Introduction", and should be longer (see wp:lead)
  • The "Taxonomy" section should be removed completely (all this is summarized adequately in the Taxobox)
  • every paragraph should have a citation (preferable, an in-line citation)
  • expand all one-sentence "paragraphs"
  • capitalization of "gobies" is inconsistent throughout the article
  • use convert templates to give both metric and imperial dimensions
  • headings should only have the first word capitalized
  • fix the numerous spelling errors (eg. Behviour, "despite it's fierce looks", PH, and more)
  • find a book or 3 to use as a reference rather than having to rely soley on unreliable websites (see reliable sources)
  • use the WP:citation templates to format your references (not strictly necessary, but makes the format more consistent, and more informative for the reader)
  • check out Wikipedia:What is a good article?, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and faithfully adhere to all suggestions
  • get someone else to copyedit the text after you've done all the above. If you're still serious about FAC, check out some of the other organism articles at WP:FA to get an idea of what the end product should look like. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]
  • Agree about withdrawing from GAN. Have a look at Red-capped Robin for an example of depth of biology article.
  • I have made a few changes - too many small sections, and remove redundant wording. Headings should be short if possible.
  • Contentwise, I'd like to see alot more on general biology, to balance the aquaculture material.
  • Will try to chip in.

Take a Girl Child to Work Day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a definitive and useful NPOV article on the event, with an eventual aim of making it a featured article. I'd like to know:

  • is it clear?
  • are there any points of interest you think should be added?

I'd also like to know how to request assistance for input rather than just a review, to help with

  • adding sources other than the official website for the event
  • adding criticisms and counter-critcisms

Thanks, d<3vid seaward | Talk 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I had never of this day outside of the United States, interesting article but needs work. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should probably be two paragraphs at least. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Any chance for a free image or two of these girls at work?
  • Several places do not have references and need them - for example the History section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • ALmost all of the refs are from Ccell - what have independent third-party sources said about this topic? Do newspapers cover it or are there editorials or opinion pieces on it? I do not know of such sources, but it seems like they should be out there.
  • Many of the paragraphs andsections are very short (one or two sentences) and should be combined with oithers or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • Many of the sections seem lacking details - "History" lists nine days but only two themes and nothing on development, participation (numbers) etc. Or in the Citicisms and concerns section, sayiong "The criticisms and concerns of any corporate social responsibility initiative also apply to this one." is bunk - cite specifics or get rid of this section.
  • Bold text is overused - see WP:ITALIC
  • See also is only for articles that exist, not red links

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tay-Sachs disease

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to prepare it for nomination as a featured article. Although Tay-Sachs disease is extremely rare, it served a public health model. It was the first successful application of mass carrier screening in genetic testing. It is frequently a textbook case for students in human genetics and public health, and it is frequently discussed in fields like medical ethics and medical sociology.

Thanks, Metzenberg (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS comments
Please excuse me if this review is not of the highest quality as it is my first attempt at a Peer Review. I have some comments and questions for you to consider.
Good points of the article are:
  • I found the article engaging and comprehensive, and the sourcing is high quality;
  • There are several good quality and relevant images, adding to the understanding of the article.
However, you may wish to address the following:
  1. Linking: Considering WP:OVERLINK, I suggest you link only the first occurrence of a term, unless it appears in widely separated sections. For example, in the lead, "ganglioside" is linked twice, as is "brain", within consecutive sentences. It would be worth checking for any other similar occurrences. It is recommended to avoid placing two wikilinks next to each other as this looks like a single link. For example, could you avoid British ophthalmologist Warren Tay and American neurologist Bernard Sachs in the lead? - in both cases that is three adjacent wikilinks. I would actually suggest that linking "British" to United Kingdom and "American" to United States are low-value links (i.e. those articles add nothing to the reader's understanding of TSD) and serve to dilute the high quality links like Bernard Sachs. The first step should be to consider dispensing with links of common words - or to places that we can expect most readers to be familiar with. Perhaps consider if the link of "Eastern European" to Eastern Europe adds value to the article?
  2. Citations: It should not normally be necessary to cite the lead, as the parts of the article that the lead summarises will contain references anyway. Within the body of the article, consider whether you have distinguished sufficiently between facts which are common knowledge (and exempt from the requirement to cite) and less obvious statements which would benefit from references. For example, the introductory paragraphs in "Testing" have two cites, both related to Pre-natal testing (as far as I am able to ascertain), but cover far more; possibly the internal links are sufficient to verify that content, but hopefully you will examine the possibility that more references may improve that section. It is difficult to "step-back" when you are familiar with all the material, but you should pose yourself the question, "If I knew nothing about TSD or even medicine, are there any claims in this article that I am unable to verify?"
  3. The lead: Ask yourself if the lead accurately introduces and summarises the main points of the article. I personally felt the lead over-emphasised the pathophysiology and said nothing about prognosis, but others may not agree with me.
  4. Sections: There is a guideline at WP:MOSMED#Diseases/disorders/syndromes on section headings that you may already be aware of. May I suggest a section on Prognosis might be applicable? Should the section on "Mutations and polymorphism" be a subsection of " Etiology and pathogenesis" or perhaps " Etiology and pathophysiology" would be a better heading with pathogenesis, mutations and polymorphism within it? I'm interested in why you chose to put "Controversy over heterozygote advantage" as a subsection of "Epidemiology". Would it be more appropriate in its own section? Even though it's not suggested in MOSMED, a controversy section is not uncommon on wikipedia and may well be of sufficient interest to the reader to warrant that. Have you considered a "Society and culture" section? There is quite a bit of content in the "Historical significance" section (which may be over-long) that could be moved to "Society and culture" with more commentary on the social significance, rather than the plain reporting usually found in "History".
  5. Images: The article is long enough to sustain the 15 images present, but I suggest that a few of the images are more decorative than informative to this article. For example, do the images Geneticcounseling.jpg, Blooddrawgenetics.jpg, and Genetictesting.png actually add to the understanding of TSD? I'd also like to see the captions of some of the other images expanded to amplify the parts of the article that they refer to. For example, why not make the point that Jewish immigrants made outstanding contributions to society (to refute the Reuter's quote) in the caption to Irvingberlin1948.jpg? There are good guidelines at WP:Captions in balancing the need for clarity with succinctness when writing captions; I've found that reading through that page helps a lot.
In summary, this article certainly seems close to being a good candidate for FAC and I have not really stressed sufficiently above how good it is. The criticism is essentially minor in comparison and you will need to pick through my comments to weigh any value they may have. In any event, I wish you the best in preparing for FAC and I offer you the opportunity to discuss with me any of my comments or suggestions if you wish. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've responded to many of these suggestions, and I plan to look at them again. While I agree that the images are in some respects decorative, I think they are necessary in what would otherwise be dry subject matter. Furthermore, the images of genetic testing and genetic counseling (although decorative) are warranted, because Tay-Sachs disease played such an important role in the development of these fields. Metzenberg (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS writes: I'm interested in why you chose to put "Controversy over heterozygote advantage" as a subsection of "Epidemiology". Would it be more appropriate in its own section? Even though it's not suggested in MOSMED, a controversy section is not uncommon on wikipedia and may well be of sufficient interest to the reader to warrant that.
Once again, thanks for commenting here. I have expanded the Epidemiology section. I hope that the material I have provided makes it clear that this is really a historic controversy, not a modern one. The bottom line is that heterozygote advantage ended up on the losing side of all three of the great late 20th century controversies in genetics. Sometimes outdated scientific theories continue to receive press coverage and attention in popular science publications long after most researchers in the field have rejected them or lost interest in them. Heterozygote advantage is such a theory. To give this controversy its own section would be to give it too much weight. Metzenberg (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Sri Lanka

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to featured status; is there a need to cover other facets of the industry that are not mentioned in the article? How is the writing (I"m not sure about the quality of that)?

Thanks, [[User:HumanFrailty]] (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Great topic and while it is clear a lot of work has been done on the article, it is still a long way from FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should not be more than four paragraphs, this is six paragraphs. There should also be a lead image if at all possible
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Article needs more references, for example many paragraphs and some sections have no refs at all. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article has many short paragraphs of one or two sentences - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Several of the sections are also very short and could becombined perhaps.
  • Does the article really need two sections on actors and actresses - can't they be combined? Why is there no identification of the awards received in Award winning actors and actress?
  • There is nothing on critical reception as a whole - what have critics thought about the Sri Lankan cinema? Besides actors what about directors, cinematographers, etc?
  • What about awards in general? Is there a Sri Lankan Oscars or BAFTA?
  • Put the table of top ten films in chronological order (1997) not before 1901.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet forum

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get further comments now that it has been improved.

Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Quickie:[reply]

  • Easily the biggest problem with the article is that it really needs referencing. I understand that this is a problem because of the topic, but it simply must be done. Especially the History section.
  • Some forums consider posts consisting solely of: Thank you., I love it. – or similar phrases – spam. Does the article really need this? Otherwise it sould be said differently, and not spaced as it is-almost independant of the paragraph.
  • There are several dab links, see here.

OK, there you go. ResMar 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Awadewit
  • Large sections of this article are unreferenced. I would suggest starting a search for references at Google Scholar. See, for example, this search on "internet forum history", which turned up some promising-looking sources.
  • I think that the organization of this article could be improved.
  • The subsections on "troll", "sock puppet", "spamming", "double posting", and "word censor" appear before the basic description of the "forum structure". Would these perhaps work better later? If one doesn't know what a forum is', grasping the idea of troll will be difficult until one understands the basic idea, I think.
  • The "Common features" section seems oddly named and arranged to me. Could the section be renamed "Security and markup" and some of the subsections moved? For example, could "Private message", "Emoticon", and "Poll" be moved to "Discussion", as those are really more related to the way people interact on the forum?
  • I'm wondering if more information on security needs to be added to the article. How do administrators protect these sites?
  • I'm curious if any forums have been "destroyed" by advertising, the way some usenet forums were.
  • The "History" section needs to include a clearer timeline. I thought internet forums would include usenet, but apparently not. It would be good to clearly distinguish between the early forms of community discussion like that and the internet forum in this section.
  • I would also suggest adding a section that describes the variety of internet forums available, perhaps highlighting the largest and most active. These are briefly mentioned in the "History" section, but not really described.
  • I would also suggest adding a section on the emergence of language unique to internet forums or at least a section describing how users talk to each other on these forums. The "emoticons" subsection is a good start, but there is much more to say on this front. The "History" section hints at the use of "internet slang", but I think this can be explored in greater depth.
  • In general, the writing in the article is wordy and there are lots of one-sentence paragraphs. Try to reduce the redundancy in the prose and integrate the one-sentence paragraphs. Here is an analysis of one paragraph:
When rules are broken several steps are commonly taken. First a warning is usually given; this is commonly in the form of a private message but recent development has made it possible for it to be integrated into the software. Subsequently, if the act is ignored and warnings do not work, the member is – usually – first exiled from the forum for a number of days. Denying someone access to the site is called a ban (as in "you have been banished"). Bans can mean the person can no longer log in or even view the site anymore. If the offender, after the warning sentence, repeats the offense, another ban is given, usually this time a longer one. Continuous harassment of the site eventually leads to a permanent ban. However, in most cases this simply means the account is locked. In extreme cases where the offender – after being permanently banned – creates another account and continues to harass the site, administrators will apply an IP ban (this can also be applied at the server level): if the IP is static, the machine of the offender is prevented from accessing the site. In some extreme circumstances, IP range bans or country bans can be applied; however, this is usually for political, licensing or other reasons. See also: Block (internet), IP blocking, Internet censorship.
  • Notice the overuse of words such as "commonly" and "usually" - these are unnecessary. Just indicate when something is unusual.
  • Notice how ideas are repeated twice - "exiled from the forum...Denying someone acces to the site" - There is no need to repeat the idea. Simply go on to the idea you want to make "This is called a ban..."
  • Notice the repetition of words - "If the offender, after the warning, sentence, repeats the offense" - this can become "If the user becomes a repeat offender"
  • Everything should be in sentence form, so the "see also" links should be linked in a sentence or deleted.

I hope that these comments are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Not a lot to add after the other reviews, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree with the other review comments above, especially on references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • All internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way . Please see WP:LEAD
  • The images are screenshots - I am not familiar with the forums, but the image licenses seem to be treating these as software, not as images.
  • I would also say in the caption which forum is illustrated.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jifna

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate this article for Featured article status soon, and I believe it is practically FA-worthy now considering how tiny the village is and the information we have on it, but I think a different editor should make an overview of the entire article mainly to check for prose, grammatical errors, and any MoS problems.

Thanks, Al Ameer son (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's more than a year since I did the GA review for this article, and I will enjoy reading and commenting on it again. I intend to look carefully for MOS compliance in respect to dashes, no-break spaces (nbsp) and other easily overlooked features, as well as doing a thorough prose review. I hope to report back within 48 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a start, you need to replace hyphens with ndashes in the page ranges within your references. I have fixed No. 14; you need to fix 19, 21, 29 and 39
I did a lot of reference re-arranging, but I don't remember noticing any hyphens and since I re-organized many citations, could you please point out where the hyphens are again.
OK, the hyphens are in the page ranges in refs [18], [20] and [34]. These need to be replaced by ndashes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Al Ameer son (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Some work is also needed with no-break spaces (nbsps). These are OK in the earlier parts of the article, but numerous fixes are required in the Geography and climate, Demographics and Government sections.
  • Many of the references are not properly formatted. Every on-line reference requires as a minimum a title, url, publisher and last access date. Numbers 5, 22, 25, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38. 39, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 do not have this minimum information. Number 29, evidently a book sources, also requires to be properly formatted. I will have other questions about sources later, but these housekeeping matters must be fixed.
Done.
Nos 2, 49, 50 and 51 are still lacking access dates. No. 31 is a citation to another Wikipedia article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More later, Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

