Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article 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.

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this A-Class article for WP:CAL in preparation for FA.

Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • The references are re-used several times; instead of adding a new instance of the template each time, you should just use the ref name parameters, (See this diff and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Same ref used twice or more).
    • The citations all use unformatted dates, which people are back and forth on using, but you may want to format your dates using YYYY-MM-DD format in the accessdate field to pick up formatting. Either use the access date field and remove the month and year parameter or use the month and year and remove the date parameter.
    • The citations all specify English, that isn't necessary, this is the English wikipedia, you only need to specify for sources in languages other than english or translations.
    • Take a look at WP:CITE for the general style recommendations on , WP:CITET, and Magnus' make ref tool.
    • The controversies section only consists of one controversy, if that is the only controversy related to the dunes then just rename the section to something along the lines of Off-road vehicle controversy or something to that effect.
    • The two images being used are tagged as public domain. They should have an {{Information}} tag added and the images should be moved to commons so other projects can use them.
    • Bullet points of the attractions section aren't necessary, just seperate the sections as paragraphs (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists).

That's about all I have right now after takinga quick look through it, let me know if you need more. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is presently a GA, and I am looking to improve it to an FA. There are likely things with copyediting, references, and the like that are askew for FA, but I'm looking for input more on the overall and section organization particularly with regards to "History" and "Cultural Impact".

Thanks, MASEM 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example The expansion reskinned the visuals from Guitar Hero II, and featured a shorter track list with no bonus songs, and was not as well received as the previous two games. Some reviewers considered Rocks the 80s as Harmonix' contractual obligation, given that, as described below, Harmonix would no longer be working on the Guitar Hero series. 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 at least six fair use images, this may be excessive - see WP:NFCC.
  • 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.

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 ><>°° 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Chicago

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have tried to get this article into a FA, but have failed, I want you guys to look through this article and give me some advice to make it better. You can say anything about it, I dont care.

Thanks, Mertozoro (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 gives some tips on how to locate volunteers to help out at peer review, and you might also contact reviewers who opposed at FAC, to invite them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I would treat the FAC as a peer review - look at the comments there and see what needs to be done here. The suggestion of model FAs to follow there is especially good. Look at WP:WIAFA
  • Article needs more references, for example the Soul, Rock, Hip Hop /Rap and Music Venues sections are all uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article needs to be comprehensive - this is a FA criterion - but the History section is one sentence and only covers the 1920s. What happened before and since?
  • 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 Chicago Symphony seems to only be in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The lead sentence (first one) needs to name of the article in bold and I would pick a lead image that shows music and not just the skyline (it is a great photo and can be used elsewhere in the article, just not as the lead image)
  • Article needs a copyedit for language - I read for comprehension but recall seeing "it's" when "its" is meant, starting a sentence with "And", other problems. I would add lots of content and refs before working on the lead, then copyedit the language.

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 ><>°° 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Girl (book series)

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

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

The article is incomplete and contains consistently bad English.

Thanks, guruPhil.

Ruhrfisch comments: I note this editor has made exactly one edit (this nomination). Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article has one reference - needs many more. 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
  • I removed two unsourced extensive quotations - these need refs and need to be discussed to be included (and preferably include only a part of the quote)
  • Any chance for an image?
  • Agree that language is poor and needs a copyedit - bullet lists should be converted to prose.
  • Provide context for 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 ><>°° 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft: Ghost

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve this article for perhaps a future FA. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opening salvo:
    • Using my acquired talents at ripping apart images (if only Elco could see me now,) the article has at least one too many fair use (nonfree) images for the size of the article. Also, I would beef up the FURs for the remaining images (look at The World Ends With You for some good examples). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if I had to get rid of one, I'd go for the multiplayer one, but do you really think its necessary to remove one? I purposefully chose the images so there's one for single-player, another one for multiplayer (which has massive differences from single-player) that also demonstrates vehicles and one for the cinematics that also provides a clear shot of the protagonist. You don't think its possible to justify the FUR's for them and keep all three? -- Sabre (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's up to the image reviewers at FAC to make the final desision, but if I were you I'd remove the vehicles image-- how does "it features a strong vehicular aspect" significantly aiding reader's understanding of the previous with an image of said vehicles?
    • "The continued delay of Ghost caused it to be labelled as vaporware, " shouldn't it be "have caused", since it's still indefinitely postponed?
    • For the "Nova would..." et al of the gameplay, perhaps it should be stated at some point where all this "woulda coulda" information comes from, for example, trailers or game previews?
    • "has formed through deceit, military might and revolution" not sure "has" is what you want to use here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 531

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am preparing this article for FA status by 2009, so I am turning here. I have worked extermely hard to get this article up to here and hopefully FAC. After the suggestions from this review have been put into the article, I will nominate this article for FA.

Thanks, ~~ ĈĠ890100Review me! 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments - I read this yesterday and forgot to put a {{doing}} template on it. Agree with the Dabomb87's points.

  • I would mention the county in the lead, since it is all in one county
  • Lead seems to say it does not have an interchange with Interstate 5 (just "passes Interstate 5") but the article later says it does.
  • Article is very short and most of that is course, one of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness and this seems to need work there. For example, I did not see any traffic statistics. Or the hsitory starts in 1991 - what about the roads that followed this route before then? When was the first road along this stretch? When was the state park opened? When did the interstate come through?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several state route FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport that may be useful models

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)'s comments:

  • "SR 531 was approved by the Washington State Legislature in 1991 along its current route." ?
  • "Even though SR 531 was approved by the Washington State Legislature and WSDOT in 1991, no signs went up until the law that made SR 531 took effect on April 1, 1992." ?
  • I'll take care of the overlinking some other day.
  • There are no other notable features around the highway other than what is already listed.

Replies to Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)'s comments:

  • How about "State Route 531 (SR 531) is a short state highway in Snohomish County, a county within the U.S. state of Washington."?
  • Maybe "SR 531 intersects Interstate 5 and passes the Arlington Airport." ?
  • From the ACR, some users suggested that I not include about the history of other highways (e.g. Interstate 5 and U.S. Route 99) in the history section. There is no known information about the road before 1991 except that the exit has existed since at least 1969, the year I-5 was completed. There is no reliable sources that tell when the first road opened. There is also no information regarding the founding of the state park.

Thanks for all the comments! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. How about "State Route 531 (SR 531) is a short state highway in Snohomish County, in the U.S. state of Washington."? Avoids repeating county. Intersection sounds OK to me. I guess I would at least put the 1969 date in - seems odd the year of the state park is unavailable, but I know from experience sometimes such information is lacking. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 22:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street (stadium)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the content of the article is as detailed as it is going to get. I have done as much with the few references available as I can, and although I'm sure there are several improvements to be made, I'd like to see about getting this article to GA status. Thanks, – PeeJay 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Is there sufficient info to fill out a stadium infobox?
    • There is enough to fill in the required fields and a couple of optional ones. I have now added an infobox to the article.
  • Are there any images available, either of the stadium as it was or of what now stands in its place?
    • I have added a picture of the Manchester Velodrome to the article, albeit not as the main image as that might be confusing.
  • wikilink 1893-94 season
    • Done.
  • "despite the new stadium, Newton Heath were unable to retain their First Division status at the end of the season" - this is a bit of a non-sequitur, the stadium did not affect the quality of the team's performances or their final league position
    • Reworded.
  • "the stuff of legend" - bit informal
    • Reworded.
  • wikilink 1894-95 season
    • Done.
  • "they were finally persuaded to take to the field, although they needn't have bothered" - reads far too informally, like something you'd see in a fanzine rather than an encyclopedia
    • Removed the offending phrase.
  • what's with the broken template in the middle of the sentence starting "one report"?
    • Fixed. Strange how I never noticed it the first time round.

Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments mate. Very helpful. – PeeJay 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more point - should "Bradford and Clayton athletic ground" have captials on the last two words.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source I have refers to the ground, via a transcript of a Manchester Evening News article, as "the well known Bradford and Clayton athletic ground, Bank Lane, Clayton". – PeeJay 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Burnley aren't/weren't local rivals
    • My mistake. Corrected.
  • For consistency, Broughton R.F.C. should probably be used.
  • "restricted by the running track that encompassed the pitch, which could not be removed by the request of the Bradford and Clayton Athletic Company." - could give the impression that the Athletic Company requested its removal.
    • Fixed word order.
  • "were saved at the last minute by a wealthy local brewer" - presumably not literally the last minute.
    • How does "saved at the eleventh hour" sound?
  • For an image, you could try looking for an old OS map showing the location of the ground.
    • I have found an appropriate OS map, but Bank Street is not marked very well. How would you suggest I annotate it?
  • There's quite a bit more material about the ground in Manchester: A Football History. I'll put some of it in at some point. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Plaza

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Torsodog (talk · contribs) and I want to nominate Millennium Park for WP:GTC and this article needs to be audited as too short for WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Zimbabwe relations

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's well on the way to GA, and I want to see what needs fixing/expanding to make sure it meets or exceeds the criteria. In addition, I have personal opinions on this topic, and while I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible, a POV check probably wouldn't go astray in case something has slipped in accidentally.

Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • I profess to knowing nothing about the topic, so if you say it's broad, I'll take your word for it.
  • It's a bit odd on the top right corner map that Australia is written on the left, yet appears to the right of Zimbabwe on the map. Dunno what to do about it... maybe colour code the text (for the names of the countries) so it's clear which is which?
  • Some refs lack publisher info. Also, newspapers/print publications need italics throughout (example fix)
  • "Australia currently manintains an embassy in Harare,[2] and Zimbabwe maintains an embassy in Canberra.[3]" - I think you should note that they're the capitals of the respective countries.
  • First paragraph of Early history wouldn't be harmed by some refs.
  • "Despite this majority, the colony of Rhodesia broke away from the United Kingdom in 1965, with the minority white government of Ian Smith issuing a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, while Australia became established as a stable parliamentary democracy." - tacking on info about Australia at the end makes this sentence a bit confusing. Maybe split them up.
  • USA Today is wlinked as a ref publisher; in this case be consistent and wlink everything (that has an article).
  • "and later offered aid to Zimbabwe only if the 2008 elections in that country were "fair"" - needs wording... maybe "and said he would only offer Zimbabwe aid if the 2008 elections were contested fairly"?
  • Maybe a POV issue or maybe there's nothing else to say, but... it feels like often, it's the Australians that take the lead in this relationship, so to speak... eg. Howard's travel restrictions/Rudd's no-aid-unless-it's fair. What, if anything, has Zimbabwe(/its leaders) done with regards to Australia? (Does that make sense?)
  • "At the 2006 Australian census, 20,158 people listed themselves as having been born in Zimbabwe. Of these, ten thousand (or roughly 50%) had arrived since 2001.[16]" - another example of the above point... do we have a Zimbabwe census?
  • I hope these comments help. 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). Cheers, Giggy (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Promenade

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Torsodog (talk · contribs) and I want to nominate Millennium Park for WP:GTC and this article needs to be audited as too short for WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo captives' uniforms

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish for comment from peers regarding a dispute that Geo Swan and I are having regarding the use of the term "detainee" as opposed to "captive" for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is my position that the term "Detainee" is generally accepted in both the scholastic community, as well as a legal term of art as reflected in statute. Geo Swan maintains that this term is a Department of Defense term, and "captive" is a neutral term. I wish at this point to avoid an edit war on this issue, and the input of a neutral observer with qualifications on standards regarding generally accepted terms in articles may well put the matter to rest.

Your input regarding this matter is greatly appreciated.

I remain, sincerely yours Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Peer review is not really the place to resolve content dispute.
  • From my point of view, and that of the BBC, "detainee" is preferred over "captive".
Comments on the rest of the article, should they be of use...
  • Five paras in lead is too many per WP:LEAD.
  • Page ranges in references need to use en-dash, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • Are you convinced that Compliant (JTF-GTMO) will ever have a specific article?
  • This has a redlinked category, in which this is the only article so I suggest you remove it.
  • Ref 4 is bare URL.
  • Ref 5 and 11-26 need accessdates.
  • Ref 5 in the lead should not be in italics.
  • I think a more accurate definition of compliant (or non-compliant if you wish) should be in the article.
  • "Bay - considered " should be an en or em-dash, not a hyphen.
  • "in the iconic orange " iconic is POV.
  • Not sure the Coney Island image is relevant - it's quite contraversial and doesn't need to be here in this article with the wealth of real detainee images.
  • There are claims in the image captions which need references, such as "highly compliant detainees live in a communal setting and have extensive access to recreation"
  • "Guantanamo captives whose uniforms were an issue" why is this repeated under the section heading?
  • Why isn't isn ISN? And name Name? And notes Notes?
  • "The Level 2" or "level 2" - be consistent.
  • 679 and 987 have no notes, 987 has no ref...

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual animal anecdotes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there has to be some other anecdotes missing and this article is definitely the kind that requires some crowd sourcing. I know the formatting is also probably a bit rough and could be polished.

Thanks, RyanHoliday (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I am not clear how the anecdotes are selected / qualify for inclusion in this list. In ancient Rome, it was not unusual to slaughter wild animals in the circuses. Or why include literature and Schrodinger's cat, when these are otherwise real stories?
  • Article should have a picture in the lead per WP:LEAD - seems like there could more images.
  • I have no idea what this means They may not appear on other Wikipedia articles due to difficulty of categorizing.
  • Also the lead has no references, but should for things that are not in the rest of the article
  • Historical as a header and "In history" as a subheader makes no sense to me.
  • The prophet Elisha was almost cetainly not alive around 0 BC/AD
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Book refs need publisher date, etc. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Some of the sources seem not to meet WP:RS - what makes RyanHoliday.net a reliable source, as 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 ><>°° 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Minchin

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 doing a fair bit of work on it and I'd really like some feedback on what needs improvement, with a view to bringing the article up to GA quality.

Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Image:Timminchin.jpg seems to have some licence issues.
  • Link pilot to the appropriate article.
  • "...his first one-hour show.[7] His break-out show..." - 2x show, can we use a synonym to brighten that up?
  • I reckon the Ediburgh Fringe Festival could be linked.
  • "to convey visuals" this is a little bit unencyclopedic... what exactly do you mean by "visuals"?
  • "critic of religion " why not "religious critic".
  • "it has yet to be picked up " again, a little show-biz-speak for me...
  • Last few lines of Acting section is unreferenced.
  • 7 external links is a little over the top.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed except Edinburgh Fringe (which is already linked) and the acting section, for which I'm going to have to do a bit more research. Cheers! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WXKW

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review due to its format, which seems more like a story or recounting rather than an actual encyclopaedic article. I did not write it.

Thanks, Crystal Walrein (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The history text is a copyvio from http://www.theboss97.com/history.html so I have now removed it. *As for the rest of the article, it has no references whatsoever and is as you have stated, written almost as a blog.
  • Words like "oldies" need to be linked or explained.
  • "Enginneer " typo
  • The article needs an expert in the field to completely rewrite it from scratch, I would suggest.
  • I've tagged it as unref'ed and as a story.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Woodhouse

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 the article can potentially reach GA status.

Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 23:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

[edit]

First of all, good work so far, the article looks completely different.