  • Lead: Possible confusion between village spring (water) and Spring (season). It would be clearer if you specified village "water-spring"
Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biblical era
    • The mdashes in first line are intrusive and not really appropriate. Suggest you delete them
Done.
    • Ref [8] needs to be properly formatted. The basic reference should be to this page
I replaced it with Robinson.
    • Ref [9]: you need to specify which edition of Joephus's history you are using, and give publication details
The STF-J source covers it so I removed Josephus.
    • Titus should be described as the future emperor, as he didn't succeed until 79 AD
Done.
  • Islamic, Crusader and Ottoman rule
    • Information is missing between the first and second paragraphs. At the very least you need to give the date of the Crusader conquest with minimal detail.
Done
    • "...but after they lost Palestine" is a bit informal. I would alter to "...but after their defeat by the Ayyubids under Saladin in 1187..."
Done
    • You say the church was subsequently repaired by the Ayyubids "per a request from the Crusaders". Can you give more information, e.g. the date of the repair, and how and by whom the request was made? Note: I see that this information is expanded in the St George's church section later. I wonder if it needs to be here at all.
It turns out that the whole rebuilding request affair had nothing to do with Jifna's St. George's Church, but the more famous one in Lydda.
    • Again, I would recommend losing the mdashes, simply enclosing the phrase in commas
Done.
    • "Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt conquered most of the Levant in the the early 1830s and in 1834, there was a revolt against local Egyptian authorities in the area, and 26 residents of Jifna were subsequently exiled to Egypt for their alleged participation in the uprising." This sentence needs a bit more context, and should probably be split. Possibly: "In the early 1830s Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt conquered most of the Levant and temporarily took control of Palestine. In 1834 there was a revolt against local Egyptian authorities in the Jifna area; 26 residents of Jifna were subsequently exiled to Egypt for their alleged participation in the uprising."
Done.
  • Geography and climate: The sentence beginning "Today..." should be reworded to be more time-specific, e.g. "In 2009..."
I think using 2009 would also be inaccurate and unfortunately the source used is a dead link now so I don't what year they were talking about. I will contact a fellow editor who I think is based in the territories to see if he could find the archived page.
  • Demographics
    • "...but it might have been larger then" reads like speculation. Unless there is a specific citation for this, I suggest the phrase is omitted.
Done. I have found other info on Jifna's population in the 16th century which I will add tonight or tomorrow.
    • Likewise, the next sentence is not really supported by what follows, where the figures are all relatively recent. It may be better to begin the paragraph: "There are no available figures for the population of Jifna (Gophna) when it was a regional capital in Roman times, nor for any period up to relatively modern times. According to..."
Removed.
    • 465 males plus 494 females is 959 people...but the population was 961. The age distribution figures also add up to 959.
Yea, in the source, it lists the genders and ages of the population, but there's also a column that says "Not stated". This is why it doesn't add up.
    • You say "The population of Jifna appears to be growing". On the figures you give, there is no "appears" about it – the population is growing rapidly, having almost doubled since 1997. Suggest reword accordingly.
Done.
  • Economy
    • "...unemployment is a minor issue in Jifna." Yet, in the Demographics section you say that 25% of the population have had to move to Jerusalem or Ramallah to find jobs. That seems like a major issue to me.
This is kind of difficult since both sentences are backed by the same source and it does seem to contradict itself. Maybe it means that those who remained in Jifna have minor employment problems compared to other Palestinian localities. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saint George's church
    • Since it is earlier referred to as "St George's church" I suggest this heading is changed to be consistent, and that references to "Saint" in the text are likewis altered.
Done. Re-merged section into the wider History section.
    • "It continued as a place of worship into the modern era" If Mass is still celebrated there, you should say: "It has continued as a place..." etc.
Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Festivals: rather than saying the Jifna Spring festival was "unique", just say it was the first such festival to be held outside a major city.
  • Government: If council members are identified by labels, e.g. DFLP, why not indicate these in the list of members?
The names and roles of the members is from one source and the political factions are from other sources. None list the names of the members and their group together. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General point: WP:MOS requires the use where appropriate of no-break spaces, e.g. 200 people, 465 males etc. You should consult the MOS and apply the rule throughout the article.
  • Questions are likely to be asked at FAC about the reliability and neutrality of some of your sources, e.g the Tabash Restaurant website. At FAC it is sometimes necessary to lose information if it cannot be sourced reliably and independently.
I might need to keep the Tabash Restaurant source because of the new "Small businesses" subsection, but if it gets in the way of an FA pass, I'll remove it in a hurry.

As I cannot watch all the peer reviews I'm involved with, please ping my talkpage when you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by nominee

[edit]

Since this review began, I have made some major changes to the articles. I removed the St. George's Church subsection and re-integrated it into the main History section, started a "Religion" subsection in the main "Demographics" section and added a population table. I also added a succinct mention on a traditional sweet in the Traditions subsection. This review has been very helpful and I just request you review the Islamic, Crusader, Ottoman era subsection, the Small businesses subsection, "Religion", and "Tradition". --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are some unresolved issues from the early part of the review. The added material looks OK, except that the last sentence of the "Religion" section doesn't seem to be related to religion, and perhaps ought to be transferred to the main Demographics text. Good luck with the article, and I hope things are well in Jifna. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'll take care of the no break spaces if I could find them all and will fix the citations you pointed out. The last sentence will be relocated. The images I uploaded were done so illegally I realize. The person who posted them on Palestine Remembered took them from the Jifna Hope Association. I will email them for permission of use. Perhaps, they could release those two and maybe others into public domain or apply the attribution license. After that, I will go straight to the FAC page. I can't thank you enough for all your help. Cheers friend! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was prematurely listed at WP:FLC. I've discussed it with the nominator and am moving it to Peer review.

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after recreating the list tables, rewriting and expanding the lead paragraph, and adding all citations, I feel that this list meets all of the qualities needed in a Featured List. I'm dedicated to making this the best list page possible, so I will attempt to make any necessary revisions noted here that would help improve the page. Aatrek (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • May I suggest moving this to WP:PR instead, and treating my following statements as a Peer review? IMO, it's not ready for FLC yet.
  • DVD image fails WP:NFCC#8
  • Just a question, not a "go and do this", but why isn't {{episode list}} used? I can't remember the last FL episode list that doesn't use it
  • Got any references for the stardates?
  • Production order section is pretty redundant, since you've given the production number of each episode.
  • Ref 11 does not back up the statement that episodes were syndicated "ordered by production number (starting with "Where No Man Has Gone Before", ending with "Turnabout Intruder", and not including "The Cage")"
  • original pilot episode, "The Cage." episode titles should not be italicised, and the punctuation is in the wrong place
  • original DVD -- I expected this to point to an article or section about ST:TOS DVD releases, not the article about DVDs. Try not to overlink common terms
  • Don't introduce the page with "This is a list of...", Dog doesn't begin "This is an article about dogs"
  • List is very US-centric. See WP:BIAS. Do you have broadcast/airdate information for other countries?
  • Info about new media releases such as iTunes or web streaming would be good
  • Plot Summaries do not summarise. They tease. Saying that, they shouldn't be scene-by-scene commentaries either.
  • WP:Lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, but other than a box at the top of the page, there is nothing else WRT to VHS/DVD releases. In fact, VHS releases aren't even mentioned.
  • Not a thing on reception, and not a single Secondary source -- why?

Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
  • Regarding sources: Wouldn't the episodes be primary sources? Should I just use a somebody else's episode list for the airdates, stardates, etc. to satisfy the WP:PSTS requirements?
  • Episodes can be used as sources for the plot. They can also be used to source the writers and directors, if mentioned in credits on-screen, but it's still better to find book or web sources. Nothing about an episode tells you when it was broadcast, so airdates do need a reference. If the ST website has that, that's fine, but a secondary source, such as TV Guide would also help. Take a look at List of 24 episodes, List of The O.C. episodes, List of The Office (US TV series) episodes -- they're some of the most recent ones. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
  • Production order was discussed on the Talk page, since I can't work out a sortable episode list. Do you think it's best to just dump that second set of lists?
  • It might be. It's just repeating the same information, albeit in a different order. I think if you use {{episode list}} you can make the tables sortable without messing up the layout WRT summaries. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
  • I have no information on foreign airdates that I can find, anyway. Other US TV lists I look at have the US airdates only (like this FL).
  • Yeah, they usually only give the home county's airdates in the table (List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes is an exception because some episodes actually aired in America before they did in their native Canada. However, in the Lede you could say that it has been broadcast in xx number of countries. BBC2 used to air it in the UK, in the 90s, then I think Channel 4 did around 2005. I have no idea who the first boradcaster was, though. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
  • "Reception" - how much should I be duplicating from the actual show page?
  • Just a paragraph or so. What were the average ratings? What major awards has it won? Thant ind of stuff.
Aatrek (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope my comments help you, Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the best will in the world, I'd strongly suggest withdrawing it and going to peer review first. There are a few common errors, like references come after punctuation, and the first sentence. Also things like episode summaries need to be worked on, as well as finding missing references for the remastered airdates, DVD release dates. Some things like the Original Airdates are actually referenced (ref 2), but it is not obvious that this info is referenced. You also mention VHS in the "Production order" section, do we have release dates for the videos too? You have made a very promising start but the changes required are too much for the duration of an FLC. Hopefully, you will take this as constructive criticism. You have done very well, but I'd highly advise getting some more experienced eyes to iron out any remaining problems at peer review, before attempting featured list status. If you wish to withdraw, just state so here or tell Matt. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and withdraw from FLC, I'll work on this some more. Thanks for the advice. Aatrek (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a bunch of changes; any thoughts? Aatrek (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Payne (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this to GA Status. It probably needs a copy edit and I would like suggestions/contributions to expand the article.

Thanks, PeppageBRAINS! 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not the right person to review this article: I'm no expert. But I did make some copy edits and I do have some comments.
first, your sentences are very long, with confusion of pronouns and names -- who does what to whom and when... that sort of thing. I fixed a few of them, but I wasn't sure about who was actually doing what.
second, at the very end something about Nicole comes in, and I'm totally baffled by her. Where did she come from and what role does she play? She has to be introduced earlier so we get a sense of the multiple levels of betrayal involved here.
third, I find the duplicating use of footnotes confusing. Several footnotes for the same source. This may be a standard in wp, and possibly I'm just a fuddy duddy. However, I do have problems figuring out what and who and where given that kind of citation.
fourth, general question: is this a revenge film? does it fit that kind of genre? All these classic archetypes have a theme (i.e., revenge, greed, love, hate). Is this a classic revenge story, or is it something else? I would want to know that up front.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Age

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because: several editors have been diligently working on this article for some time; and we would like to see New Age become a Good Article. A fresh perspective with additional editors will help to refine the article to the next level for nomination to Good Article Status.

Thanks, ~ All is One ~ (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

  • There are five "citation required" tags in the Philosophy and cosmology section. These should be attended to as soon as possible.
  • To avoid confusion I suggest that you rename the Notes section "Notes and references", and rename the References section "Bibliography"
  • You need to use a consistent style for page numbers and ranges. At the moment you have p. and pg for single pages, pp., pgs and pages for ranges. Suggest you standardise with p. and pp.
  • Similarly, you need a standard form for access dates of on-line sources. These need to show day, month and year in each case
  • Many of the references are not properly formatted.
  • Some ISBNs are missing

It might be a good idea if you work on these while I work through the prose.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I have added four more citation required tags to the Terminology part of the Belief section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uli Kunkel

A couple months ago, I moved the New Age page to New Age spirituality. The move was reverted by an editor who gave the explanation that New Age is a broad concept with aspects that exceed spirituality, and therefore the move was inappropriate. I just saw the move back only yesterday, and I am amenable to accepting it, but on certain accurate conditions that can be stated as simple criticisms of the current article.

In the simplest terms, that the New Age article (paraphrasing) "is not about New Age spirituality exclusively" does not mean that there needs to be no New Age spirituality article. In fact, any topic with lots of branching aspects needs to have articles for each of its aspects. The lack of a specific article on "New Age sprituality" —arguably New Age's most important aspect —to me, says a lot about how "New Age" itself says a lot of nothing.

The problem of course with making a series of articles about a concept that says nothing at all is that more articles means that each element within the nothing concept can be dealt with in more detail, and thus reveal flaws in the concept as a whole. This is a good thing. From Wikipedia's point of view, we're all here to explain things, such as to help other people understand things. The interesting thing about this New Age article at the moment is that it has all of the basic generalistic elements of a serious article —it touches on many other concepts, it starts with the most general idea, it goes into details down below, etc.

Anyway, start by developing the individual aspects: New Age spirituality might be an interesting article. Criticism of New Age is no doubt not far off, but I can deal with seeding that. Regards, -Stevertigo 05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Louis

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This has been rated as a B-Class article -- a fact I noticed as a result of my recent work on the Jackie Robinson article.

In the last week I've rewritten the article, retaining as much of the prior work product as is justifiable. But it's a substantial rewrite, with the addition of about 60 unique references, including a number of web-accessible books.

I think it's close to FA-class at this point, but it could still use some work. In particular, if anyone has a print copy of Louis' "My Life" autobiogrpahy, that wold be a useful source. I only reference it indirectly at present, since it's not web-accessible.

I'll notify the relevant wikiprojects and any listed volunteers for the subject of boxing.

Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Recognizance:

  • I formatted the lead with proper line breaks rather than <br>. The sentence about his cultural impact should probably go to be safe as far as NPOV; the article reads fine without it anyway. (Edit: It seems someone took their own measures to NPOV the lead. "He was a professional boxer" seems like it doesn't do justice a topic sentence, but maybe the edit came from you.)
I've reworked this to be more NPOV. The rest of my changes are outlined below in bold.
  • It does say little is known about his childhood, but is there any indication of why his father was committed?
Not that I can find
  • You may wish to change "but was eventually outclassed by Miller" to just "eventually lost" for tone purposes.
changed
  • I changed "did not experience the same fate" to "did not meet the same fate". Another way to put this would be "suffer the same fate" depending on the meaning you wish to convey.
  • You refer to Roxborough as a "numbers man" - too slangish (and confusing to those unfamiliar with the term).
changed to "bookmaker"
  • The examples of the "commandments" should be incorporated into the text. The sentence that follows can then conclude the paragraph.
I've left his as-is for now, hoping that I can find a more thorough citation to the commandments later. As a list, I think it's appropriate for bullet-point formatting, although if there's a MOS treatment on the issue I'll change it.
  • "Louis worked his way back up the pecking order" is another example where it sounds too casual.
changed
  • "The effect that Louis' championship had on African American pride in the 1930s is hard to adequately relate to a modern audience." - Please try. Same idea for "no less a luminary than Langston Hughes". Just needs a little change of tone.
changed
  • The last few paragraphs in Louis vs Schmeling II lack inline citations. My understanding is that one per paragraph (or at least one after the last paragraph) is preferred.
changed, although this is meant to be more of a summary section, given the exitence of Joe Louis versus Max Schmeling
  • Another example of tone issues: "the beautiful jabbing" in the Conn fight. I'm not one to cry peacock at statements of obvious fame/greatness/whatever, but keep an eye out for this kind of stuff.
changed
  • Need some fix-up in the sentence about Ezzard Charles: "defeating when he outpointed Jersey Joe Walcott, was set for September 27, 1950".
changed
  • I noticed you use Answers.com as a resource. While they may have legitimate outside information assembled on the page, Wikipedia is also listed and hence bad form.
I've kept the answers.com site as a reference, but it's no longer the exclusive reference for any claim.

Great job doing justice to Louis. Recognizance (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton LiveUpdate

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to bring this article to GA-class. The main issue is probably the context the article was written in; I think it was written for someone familiar with Norton products and Symantec. In addition, the text doesn't seem to flow very well.

Thanks,
Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 00:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nvineeth :

  • The lead is very small, and "However, LiveUpdate cannot upgrade a version of Norton to a later version; rather, it can only apply updates for a particular version of Norton." does not belong to the lead, probably belongs to a "Drawbacks" section. Also note that the lead should give a overview of the article.
  • Rename "How it works" → "Operation"
  • The content seems to be small... can the article be merged to other suitable article?
  • {{cite web}} can be used for references, see citation styles.

Thanks, --Nvineeth (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments II
  • Can "Norton LiveUpdate is a software developed by Symantec Corporation used to download and apply updates for Symantec's Norton product line." be rephrased as "Norton LiveUpdate is a desktop application developed by Symantec Corporation used to download and apply updates for Symantec's Norton product line.", if we are sure that it is used only with desktop apps.
  • "In the past, Norton LiveUpdate was a seperate software that is installed with all Symantec products. However, with the 2009 line, it is an integrated part of Norton" has some gramattical problems.. This can be rephrased as "Before the 2009 version of LiveUpdate, the software was required to be seperately installed."
  • "A valid and current subscription is required to use Symantec LiveUpdate" — "valid and current" can be replaced with "valid" :)
  • "How it works" vs "Operation". Note that when we say, "How it works", technical users may expect further details, (it) and this one being a closed source, proprietary, "Operation" seems to be a better word.
  • How about adding a section on Security advisories, (say from Securityfocus or Secunia) if there are any major critical vulnerabilities.
  • The content of the article can be expanded further, for example from this google news search
  • How about "Problems" sections, I am sure that LiveUpdate has problems . For ex see this

Thats it, thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechOutsider

  • Merge the one sentence sections.