  • Personal preference, but the date of birth "April 17, 1980" could be displayed in the British format "17 April, 1980".
    • Done - missed that!
  • There is some information in the lead that doesn't appear in the main article, e.g. his playing for England under-21s, being born in Driffield or falling out of love with football. The lead should only be a summary of the main article and so shouldn't contain any new details, per WP:LEAD.
    • Added details to England U21 caps.
    • Added "fallen out of love" with football comment to para about early boxing career.
      • Done
  • "Blades" - jargon.
    • Done - changed to Sheffield United
  • This sentence needs a reference.
    • Done
  • "He made 17 appearances for Birmingham..." - reference needed.
    • Done - soccerbase ref added
  • "students" - could this be expanded? Is it referring to school students, university student etc?
    • Done
  • "...he made 28 appearances in the Championship" - it was the First Division then.
    • Done
  • "...for the fouth consecutive time"... - "time" doesn't really fit in... I'd just say season.
    • Done - typo on fourth fixed as well
  • "...on 14 October 2003,[19] that same day..." - needs rewording.
  • "Division Two" - inconsistent with the earlier "First Division" - should stay the same with how you present the division names.
    • Done - changed to Division Two
  • "In 2003–04, he made 27 appearances in..." - reference needed.
    • Done - sb ref added again
  • "Peterborough finished 18th in the Second Division, two points from relegation. Woodhouse was named as Peterborough's player of the season." - I'd personally try and merge these sentences.
    • Done - "Peterborough finished 18th in the Second Division, two points from relegation, with Woodhouse being named as Peterborough's player of the season."
  • "He made 18 appearances without scoring, in the Championship..." - don't think the comma is needed.
    • Done
  • "Tigers" - jargon.
    • Done - changed to Hull
  • "In the January 2006 transfer window he joined Grimsby Town on a two year deal..." - seems strange to mention the same transfer twice.
    • Done - only mentioned under "Grimsby Town" heading
  • "former club, Peterborough United in..." - should remove the comma.
    • Done
  • "...2006 in the 2–1 home defeat..." - I'd probably put "a 2–1 home defeat".
  • "...he planned to quit football..." - is there a better word than "quit"? Just feels a bit out of place.
    • Done - changed to "retire from"
  • "...at the end of the season..." - which season?
    • Done - 2005–06
  • "...in the final by Cheltenham Town, 1–0..." - needs rewording.
    • Done - reworded to "Grimsby were defeated 1–0 in the final by Cheltenham Town."
  • "[41][40]" - References should be ordered numerically.
    • Done
  • References [42] - no publisher details.
    • Done - misspelled publisher in the template
  • It should also be placed at the end of the sentence.
    • Done
  • "[43][37]" - numberical order.
    • Done
  • "BBBofC" doesn't need to be wikilinked.
    • Done
  • "...made 5 appearances..." - 5 should be represented as five, which applies to all numbers under 10.
  • ""Diamonds"" - jargon.
    • Done - Changed to Rushden
  • "...to Rushden & Diamonds on..." - I'd just shorten it down to just "Rushden" after it being used multiple times.
    • Done
  • "...on 23 April 2007," - full stop needed, not comma.
    • Done
  • "...in 29 Conference National matches..." - "Conference National" doesn't need to be wikilinked again.
    • Done
  • "...sixth straight victory maintaining..." - comma needed after "victory".
    • Done
  • "...2008–09..." - doesn't need wikilinking again.
    • Done
  • Are there any personal details that could be added to the article? I think this could be important to it passing a GA nomination.
    • What sort of personal details do you mean? I've had a look at a couple of other GA's (Adam Miller (footballer) and Simon Wormull) and there isn't anything on them.
      • Added in a new "Personal" section at the top. Added details of birth / where he grew up and about supporting Hull City.
        • Added more details about family and childhood.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • "career...spanned over nine seasons" - does this mean across/during nine seasons or more than nine seasons?
    • Done - changes to "...spanned across nine seasons..."
  • Last sentence of second paragraph in lead has "before" twice. The phrasing could be improved slightly, maybe by splitting the sentence.
    • Done - split and reworded to "In May 2005, he joined Hull City for £25,000, before joining Grimsby Town just eight months later in January 2006. He retired at the end of the 2006–07 season."
  • wikilink "cup-tied"
    • Done
  • "Birmingham also finished 5th" - should it be "Birmingham finished fifth in the First Divison? You'd then need to unlink "First Division" in the last sentence of the same paragraph.
    • Done
  • You could link "penalty shoot-out"
    • Done
  • "This time, Woodhouse did not play in any of the matches" - maybe "any of the play-off matches" or "any of the three matches" (may just make it a bit clearer)
    • Done
  • "that same day that made his debut against Torquay United" the meaning is obvious but the grammar seems wrong. "the same day that he made his debut..." perhaps?
    • Done
  • I'm 50-50 on the Captain Marvel link. It is useful to see the origin of the phrase, but in this context the comics character isn't all that relevant. What do others think?
  • "he made 27 appearances in Second Division" -> in the Second Division
    • Done
  • "without scoring in the Championship for Hull over five months" - again, I would clarify beyond doubt what the meaning of over is - spanning five months or more than five months.
    • Done - changed to "...for Hull spanning across five months"
  • "without his manager knowledge" -> without his manager's knowledge
    • Done
  • "signing for Rushden & Diamonds who played in the highest-tier of non-league football in the Conference National" -> "signing for Rushden & Diamonds, who were playing in the the Conference National, the highest-tier of non-league football"
    • Done
  • "After five months out" -> "After five months away from boxing" (?)
    • Done - agreed, reads better!

Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • The section headed "Return to football and ban from boxing" is very confusing to read and switches between the two sports rather rapidly. Can it be re-written to make it easier to read?
    • Done - changed to "Return to football part-time" - that's the best I can come up with so far - anyone have any better ideas?
  • Also the dates in this section are too repetitive. Is every reference to 2007 or 2008 needed in quick succession?
    • Done

Good luck. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopewell tradition

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done alot of work to it and was wondering how it was working so far. I recently re-wrote, sourced and cited for the majority of the page, created a few maps, and collected some images. Sometimes you can be too close tho, and I was wanting an outside( of my own head, lol) opinion. Thanks, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Not sure the succession box belongs at the top of the article, maybe move to the bottom.
  • Images need captions and if the captions are sentence fragments, they should not have a full stop.
  • Citations should be placed per WP:CITE i.e. immediately after punctuation if possible.
  • Don't think you really need to link material.
  • I think you could reduce the large numbers of sections by merging.
  • End of the "Politics and heirarchy" section has a newline and a period.
  • Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Last few sentences of the Mounds section is unreferenced.
  • "Culture" or "culture" in the headings.
  • For ranges of numbers, use the en-dash, not the hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • References like you have in this article can be split so you have a "References" hdg at the same level you currently have, then a "General" hdg for those ones at the end, and a "Specific" for the web cited ones.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Léon M'ba

[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 am trying to bring this article to FA status. The former PR languised in very-little response hell.

Thanks, --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

São Paulo Futebol Clube

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 was a featured article in Portuguese wikipedia, and I would like it to become a A+ quality article here in English wikipedia also.

Thanks, Garavello (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comment above, I think the article could do with a thorough copyedit from a native English speaker, as phrases like "São Paulo FC is, join to Juventus and Liverpool, the sixth club in the world....", "The club was already born very popular" and "for this reason, few players were hired by the club, most of them inexpressive ones" just aren't good English at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • References need to be placed per WP:CITE i.e. immediately following punctuation where possible.
  • What do you mean by "traditional " football team?
  • "2 as ..." etc - numbers below 10 should be written out so "two as...".
  • Year ranges should use the en-dash per WP:DASH instead of the hyphen.
  • Headings should not have citations.
  • A lot of redlinks.
  • "In 1900, the Clube Atlético Paulistano is founded[6]. " - two issues here - this is an encyclopedic article so it should "was founded" and the citation is in the wrong place.
  • "playfield " - is this a pitch, a stadium? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
  • "Due to many mistakes made by the club's board" references required - you need to substantiate this kind of thing.
  • What does "Steam Roller" mean as a heading - it's not clear.
  • "As it was already a major club, São Paulo brought other great players, " full of POV. Try making the language more factual and less fan-like.
  • You definitely need a load more references - check other featured football club articles like Ipswich Town F.C. to see what I mean. Also consider forking the masses of info on the history out to a sub-article and provide a good, succinct summary here.
  • Scorelines should also use the en-dash rather than the hyphen per WP:DASH.
  • Work on merging some of the many very short paragraphs to improve the appearance and readability of the article.
  • Colours and badge section needs referencing.
  • "Current squad Sub-20" is this the under-20s squad? If so it's not particularly relevant.
  • What makes the famous matches famous? This is WP:OR at best.
  • I would expect maybe two or three external links, not nine or ten. Plus something in English would be useful as this is English Wikipedia.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiësto

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how the current article is, how it reads, if it is too much or too little, if it should be broken down or in any way improved. It is currently a good article and would like it to become a featured article. Any comments or suggestions are welcome on improving the article.

Thanks, A State Of Trance (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article needs a copyedit for prose - professional level writing is an FA requirement. One example When he was twenty he decided to dedicate more time to it and began DJing professionally at school parties and then moved on to become a resident DJ between 1985 and 1994 at several clubs in the Netherlands after his manager and friend Wilfred encouraged him.[10][11] - could be split into two sentences or cleaned up. Copyeditors are at WP:PRV
 Done Split up sentence. ASOTMKX (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed IMDB as a source. ASOTMKX (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four non-free images - do they all meet WP:NFCC?
 Done These images have been removed. ASOTMKX (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a one sentence paragraph During 2005 he also made a small cameo appearance in the award-winning film It's All Gone Pete Tong as himself.[81] could it be combined with another or expanded?
 Done ASOTMKX (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
 Done Rewrote the lead, tried to have an overview of the article. ASOTMKX (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Sariñana

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs to be expanded and worked on a lot.

Thanks, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • No pictures? Have you checked Commons or Flickr (with the appropriate licences)?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "a famous" - that's POV, stick to the facts.
  • Green tickY Fixed. A note: Even if she's gaining popularity and becoming famous, I agree. It's not very neutral to call someone "famous". And pardon me for marking your stuff up. I just need to keep track of what I've done already.
  • Place citations per WP:CITE i.e. immediately after punctuation where possible.
  • I would expand the lead a little to describe what she's achieved and how. Then move the family stuff down as a first section along the lines of a Personal life section (or something similar).
  • The Daniela Luján you link to as a character is a real person - is that link correct?
  • I believe so. I think Daniela Luján is the actress who played Luz Clarita in the telenovela.
  • You don't need to link English language on each occasion.
  • "thirty-eighth " 38th.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "movie befor she acted in her first telenovela" maybe reorganise the biography in that case. And "befor" needs an e.
  • Green tickY Okay, partially done. Someone corrected the "e" already.
  • There is a [citation needed] template which needs sorting out.
  • "She is currently dating Omar Rodriguez Lopez from The Mars Volta." - needs referencing and a timeframe i.e. As of September 2008...
  • Why is the album table coloured?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • No need to wikilink dates any more - this has been deprecated.
  • The "Notes" section should be called "References" and each reference should be filled in correctly with, where available, title, url, author, date, accessdate and publisher.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently began working expanding and referencing this article, I ran across the old peer review and addressed the comments raised, and I'd like some feedback on how to bring the article further forward from it's current state. :) Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No Way Out (2004)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after failing FAC twice earlier in the year, I want to send it back to FAC to make sure it passes. To do this, I want a peer review to see any problems that stand out. Hopefully third time is a charm. :)

Thanks, SRX 02:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy, images

[edit]

Other images seem fine. Ping me and I'll give some more comments at some point. Giggy (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks I'll hope I can get more comments.--SRX 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Rikishi: The caption says, "Rikishi, who teamed up with Scotty 2 Hotty to take on and Shaniqua." Something is missing/wrong here. iMatthew (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--SRX 10:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkBlue's comments

[edit]

Here are my comments. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--SRX 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like always. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki's comments

[edit]

Found some time to review and copyedit this. ;)

  • "Including its promotional buildup, No Way Out grossed over $450,000 ticket sales from an attendance of approximately 11,000 and received 350,000 pay-per-view buys." - I think the wording of sentences similar to this has been discussed before, but I'm too busy to look it up, so I'll just give my thoughts: it reads terribly. Did it gross money during the promotional buildup? Or did the opposite occur (spending money to promote)? The sentence would read better without the clause before the comma (beginning the sentence with No Way Out) and still retain the 'intended' meaning.
  • "The name of a wrestler's character was not always the person's birth name, as wrestlers often use a stage name to portray their character." - This sentence seems out of place. I'd say that can be figured out by the name linking. Did someone tell you to add that as part of a review?
  • "Sit there and be the bitch that you are" - This needs a punctuation mark of some kind, either a "." or "..."
  • "The Big Show used his body size to his advantage" - Might be good to give some specifics here just for the visual imagery

I've watchlisted this page, so I'll know when you've replied. Nikki311 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I know you are busy and it means a lot for you to take the time to peer review and copyedit the article, thanks so much :)SRX 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augie March

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to get this one featured some time in the near future. I think it's fine in terms of content (anyone familiar is welcome to prove me wrong), but any comments on how the prose is and how it can be improved would be great. (Of course, all comments are good!) Cheers, Giggy (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Giggy (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Football League

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article should be nominated for a fetured article candidate very soon. Its a great game, and the league its self does need some promotion. Any feedback would be great!

Thanks, Aflumpire (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Six paras in the lead is too much - see WP:LEAD for guidance.
  • Not sure you need to link sport here.
  • sixteen->16.
  • "six Australian states - with matches played in all states" - use the en-dash here instead of the hyphen, and also, I assume you'll explain that if games are played in all six states that must mean some kind of exhibition-style matches are played when both teams are out of their state?
  • TV ->television.
  • Don't overlink Australian Rules Football in the lead.
  • "of New South Wales,Queensland " - space after the comma - and check you don't overlink the Aussie states all over the lead.
  • Images seem to overwhelm some of the article - see WP:MOS#Images for guidance on sizing images.
  • Clubs section has no references and too many paras again -look at merging some of the smaller ones.
  • "Home Ground and (Capacity)" - Home ground and (capacity).
  • Explain Membership.
  • And 2008 Membership should just be membership.
  • Just as Premiership Years should be years.
  • Premiership years col doesn't sort - it sends me up to the top of the article.
  • If a team has had more than one home ground, you should at least footnote it.
  • Year ranges should use an en-dash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
  • "Reason for Leaving" - leaving. "Years In Competition" competition. "Last Home Ground" - Last home ground. etc etc.
  • New Teams section - New teams. And why bold the two teams? And use the en dash again.
  • "AFL boss " - boss isn't particularly encyclopedic.
  • Stadiums section needs work...
    • Why square brackets?
    • Perhaps consider a table or even forking to a sub-article.
    • There's little referencing.
  • Total Player Payment in bold? Why?
  • "The following is the origin of 2007 AFL listed player based on player's nominated junior clubs" - is this trivia?
  • Toyota logo could use a caption.
  • Season structure section is referenceless.
  • Competition timeline fails to render.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category 6: Day of Destruction

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant improvement in the last week or so, and I'd like to get feedback on how I can further improve it before I send it up for GA, and possible later FA.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I'd consider merging the last single-sentence para - this is a borderline case for two paras per WP:LEAD - the article is just over 15Kb but a few Kb will be markup...
  • ".. and a journalist and power officials attempt to find its cause." - maybe consider making it a bit more causal - so "leaving a journalist and power industry officials to..." (power officials - is that for real?)
  • Odd mismatch between it being a "miniseries" per opening sentence and subsequently a film per reviews later in the lead - perhaps it's typical for US miniseries, I'm not sure. Also I guess a "four hour miniseries" which lasts 174 mins (i.e. just less than three hours) is a typical US series? 72% movie, 28% advert?
  • "sweeps week " - what is this?
  • "films high budget" - I'm no king of apostrophe, but should that be "film's high budget"?
  • " is days away" - many days? thousands? two? you know what I mean?
  • "Concerned, and upset" - understatement consider Las Vegas has just been flattened, surely?
  • "Area 51 FX" - what is this? I assume a special effects company?

Otherwise GA material. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! First two items addressed. For the third, I fixed the terminology in the lead, and then later in the article noted film miniseries, since its basically both. It aired in a two two-hour blocks, and without commercials was 174 minutes, and yep, that's fairly typical. 10th Kingdom aired in a 10 hour block, but the actual film is just under 7 hours without the commercials. :) I wikified Sweeps week since I'm not sure how to summarize it in the lead without making the sentence odd (basically one of four times in a year when networks try to boost viewers, usually by doing season premieres or otherwise airing all new, hopefully highly desired content). Fixed items 6 and 7. For 8, he really was more pissed they missed it and wanted to make sure they didn't miss anymore weather. I reworded it to clarify that. Fixed the last item as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. GA will be a breeze, even if you have to wait two weeks! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia River

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been the focus of a broad collaboration for some time. There are a number of us who have put in a lot of work to make the best article possible; we've been through two thorough GA reviews, and solicited feedback on a number of topics from a number of people, both on and off Wikipedia. We feel that the article is nearing readiness for a Featured article nomination, and would like a fresh set of eyes on it first. Thanks in advance for any feedback! Pete (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gila Monster

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 to check for flow, tense and grammatical errors.

Thanks, StevePrutz (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the automated peer review stuff. Unfortunately, it's not particularly detailed. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." I forgot to run the SAPRs yesterday, but just ran it and the bot will link it in about 8.5 hours. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Not that it offered much help anyway. bibliomaniac15 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gonzo fan2007
Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)
{{{2}}}

Iyer

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 fix drawbacks or irregularities (if any) that might arise. A review is also a mandatory step before an featured article nomination.

Thanks, RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are all Tamil Brahmins Iyer? There are other Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, right e.g Iyegnar. So general statements about Tamil Brahmins should not be included. "spoke of Tamil Brahmins as "Mahajanam" and regarded them.." "Tamil Brahmins form an estimated 3% of the state's total population", Also in section "Migration: Sri Lanka", the ref talks about Tamil Brahmins, not Iyers in specific. This generalization is uncalled for. The issue is present in almost every section of the article.
    • Yes, I agree. I am of the opinion that it is perfectly relevant to include references to Tamil Brahmins of ancient times (till the 10th century AD when Ramanuja formulated the philosophy of Vishishtadvaita) in this article as the Iyengar community is largely derived from the existing Smartha Brahmin community. As for the medieval and modern periods, I find it difficult to disambiguate as apart from minor differences in rituals, festivals, language and the existence of different subsects, the two communities are almost indistinguishable. I could very well create a new article called Tamil Brahmins and shift the overlapping content to that article. But then, Wikipedia does not classify caste-based communities on basis of language and there are no articles as Gujarati Brahmins or Bihari Brahmins and Marathi Brahmins. Moreover, such sort of naming too would bring about a great deal of ambiguity (I mean, what can be done about those Iyers and Iyengars whose mother tongue is Telugu). We should also consider the fact the article Iyer has been classed as a GA-article. If we are to sort out and move large chunks of material to an article named Tamil Brahmins, then it would not only affect continuity, but also create broken references and bring down the quality of article. It would unnecessarily delay things and consume our time and energy beyond what we could possibly offer. There is one course of action that we could adopt: I'd rather replace every occurence of the word "Tamil Brahmins" with "Iyers". We could move the same text to Iyengar article and replace "Iyer" with "Iyengar". If you have any other suggestions about this, you are welcome to make. This issue has been perplexing me for quite sometime.
Replacing "Tamil Brahmins" with Iyer is adding to the generalization and definitely not the solution, which should be avoided. Placing the info in a different article, and forming an summary in Iyer is one of the solutions. Just because is a GA, does not mean it can not be re-written. If GA Ganesha would not have been rewritten, it would not have become a FA. The "Tamil Brahmin" issue may crop up in the FAC too, if the article is nominated in current state.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for population statistics, I am afraid to say that there are no reliable statistics. Estimates suggest that the population of Tamil Brahmins is 2.4 million or 3% of Tamil population, but individual populations statistics or estimates of Iyers and Iyengars are unavailable-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is too long, think of splitting it and use summary style.
  • Eliminate/Merge 1-2 line paras as well as sections as in "Subsects"
  • What is a left-hand/right-hand caste?
    • The left and right-hand factions are two caste-based divisions found in Tamil society till about the 19th century AD. The animosities which existed between the two factions were well known. During the 18th century AD, British East India Company chronicles speak of riots between Komatis and Chettis who belong to opposite factions. There are even accounts of villages being burnt as a result of these riots. During the British period, Brahmins were deputed to mediate between the Komatis and Chettis as they did not belong to either faction at that time. However, there is evidence to suggest that way back in the 12th century AD, Brahmins were considered to be a left-handed faction. I'll add more references with regard to this.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add some context to jargon like "left-hand/right-hand caste". A short 1 line explanation will just do the job.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Migration and Urbanization among Tamil Brahmans, Pg 18
  2. ^ Migration and Urbanization among Tamil Brahmans, Pg 19
  3. ^ Migration and Urbanization among Tamil Brahmans, Pg 20
  4. ^ Migration and Urbanization among Tamil Brahmans, Pg 21" Instead just 1 ref "Migration and Urbanization among Tamil Brahmans, pp.18-21" is enough. There are other similar instances.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • While writing this article, I chose to add footnotes to individual pages than a set of pages as the same reference could be reused. This would make it convenient while future enhancements are made. For example, if I add content to the article based on claims made in "Pg 18"of the book, then it would convenient to use existing footnotes for individual pages, than adding a reference for "Pg 18-21" or creating new references for "Pg 18" -RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kensplanet