Clements Markham

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I will welcome comments of any kind on this article, which covers a lot of ground apart from polar stuff, and describes the long, interesting and at times controversial life of a not particularly nice man ("that bloated old windbag" – per R. Rudmose-Brown, 1912) Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia

I fixed some typos, added a few ship links, and did some minor MOS cleanup. Only a few remaining suggestions:

  • A sentence or two explaining why quinine was wanted in India would be helpful.
    • I've written a short additional explanation re malaria (anagram not intended). I could say a little more if you think it necessary.
  • Ditto for ipecacuanha.
    • Not much in my sources about it. I've now mentioned that ipecacuanha is a medicinal plant - again, I could add a bit more if necessary.
  • Regarding The History of the Gradual Development of the Groundwork of Geographical Science: is this such a formidable work that it warrants italics rather than the typical quotes for papers?
    • Haven't read it. I think I'll put it back in the ordinary quotes.
  • If Robert Neal Rudmose-Brown's name is to be shortened, shouldn't it be to "Rudmose-Brown"?
    • Yes, OK will do.
  • I left one inline query in the Abyssinia section, about a redundancy with the prior section.
    • Thanks, I've removed the redundancy

You find the most fascinating people to write about; I'd love to get my hands on your library! Maralia (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, and for fixing typos, ndashes etc. I'm a bit embarrassed, because I meant to correct all the typos this evening, not imagining that you would get to it so quickly! I assume the ship stuff is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just returned online after a week of illness, and picked your request to tackle first because I'm so familiar with all the expeditions and characters now that sprucing up these articles hardly feels like work. You're allowed a few typos now and then :) I'm satisfied with the addition regarding malaria. I see that ipecacuanha has more varied uses than I thought, so I doubt there's any value to be added by further elaboration on that point. The ship links look fine; I'll see what I can do about turning HMS Assistance (1850) blue. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wehwalt

Excellent article on an interesting subject. A few comments and suggested changes. Lede: "He had strong and determined ideas about the National Antarctic Expedition". Perhaps "about how the National Antarctic Expedition should be organized." Some mention that Scott led the NAE might be helpful in the lede. And a link to Napier.

Childhood:

  • "the Revd" Is this the proper title, or should it be "the Reverend"?
    • Crockfords "How to address the clergy" gives "The Reverend", which it says may be shortened to "The Revd", so I've capitalsed the t.

Royal Navy:

  • "passing third in a group of ten." I take it this means he became a midshipman?
    • Yes, clarified by rewording
  • "evidently changed away from those of a conventional naval career." I'd strike the word "away"
    • Yes, done
  • "he informed his father of his wish to leave the Navy, but was persuaded to stay." Odds are by his father, but you should probably say so.
    • Clarified

Arctic Expedition:

  • "In the ensuing months Markham, as well as joining in the general fun " Damme, Nunavut in January is awesome! Seriously though I'd mention that in the long Arctic night, the expedition did (whatever constuctive things they could do) but also spent much time on diversions. Then the sudden jump to "general fun" will be smoother.
    • Reworded, with a clearer description of winter activities

Chinchona mission:

  • Something strikes me a little odd. The Peruvians were anxious to preserve the chinchona trade, yet they let Markham out with the seeds and plants, and even gave him an export permit (though he overcame hostility, it seems). Doesn't seem they were trying very hard to preserve their trade.
    • From my reading, it appears that the hand of government was not strong in the remoter parts of the Andes. There was some confusion as to who was in charge out there. I have changed "authorities" to "interests", which I think is a fairer indication of the difficulties Markham faced.
  • "species of a higher quality obtained by Richard Spruce" A different species of chinchona? Perhaps if so, say instead something like "a species more adapted to the Indian climate" or something else that indicates the superiority.
    • Reworded more or less as you suggest.

Second Arctic expedition:

  • "was sufficient for his superiors to request his resignation." Perhaps instead "caused his superiors ..."
    • Done

National Antarctic expedition:

  • "Markham faced a divergence of view. Murray and the Royal Society argued for a largely civilian project, undertaken and staffed by scientists; Markham, and most of the RGS contingent, saw a National Antarctic Expedition as a means of reviving naval glories and wanted the expedition organised accordingly." If he's taken sides, then he really isn't facing a divergence of view, if you want to be technical, which I guess we do. Suggest a slight rephrase.
    • Slightly rephrased
  • "from the British Museum." Surely "of the ..."?
    • Yes, done

Retirement: The final paragraph seems to have chronology problems. Scott's death being a heavy blow is mentioned after events that took place two years after Scott's death. Suggest moving the "heavy blow" before the memorial events. Then start the travel sentence with "Despite his grief over Scott's death, ..."

    • Chronology corrected

That's really all I have. It is very well written. One general comment, though, I think you might just be too gentle on Markham through much of the body of the article. Perhaps some more indications of his dictatorial style (beyond playing favorites on Antarctic expeditions) might be mentioned, if they are known. Also, more info on his family life could be included if they are known. Anyhow, well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is more stuff about his early family life in the main biography, but not especially interesting. I'll see if I can find anything worth adding. On the dictatorship thing, H.R. Mill called Markham "dictatorial" (after the latter's death), but didn't specify instances of dictatorial behaviour. I'm fairly happy with the balance at the moment; it may be amusing to pursue the bloated old windbag path, but the man was widely respected, too. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Graham

More to come, but here By this means the Indian government acquired a home source for the extraction of quinine would, perhaps, be clearer if it said, "from which quinine could be extracted". At it stands, some readers might interpret this as the extraction process's being acquired, rather than than the raw material. (Very interesting article, by the the way). Graham Colm Talk 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, accepted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, a few more comments from me, mainly trivial points which you might want to ignore.

  • There are a few "also"s — are they all needed? And, I saw one "in order to".
There were way too many "also"s, thanks for pointing them out. I've got rid of about eight, kept about four. "in order to" appeared three times, but two of these are within quotes. I've reworded the other.
  • This sentence, The revival at the end of the 19th century of British interest in Antarctic exploration, after a 50-year interval, was the main achievement of Markham's RGS presidency, is a little passive, would "The main achievement of Markham's RGS presidency was....." be better?
I had noted that. Thanks for the reminder - now changed
  • Here, During his lifetime he received public and academic honours, is the the "During his lifetime needed? Did he receive any posthumous honours?
Redundant phrase deleted
  • Here, The following two years were occupied in a series of cruises in the Pacific - I am left with the impression that something is missing. Whose two years?
I've changed the sentence to begin: "During the next two years Collingwood cruised in the Pacific, visiting the Sandwich Islands..." etc
  • I know this is your style, but I think and "and was" is needed here, On 25 June 1846 Markham passed the examination for midshipman, third-placed in a group of ten.
I've altered it to "being placed third in a group of ten"
  • This is a real nitpick, but you don't transplant seeds, a scheme for collecting cinchona seeds and trees from the Peruvian and Bolvian Andes, and transplanting them to sites chosen in India.
Well spotted. Rather than go into tortuous subclauses I've dropped the reference to seeds.

That's all, as I said all trivial points for you to take or leave. Thanks for a fascinating read. I loved the messenger getting shot. Graham Colm Talk 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these welcome comments which all lead to small improvements. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a delightful read. It adds to an excellent body of Wikipedia work, much of it yours, on polar explorations and related matters. I have a few suggestions, all minor.

Lead

  • "Among the geographical features bearing his name is Mount Markham in Antarctica, named for him by Scott in 1902." - Perhaps a tiny bit better would be "Antarctica's Mount Markham, named for him... " to put the modifier next to the thing modified.

Childhood

  • Just to throw in my two cents about "The Revd", what I'm used to seeing is "the Rev." with a lowercase "t" and a period after the "v". These two are probably both correct as trans-Atlantic variations.
    • Crockfords allows "The Rev." as an alternate to "The Revd", but it seems the capital T is formally necessary.
  • Wikilink archbishop?
  • Perhaps it would be best to spell out Baronet rather than abbreviating it as Bart. Again, this may be a trans-Atlantic difference, but Bart is not something normally seen in the U.S. except as a first name or, when spoken, taken to mean Bay Area Rapid Transit.

Naval cadet

  • "... it is reported that he was frequently invited to dine with the Admiral." - Lowercase "admiral"?
  • "He also experienced his first taste of naval discipline when he was punished for impertinence to a naval instructor." - Curious readers will want to know how he was punished. Confined to quarters? Dunce cap?
  • "he informed his father of his wish to leave the Navy" - I believe "navy" should be lowercase when not part of the full formal title, Royal Navy. I see that you have used lowercase in the next section.

First Arctic voyage 1850–51

  • As you might guess, I'm happy to see the link to Franklin's lost expedition. I've been hoping you might eventually look north as well as south and take up Franklin, Rae, Amundsen, and Nansen, among others.
    • I have been brewing Nansen stuff for months. After Markham I am committed to a couple of music articles, then it will be north with Nansen (I did some fieldwork last September in Arctic waters, following Nansen's route)
  • "The chief work during the ensuing months was preparations for the spring sledging season." - "Work" is singular; "was" in singular, but "preparations" is plural. To avoid this awkwardness, I'd probably change this to something like "involved preparations for" or "was preparing for". Also, it might be useful to link "sledging" to sled.
  • "for the rank of Lieutenant" - Should "lieutenant" be lowercase?

First journey: 1852–53

  • "accompanied by a missionary (and future archbishop of Santiago), Dr Tafuro" - Is his first name known? If so, it should probably be used rather than "Dr".
    • Name not given in the source, nor anywhere else I can find.
  • "He finally left Cuzco on 18 May, accompanied now by a party of six... " - Delete "now"?

Cinchona mission, 1859–61""

  • Should Bolivia be linked?
    • Well, I tend not to link countries - in this article Peru, Brazil, Chile, India, and Bolivia are all unlinked.

India Office

  • "He was also involved in an ambitious plan for the transplanting of Brazilian rubber trees, claiming that he would "do for the india-rubber or caoutchouc-yielding trees what had already been done with such happy results for the cinchona trees." - I'm used to seeing the citation numbers immediately after the end of a direct quote. Probably citation 37 is the source, but the question may arise.

Abyssinia, 1867–68

  • "Markham was attached to the force's headquarters staff, with responsibility for general survey work and in particular the selection of the route through the mountains that the troops would take to arrive at Magdala, the king's mountain stronghold." - It might be helpful to add the name of the coast, how far the landing site was from Magdala, and which direction the troops marched to get from one to the other. I assume they sailed around Africa and approached the coast from the south since the Suez Canal was not yet open.
    • Napier was C-in-C India, so I reckon the main force sailed from there (a much shorter distance than from UK). I have added their landing point in the Red Sea, and the direction and distance of the march to Magdala

Honorary secretary

  • "... was the author of the Encyclopædia Britannica (ninth edition) article on the Progress of Geographical Discovery. - Should Progress of Geographical Discovery be in quotation marks. If it's topic rather than a title, should it be lowercase?

President

  • "In May 1888 Markham resigned from his position as RGS Secretary, finding himself at odds with the Society's new policies which appeared to favour education over exploration.[51] On his retirement he was awarded the Society's Founder's Medal, 'in acknowledgement of the value of his numerous achievements to geographic literature ... on his retirement from the secretaryship after 25 years' service.' " - Delete "On his retirement" since the direct quote repeats the phrase?

Images

  • The two images, one on the right and the second on the left, in the "Naval cadet" section make a slight text sandwich (about three lines long) on my monitor. This could be fixed by moving the naval cadet image down slightly. Otherwise the images and their licenses look fine to me.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. Where I have not responded above, you can take it that have simply followed your suggestions which I found most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my thoughts. I agree that this looks very good, here are some very nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the lead could use a link to Franklin's lost expedition at "lost expedition" in ... one of the many searches for the lost expedition of Sir John Franklin.
    • This was linked later in the artice, but I have transferred the link to the lead.
  • In the lead the link to Magdala seems to be the wrong link (place in Israel), I think Battle of Magdala is the correct link
    • Whoops...corrected
  • Would it make sense to say where Valparaíso is The ship reached Valparaíso, the headquarters of the Pacific station, on 15 December ... (not all know where it is - some in the US might confuse it with this Valparaiso, although it is hard to sail there...
    • Done
  • Is there a date when he reached Lima that could be added to On reaching Lima Markham learned of the death of his father, and departed immediately for England where he arrived on 17 September.[27] so we know how long the return journey took?
    • Date added
  • What did he do for the 6 years between his first and second Peruvian journeys? OK, this is addressed in a later section, but I think there should be a sentence or two here.
    • I've slightly changed the text, but I don't want to add too much for fear of repetition. The second Peruvian journey is considered outside the main chronology, because it seems sensible to deal with both Peru trips together.
  • I would link Cinchona in the article (not just the lead)
    • Done
  • This needs a ref: He found the work tedious, but was able, after six months, to transfer to the forerunner of what became, in 1857, the India Office. Here, the work was interesting and rewarding, with sufficient time to allow him to travel and to pursue his geographical interests.
    • Reference added.
  • Maybe I missed it, but I would mention when the women membership issue was resolved in the President section
    • Information and reference added
  • Maybe it is just my tiredness, but I was a bit uncertain about these two sentences at the end of the Discovery Expedition section - the transition just seemd a bit odd (went from very successful to this). Moreover, Markham received much criticism for his management of the later stages. Discovery had been frozen into her anchorage since the start of the 1902 winter; Markham had sanctioned a second Antarctic season, but had been unable to raise sufficient funds for a relief expedition in 1904, and had been forced to yield control to the Treasury.[71]
    • I've altered te wording a bit, to emphasise that although the expedition was reported as a success, the government was none too pleased with Markham, whose alleged mismanagement meant that the Treasury had to pay the costs of the relief expedition.
  • Would it make sense to say was godfather to the explorer's son, born 14 September 1909 and named Peter Markham [Scott] (add Scott)? Also say visited by Peter Markham Scott (not just Peter Scott) later?
  • Done.

Hope this helps. I made a copyedit or two for what seemed to be obvious small typos - revert if I acted in error. Please let me know when this is at FAC and I will gladly support - well done. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. With such helpful coments from the peer reviewers, I think the article is more or less ready to face FAC. A few final tweaks, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat: Deception

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as it is one the first video games articles I have worked in and I need some comments. Some doubts I have is how I am handling the reception section, the images and the other things that may be commented in a GA review. This article needs some copy-edit, but I prefer to focus in these part before a copy-edit.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - I have never played this game, so you have the perfect novice reviewer ;-) . Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Just in the lead, I would make it clearer that this is a video game and that it is the sixth in the Mortal Kombat series, so the first sentence could be something like Mortal Kombat: Deception is a fighting video game developed and published by Midway as the sixth installment in the Mortal Kombat (MK) series. Notice I added the abbreviation MK here so it is clear what it means when used later.
  • Again for those not familair with the MK series, I would say that Deadly Alliance is the fifth MK game. Having to click on links twice in the first paragraph of the lead shows that more context needs to be provided for the reader - see WP:PCR
  • I don't do copyedits, buit agree this needs one - just in the lead there are missing words ...a port for the PlayStation Portable, which added new characters to [the] game. or Several parts from Deadly Alliance such as combos, or arenas were redesigned to be more realistic as well [as] more interactive. Try printing it out and reading it out loud slowly to catch missing words like these.
  • The lead seems to be written a bit too much from an in-universe perspective, the plot andcharacters section are even harder to follow if you know nothing about the MK series - see WP:IN-U
  • Watch out for redundancies like There are also instant-death traps, which instantly kill a fighter unlucky enough to fall into them. this could just be Instant-death traps kill fighters unlucky enough to fall into them.
  • Watch out for WP:JARGON too - what is a combo? It is not even linked that I saw. Or what is a fatality in this The Deception characters have two Fatalities and a hara-kiri suicide move, in contrast to the ones from Deadly Alliance , which had only one fatality.[2] (by the way, be consistent - is it "Fatality" (capital F) or just "fatality"?
  • Add to refs that appear to be the same but are not - for example current refs 29, 30 and 31 are all just "Mortal Kombat: Deception". Metacritic. Retrieved on 2009-02-16."
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many GA and FA video game articles, see Category:FA-Class video game articles and Category:GA-Class video game articles

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I ll be doing the fixes.Tintor2 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded considerably in the past several months and needs input from editors not familiar with the text. The final destination point for this article is FAC.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH:

  • Statements like "Powerful volcanic eruptions", "a dramatic torus", "would easily fit inside it", "seriously disturbed" and "vast magnetosphere" might raise eyebrows during a FAC. (Personally I don't have an issue with the wording, but I thought I'd mention it.)
    This was fixed by Serendipodous. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the so called direct current, which is not to be confused with the direct current" may be confusing. I tried to address it by adding "used in an electrical circuit", but I'm not sure I succeeded since the same term is used earlier in the paragraph. Perhaps something like "the direct current generated by a battery" would work?
    I moved the explanation to a note. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then radically away from the planet in the plasma sheet (radial current)..." Should the 'radically' be 'radially' here?
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jupiter is a powerful source of radio waves--kind of a radio pulsar..." It might be good here to say something like "periodically varying radio waves" so the analogy with a pulsar is clearer.
    Fixed by Serendipodous. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Lorentz resonance" needs to be explained.
    Added an explanatory note. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plasma originating from Io carries sulfur and sodium ions farther from the planet, where they are implanted preferably on the trailing hemispheres of Europa and Ganymede. On Callisto the sulfur is concentrated on the trailing hemisphere." One of these should probably be on the leading hemisphere, otherwise why the separate sentences? Or is the point that no sodium is deposited on Callisto? &c.
    I clarified that the reasons why Callisto is different are unknown. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I communicated my issue properly. The wording implies that sulfur is preferably concentrated on the trailing hemispheres of Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. Why the separate sentences?
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Ruslik (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • the caption Io's interaction with Jupiter's magnetosphere. The Io plasma torus is in yellow. is attached to an image where the legend seems to suggest the phenomena happens for all the (major) satellites. please clarify
  • File:PIA04433 Jupiter Torus Diagram.jpg page could use some tidying up
  • the further reading section seems really long and full of articles that are not reviews; aren't any of those worth expanding about in the text instaed of leaving them at the bottom of the article?
  • Jupiter as a pulsar - try rephrasing this title

Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Io image is probably wrong in that case, so should probably be photoshopped.
  • The image file is an issue with the Wikimedia Commons, not this article.
  • Do you not like the assertion that Jupiter is a pulsar?Serendipodous 09:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually all satellites are sources of material in the magnetosphere, but Io provides more than 90% of the total. So this image is more about Io-Jupiter interactions. As to further reading, I chose the most interesting articles, which were not necessary for me to write this article, but still are worth reading.
    • Jupiter as a pulsar. I wanted to emphasize that the physics of Jovian and pulsar's magnetospheres is basically the same. Ruslik (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the subsequent FA nom to go more smoothly.

Thanks, Zeagler (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "audio interview with the band" without addressing the reliablity of the website hosting the interview and the person conducting the interview. As for the myspace stuff, why does it not violate WP:SPS? A link to the discussion would help. Why is CCM important enough that mentions in the magazine would establish the reliablity of another site? You're going to want more than just one or two references for this information, you need a number of different sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: audio interviews – The information used in the article is not coming from the interviewer, but the artist. I guess I don't see what the problem is...are we afraid that the interviewee might be an imposter because the hosting site is not well known?
(Web page for LifeWay interview, if that's helpful... [16])
(Web page for Cleft in the Rock Radio, if that's helpful... [17])
Re: myspace – ...because DecembeRadio are experts on their own goings-on. Thus, we move on to WP:SELFPUB, and there's no issue there. There's nothing "unduly self-serving" about recording dates/locations or the names of opening bands, which is all that's being supported.
Re: CCM Magazine – quotes from/mentions of reviews in The Phantom Tollbooth are used by the magazine to show that the albums in question are generating significant press coverage (in the Christian music world). Other publications being name-dropped alongside The Phantom Tollbooth are print magazines...certainly none of them are blogs or SPS.
Tell me if I'm getting warmer on any of these. :) —Zeagler (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with interviews isn't worry that it's an imposter, it's the reliablity of the site hosting the interview and the person conducting it. While it's unlikely, it's always possible that the interview has been edited badly, or that it's faked. The more obscure the source of the interview, the more this is possible. Granted, it's unlikely. This is why the various reliable sources guidelines and policies exist, to guard against sites that haven't proven their reliablity as far as correctly hosting and transmitting information. When we say that the New York Times is reliable, it's because they have shown throughout their history that they report the facts, and if they inadvertantly report something wrong, they will correct it. Same goes for the mainline publishing houses, they stand behind their work. At this point, I can't say that I'm seeing a lot here that shows it's reliable. Yes, it's a high hurdle, but it's designed to protect living folks (which indirectly this article is about, since I presume the band members are still alive) from wrong information being put out about them and their work. Wikipedia is the leading result on the web for most search engines, and this gives us the editors some pretty hefty responsiblity to make sure we use the best sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence for JfH: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesus_Freak_Hideout
Would direct links from the band's official website/myspace site remove any doubt? —Zeagler (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point we're into "I'll leave these concerns out for other reviewers to consider" territory. When you get to FAC, just link to this PR in your nomination, and I'll chime in there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29th Golden Raspberry Awards

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this page for peer review because I've never done a featured list before and recently did some work on this page, I'd like to get some feedback before trying to bring it to WP:FLC. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  1. "It received three" "three" whats? Awards?
  2. "and as part of Worst Screen Couple for her performance" I think it would be convenient for the readers to know who Hilton's #spouse" was.
  3. "Hilton matched a record set in the previous year by actor Eddie Murphy, who received three acting awards in different categories or the multiple characters he played in Norbit." It's not clear what the record is for.
  4. Any images of the winners and/or nominees?
  5. "Agence France-Presse" Shouldn't be italicized; it's a news agency.
  6. The dabfinder reveals one dab link.
  7. I take it "Worst Picture" is the most auspicious award? It's the only award listed in the infobox. You might want to explain that it is the primary award.
  8. Last row in "Worst Screen Couple": ""Eddie Murphy in Eddie Murphy" in Meet Dave"—I'm afraid I don't follow.
  9. "Worst Career Achievement" should be pipe linked to the appropriate section in the main article about the Golden Raspberry Awards.
  10. Can you trim the External links section? Some of the links, especially the IMDb ones, seem redundant.
  11. You use the Cite XXX style in the notes but the {{citation}} template in the references.
  12. There needs to be some sort of indication and symbol for the color in the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Dabomb87

  1. Done.
  2. Done.
  3. Done.
  4. Done.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. The infobox was modeled after {{Infobox Academy Awards}}. I have not come across any WP:RS sources explicitly stating that the "Worst Picture" is the "primary award" of the ceremony, but sources do indeed state that the Golden Raspberry Awards are a spoof of the Academy Awards, so this should be self-evident.
  8. Done.
  9. Done.
  10. Done. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) I don't have as many comments, mine are mostly stylistic observations rather than overt recommendations (except for the award category bolding).

  1. Each award category should probably be bolded to emphasize the category.
  2. Similarly, I think it would help for the winner row to be bolded.
  3. My own personal preference would be either no color in the winner row or something a little less bold. I can't speak for every reader who has vision issues, but I've always found this particular use of color a bit uncomfortable. (See here for something a bit more discomforting.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Wildhartlivie

  1. Done.
  2. Done.
  3. I personally like this color and layout. I modeled it after Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (for Programming Less Than One Hour) - because that was done by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) [18], who I gather knows a bit more about featured lists than I do. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, as I said, it's a personal preference. I think the bolding enhances the table quite well and I really do like the addition of the images. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, me too! Cirt (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo people

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the quality of the article to improve and I also want a different point of view for the article, as I have been the principle editor for some time now. Could whoever the editor may be suggest anything that needs to be added.

Thanks, Ukabia (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting and apparently comprehensive article. My biggest concern is with issues related to prose or the Manual of Style, and I've given many specific examples below. I'm sure I didn't catch everything, and although I added an "upright" parameter to one of the image templates, I did not do a complete review of the images or their licenses. If you can find another set of eyes to look at the images and licenses, that would be good. Also, another round of proofreading after you finish the next round of revisions would also be good.

Lead

  • "Igbo people (also referred to as the Ibo(e), Ebo(e), Eboans or Heebo) (Igbo: Ndị Igbọ) are an ethnic group... " - The punctuation here is a bit hard to follow here because of the parentheses inside of parentheses. Suggestion: "Igbo people, also referred to as the Ibo(e), Ebo(e), Eboans or Heebo (Igbo: Ndị Igbọ), are an ethnic group... ".
  • Since Igbo is wikilinked in the first sentence, it does not need to be wikilinked in the second sentence.
  • "In rural areas, the Igbo are mostly farmers." - Since the preceding sentence talks about America, "rural areas" might seem at first to refer to America. Since I think it must be referring to Africa, it might be good to say that directly, thus: "In rural areas in Africa... ".
  • "Before British colonialism, the Igbo were a politically fragmented group." - Since British colonialism is wikilinked in the preceding paragraph, it doesn't need to be linked again here. Oops! I see that this second one links to a different article, and then "clan", "village" and "dialect" link to other surprises. In general, it's best to avoid what are sometimes called Easter-egg links that surprise the reader who clicks on them. At least two solutions are possible. Either remove the links or change the wording of the text to make it more clear at glance what the links connect to. For example, you might start the sentence with "Before Nigeria became a British colony... " and link "British colony" to "Colonial Nigeria." Also, the link from "British" in the next sentence is redundant since it links once again to "British empire" and is an Easter egg link as well.
  • "The end of the war led to the defeated Republic of Biafra being reabsorbed back into Nigeria."- Delete "back"?
  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the main points of the subsequent text. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main idea of each of the text sections. The current lead doesn't mention art, literature, religion, or attire, for example.
Corrected. (as best as I can). -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identity

  • It would be difficult to define a single Igbo identity because of their heavily fragmented... " - "Igbo" is singular, but "their" is plural. Suggestion: "because of the group's heavily fragmented... ".
  • The first two sentences of this section contain more Easter egg links. "Autonomous" is linked to "autonomous communities of Spain", which makes no sense in this context, and "knowledge of Europeans" links to "European exploration of Africa", which is an enormous stretch. If you think "autonomous" needs to be made more clear, you might use "self-governing communities" or "politically independent communities" with no link. To fix the "knowledge of Europeans" link, I would simply unlink it.
  • "Before knowledge of Europeans ... the Igbo had not had a strong identity as one people... ". - "... did not have"? Verb tense.
  • "historian Alexander X. Byrd argues that the Igbo identity has its origins in slavery" - "had its origins"? Verb tense.
  • "the British and fellow Europeans had identified the Igbo as a tribe" - "Identified" rather than "had identified"?
  • "Chinua Achebe, among other scholars, had challenged this because of its negative connotations... ". - "Challenged" rather than "had challenged"?
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

  • "Charles Kingsley Meek, writer of Law and Authority in a Nigerian Tribe, had suggested that it may originate... " - It's customary to use present tense in situations like this, just as you did with "... historian Alexander X. Byrd argues that the Igbo identity... " in the preceding paragraph. Thus, "... Meek ... suggests... " would be better.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

  • "Pottery dated at around 4500 B.C.E. showing similarities with later Igbo work had been found at Nsukka... " - "Was" rather than "had been"? It's just straight past tense in situations like this.
  • There's no need to link Sahara twice in this section.
  • Since you start with BCE, you should stick with it and not switch to BC later in the section. You might link BCE on first use, and WP:MOS#Dates says, "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written, in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops)."
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nri Kingdom

  • WP:MOSQUOTE advises against using fancy quotation marks. Instead, it suggests using blockquote coding and no quotation marks and then only for quotations of four lines or more. Thus, the first long quotation in this section should probably be a blockquote, and the second, too short to be set off as a blockquote, should be an ordinary quotation set off by normal quotation marks and embedded in the main text. The second quotation, by the way, is not a complete sentence. Something seems to be missing.
  • You say six taboo types, but you name seven.
  • The caption says "9th century". Generally, the Manual of Style suggests that numbers from one to nine be spelled out and larger numbers be expressed as digits. Thus, "ninth century" would be better than "9th century". Elsewhere, the article spells out some of the bigger numbers in some places and uses digits in others. I'd suggest tracking these all down and making them consistent.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional society

  • The Manual of Style generally frowns upon orphan paragraphs consisting of only one sentence. Two possible solutions are to expand or to merge.
  • Another fancy quote should be come a blockquote.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic slave trade

  • No need to link Bonny twice.
  • "14.6% of slaves were taken from the Bight... " - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits, and it prefers "percent" to "%" in simple constructions. Thus, "About 15 percent of slaves... " might be better.
  • "In the United Sates the Igbo were found most common in the states of Maryland (ironically, recent immigrants still are)[88] and Virginia, where they remained the largest single group of Africans." - I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences to avoid the parenthetical, and I'd then merge them with the paragraph above.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian–Biafran War

  • Wiklink pograms?
  • The short quote should be merged with the text rather than set off as a blockquote.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language and literature

Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and rites of passage

  • Today, the majority of the Igbo people are Christian, with the Roman Catholic Church which well over half of all Igbo profess as their church." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Today, the majority of the Igbo people are Christian, well over half of whom are Roman Catholics".
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attire

  • Change the fancy quote to a blockquote.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine

  • Lowercase "okra".
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations

  • "there have been several conflicts between its members and the Nigerian government, resulting in the death of members.[179][180][177]" - It's customary to arrange the citations in ascending order. Here this would be [177][179][180]. Ditto for other places in the article where a string of ref numbers are used.
Corrected. -- Ukabia (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article, I will try to exercise all your suggestions as soon as I can. –– Ukabia (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration of Jupiter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of getting it to FAC and I would like to know what is still missing. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH:

  • Given that there is a section on the "Collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy", and that was based on remote observation, I think it would be appropriate to begin the article with a well-developed history of telescope observation. Also if there is anything pre-Galileo that was of scientific interest, that would probably be relevant as well. Doing so would help satisfy WP:FACR 1b.
  • The current lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD. That section tends to get a lot of attention during any review, so it would be appropriate to develop it further.
  • I'm not sure how feasible this suggestion is, but it would be interesting to have an image in the lead that showed the trajectories of the various flyby probes, possibly a gray band showing the orbital region of the Galileo mission. Having this to compare against the radiation belts and the moon orbits would be informative.
  • I would like to see more attention paid to some of the surprising discoveries made during the Pioneer mission. For example, it was found that the magnetosphere was much larger than had been expected, and it showed a 10 hour periodicity.[19] Also surprising was the unexpectedly high levels of radiation discovered. It should also mention Pioneer 11's role in the discovery of Jupiter's ring system.