  • Before nominating the article for a FAC, you need to run it through a thorough MOS-edit.
  • You must not have so many REFs in the lead. All Refs should be moved to the main prose. Only extremely contentious claims should have REFs in the Lead.
  • The 'Lifestyle and culture section has too. many Images. Please reduce.
  • References should be properly formattted.

G. S. Ghurye, Pg 393 -->>>> G. S. Ghurye, p. 393 Kensplanet (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Flagg

[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 for it to achieve Featured Status and I believe the article is close to being there. Any suggestions or improvements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The lead needs expansion. Here's a tip: The lead should have at least one sentence that summarizes each section.
  • "Randall Flagg made his first official appearance in the 1978 apocalyptic novel The Stand." Did he have an unofficial appearance?
  • "In it, he is trying to rebuild civilization in the United States in his image after a plague has killed off most of the population."
  • "Flagg’s backstory is vague, unknown even to him, with Flagg stating that at some point he just “became”; although, he has memories of being a marine, a Klansman, as well as having a hand in the kidnapping of Patty Hearst." Use em dashes instead: "Flagg’s backstory is vague, unknown even to him—Flagg states that at some point he just “became”—although he has memories of being a marine, a Klansman, as well as having a hand in the kidnapping of Patty Hearst."
  • "In the novel, Flagg plans to attack and destroy the other emerging civilization — Mother Abagail's "Free Zone" in Boulder, Colorado — to become the dominant society in the former United States." Em dashes should be unspaced (check for this throughout article). Why is the phrase "In the novel" necessary. Isn't the whole section about what goes on in the novel?
  • Per Wikipedia:Captions, only captions that are complete sentences should have periods.

I'll have more comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did have an unofficial appearance; The Dark Man, a poem that King wrote in college. That served as the basis for Flagg's character, but the character is never called Flagg in it. (The article does discuss this) Thanks for the suggestions; I'll look into them later.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dash inconsistencies in general: I see regular unspaced em dashes, spaced en dashes, and spaced em dashes (an MOS breach).
  • "The Dark Tower also reveals more of Flagg’s backstory, stating that he was born 1500 years earlier in Delain to Sam the Miller of Eastar’d Barony, and named Walter Padick; as a young child of thirteen"—This shouldn't be bolded.
  • "The character of Randall Flagg has even inspired musical artists." "even" sounds POV, as if the writer is surprised that Randall Flagg was inspirational to artists.
  • "Flagg’s representation of evil is not without its detractors." Make simpler: "Flagg’s representation of evil also has detractors."

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the editors of this page intend to submit the article to WP:FAC. The page was improved since the last FAC by adding a closing section and demographics section as requested by some commentators in the last FAC. The history section has been trimmed and a main history article was created (History of the Roman Catholic Church). The Beliefs, Prayer Practices and worship, and Church organization sections were not a problem in the last FAC but the history section was criticized for lack of scholarly works and for using sources that were offering history from a Catholic point of view. The history section uses the most cited scholarly works: Bokenkotter, Duffy, LeGoff, McManners, Gonzolez, Haigh, Koschorke, and others. Please see Google Scholar to see how often these works are cited. Because WP:NPOV requires us to give all points of view of history, we included two books from notable professors of history: Edward Norman and John Vidmar. Vidmar's book has footnotes and bibliography and Norman's has bibliography and is published by a University press (as recommended by WP:Reliable source examples). The citations to these sources are small in number and are usually a double to another citation from one of the other more scholarly works. We included them in sensitive areas of RCC history to allow reader to see that scholars from all points of view agree on the sentences cited and we provided quotes from the various sources so reader could see this. Please review the article and provide a list of any comments you would like for us to consider. Thanks for coming to see and review the article! NancyHeise talk 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colton Point 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, and its neighbor across the gorge Leonard Harrison State Park, which are all featured articles that we have worked on.

Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • An interesting and well-written read. Hard to find many things to fault.
  • It is on the west rim of the Pine Creek Gorge, also known as the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, which is 800 feet (244 m) deep and nearly 4,000 feet (1,219 m) across here. "It is on" → "It is situated on"? This occurs once more farther into the article. Also, "here" → "at this location".
  • I think the Lumber section goes into slightly too much detail. For example, in the second paragraph of the section I'm not sure the dimensions of the spars are needed.
    • Well, the lumber section is largely the same as the Leonard Harrison State Park section of the same name (with some Leonard Harrison details removed and some COlton Point details added). The size of the spars is in to give some idea of just how large the trees harvested were. I am OK with removing the spar dimensions, but let's see what Dincher thinks first. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three overlooks were constructed by the CCC, as was a rectangular gable-roofed maintenance building with wane edge siding and exposed rafters made of logs. Link Gable.
  • Another New York Times article on whitewater canoeing in 1973 noted the damage along the creek done by Hurricane Agnes the year before, and Colton Point's "woodland trails",[42] while a 2002 story cites the park as a starting point for hiking the West Rim Trail and notes the beauty and wildlife found there. Needs to be worded better, though I'm not sure how.
    • I tried splitting it into two sentences, so it now reads A 1973 New York Times article on whitewater canoeing noted the damage along Pine Creek done by Hurricane Agnes the year before, and Colton Point's "woodland trails".[42] Another Times story on the West Rim Trail in 2002 cites the park as a starting point for hiking it and notes the beauty and wildlife found there.[43]
  • Centuries of accumulated organic matter in the forest soil caused slow percolation of rainfall into the creeks and runs, so that they flowed more evenly year-round. "That" is redundant.
  • Colton Point State Park is a destination for avid hikers, with some very challenging hikes in and around the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania. Starting to sound a tad travel guide-ish.
    • Thanks, I changed the first two sentences to one, that now reads Colton Point State Park has some challenging hikes in and around the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, with 4.0 miles (6.4 km) of trails that feature very rugged terrain, pass close to steep cliffs, and can be very slick in some areas.[4] Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind words and helpful comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and catches. Dincher (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article, and it will be a good companion to Leonard Harrison State Park. I have to stop for the night, but I thought I'd post this short list of suggestions and return tomorrow (Tuesday) with perhaps a few more.