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ricardiana

  • "In order for a spacecraft to reach the orbit of Jupiter from the Earth's orbit, it requires almost the same amount of energy as it does to lift it from the surface of Earth and put it into a low Earth orbit." - I think that this sentence could be made a little more concise. Perhaps "For a spacecraft to X requires Y."
  • "Pioneer 10 flew past Jupiter in December 1973, the first spacecraft to ever explore Jupiter, followed by Pioneer 11 thirteen months later." Your middle clause would work better coming after "Pioneer 10".
  • "close up" - you use this a number of times to modify a noun. Whenever you use a two (or three) word phrase to modify a noun, the phrase should be hyphenated.
  • Amalthea and Io are not linked on their first appearance but rather on their second or third.
  • "In February 2004, the probe came again to the vicinity of Jupiter." This reads a little awkwardly. "Near Jupiter"?

More later. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Discovery of volcanic activity on the moon Io was the greatest unexpected discovery regarding Jupiter, since it was the first time an active volcano has been observed on another celestial body" - repetition of "discovery." Perhaps you could call it a surprise, or something like that? Also, you changed tenses from past to present.
  • "there is evidence that other eruptions occurred between the Voyager encounters." Could you briefly mention what this evidence is? I assume lava, but I don't want to assume.
  • "might have been painted on with a felt marker" - you do not give a source for this statement, and the next in-line citation does not contain this quotation.

A quick Google search shows a source containing the quotation - [20] - which also makes the statements about the crust and internal heat, etc., very similarly to the way you've worded them, but only as possibilities rather than phrasing them, as you do, as certainties. You need to clean up your use of sources here. This is a big problem.

  • Now that I'm looking at sources, I see that "A third new satellite, Thebe, was discovered between the orbits of Amalthea and Io" is cited to a website that contains no mention of Thebe.

I'm just going to start a new section on sourcing problems. There's no point in fixing the prose when you're shooting for FAC and there are bigger (citation) fish to fry.

Sourcing problems ~ comments by Ricardiana

  • Note 1. Source does not give 9.2 figure.
  • Note 5. Dead link - needs to be removed and another source found.
  • Note 6 - a. Cites information only partially given on website. Figure of 570,000 not given in source.
  • Note 6 - b. Source does not even mention Thebe.
  • Note 6 - c. Source does not even mention Europa. Wording and statements appear to be taken from uncited website.
  • Note 10. Link didn't work for me.
  • Note 14. Source does not even mention Himalia or Elara.
  • Note 17. Source does not even mention space debris.
  • Note 21 - a. Source does not even mention Amalthea or Comet Shoemaker-Levey 9!
  • Note 21 - b. Source does not mention Europa.
  • Note 21 - c. Citation is to this statement: "Major scientific results of the Galileo mission include" - followed by a number of findings not mentioned in your source.
  • Note 23. Does not mention wind - at all!
  • Note 30. Source doesn't say anything about funding, or competition for funding; it only lists other projects. Your conclusion is original research, which is not acceptable.
  • Note 31. Source does not mention Ganymede or proposed Ganymede orbiter.

These are significant problems! If you plan on taking this to FAC, all sources need to be fixed.

One final point. Why are no books cited? I've studied astronomy and they certainly exist. A quick Google Books search turns up quite a few.

These problems are so serious that not only is this article not ready for FAC, I don't think it is a Good Article either, and I will be asking for a re-assessment. Ricardiana (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been expanded by 5x to meet the requirements for a Did You Know Entry. I would like feedback on the quality of the prose, accessability etc.

Thanks, 03md 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

  • Lead
    • The first paragraph needs to say that this was a tournament for male players.
    • The dates of the tournament would be better given in the first sentence, which might read: "The 2009 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, a tennis tournament for male players, was played from April 11 through April 19, 2009, on outdoor clay courts.
    • "Tennis" does not need linking
    • "It was the 103rd edition of the event known that year as the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters..." This may be a bit confusing to people who are not well informed about tournament sponsorship. It may be advisable to have a more explanatory sentence, such as: "It was the 103rd edition of the annual Monte-Carlo Masters tournament, which since [year] has been sponsored by Rolex".
    • "Except Andy Roddick, all of the top ranked tennis players participated." Should read: "Except for Andy Roddick, all the top ranked male tennis players participated."
    • It would be neater, and less jargony, to say "World No. 2" rather than "World #2" which doesn't look good in prose.
    • "Meanwhile" means "while this was happening". Nadal wasn't winning the tournament while Federer was accepting a wild card, so the word should be deleted.
    • You need to clarify that by "a record fifth straight title" you mean a record fifth consecutive victory in this tournament.
    • "5" should be written as "five" per WP:MOS
    • In the same sentence, "masters" should be "Masters"
    • "The 2009 Monte Carlo Masters tournament was the only one of the nine "Masters 1000" events that year that did not have a mandatory player commitment" You can't talk about 2009 in the past tense – we're only in May. Try: "The 2009 Monte Carlo Masters is the only one of the nine "Masters 1000" events scheduled for that year without a mandatory player commitment"
    • "In 2007 the ATP had decided to make participation in the eight newly rebranded "Masters 1000" compulsory" Clarification needed – compulsory for whom?
    • Ref [3] covers the lawsuit, but what is the source for the information in the last part of the final lead sentence?
  • History
    • The word "beginning" is redundant
    • (Tournament details): You have "claycourt" as one word here, yet it was two words in the lead. Consistency required.
  • Summary – singles
    • You say the top 8 players in the world competed; earlier you said that Roddick didn't. And 8 should be eight.
    • "From the other seeded players..." should be "Of the other..." etc. And Stepanek's number should be given.
    • Not everyone will know what you mean by "qualifier". Perhaps a footnote could explain that a qualifier is someone not automatically qualified for the tournament by their ranking position, who gains entry through success in a qualifying competition.
    • "The seeds began to fall..." Some had fallen in the first round
    • Clarify you mean that Nadal has been the most successful player of the Open era in this tournament"
  • Summary – doubles
    • "The top eight doubles pairs..." Should be "The top-ranked eight..."
    • "also" is redundant after "Djokovic"
    • Rather than redlink, you should explain what a "champions tiebreak" is.
  • Citations: There is very little citation in the tournament description sections, none at all for the doubles. It needs to be made clear where this information is coming from.
  • Reference [1] needs formatting. It's a bare url at present.

I hope you find these comments useful. I can't watch all my peer reviews, so if you need me to look again, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Traveler's Wife

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to take this article to GAN, so please review accordingly. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ruhrfisch beat me here! Anyway, I have also started looking at this, and will try to add comments as this is going. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I saw the title of the article when doing the semi-automated peer reviews and was intrigued. Overall this seems very ready for GA to me, but I do have a few suggestions. (I said I would review it, then Rjanag's excellent review was added). I agree with Rjanag's comments, which seem to have already been addressed.

  • In the lead, I would clarify that MacAdam/Cage is a publisher, perhaps as She eventually sent the novel to MacAdam/Cage unsolicited and they decided to buy [and publish] it. They are not a well-known publisher and I think it helps to somehow identify them beyond the link. I also wondered if it were worth adding the bidding contest in the lead?
    • New sentence: As a first-time novelist, Niffenegger had trouble finding a literary agent. She eventually sent the novel to MacAdam/Cage unsolicited and, after an auction took place for the rights, Niffenegger selected them as her publisher. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my rules of thumb for the lead is to include every section header in some way, so I would mention the awards and audio books here too, perhaps the audio books could be mentioned in the same sentence as the upcoming film?
  • In the Plot section, would this read more clearly Henry's last visit [as a time traveler] takes place on her eighteenth birthday in 1989... or is it the last time visit he ever makes before his death? "Here I am without feet, make love to me for your first time!"
  • I think it would help to give Henry's age when he dies, so that the fact he is 43 when he sees Claire the last time is clearer. We know it is close to the end of her life - my guess is that it is also close to the end of his (in the weird world of time travel) so if we know he dies at 43 and is, say, 41 or 42 when he last visits Claire, that makes it more poignant.
  • In the Composition and publication section I would also clarify that it is a publisher in In 2002, she sent her manuscript unsolicited to MacAdam/Cage..., especially since the previous sentence is about her sending ot 25 literary agents
  • Comment - I like how she prefers the little guy publisher for her first novel, then takes $5 million from tiny art house Scribners for her second novel...
  • Did it get any science fiction reviews? Was it nominated for a Hugo or Nebula (skiffy awards)?

Overall looks really good to me, and I can see this being a FA. Hope my comments help - If they are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help - I've peer reviewed an article. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an interesting read and the review - you have inspired me to think about notable sf books that I could get to GA - perhaps Clarke's Childhood's End or Zelazny's Lord of Light or Banks' Use of Weapons or Heinlein's Have Space Suit—Will Travel or Asimov's The Gods Themselves .... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So many good choices, so little time! Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments from Rjanag
  • Lead section
    • I found the transition from the plot summary sentence to "frustrated in love, Niffenegger decided to write a novel that was a metaphor for her failed relationships" a bit jarring, since it takes you suddenly from in-universe to out-of-universe, so I tried to tweak it a bit. Feel free to change it further, since I think my rewording isn't perfect either.
    • In the second paragraph, "reviewers...praised her characterization of Henry and Clare," this is the first time their names are used. Maybe you could either add the names in parentheses within the plot summary sentence in the first paragraph, or you could add a brief appositive in this sentence, or just scrap the names altogether and stick with "the husband and wife" or "the two main characters".
  • Plot summary
    • Again, the use of names is a bit awkward in the first sentence; specifically, both "Henry" and "Clare" appear twice in that sentence. There are several different ways to get around it, so I'll leave it up to you.
    • "he runs as a way of keeping calm and remaining in the present," reads a bit ambiguously for me (on the first pass, I read "run" in the sense of "flee"), so I changed it to "goes running" in attempt to clarify. It's a bit wordier this way, so I guess either way is a small trade-off.
    • "Over time, they develop a close relationship. Henry even helps Clare frighten and humiliate a boy who abused her." -- is "even" necessary? Maybe "At one point, Henry..." would also work.
    • 'Henry's last visit takes place on her eighteenth birthday in 1989, during which he and Clare make love for the first time. They are then separated for two years until their timelines converge for the first time "naturally".' -- last is confusing to me here, at glance I thought that meant she doesn't see him again for the rest of her life, but that's not the right reading. Along the same lines, I'm not totally sure I understand the distinction between them meeting "naturally" vs. meeting through time travel. Do you mean that Henry has a "default" time that is his normal time, relative to the real year in which he was born, and this is the first time they meet when Henry is in normal time (as opposed to time traveling)? Likewise, another thing I was wondering is, when Henry travels forward or backward in time, does he remain the same age? (i.e., when he visits 6-year-old Clare, is he a child like her, or an adult?) nvm, I understand that now...although it might help to mention it more explicity early on, so that the reader doesn't have to wonder for as long.
  • Composition and publication
    • The first sentence confuses me. By "was drawing," do you mean was working as an artist, or do you mean a specific event (she was in the middle of drawing something when the idea popped into her mind)? Also, I'm not sure what "The Time Traveler's Wife came to her in the novel's title phrase"...do you mean that specific phrase came to her as a possible title?
      • The sources aren't very clear on the first point - they just say she was drawing (as artists are wont to do). Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • New version: "Niffenegger, an artist who teaches at the Center for Book and Paper Arts at Columbia College Chicago, was drawing when the inspiration for The Time Traveler's Wife came to her in a phrase: "the time traveler's wife"." Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In another interview, Niffenegger has said that the title of the novel came from an epigraph in J. B. Priestley's 1964 novel Man and Time: "Clock time is our bank manager, tax collector, police inspector; this inner time is our wife."" -- the colon makes it slightly ambiguous; structurally, this quotation could either be what Niffenegger said along thesee lines, or a quotation of the epigraph. I'm sure it's the latter, but maybe things could be shuffled around a bit to make that unambiguous.
    • In general, this section seems to have a lot of quotations. It's not a terrible problem, and they're all properly attributed (of course...you're the last person I would have to worry about quoting improperly), but it might help to cut down on some. Some might just be unnecessary—for example, the last quotation in the first paragraph is lengthy and doesn't express a lot that you haven't already expressed with "Niffenegger has forcefully stated that Clare is not a self-portrait"...it's just the same thing in Niffenegger's words, so it may not be necessary (although for that one I suppose part of the argument for including it is that it's from a LexisNexis source which may not be accessible to everyone; if that is a problem, you could always just include the quotation within the footnote rather than the main text). Others could be kept, but better integrated into the text to break up the quote-y style—for example, 'As she comments, "The book itself is really about the marriage. Henry is not only married to Clare; he's also married to time."' could go to something like 'A central theme of the book is marriage, and Niffenegger states that Henry "is not only married to Clare; he's also married to time."'
  • Genre
    • In 'Niffenegger herself "hesitates" to label the novel', where does "hesitates" come from? The same source as the long quote following it (but the journalist's words, rather than Niffenegger's)?
    • As for the Penelope image and caption, Penelope is never mentioned in the main text. I'm not sure what MoS says about that (maybe the caption makes up for the lack of mention in the main text, I dunno), just thought I'd point it out.
  • Themes
    • How accurate is the sentence "The love between Henry and Clare is expressed in a variety of ways, including through an analysis and history of the couple's sex life.[16]"? I looked at the source (admittedly, I only skimmed it), and as far as I can tell Lee-Potter doesn't specifically make that claim; in the third-to-last paragraph he basically says there are a lot of sex scenes, but I don't see him saying anything about what it means or expresses in general. That's of course open to interpretation, though.
  • Reception
    • "As a result, the novel debuted at number 9 on the New York Times bestseller list." -- I don't know much about the book industry, but logically is it fair to assume that the novel's debut is necessarily a "result" of MacAdam/Cage's drive? (ie, correlation vs. causation) I suppose it's a minor issue, but it did jump out at me.
    • Where Her Fearful Symmetry is mentioned, is there any good way to clarify (in few words, "forthcoming" or something) that the novel isn't out yet? I was confused and had to go to the Audrey Niffenegger page to check it out.
    • "Carey Harrison praised the originality of the novel's concerns with the intersection of child-bearing and time travel." -- slightly complicated sentence. Does it mean that the novel is concerned with the intersection of child-bearing and time travel, and that that's a pretty original thing to be concerned with? (Looking at it now, I guess that's exactly what it means....) As I was reading it, it was difficult to parse; it seems there should be a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem seems to be too many noun constituents crammed into the sentence; I think "concerns" could be lost, and the sentence rewritten as such...that might make it clearer.
  • General comments
    • Very interesting article, and you've done a good job finding images to illustrate it; the quote boxes are also well-chosen (I don't know what MoS has to say about the background color in them, but I don't care too much). If there is any one thing to work on, I would say it's probably cutting back on the use of quotations; the rest of the things I pointed out are pretty minor copyediting sort of things.
    • On second, I'm not sure the Niffenegger quote in the Themes section is needed.... it's a pretty quote, but it's more about books in general than about this article (other than its relation to the topic of time travel...although to be honest, her argument in the quote seems a little contrived, and it certainly doesn't seem to be the same "theme" as time travel represents within the book itself). It might fit better in the Composition section (although then it would be uncomfortably close to the quote that's already included in the Plot section, and to the image that takes up most of the Composition section already).

All your new changes look good. Like Ruhrfisch said, I think this is more than ready for GA (in fact, on second thought we could have just called this a GA review and been done with it! although getting another pair of eyes onto the article in another review certainly can't hurt) and should be an easy pass. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cousy Award

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is going to be a part of a featured topic and I would like some feedback on the writing.

Thanks, —Chris! ct 06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "6-time"-->six-time

  • "a list of players are nominated " "are"-->is
  • "16 players from each divisions"-->16 players from each division
  • I think it would be good background info if you mentioned how many times the Celtics won in the time period that Cousy was with the team.
  • "The North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team have had the " "have"-->has
  • "The most recent winner is Ty Lawson from University of North Carolina." Needs "the" after "from". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments - My apologies for the delay; it's been a long day for me here. Only a couple of things that stuck out to me, since Dabomb has given this a good review already. To beef up the third paragraph, a sentence on the first winner could be added, like most recently featured lists on sports awards. Also, I think "men's basketball team" can safely be dropped from the Tar Heels, since the first sentence of the lead makes clear that the award is for male players. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • I think we're supposed to avoid bold links in the opening sentence? And is that really the full name of the trophy? If so, perhaps the list needs a rename?
  • Probably should state it's a basketball award in the opening sentence.
  • Lead image could be bigger, if memory serves you can go up to 300px according to the MOS.
  • Three paras in the lead is too much for a list this long - two max.
  • Link Hall of Famer to the appropriate hall..
  • "The North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team has had the most winners, with two. " feels a bit forced, like trivia for trivia's sake. I would trim it down and leave it to the list in this case.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Thanks. To TRM: All my award lists (eg. NBA Coach of the Year Award) bold the title, so I am not sure. As for renaming, I thought we use common name. And the common name is Bob Cousy Award.—Chris! ct 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the bolded link, I think we can ignore the rules here. Alternatively, you can put The Hartford in a See also section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - added to See also section—Chris! ct 23:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkers speech

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm intending to nominate it for FA and would like some feedback. It recently passed its GAN. I'd especially like advice as to whether the level of detail is appropriate, and as to whether they think the article is in any way POV.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I intend to add some review comments for this article, but as I have only just passed it at GA, I'd like someone else's input first if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... (with my little dog too) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. I'd also add as an issue I'd like feedback on, is the justification for the two images from the speech, that I believe are free use. I asked Fasach Nua if he could look at it, but he deleted my request from his talk page unanswered.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jappalang reviews photos / images at FAC and may be helpful here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He says they are public domain. That's good.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only respond where I have something to say, otherwise I'll just implement them over the next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks quite good to me, pretty much ready for FAC. Here are some very nitpicky suggestions for improvement. I will satrt now and come back later for more...

  • In the lead could it be confusing to refer to Nixon as a future President here: With his place on the Republican ticket in doubt, the future President flew to Los Angeles... If someone knows little about Nixon, I am not sure they would get this. It might be better to put this fact after ...Eisenhower and Nixon swept to victory in November 1952. something like "Nixon was elected President in 1968"
  • Would These contributions went to reimburse the senator for postage for political mailings which he did not have franked, travel costs, and similar expenses. read better with the order changed, perhaps These contributions went to reimburse the senator for travel costs, postage for political mailings which he did not have franked, and similar expenses.?
  • The lead has two paragraphs with only one link - could some more be added?
  • Could something about the legality of the fund be added to the lead?
  • WP:HEAD says not to repeat all or part of the name of the article in a header - could "Events before the speech" be something like "Prelude"? Not sure how to change "Idea for a speech" - just "Idea"? "Idea for an address"?
I'll try to think of something, but I agree with the latter point, I can't think of how to change it to something as good or better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one or two exceptions are OK, especially here. {{WP:IAR]] and all that Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add California to In 1950, Congressman Richard Nixon was elected to the Senate... (say what state he represented)
  • Trim this a bit? With the election to a six-year term secured, Nixon campaign officials discussed how to further his career.
  • I would say "senator" not "representative" here While Nixon received an expense allowance of over $75,000 as a representative of one of the most populous states...
I guess the point is that it is California's high population, even then, which got him a larger office expense (more consituents to reply to, etc.) I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was more since he was in the House of Representatives and then became a Senator, both from California, it might be confusing to use "representative" here (as opposed to "senator"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the Development of the story section I would mention the Republican convention (had he already been nominated and approved by the convention - assume so).
  • I would say what newspaper reporter Peter Edson worked for, who would see his column (was it local or syndicated)?
I researched writing an article on him but couldn't find much. When I'm on my own computer, with the NYTimes access to his obit, I remember it mentioned his news organization. Not a problem, in other words.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article said Nixon was touring several states and Pomona was identified as being in California, I would add CA to Bakersfield too (they seem about equally well known to me)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about Nixon called two professors of his acquaintance [he knew?] at his alma mater, Whittier College,
  • Missing article? The candidates waved at the crowd of 3,000 which had come to meet the plane, and rode together, with Nixon in [a? the?] place of honor...
No, it is correct as written. The right hand side of the back seat is where the person of superior rank/prestige sits, it is a protocol thing, if you want an explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "earned" or "won" be clearer than "gave" in According to Nixon biographer Conrad Black, the speech gave Nixon supporters throughout Middle America which he would keep through the rest of his life...?
  • I think there should be some mention that Nixon is the only US President to ever have resigned before things like Nixon critics, however, would see the address as the "ultimate expression" of the resigned President's "phoniness".[85]
That might be overkill. All I am trying to do is paint Nixon, for that one brief sentence, in a mild negative POV, as his critics might see him. I originally had "disgraced" but felt that was too much. Suggestions welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it even be something like Nixon critics, however, would see the address as the "ultimate expression" of the "phoniness" of the only President to have resigned the office.[85] or something like that?
I'll just change "resigned" to "controversial". God knows that is the truth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a {{inflation}} template which might be useful
  • In general, there are a few places that could benefit from providing context, even a sentence.
    • For example, there seem to have been no or few campaign fincance laws at the time and a sentence early on explaining the existing laws would help. It might also be useful to mention later campaign fincance laws in the legacy section.
Maybe better at the time that we mention the arrival of the Gibson Dunn legal report would be better? Then the reader will be, so to speak, "thinking" legal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, wherever you think best Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also would state early on the members of the Democratic presidential ticket - I did not know who Adlai Stevenson's running mate was and the first mention or two of Senator ___ (forgot it already) I wondered who he was / why he was being mentioned.
Good point, I'll do it. Honestly, I always thought Kefauver ran both times with Adlai.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think it would help to specifically say what would have been covered by his Senate office (postage?) and what would not (extra flights to CA?). Would the expansion of congressional benefits (even a sentence or two) be useful in the Legacy section too?
As far as I know, no changes to congressional salary or benefits or campaign laws happened because of the Checkers speech, so I'd rather keep that out of the legacy section. There was a lot of talk afterwards, but no action. He could not have paid for more than the single flight and back to CA for him and his family out of the office account. I'll see if I can squeeze in a couple more mention of what it covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. All good points, and I will implement them when I am back on my own computer tomorrow (no time right now I fear). Thanks again. I welcome suggestions or persuasion on all points.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, thanks. I'll get on it.
Glad to help - let me know when this is at FAC and I will be glad to support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure will. I've implemented most of what you said. On the campaign finance laws, I just got more specific about what the legal report said. Too easy to ge bogged down. Everything else is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

Some good stuff added since GA, notably the Earl Warren angle and extra info about Stevenson's fund. I haven't a great deal more to say – it's an excellent article, worthy GA candidate, will have my support. A few nitpicks and one suggestion:-

  • "After the speech, Nixon was shown the Post story, which had been picked up by UPI under the headline "Nixon Scandal Fund", by Republican activist Keith McCormac." Remove hint of ambiguity by rephrasing: After the speech, Republican activist Keith McCormac showed Nixon the Post story, which had been picked up by UPI under the headline "Nixon Scandal Fund",
  • "...Nixon confidant and Congressman..." Not sure about the "and". He was Nixon's confidanr; was he also Nixon's congressman?
  • "The two newspapers would not be alone..." In the GA review I drew attention to some aspects of the text that were more journalistic than encyclopedic, and this is a further example. The sentence could easily begin: "Over a hundred newspapers wouold editorialize..."
  • "Nixon preferred to work from a memorized text..." Suggest "normally preferred..." etc
  • Is it worth mentioning, in the Legacy section, that the Checkers speech (or rather, "The Fund") was one of Nixon's "six Crises" in his book of that name?

Where next with Nixon? Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made those changes, inserting Six Crises into the existing text. Brian, you catch the things that give me pause, but then I flip a coin and keep it in. I'll flip less often. Yes, there is always a tension between encyclopedia style and wanting to write in an entertaining manner. Anyway, I'm hoping you ment "FA", not "GA" and looking forward to nomming it as the former. Soon as Voorhis clears the floor. As for what's next, it seems to be California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, right now is in the ugly construction stages, and then maybe the 1950 one. Thinking about a featured topic about the early political career of Nixon. Thanks for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 410 Squadron RCAF

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, this has had a lot of time and effort expended into it, and now needs more work to reach the lofty goal of FA-Class. What needs to be done?

Thanks, TARTARUS talk 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66

[edit]

I wouldn't call the V-2 a rocket bomb, that's for sure. And it's pretty unimportant that that same missile landed in England. Otherwise looks good although I'll have to take a closer look when I'm a little less frazzled. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

[edit]

Added a few links

  • when the unit was renowned for its skill and number of victories.- needs a cite
  • Change enemy to German
  • Change kills to victories
  • More cites needs Post D-Day section -
shot down two Do.217 aircraft in twenty minutes
Since D-Day the Cougars had destroyed twelve enemy bombers
still maintaining their schedule of nine sorties per night
During an operation that resulted in the thirteenth kill of the period, one aircraft crashed—its crew was unable to bail out
  • Battle of the Bulge and the end of the war section -
the Germans launched a surprise offensive in the Ardennes.
This was done using the Luftwaffe, which caught many squadrons off guard,
it was called upon to provide a special patrol of four aircraft as air cover for Armistice Day ceremonies being held in Paris
  • Wartime commanders section - does the one ref at the end of the paragraph cover all the changes ? it would be better to cite all changes in command
  • Post-Second World War section - the first two sentences need cites

Thats all for now will return later --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

[edit]

I am not an expert on aviation articles at all, so I'm afraid I won't be much help. Jim appears to have covered most of the points I would raise, but I do have a couple more:

  • Please check the official rank name for the rank that you have abbreviated (F/O). At the start (in the lead) you state that it means Flight Officer, but later you appear to use Flying Officer. I think it should be Flying Officer the whole way through, but could be wrong. In Australia it is Flying Officer, but I don't know about the RCAF at all. Just strikes me as possibly wrong.
  • In the bibliography section some references use the {{cite book}} template and others are manually written, leading to different formats. Consistency is always best, so I would choose one or the other and make them all the same. My suggestion is to use the cite book style (as it usually gets brought up at A class review anyway).
  • I suggest adding 'p.' in front of the page numbers. I don't know if it is required under the MOS, but it seems like a more standard system than author, #. Some people also use 'Author (Year), p. #'. The advantage of that is that is a little more user friendly, in my opinion at least.
  • I suggest moving the picture of the JU88 to the left, in order to balance the sequence of the images. Not necessarily a must, though, but sometimes gets mentioned at A class review.
  • Probably try to add a few more citations. I know you have lots already, but there are a few paragraphs where the majority of the citations are at the end, and there are chunks at the start of the paragraph that aren't cited. Even if it is the same source, at A class review they will usually ask you to put them in anyway.

Anyway, seems like a good article (without loading the term). Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter prison escapes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it up to GA status

Thanks, Esemono (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: What a great idea for an article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would convert this to a list (table) with columns for the date, prison, location, country, and notes. I doubt this would be eligible for WP:GA as it is pretty list-y already (and lists are not eligible for GA), so why not make it a full sortable list and go for WP:FL? Perhaps there could also be a column for number of escapees (zero if unsuccessful)
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • The article may need fewer sections / headers too (converting to a list / table would fix this). Please see WP:LEAD
  • Ref 29 is IMDB which is not usually seen as a WP:RS. Plus it as an internet ref needs URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • July 2005 needs a ref and more details.
  • Article needs a copyedit - language is rough in spots.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Aaron Westervelt

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I personally invested more than 150 hours (research/writing) in this article. At the moment it is rated B-class and I dont know if it probably can become a GA or even FA. As Im not a native english speaker (Im Swiss) I therefore need the help of someone whos interested/willing to make a complete reviewing. Thanks, Rectilinium'♥' 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article on someone I had never heard of. I think this could be GA and eventually FA, though it needs work - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be 3 or 4 paragraphs long for an article of this size. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Per WP:ITALIC bold type should be used sparingly - in the lead it is only for names of the subject, so I do not think the names of shipbuilding firms should be bolded.
  • Most articles have no references in the lead except for direct quotations and extraoridinary claims, which should always be cited. The idea is that the lead is a summary so the refs will be found in the article itself. It is fine to put citations in the lead, but if this is done, I always figure the lead should cited as thoroughly as the rest of the article.
  • Per WP:HEAD, the names of section headers should not repeat the article name if at all possible (also avoid starting a section header with an article). So headers like "Mayor Westervelt and the police" and "Mayor Westervelt's influence on tourism" could just be "Relations with the police" and "Influence on tourism". A later section could just be "Genealogy". "Westervelt & Co. shipyard (1836–1864)" is OK as it is the name of a firm, although I note that the section never uses this same name for any of the firms he owned / ran. "The end of the clipper ship era" could just be "End of the clipper ship era" (avoid starting witrh the) or even "End of the era" (since it is a subsection of the Clipper ships section.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
  • Although it is referenced pretty well already, the article needs more references in a few places, for example in "Clipper ships" this This type of vessel had been in demand for the China trade, but they were rather small. From the experience gained in the service of these first clippers, the builder soon found the changes that were necessary in the design for the building of larger and faster ships demanded in 1850 for the California, China and Australia clipper routes. has no ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Current refs are lacking required information in some cases. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Book refs need date published and publisher. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • When sources differ as to details, name the source(s) in the text when citing them - for example in the Early life section, it could be something like "According to the YEAR "Genealogy of the Westervelt family", he received additional education under the tutelage of James P. Forrester... On the other hand "Steamboat Days" reports that he went to sea directly after his father's death,[9] while his obituary in the New York Times states that he was already apprenticed to Christian Bergh in 1814.[6]"
    • By the way I am uncertain from the current ref for Steamboat Days who the author is (are the names of two authors given? are the author and a publisher listed?)
  • In Early life, did he have any siblings? Did his mother die early or did she move with them too - unclear from When Ari Westervelt was working on improving the riverfront, he moved, together with his infant son, to New York in 1804, to be nearer his work.[8]
  • The MOS says to introduce someone with their full name and then generally to refer to them with just their last name unless there are others with the same last name. I think that Christian Bergh can just be referred to as Bergh after the first mention. It may be clearer to use his full name when introducing his sons and when referring to both father and sons in the same sentence.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • I am not sure that the Ancesteros section couldn't be in with the Early life material. Is there a style guide or model article that puts Ancestors last?
  • Both English and metric untis should be given - the {{convert}} template is very useful here. English units can go first since he used those.
  • The language is decent, probably close to good enough for GA as is (though it would need polish to get to FA). I am more concerned about issues of organization, internal consistency, and flow. A few examples follow (not a complete list):
    • I already mentioned that the name used for a section (Westerveld and Co.) appears nowhere in that section as the actual name of a company - this is needlessly confusing
    • Or this sentence in the Clipper ships section Westervelt also built clippers, for example Contest (1852),[21] Hornet (1851),[22] N.B. Palmer (1851), Kathay (1853),[23] and Sweepstakes. Be consistent - why is there no year given for Seepstakes? I also note the section starts in the 1850s with Westervelt, then jumps back in time to the first clipper ship in 1835, then ends with this sentence From the experience gained in the service of these first clippers, the builder soon found the changes that were necessary in the design for the building of larger and faster ships demanded in 1850 ... Because of the structure, it is unclear to me which builder is meant here. Why not start a section of clipper ships with the first ship in 1835, then talk about their development, then about Westervelt's clipper ships? I try to follow chronological order where possible to avoid confusion.
    • Reorganizing the Clipper ships section would also lead more logically into the next section "Westervelt's clippers". Short sections are generally discouraged - could Clipper ships and Westervelt's clippers be combined? Also since Sweepstakes seems to be the most famous, why not start the Westervelt's clippers section or paragraph with it?
    • Make clear this is in New York City (Manhattan?) In 1840 he was elected to the Common Council,[6] in which he served for two years as an Alderman from the thirteenth ward.[20] See also [[]WP:PCR]
    • The Riots section begins with Civil War Draft Riots, which are well after his time as mayor - I was confused on a first read through.
  • Huge quotes are generally discouraged, summarize and quote the most important lines.
  • I would move the "Dock Commissioner (1870–1879)" section after his service as mayor - it is a somewhat political office and makes more sense in chronological order. As it is, I remmember reading the current end of the article before geneaolgy and thinking "We need more detail on the last two decades of his life - there is nothing after his election to the state legislature in 1857."
  • How long did he serve in the legislature? Where did he die?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blas Ople