  • I'm having trouble with the paragraph about the State Scenic Rivers Act. In what sense did the state treat the creek "as if it were in the state program" for 20 years before "officially" including it? Was the designation meaningless during those years, or did it have tangible effects?
    • I reread Dillon and Owlett on this. Dillon says the state added new public access areas to decrease abuse of private property, and protected the Gorge as a State Natural Area (since it was not yet officially protected as a State Scenic River). Owlett says the state did not want federal control of the river, and withdrew / stopped tentative plans for dams, taking water for new planned power plants, etc. These would not have been allowed on a State Scenic River. Not sure how to inlcude this / what level of detail to go into. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this would do it: "Although the state protected the creek from dam-building and water withdrawals for power plants, local opposition arose to the wild and scenic river designation. This resistance was based at least partly on mistaken fears that protection would involve seizure of private property and restricted access." Just a suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my computer monitor, citations 21 and 24 in the "Lumber era" section are separated from "... nearly all the mills along the creek" by line-wrap. I think "no-wrap" codes would fix this. The same thing happens to citations 33 and 34 in the "Conservation" section after "the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which named it 'Leonard Harrison State Forest Park' ".
  • The sentence about the gorge railroad, the NYC, and Clearfield might be improved by adding a little more geography. Most people won't know where the NYC line ran or where Clearfield is. Maybe just general N-S-E-W directions would help. "...NYC, X miles to the south, with the Clearfield Coalfields, Y miles to the west... " or something like that might do. Did the JS & Buffalo hook into another line at the north end of the gorge, or did it go all the way to the coal fields? Did coal trains actually use the line?
  • In "Modern era", perhaps "wane edge siding" should be explained.
  • Is George Bodine important enough to include? If so, who was he or what kind of professional? Maybe "George Bodine, a hotel and restaurant manager from Wellsboro" or something like that would work.
    • I have no idea who he is / was, except that the DCNR history article names him. I took his name out and the phrase now reads A concession stand was built by the CCC and operated from the late 1930s to at least 1953, ... - not sure when the concession stand closed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in "Modern era" doesn't scan very well: "A 1973 New York Times article on whitewater canoeing noted the damage along Pine Creek done by Hurricane Agnes the year before, and Colton Point's 'woodland trails' ". Perhaps "A 1973 New York Times article on whitewater canoeing noted the damage done by Hurricane Agnes the year before along Pine Creek and to Colton Point's "woodland trails".
    • The NYT article is mostly on whitewater on Pine Creek and mentions Colton Point a few times too - it does not explicitly say the park trails were damaged by Hurricane Agnes though, so sorry for the unclear usage. I have just cut the woddland trails phrase so the sentence now reads A 1973 New York Times article on whitewater canoeing noted the damage along Pine Creek done by Hurricane Agnes the year before. Is this OK? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. I will return. Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: I took liberties with some minor punctuation questions and made alterations. Here are two more small suggestions.

  • One punctuation oddity that I didn't change but noticed is in the caption of the log-drive photo. It says "A log drive on Pine Creek–clearcutting... " I find the en dash jarring. Even though the first part of this caption is not a complete sentence, I'd prefer, "A log drive on Pine Creek. Clearcutting... ".
  • The new MOSNUM guidelines suggest that full dates in the citations be internally consistent. I take this to mean that in a U.S.-centric article is OK with m-d-y formatting or ISO formatting but not a mixture. The existing article has a mixture. Citation 1, for example, includes one m-d-y date and one ISO date.
    • Thanks - I took the plunge and delinked any remianing dates (one was in ref one, one elsewhere) and switched all the refs that used accessdate = whatever to "accessmonthday = September 30 | accessyear=2008". Whew, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I've been doing. I hope it doesn't come back to bite us. An acceptable alternative apparently is to use m-d-y dates in the main text and ISO dates in the citations so long as the main text is internally consistent and the citations as a group are internally consistent even though the two sets (main text and citations) are inconsistent relative to one another. I ran into great difficulty with the Columbia River citations. I changed most citation dates to m-d-y before discovering to my horror that while cite web understands accessmonthday and accessyear, not all of the cite family of templates understands them. I ended up reverting all the Columbia citation dates to ISO. I should have asked Dincher to do this for me just to see a grand PC smashing. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I really enjoyed reading the Geology section, which I think is exceptionally clear and well-written. This completes my review. I think the article is FA-worthy and has no major problems. It's certainly an interesting read. Finetooth (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review. The dates in the ref bit is something that would cause me to want to smash my PC. Glad Ruhrfisch got to it first. Same for the ndashes etc. They are beyond my understanding and I am thankful for users such as you who know what is going on with this stuff. Anyway, thanks again! Dincher (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the thanks, and thanks too for the kid words on the article and geology section. I have replied to all the points I believe, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British European Airways Flight 548

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 not had any feedback from the Aviation WikiProject and I am interested to know what people feel should be improved, what people feel is missing and what people feel can be removed to advantage.

Thank you in advance. Peter Skipp (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Infobox image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
  • "At 1611 hours local time..." - can you reference that to UTC for international readers?
  • Is Public Inquiry really a proper phrase? Public inquiry article doesn't think so, but that may be wrong.
  • Not sure controversial needs to be linked at all.
  • "pay and conditions issues" - issues over pay and conditions?
  • "The dispute was highly controversial..." - is this referenceable?
  • "citing their status" - why would this make them strike?
  • copilot or co-pilot.
  • "and performed entirely satisfactorily " - and had performed satisfactorily...
  • "15:45 hours" - again - link to UTC - and be consistent - 1611 hours vs 15:45 hours.
  • "1450 radial " - that superscript 0 looks odd, there must be a degree symbol you can use.
  • "50,000 kilos/110235 pounds" (etc) - use the {{convert}} template.
  • 3000 ->3,000.
  • "at a rather high speed" - your POV.
  • convert the knots to, at least, km/h for metric fans.
  • Large mid-section of the synopsis is without reference.
  • Check WP:CITE - .[29]) is in the wrong place.
  • A30 links to dab page.
  • "Heavy traffic jams formed soon, with the sensation-seeking occupants of cars described by Minister of Aerospace Michael Heseltine on BBC Television that evening as “Ghouls, unfortunate ghouls." - needs citation.
  • "(This event was popularly interpreted by much of the press as a "heart attack.") " - why in parentheses and where's the citation?
  • Don't overlink cockpit voice recorder.
  • Memorials section lacks citations.
  • Don't merge ELs and references.
  • First EL is malformed.
  • References which are web-based should use {{cite web}} and be correctly populated - avoid bare URLs.
  • Use en-dash for page ranges, not hyphen.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discography of Final Fantasy XII

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for peer review for preparation for FAC, hopefully following in the footsteps of Discography of Final Fantasy VII. This is an article, not a list, and I have a page about the sources used in the article here. Any comments/criticism would be welcome. Thank you! --PresN (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The lead needs some citations, especially for "However, several reviewers commented on the town and battle themes, finding them to be some of the soundtrack's strongest areas"
  • Kiss Me Goodbye section need more citations, especially this line, "The only vocal piece in the game, it was set to tunes composed by Nobuo Uematsu, arranged by Kenichiro Fukui and produced by Motoki Matsuoka."
  • "while several felt that it was a good soundtrack but lacking in substance, others disagreed, finding it to be an excellent album, though not without a few faults." -Who thought these things? Also, this sentence is choppy
  • ""filler" tracks" -Specialized terminology should be avoided in the lead. See WP:LEAD
  • The first paragraph of the Soundtrack system needs citations
  • No need to wikilink dates any more - this has been deprecated. WP:DATE
  • Would it be possible to add ratings for the soundtrack in the reception area, similar to what is used in video game articles? It would be a great addition to the article.
  • Also, would it be possible to add sound clips to the article?

This looks like a great article and I hope it is promoted to FA status soon. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave them on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is a very well written article, and thoroughly examines its subject in a clear, concise format. In my opinion, very worthy of being a featured article.

Thanks, CoolKid1993 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does his infobox make it seem like he is an incumbent in two districts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Infobox needs updating to show which terms he has served in which district. I couldn't dig up this information in 5 minutes, or I would have done it myself.--SV Resolution(Talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The prose is needs a once-over; just watch out for redundancies and vagueness:
    • "He is an outspoken proponent for ballot access and numerous election law reforms which would allow more voter control."
    • "There are eighteen grandchildren." Maybe "They have 18 grandchildren" or something like that,
    • "In 1956, Paul proposed marriage to Wells; the couple were wed on February 1, 1957..." "were"-->was
    • "Paul was the third of five sons born during seven years in the Great Depression," Unclear. What is "seven years" referring to?
  • Em dashes should be unspaced.
  • "Paul authors many more bills than the average representative" A source for this is needed.
  • Date linking is deprecated by the MOS.
  • There must be more info about Paul's family and marriage. Look for print sources.
  • "In 'The Revolution: A Manifesto', Paul states his views on earmarks this way:" This should not be bolded.
  • "He moved to Surfside Beach, Texas, on July 31, 1968, and eventually delivered more than 4,000 babies." This sentence is a rather abrupt transition. Make a note that Paul started a practice in the town.
  • Per Wikipedia:Captions, only captions that are full sentences should have a period. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beecher's Handmade Cheese

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Featured Article status. It became a GA on about this version which I've expanded a lot. I know the lead needs re-expanding but I've held off until I finish up the body. I have probably another 10-15 or so sources right now I'm pending to go through. How does it look? What does it need (a good copyedit aside)?