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This was recently promoted to GA, and I was encouraged by the positive comments and lack of negative feedback at the GA review, so I'd like some feedback on if anything is missing for this to become a Featured Article. Thanks, TheCoffee (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments An interesting article about a politician pretty well unknown in the U.K. It's quite short for a biographical article, and there may be questions about whether it is comprehensive enough - for example, his 19 years as Secretary for Labor are covered in half a paragraph. Here are my particular points for attention:-

  • Infobox:
    • Why is the information about his public offices given here, as well as in a table at the end of the article? I think the infobox is too large at present, and this duplicated information could be removed to improve the aryticle's general appearance
    • Reducing the infobox information will allow you to increase Ople's image to 150px, possibly more, which would again improve the article's appearance.
  • Lead
    • First sentence of lead is too long, and should be split. Suggestion: "Blas Fajardo Ople (Filipino: Ople;ˈɔːplɛ; February 3, 1927 – December 14, 2003) was a Filipino journalist and politician who held several high-ranking positions in the executive and legislative branches of the Philippine government. He was Senate President from 1999 to 2000, and served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs from 2002 until his death."
    • See WP:MOSBD for correct format of dates of birth and death, i.e. spaces on either side of ndash
  • Early life and career: there is some confusion of terminolgy, and a distinct lack of date information
    • "In 1948, he finished his high school studies at the Far Eastern University" – finished high school, aged 21, at a university? How come?
    • It would help us follow the chronology of his life if we had a year for his graduation from the Educational Centre, the date that he began at the Daily Mirror, year that he established a PR firm, year he co-founded National Progress Movement and the date that he entered government service.
  • Minister of Labor
    • First two sentences each begin "In (date)..." It would be better style if the second began: "Two years later..."
    • "He resigned briefly in 1971" should be rephrased "He left office briefly in 1971", as resigning is a single action
    • "At the time of his appointment..." Suggest "At the time of his initial appointment..."
    • "His leftist credentials were enhanced when he co-founded, in 1972, the Philippine-Soviet Friendship Society."[4] This is awkward; I suggest: "His leftist credentials were enhanced when he co-founded the Philippine-Soviet Friendship Society in 1972."[4] The Society's name should not be in italics.
    • "...instituted labor policies institutionalizing..." – very awkward phrasing. Perhaps "developed labor policies institutionalizing...", but do change the verb (introduced, set up, created etc)
    • I suggest that the sentence beginning "He was a close advisor to President Marcos" should start a new paragraph, and should read "Ople was a close advisor" etc. This sentence and the rest of the paragraph does not deal with his duties as Minister of Labour.
    • Next sentence: "admitted" is not the best word here. "Suggested" might be better, or "implied", perhaps
    • It might be as well to clarify that after his election as an assemblyman Ople remained as Minister of Labour: "In 1978, while continuing to serve as Minister of Labour, Ople was elected an Assemblyman of the Interim Batasang Pambansa ..."
    • "fora" is technically correct as a plural of "forum", but it looks very odd,almost quaint. I would strongly recommend this is changed to the more orthodox "forums".
  • Senator
    • Second paragraph (winning Senate seat, and reelection) needs a citation
    • No need to repeat the whole party label at the end of the paragraph. Suggest "...and would win re-election in 1998, on the same ticket."
    • "He yielded the Senate Presidency..." Why did he do this? Some background information necessary.
    • Last sentence: "Public anger..." etc needs a citation
  • Secretary of Foreign Affairs
    • "The appointment was with some controversy" Suggest: "The appointment was controversial"
    • "In addition..." is inappropriate. Perhaps this sentence should begin: "In response,..."
    • Quotations should not be in italics, per WP:Quotations
  • Death
    • Suggest delete "had" from "had suffered"
    • This sentence: "Efforts to revive him were futile, and his death on Sunday, December 14, 2003 was announced by his family" might be better phrased as "Efforts to revive him were futile, and his death was announced by his family on Sunday, December 14, 2003".
  • General
    • The table showing Opie's public offices should be removed from the External links section into the body of the article, and should be made complete, removing the same information from the infobox.
    • Overall, the article seems light on in-line citations. I have indicated a couple of sentences that clearly need citing, but you should look generally, to see if there are other instances.

I hope this review helps. I see a potential FA here, but it will need some work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramprasad Sen

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

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

Thanks, Nvineeth (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think File:Ramprasad-sen-shyama-sangeet.jpg has an appropriate fair use rationale, a music cover is not fair use in the article. There must be another image or statue in the world that can be used.
  • Death needs a date
  • I could not find a distinction between the historical life and legends of Sen in the Biography section, Can the legends be seperated from biography?
  • I see an inconsistent use of IAST. Most readers may think Śakta and Shakta are different, as they may be unaware of IAST. If you agree, I propose removing all IAST except the poet's name in IAST at first occurence only. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the peer review,
    • File:Ramprasad-sen-shyama-sangeet.jpg will be removed, I have located other images which may qualify for fair use.
    • One of the popular stories / legends in the Biography is considered actual event by the author, yes this is confusing and I will remove the attribution by double checking with the reference. Also the death related legend is needed to complete the biography. Other very popular stories which cannot be incorporated into the main biography have been separated out into another section.
    • I will also work on the IAST and make it consistent. I agree that it is confusing.
Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to push Kirkcaldy towards A and eventually to FA status. Currently, the article is at GA status, which was achieved in October 2008. Since, i know there is still much to be done (such as a history timeline in economy; the mention of Adam Smith's annual lecture; some notable buildings such as those in the Fergus places, Wemyssfield, Hunter House, Abbotshall Church and the old Post Office still to be mentioned in landmarks; a good introduction in landmarks and the mention of Victoria Hospital). I would be grateful if you have a good look at the article and see what areas need to be tackled.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, which appears comprehensive to this complete outsider. In addition, the article is well-illustrated. However, I see many prose issues and Manual of Style issues that need to be addressed. You might be able to find help with copyediting at WP:PRV#General copyediting or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#Requests for collaboration or help. Here are a few specific suggestions for improvement, but they are only a representative sample of a larger set of mostly small things that need to be fixed.

  • A sentence in the lede says, "A harbour built around the east burn gradually led to the growth of the town surrounding the harbour itself, main street and Tiel burn following the demand of trade with the Baltic." - If the formal name of the stream is East Burn, each word of its name should start with a capital letter. In fact, it is written as East Burn in the "Built environment" section. Likewise, if Tiel Burn is the formal name of a stream, it should be treated the same way. In addition, the sentence is confusing. I can't tell whether increased trade with Baltic nations preceded the building of the harbour or whether building a harbour led to increased trade.
  • Another sentence in the lede says, "The Industrial Revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries proved to be the most famous period for the town which saw the introduction of linoleum." - "Famous" does not seem like the right word. "Prosperous" might be better. The sentence needs a comma after "town". Also, a town doesn't "see". Suggestion: "The town became a prosperous center of linoleum production during the Industrial Revolution." Or perhaps it would be better to say "during the late 19th century", if that is the case.
  • Captions start with a capital letter even if they consist only of sentence fragments.
  • In "History", a sentence says, "The company, which has since become known as forbo nairn has also diversified into the production of vinyl floor tiles and marmoleum for which the latter is now their speciality." - The company's name is written as "Forbo-Nairn" in the caption next to this sentence. The caption is probably correct. Also, the sentence is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "The company, which later became Forbo-Nairn, diversified into the production of vinyl floor tiles and its specialty, marmoleum."
  • Another sentence in "History" says, "As Kirkcaldy entered into the 19th century, the arrival of the Kirkcaldy and District Railway, later to become part of the North British Railwaysaw the town develop into the industrial heart of Fife... " Here "Railway" and "saw" are run together. In addition, a railway can't see. Maybe "helped" would be better.
  • In "Town centre", a sentence says, "The central portion of Kirkcaldy's High Street was pedestrianised in 1991 between Whytescauseway and Kirk Wynd." - I don't believe "pedestrianised" is a real word.
  • A caption says, "the location where Adam Smith, wrote his most famous work - 'The Wealth of Nations' " - The book title should be in italics.
  • The newspaper names in the "Media" section should be in italics.
  • A lot of the reference numbers in the text need to be snugged up against the punctuation. Here's an example from the "Education" section: "The oldest of the four secondary schools is Kirkcaldy High School, which was established initially as a burgh school in 1582, before the present name was adopted in 1872. [136]" The sentence should end with "1872.[136]".
  • The last sentence in the article says, "The nearest major international airport is Edinburgh airport with the nearest ferry sea port at Rosyth being 26 miles (42 km) and 17 miles (27 km), respectively." - The "with plus -ing" construction is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "The nearest major international airport is Edinburgh Airport, 26 miles (42 km) away, and the nearest ferry seaport is at Rosyth, 17 miles (27 km) from Kirkcaldy."
  • Page ranges such as "pp.12-15" in citation 3, take en dashes rather than hyphens: "12–15"
  • In "Transport", a sentence says, "The main bus terminus is located on a site to the north of the town centre which provides twelve stances as well as seating, toilets, a cafe and a hairdresser." - What are "stances"?
  • The images should generally be set to "thumb" size rather than to a specific pixel size. It would be best to remove the specific pixel settings from the image templates.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this is my first article I have worked on to the point where I feel it fully covers the topic. I am not very good at references so that may need a look at, and just generaly if there is anything i am missing on this topic.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dtbohrer

  • "The current cod was stolen as a practical joke in 1933 by Harvard students, but was returned two days later."
    • Suggest (sounds better): The cod was stolen in 1933 by students from Harvard University and was returned two days later"
  • "This led to a 20-minute slow-speed chase on the West Roxbury Parkway between the Harvard University Police Department and a car with no license plate"
    • From reading an NYT article, it seems like the police were only following the car rather than actively chasing or pursuing. Suggest something like: "This led to the Harvard University Police following a car without a license plate on the West Roxbury Parkway."
  • I think that the "Holy Mackeral" section and the last paragraph from the "Symbolism" section could be merged into a section about other uses of cod in symbols and similar symbols in Massachusetts.
  • The "Notes" section should come before the "Bibliography" section and both should 2nd-level headings (== ==). Also a "References" section header isn't needed.
  • Per WP:CITESHORT, the year published should be in the footnote. "Belanger 2008, p. 149" rather than "Belanger, p. 149"
  • Here's the original article from the LA Times [21]
  • It may be easier to format the references using the template {{Citation}} or another Citation template.
  • A note that the members of the Lampoon abducted someone from the Harvard Crimson as a diversion. A think this should be mention in the article as well.

The also numerous small things I'd like to fix, but feel it would take too long to list, if its OK with you. I also found some articles on the "cod-napping" from the New York Times. I could e-mail them if you like. If a spot anyting else later, I'll add it here. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swanson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Swanson Article is disorganized, I (b64) have edited the Page to look like this. Carlossuarez46 wants it to look like it does now. What does the group think?

Thanks B64 (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Sorry. As the peer review instructions say, peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work" and that have no major cleanup banners. Peer review is also not the place for dispute resolution. Please consider returning to peer review only after the article is more well-developed and properly sourced. Finetooth (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider a Request for Comment to help with dispute resolution, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to nominate this article for GA, so please review accordingly. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maria

Nothing better than unsolicited peer reviews, eh? :) Formatting and refs seem in order. Some comments/suggestions on the prose with GA in mind:

  • I had to go all the way to the "Reception" section to find when this book was published (October 2006). Since there's not an infobox, it should definitely be mentioned in the lead.
  • Could there be a better way to describe the nature of these stories/fairy tales in the lead? The two terms are not necessarily synonymous, at least to me, and although the next section mentions dark arts/magic, which definitely points to fantastical elements, this is not explored in the lead. Perhaps a little more explanation is needed to better summarize the work?
  • New version: The stories, which are sophisticated fairy tales, focus on the power of women; some are set in the same alternate history as Clarke's debut novel Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (2004), in which magic has returned to England. Awadewit (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearly every one of them is told in a lucid, frequently deadpan, bedtime-story voice strikingly similar to the voice that narrates the novel." Where is this quote from? It seems random without a source named.
  • I don't think this is controversial enough to attribute in the text - I'll figure out a way to paraphrase it, so that the quote isn't necessary. I'll probably need a day or so on this. Awadewit (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria Hoyle in Strange Horizons writes in particular that... Even though this is an online magazine, shouldn't the title be in italics?
  • "People find her spinning on her bleeding bare feet in churchyards after dark missing a comma after "bleeding"?
  • This Lady of Shalott figure is weaving his life. He unweaves her tapestry and sews his own future. These two sentences do not flow as well as they could from the quote that proceeds it, and doesn't entirely explain why the Duke chose to weave his own fate; perhaps something like: "Distressed/Angered/Saddened by what he sees in the Lady of Shallot's tapestry, he destroys her work and sews his own future"?
  • In his review of collection, Steven H. Silver writes that... "the collection".
  • Vess's black-and-white line drawings are... The only time Vess is mentioned in this article before this point is the lead (and a brief mention connected to Gaiman). His full name should certainly be mentioned here, but is information available as to how he became involved with the project? Through Gaiman? (BTW, I haven't read this collection, or even Jonathan Strange, but I love Stardust!)
  • Karen Luscombe of The Globe and Mail called the collection "mesmerizing".[3] She praises the tone of the collection... Tense disagreement with "called" and "praises"; all other critics are quoted in present tense, so perhaps "called" should be changed to "calls".

Hope this helps; I think it will pass GA with no problems. Sounds like an interesting work! Reminds me that I really should settle down one day and read Jonathan Strange... as if I don't have enough on my reading list, gah. María (habla conmigo) 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I hope to get to this tomorrow! Jonathan Strange makes a great summer read! :) Awadewit (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ricardiana

Hi, Awadewit - the only criticism I could possibly make after reading the article has to do with the longer quotations. There are several that last for 4 or more lines (on my screen resolution at least), and I would find them easier to read if they were put in blockquotes. (My eyesight is very poor, however, so perhaps it's just me.) What do you think? Ricardiana (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've paraphrased some more of the quotes and put some of the longer ones in block quotes. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thank you. Ricardiana (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Midnightdreary and I have been working on OWH's article in hopes of bringing it through FAC soon. The centennial of Holmes's birth is coming up this August, and the plan is to give the article its gold star in time for it to appear on the mainpage that day. Any and all comments/suggestions that will help us successfully through the trials and tribulations of FAC are welcome. Careful reading of the prose, as well as any information that needs further explanation or detailing, would be especially helpful.

Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saudi Arabia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs some more cleaning and referencing edits to be FA and we would like to check the article status.

Thanks, Saud (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, I'd recommend removing the lead tag since the lead is not that long. Make sure that it summarizes all parts of the article (see WP:LEAD for details)
  • Address all of the current "citation needed" and "when" tags.
  • The inline citations need to be cleaned up, many are missing author, date, format, access date, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET.
  • The entire "history of Saudi Arabia" section is unsourced. Consider using some of the sources in the main article to include here.
  • I'd recommend going through the article and adding inline citations for any statement that includes figures, statistics, or content that may be questioned by a reader over its verifiability.
  • There are a few instances of single sentences standing alone. Either expand on these with more content, or incorporate them into another paragraph. The flow of the article works better when these sentences don't stand alone.
  • The quote box in the "human rights" section should be shifted to the left or right instead of remaining in the center.
  • In the "emirates" section, expand on opening details. Although there is a main article, it would be beneficial to have a basic introduction to the emirates for interested readers.
  • Consider briefly describing each of the different military branches.
  • The "cities" and "international rankings" sections needs more details.
  • See if the external links can be cut down. Consider using some for sourcing instead.

Hopefully this is helpful. Before heading to FAC, I'd recommend starting with GAN first. Look to other GA country articles for ideas of what else can be done to improve the article. If you need further clarification on any of these, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Edmonton/archive1

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to be able to get this article up to FA status and this would be a step towards it.

Thanks, Cheers Kyle1278 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:LinguistAtLarge

[edit]

Let my start off saying I think this article is very good as it is, and I don't see a lot I don't like. After a cursory scan of the article, I have the following suggestions: (These are just my personal opinion or suggestions-- use your own good judgement before following them).

  • Education section - I'd put K-12 before postsecondary-- seems more logical to me.
Done
  • There's a left-aligned image under a sub heading (===) (in the infrastruction section) See MOS:IMAGES.
Done
  • The panoramic image that goes the width of the screen might not be appropriate.
  • The caption text for a few of the images, while good and descriptive, seems a bit on the long side. WP:CAPTIONS. Captions should be concise.
  • I don't know if the dollar amounts should be specified as Canadian dollars or not. But there might be confusion whether they are CAD or USD.
  • The weather averages table sort of jumps out at me as being overbearing, but I'm not sure what should/could be done about that.
  • Make sure the article makes good use of a summary style WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. So for each section you have a good summary of important information, while linking to the main article on the topic. I see there are already links to the "main article" for many of the sections, but perhaps the information can be summarized better so as to slightly shorten the article.
  • I'd like to see a larger image in the infobox. Maybe use the same image as now, but zoom in on the center section.

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Panipat (1761)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it's a major bit of Indian history and some good work on the article has been ruined by people randomly ediitng bits Thanks, Zak (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC soon and it's always good to sort out problem areas beforehand. Thanks in advance for the comments, Apterygial 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by AlexJ

Here's what I picked up on after a read-through:

Background

  • "one-two finishes" - a little jargony perhaps

Prac & Quali

  • "Hamilton took third place on the grid, just 0.052 seconds covering the top three." - It feels like there's a word missing from this sentence. From a layman's point of view, you might need to make clearer what is meant by covering the top three.

Race

  • "Coulthard and Bourdais had taken essentially the same line into the barriers at Massenet just seconds apart, requiring the marshals to separate the cars and lift them off the track." - Doesn't put enough emphasis on them crashing into the barriers, I had to read it twice to get the meaning. Reword needed.
    • Simplified to "Coulthard and Bourdais crashed into the barriers at Massenet just seconds apart, requiring the marshals to separate the cars and lift them off the track." Apterygial 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but visited the on-site medical staff" - medical centre? Not sure what the facility at Monaco is.

AlexJ (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Apterygial 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicol David

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in listing it as an Featured Article, but was advised to get some more feedback as it does not meet the criteria for FA inclusion.

Thanks, Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I need people to review the article, I want to know my wrongdoings. Thanks Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the rules - an article cannot be listed on both peer review and FAC at the same time, so the bot closed this review. Once the FAC is closed you can relist it at PR Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already withdrawn the FAC nomination Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has not closed the FAC, it is still isted as open on the article's talk page Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot already closed the FAC nomination, now can it be reviewed? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 22:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another PR review for this article has already been added. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pomeroy Widney

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… while it has been pruned down to a reasonable size, I would like to know where specific and clear improvements might be made.

Thanks, Collect (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:LinguistAtLarge

[edit]

After a quick scan of the article, the following comes to mind:

  • I don't think all the instances of "Widney and" and "Widney as" at the beginning of the section headings are necessary. I'd remove them all.
  • I would do a drastic re-organization of the article. I think there are too many sub-headings, which break up the flow of the article. For example, I would rename "Biographical details" to "Early life" and include all the information from Ohio/childhood until the graduate education section (all without the sub-headings) and the information in "military surgeon" section. Then I would have a "Marriages" section, with the information on both marriages (without the sub-headings). Then I'd have a "Early career" section followed by other sections such as Public service, Writing, etc. Instead of splitting the article up thematically, I would go for more chonological based divisions.
  • There is a mixture of citation styles-- footnotes and "(Frankiel 97)" style citations. Pick one or the other for consistency WP:CITATIONS.
  • I see at least one instance of a comma after the reference instead of before it.
  • The article has a lot of long quotations, I'm not sure that is appropriate.
    •  Done Some of the quotes have been removed and it looks much better. Sometimes it's better to discuss and summarize what the source is saying instead of quoting large chunks of it verbatim. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journal articles listed as sources should use a {{cite}} template of some sort and link to the article when possible, especially instead of the simple bracketed links following some of the journal articles.
  • Are all the books and journal articles listed in the references section actually used for inline references? If not, they should be listed in a separate "Further reading" section.

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks -- I has substantially shortened this mess and wanted some affirmation that I am on the right track. You shold have seen it before. No idea how much infobox material would help -- he is pretty much old news by now. Collect (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Infoboxes are for old material as well as new. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Found ISBNs not available for many of the OOP material, removed section headers, most of "also see" and "journals" as being either unrelated to Widney or just Ossa on Pelion. Now to those pesky quotes. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that soe of the minor or unimportant stuff is gone -- the article is about the right size I hope! From 194K to 58K -- and it is getting readable (well, I would like more input here). Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking much better. Good job. If there is relevant literature on this man, a short "Further reading" section at the end would be appropriate, but I'd keep it short and only mention a few of the very best resources concerning him. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss a comma after ref somewhere? All the extra Widneys in sectuion names are gone as well, I thunk <g>. Fixing all the refs will be a pain, I fear. Collect (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Widney as" and "Widney and" at the beginning of section headings are still there. The refs will be a lot of work, but if you're interested in improving the article, they need to be fixed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To proceed from here, you can finish all the unchecked items from above, and the following items as well: — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The new (short) "Further reading" section (restored by Smjwalsh) is fine. Now it just needs ISBNs.
  • Go back through the history and restore the references to books that are cited in the article. The references section currently has a lot of notes of the form "Rand 97-98." or "Nash 72.". These need a corresponding reference item at the bottom of the references section with the bibliographic information related to each note. See WP:CITE for more help.
  • There are a lot of date ranges like "1876 to 1901" and "1814-1873". These should all be consistent and use the correct dash WP:DASH.


I think I got the headers now -- sorry. Now to get Rand properly cited. Any chance of this getting to "reasonable article" status? Collect (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carroll the Settler

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
(Very) new article, so all review comments useful. Esp need focus on prose, compliance with MoS in terms of punctuation and formatting, and referencing.

Many many thanks, Geraldk (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and a good start, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please see WP:LEAD and expand the lead so that it is at least two paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the information on his son and grandson (only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence) is only in the lead - perhaps put this information in some sort of Legacy section? My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but Early life and emigration does not seem to be in the lead.
  • In the lead, alternate names are generally in bold type, so "sometimes called Charles Carroll the Settler"
  • Be consistent about capitalization - to my eye Protestant and Catholic look right in the lead, but while Catholic is always captialized, protestant usually is not (and seems like it should be)
  • I would mention where and when he was born in the Early life section (infobox says Ireland, presumably at least a county is known for his birthplace)
  • Spell out contractions, so It is likely... instead of It's likely that Charles Carroll was fostered out to the wealthier Grace
  • I would spell out that Lille and Douai are both in France to provide context for the reader (yes, they are wikilinked, but I think more ocntext should be provided)
  • I would also add a link to the Glorious Revolution somewhere in the last paragraph of the Early life section
  • I added a comma to Like Carroll, nearly the entire governing structure of the colony, with the exception of the lower house of the proprietary assembly, were appointed by Calvert. this might read better as something like Carroll and nearly the entire governing structure of the colony, with the exception of the lower house of the proprietary assembly, were appointed by Calvert.
  • It might also make sense to add a few sentences on the history of Maryland and its founding as a colony for Catholics seeking religious freedom for those unfamiliar with the background history
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE punctuation goes after quoatation marks unless an entire sentence is being quoted
  • Per the WP:MOS units should be given in both English and metric units, I used {{convert}} for one example, which is useful for doing this
  • Drop "eventually" in After 1706, Carroll and his family eventually resided on two properties
  • Link chancery and prerogative courts if possible
  • I would mention when his children were born and who their mothers were

Overall this seems pretty good to me. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Panarin

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need feedback from experienced editors so see if and how it can be improved to deserve a nomination for a Featured Article status. Note that I am a Bulgarian so some English phrases in the article may not sound natural to you. Some copy-editing by native English speakers has already been done but it's probably still imperfect. Also, it would help if you know Russian as most sources are in Russian. But the main thing is not the language, of course, it's the content and organisation of the article. Your helpful suggestions for improving it to reach the level necessary for a Featured Article nomination will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for reviewing it! --Лъчезар (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have enough time for a full review, but I'll try to give some suggestions and come back with more. The lead section needs to start out by telling who he is and why he is important, not listing his titles. The first paragraph is nearly incomprehensible and still doesn't give an idea of what the guy does. Something more like what is in the third paragraph should be moved to the very beginning, but it all must be cited to third party reliable references. Saying he is a psychologist isn't true if he doesn't work as one for example. Saying he is a scholar has to be backed up as well. And NPOV states that you can't use only positive terms if a significant portion of the people describing him would describe him in critical terms. 2) The biography section doesn't flow well. It needs to have full paragraphs with transitions between related ideas, not separate sentences. 3) The coverage of his prediction is essentially the entire article with nothing else about anything else he does. While this may be mostly justified by the relative importance of the issue, no matter how important it is, the bio of him should likely cover a little bit of what else he has done. 4) It's hard to tell without reading the sources, but it seems as if too much importance has been given to his predictions and far too much detail in certain areas. While I see coverage in some larger newspapers, that alone doesn't mean the impact of his prediction is high enough to justify that much coverage. I'll try to give more specifics on that, but I hope that helps for a start. - Taxman Talk 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Unfortunately, I don't know how to write those full paragraphs with transitions between related ideas. What positive terms do you mean? To stick to the NPOV, I've tried to refrain from positive or negative terms. I can try to change the positive terms to neutral if I know where they are. Isn't it better to do this instead of trying to balance the positive terms with negative, which could be compared with simultaneously pressing the accelerator and brake pedals of a car? :) I can also repeat in the lead section that his prediction has been widely criticised. Yet another idea would be to separate the U.S. collapse prediction into a separate article, because this one grew rather big. What do you think? Лъчезар (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry If I wasn't clear. When I said "full paragraphs with transitions between related ideas", you have that for most of the article. It just means that the idea is smoothly discussed with the other related material in at least a 3-4 sentence paragraph. Anything that is just one or two sentences isn't a full paragraph and should only be used in very limited circumstances, but usually not at all. For the bio section either remove the small paragraphs, add more to them so they are a full idea, or merge them with related ideas. As for positive terms, most of the things in the list 'Scholar, writer, intelligence analyst, strategic forecaster, psychologist, ideologist and information warfare expert' would be considered positive descriptions. You're right, just adding negative ones doesn't usually help unless prominent critics describe someone as such. Don't worry about NPOV first, instead worry about getting third party reliable references that say who he is and what he does and is known for and essentially use what they say about him. That generally results in an NPOV description. I hope that helps. - Taxman Talk 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, now it's crystal clear! I think I fixed most of the problems you noted - please take a look again. Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions - by following them I think the beginning of the article became much better and clearer indeed! (I wonder why I couldn't notice these issues myself? :) Лъчезар (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Marco (2008)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to get this article to FA but after several recent failures at FAC due to issues with prose, a more thorough review of an article is probably necessary before going to FA.

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: You asked especially about prose issues. Concentrating on the lead, I've made several specific suggestions for tightening the prose and making it more clear. I'm hoping you can use these examples to find other similar things further down in the article. The {{convert}} template would fix one set of problems. Other sets require a close reading and some tinkering with different ways of saying things, then picking the most direct and clear. One way of accomplishing this is to find a good copyeditor to work on the article. Another is to keep working on the exercises in WP:1a.

Lead

  • "The thirteenth named storm of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, Marco... " - Since you use digits for numbers bigger than nine elsewhere in the article, this should probably be "13th" for consistency. The later use of Tropical Depression Thirteen is fine because that was its formal name.
  • "With the influence of a tropical wave on October 4, a small low-level circulation center developed over Belize." - Suggestion: "Influenced by a tropical wave on October 4, a small low-level circulation center... ". I see this same kind of use of "with" elsewhere in the article to splice clauses somewhat awkwardly together. In the next section, "Meteorological history", for example, is "With well-developed outflow, low wind shear, and high sea surface temperatures, intensification was anticipated through landfall." Better would be "Forecasters anticipated intensification through landfall because of the storm's well-developed outflow and the low wind shear and high surface temperatures in its path." Look for phrases starting with "with" and regard them with suspicion. Some are fine, some are not.
  • "Marco reached its peak intensity with winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) early on October 7." - Suggestion: "Marco's winds reached their peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h) early on October 7." Also, WP:MOSNUM says to spell out the primary units and to abbreviate the secondary units. I like using {{convert}} partly because the template spells and abbreviates correctly, thus: 65 miles per hour (105 km/h). You can find a full list of the "convert" possibilities at Template:Convert/list of units.
  • "tropical storm force winds extended out 12 miles (19 km) from the center of the storm... " - Redundant. Delete "out". I see several more "extended out" constructions coupled with "from the center" further down in the article, and I would delete "out" from all of them.
  • "No further development took place after reaching its peak intensity." - Two problems. The development didn't reach peak intensity; the storm did. Suggestion: "No further development took place after the storm reached its peak intensity." The larger of the two problems is that this sentence either states the obvious or is not true, depending on the meaning of "development". If "development" means "strengthening", the sentence means simply that the storm didn't get any bigger than its biggest. If "development" means "change", it is not a true statement. Probably the fix here would be to delete the sentence.
  • "Due to the small size of Marco, only minimal impacts were caused by the storm." - Suggestion: "Because of its small size, Marco caused minimal damage."
  • "However, several rivers overflowed their banks due to heavy rains from Marco, one of which left two towns under 10 ft (3 m) of water." - Suggestion: "However, the storm's heavy rains led to floods up to 10 feet (3.0 m) deep that covered highways and damaged homes."

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments Finetooth, they were definitely helpful :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since that seems to be it, I'm going to archive this PR and head for FAC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbered highways in Monroe, Washington

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list was recently created by me and has been accepted for a DYK. I hope to eventually have this as my first piece of featured content (FL). The list is based off an FL (List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York) and soon I will have a featured/good topic running. I need large amounts of help in order to get this list featured. Thanks, –CG 16:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Roads WikiProject notified. –CG 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been sent to AFD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this PR as the article has been deleted. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference sporting was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/May_2009&oldid=704360741"