Thanks, rootology (C)(T) 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I'd cut "renowned", that seems a bit encyclopaedic. You could say "prize-winning" as an alternative, but I think it is best to let the facts speak for themselves.
  • Expand the lead a bit to summarise all the article, presently "Pure Food Kids" isn't mentioned and "Milk supplies" could probably be given another sentence.
  • "metallic in appearance" is an odd way to describe a factory.
  • "it was noted" - either attribute the statement directly or state it as a fact.
  • "Also, unlike most artisan cheeses" - "However" would read better than "also"
  • "cheese makers by hand constantly separate the cheese" - reword perhaps "cheese makers constantly separate the cheese by hand"
  • "The pH balance and levels" - pH is a measurement that is a property of a particular substance, this can't be "balanced" since it is a single value - like you wouldn't say a person had a "height balance", also levels of what? This isn't at all clear.
  • "the remaining excess moisture is forced from the cheese .... before being stored to age" - needs to be reworded, as phrased it says the moisture is stored to age.
  • "their mixture of cheese growth cultures in unusual ways" - unclear and ungrammatical
  • "cafe in their facility, for the public" - saying "for the public" seems redundant.
  • "was featured on The Martha Stewart Show, and Dammeier.." - Could add a bit more zing, may be "was featured on The Martha Stewart Show while the ex-con presenter looked on Dammeier..." :) Or maybe not?

Overall, a great article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Tim. I've gone through and fixed everything at this point, or User:Jmabel did on a copyedit pass he did/peer review on the article talk. This can be archived... I'm going to try to FAC it tonight. rootology (C)(T) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bellflower Bunnies 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.

See also: PR #1

Well, at least I'm starting to revive my efforts towards bringing this up for FLC, after a summer-long dearth in edits. While restructuring this page, I am now following the examples I found on the basic Seinfeld and Simpsons lists.

Yes, I know, don't get me wrong, it's just a children's show from France--but as we speak, I'm bringing this to attention (what with the tags on top). To ease page size, articles on each season could come in handy.

Looking forward to finally getting a triple crown in about a week.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to review this just now, but there is a template that says "This page is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." so I will wait until the expansion or revamp is completed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs · count)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I would identify the characters shown in the title card in the caption
  • I think it would make sense to also give the date here Meanwhile in its native France, TF1 has aired it up to #45, "Chez Zinia." Is the use of a "#" (number sign) OK? Or would it be better to say something like Meanwhile in its native France, TF1 has aired it through episode 45, "Chez Zinia."
  • I like the model FLs (Seinfeld and the Simpsons) and think that modeling this on them would solve two problems.
    • First, it would make it more similar to these model FLs.
    • Second, it would remove the episode summaries (to their own articles), which would save having to clean them up for this article.
  • I do note that the episode summaries are better, but still need to be copyedited, for example While a heat wave strikes Beechwood Grove hard, Periwinkle and his father uncover an underwater creek—and from it, a cursed belt buckle that could put them in further danger. It is not clear what the original danger is (the heat wave?) or Poppy awaits the return of his girlfriend, whom he first met while investigating a robbery in Beechwood Grove, and plans to show her a moon-ready rocket he just made. But then, he grows jealous because of her stepbrother guest, Norbert. What is a "stepbrother guest"?
  • I think the fact that the Christmas epsiode apparently never aired in English needs to be mentioned / explained in the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down the size to 16.9K, and begun the season pages. Now, what else is there before heading into FLC? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Dabomb87

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "This is a list of episodes in The Bellflower Bunnies, a children's animated series which debuted on the French television network, TF1, on December 24, 2001." Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs for ideas on lead sentences.
  • Shouldn't this article use international date format?
  • "Moran Caouissin directed the first season, while Eric Berthier did the last two." "while"-->and.
  • "(In the first four English episodes, Violette retains her original French name, Pirouette.[2])" I don't like that a complete sentence is in parenthesis in the lead. Either remove the parenthesis or remove the entire sentence.
  • "There are 52 episodes of this show: four in the first season, 22 in the second, and 26 in the third." Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should either all be spelled out or all typed as digits.
  • "Meanwhile in its native France, TF1 has aired it through episode 45, 'Chez Zinia.'" "Meanwhile" is idle here, and native is unnecessary because we've already been told that the series is French.
  • "Various distributors in Europe,[6][7][8][9][10][11] North America,[12] and South Korea[13] have released DVDs of the first two seasons." "various" is vague.
  • "There are 52 episodes of this show"-->The show has 52 episodes.
  • "September 2004 - February 2005" needs to have an en dash instead of a hyphen.
  • "April 2007 - TBA" Same here.

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "international date format" you speak of? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In International date format, the day of the month is written before the month itself—1 January instead of January 1. All countries except for the United States and sometimes Canada use international format. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Full_date_formatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 WP:GA, and eventually WP:FA. Please give general comments on the progress of the article, and what needs to be improved. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am reviewing this article. Here are some comments on the lead and first main section. Other comments will follow shortly.

Brianboulton comments: I am reviewing this article. Here are some comments on the lead and first main section. Other comments will follow shortly.

  • The article begins "This article is about..." Please see WP:BOLDTITLE to see how an article should properly begin Done

  • Consistency required on use of forenames or surnames. The lead contains the sentence: "Shetty later told the media that she forgave Jade". Done. I looked over the whole article and standardized it to first names, as that is what used in all Big Brother UK articles.

  • The Basis of accusations section is written in bullet-point format. It should be in prose, with a proper paragraph and sentence structure. Done. I also tried rearranging it to make more sense. I would like a recheck for WP:PROSE

  • Phrase needing attention: "Jackiey pronounced it properly, although a bit agitated". Poor grammar, and "a bit" is not encyclopaedic. "Agitated" is a POV word. Also, please confirm the "Jackiey" spelling which is unusual and looks wrong. Removed the last part, as I could not find a reference for that. Also, the spelling is correct (see citation in the paragraph)

  • Name inconsistency again: "Lloyd also referred to Shilpa as a dog". Done. See comment #2

  • POV – "Danielle made an awkward attempt to apologise". Delete awkward, or cite it. Sentence reorganised

  • "Diary Room" needs explaining – not everyone knows how Big Brother works. Part removed.

  • Final sentence in the "Basis" section has two problems: use of surnames, when forenames have been mainly used until now, and a sudden change of tense: "...that they feel Shilpa is a fake..." Done, see comment #2. And done, tense should be fixed.

More comments later Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further comments:-

  • Reaction section
    • Indicate what the 50,000 complaints were about, and give a timescale, e.g. over x days
    • The words "after transmission" are redundant
    • Suggest second sentence revised to read: "Channel 4 itself received a further 3,000 complaints..."
    • What was the substance of the on-line petition? What were people signing it demanding should happen?
  • Media reaction
    • First sentence: "Various media outlets..." is very vague. Are we talking newspapers, TV, radio talkshows, or what?
    • "As time progressed..." is also vague and uninformative. Try to provide a clearer timeframe.
    • Don’t use forms like "wasn’t", unless quoting
    • Who is "Jermaine"? Presumably another contestant, but he (?) needs to be introduced properly.
    • In the penultimate paragraph you say that Big Brother was axed on 24 August 2007. This acn't be right – the Big Brother show for 2008 took place (it has only recently finished). What was axed – and this has to be made perfectly clear – was the Celebrity Big Brother spinoff, which has not taken place since the Shetty/Goody controversy.
    • Last sentence is too vague to be useful.
    • A general point re. this section: single sentence and/or very short paragraphs should be avoided, as they give the prose an awkward, jerky feel.
  • Media reaction
    • First para is a hotchpotch of tense mix-ups, veering from present to past, present then past again, finally present. This article is describing something that took place more then 18 months ago, so obviously the past tense must be consistently used.
    • Reference to "London mayor Ken Livingstone" is another anachronism
    • Your mention of the interview date 21 January, without a year, is as far as I can see the first indication of when the event in question took place. This needs to be clarified much earlier in the article.
    • Use proper quotes i.e. " and " rather than the single inverted comma
    • You’ve gone present tense again in the final part of the section
  • Reaction in India: Wrong tenses again: "The Indian Government also plans..." and later: "The Indian Tourist Office has extended..."
  • Police investigation
    • Mixing forenames and surnames again
    • Tense problems again in last sentence of first para: "...has forced police to investigate..."
    • "...at that time", at the end of the section, is redundant.

I will await your responses to the above before continuing the review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Red and Blue

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to get this article to featured status, so I am requesting a peer review to try and iron out most of the obvious issue. Any comments, suggestions, and help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SriMesh | talk 04:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • handheld--> hand held or provide wikilink for term or an inline citation as it is not a dictionary word.
  • provide wikilink Multiplayer video game for multiplayer
  • Is run-throughs a word? Perhaps sentence could be re-worded.
Run-throughs is used in a quote, so I can't change it or wiki-link it.
  • The very fist time IGN is mentioned it should be spelled out...Imagine Games Network (IGN) wikilinked and then parenthesized so folks no what the heck an IGN actually is.
IGN is already wiki-linked, and is also the title of the Wikipedia article. And as far as I know, no other video games spell out the company.
  • As there is no wikilink for the made up non dictionary term...Pokemoniversary

.. there should be an inline citation to a Pokemoniversary source.

Pokémoniversary is already cited at the end of the full quote by George Harrison (cite number 32.)
  • good job for using Non-free use media rationale for Pokémon Red and Blue on the image pages for this article.
  • good job separating out sub articles so this article is not too long.

Kind Regards and good luck

I have addressed the rest of your concerns. Thank you, Artichoker[talk] 15:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are concerns over the form of this article as listed on the Talk Page.

Thanks, Michellecrisp (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is written with the POV of somebody who is very bitter that Regina was made the capital of Saskatchewan with many, many run-on sentences. The formatting is also unorthodox for a location article with the lists that aren't written as bullet points (or as complete sentences). Some examples:

See talk page regarding Regina issue and giving the late 1800's point of view in the newspaper of the times of the scandal created by naming Regina, an actual literal pile of buffalo bones with no settlement as the capital of the NWT instead of Qu'Appelle a bustling 600 plus populous and the main distribution center at the CPR rail line terminus.SriMesh | talk 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With (a) its for a time seemingly long-term terminus status for the Canadian Pacific Railway; (b) its lush rolling parkland setting, intermittent "coulees" (in Canadian prairie terminology gentle valleys with steady-flowing creeks) and "bluffs" (the local term for aspen groves, frequently surrounding sloughs) and generally picturesque locale both in summer and winter and (c) its ready access to ample water
This is very awkward.
  • It was — as demonstrated by its now entirely historical commemoration as the historical see city of the Anglican Diocese of Qu'Appelle — at one point the obvious choice as the capital of the North-West [sic] Territories. The choice of Regina as the Territorial headquarters was a national scandal in the 1880s: there was an "obvious conflict of interest" in Lieutenant-Governor Edgar Dewdney's promoting of Pile-of-Bones, as the site of the future Regina was then called, as the territorial headquarters,[4] but until 1897, when responsible government was accomplished in the Territories,[5] the lieutenant-governor and council governed by fiat and there was little legitimate means of challenging such decisions outside the federal capital of Ottawa, where the Territories were remote and of little concern.
Using dashes for parenthetical references is unusual. The second sentence is also an incredible run-on.
  • Many Qu'Appelle children of the late 19th and early 20th centuries recounted frightening encounters with angry Cree and "half breeds" — nowadays the latter, actually not strictly speaking francophone Métis but Bungee-speaking Countryborn, would be deemed Anglo-Métis — who not unreasonably bore a considerable grudge against white settlers in the Qu'Appelle region.
This sentence is just loaded. We have unnecessary and offensive adjectives ("angry" Cree?), parenthetical references that make the sentence almost incomprehensible and POV.
  • Will continue to look for references. Maria Campbell's book Hal-Breed was already listed regarding first nations reactions, and there is also Reaction to German Immigration Letter from D. Henry Starr showing settlers reactions to immigrants. There was a mix of cultures, will try to find a reference for this other angle looking at yet another culture from anther's perspective as well.

This whole article really needs to be redone because virtually every section has something that requires work. The formatting is awkward and makes editing difficult too. dzhastin (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a note completed most of the automatic peer reviewer advice to date. From the auto peer reviewer the intro may still need work as they are usually done last for the best overall summary of articles. Will look for more long sentences. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 failed its FLC a week ago mostly due to c/e issues. What is there still missing for this article to become a FL? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Agree this needs a copyedit, there are people willing to help with copyedits at WP:PRV. For example After Angela refuses to give in to Michael's unreasonable demands, Phyllis takes over the party planning committee and throws a huge bash for Toby's goodbye party, matching the joy in Michael's heart. what is it that matches the joy in Michael's heart? and why does this phrase belong in the sentence?
  • Two refs are broken - current refs 26 and 27
  • I am pretty sure this is an error The season was interrupted and shortened due to the effects of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike, in which both writers and actors from The Office went on strike. the writers were on strike, the actors were not, they honored the picket line
  • Critical review seems a bit sparse for a whole season's worth of episodes
  • Is the verb right here "Fun Run" received 9.7 million viewers overall.[27] does an episode really "receive" viewers? I think it can "attract" them or have them...

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 ><>°° 02:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the critical review part, it should look better now. Any specific suggestions about the critical review? Nergaal (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be slow in replying - I think it looks pretty good now (only reread the critcal review section and the box beside it). The only other thing I could think of would be if there were reviews of specific episodes that said it was the best/strongest/funniest episode of the season (or the worst...). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 noticed that, despite my frequent reference to it both on and off Wikia, it was still unassessed by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Wikipedia:Assessment is a process by which your edits can become more valued. I think everyone's cumulative effect was to make this a great list that concerns a very important topic. It is far from well known that even in the 21st century so many territories with so much land, most notably in Western Sahara, have missed out the most basic self-determination. In fact, I think this is well on its way to becoming one of the Wikipedia:Featured lists and I want other editors to comment on how well it fits Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I am a newbie to the assessment process, so I'm starting with baby steps.

Thanks, :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • try and find a way to bold the title in the lead sentence. "The United Nations maintains a list of territories that do not govern themselves/list of Non-Self-Governing territories rather than having it bolded so far down in the lead.
  • "only permenantly inhabited territories are included in this list" is there an example of a territory that thus falls out of this remit that can further expand this brief point?
  • Perhaps a stat in the image caption on the percentage of these territories that are in Africa if possible?
  • the History section needs more citations
  • "The list remains controversial." --> [citation needed] <-- :)
  • More citations int he restof the criticism section also.
  • Wikilink United Kingdom in the list section if not done so already above (couldn't find it)
  • Also move the British overseas territory like to the first mention in St. Helena
  • "Falkland Islands (claimed by Argentina)" this might cause some division, you may wish to elaborate "claimed" or wikilink it to the article on the claim, it seems to simplify what is a fairly complicated situation.
  • "on change of status" is mentioned many times in the former entries section, can this be elaborated on somewhere as to what this involves, rather than being a possible catch-many phrase for a number of different situations? I see you have in some cases but not all.
  • could wikilink the "independence" of many of them to articles on their independence or wars of independence, for example the Mozambican War of Independence.
  • Split "sources" and "footnotes" into two different sections.
  • Try to uniform the references into something like author, title/url, date of publication, retrieved on.... or something similar, and with number 6 if possible try to re-write so it is not all one big blue URL link.
  • See also could be before the refs and sources sections. I personally list them as see also, notes, references (printed and website) then external links
  • are their any more categories? Or sub categories of "United Nations"

That's all I can see for now, I hope this helps. Please keep in mind that I've only talked about areas that I feel could be tweaked, this doesn't mean I don't think it is a good article, I do. SGGH speak! 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the current list, Western Sahara is the only territory in Africa and St. Helena, almost halfway to South America, is the only territory off the coast of Africa. Counting these current (red) ones, I don't see a reason for a specifically African % stat image caption. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard^Bloom

Aside from what SGGH said, I have a few concerns with the references:

  • I personally don't think you have enough of them for a list that extensive.
  • "[citation needed]" shouldn't there, and if you can't find a source, remove the section in question.
  • "Non-Self-Governing Territories listed by General Assembly of the United Nations in 2002." Is this a reference, or an external link? I don't see it used as a reference, but if it is what I think it is (the official list that the article is based upon), then it should be an external link, and referenced when appropriate (for the "The list" section, I would think).
  • Could you use ref names and citation templates? They make everything neat and orderly. :D
  • Can you provide a link for ref #5?

Minor questions:

  • Why is "Unrecognized countries" in the "See also" section?
  • Wouldn't "Independence" be a "Change of status"?

That's all. The article looks good, and the work Thecurran (talk · contribs) has done is wonderful. Nice! Leonard(Bloom) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such lists, recently, the tables have become very popular. Maybe you should consider organizing it like it is done in List of unrecognized countries, for example. --Tone 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravichandar

I suggest

  • Please add more citations if possible. There around 6 citations I observe; and most of them have been used just once. Considering the size of the article and the number of claims being made, there should be more. The section on Criticism in particular needs more. They shall be absolutely necessary if POV issues arise, which happens frequently in the case of sections on criticism, etc.
  • As Leonard Bloom has said, instead of having a bulletted list like that, a table would do. And it would be even better if you could images. In this case, you could add a map or a flag for the particular territory. In such cases, anyhow, tables are the best. Try to make the list more attractive. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willow

Hi, I hope my friend Scartol hasn't given you too high expectations of me; I'm completely new at this sort of thing, but I'll do my best. I'll add my comments here piecemeal, as I read and re-read the article and let it sink in; please be patient! :)

First a few technical points:

  • I think you should date the lead image in its caption; it's from 2007, right? The image says "current" but it won't stay that way indefinitely. ;)
  • I don't understand the splitting of the list in the section "Former entries: Change of status"? Is it just unfinished?
  • I agree with the reviewers above that the article would benefit from many more references.
  • The absence of Tibet from the list seems rather glaring to me, and I suspect to other readers. Tibet has a government in exile, and IIRC was judged to fulfil the requirements for nationhood prior to the Chinese invasion. I'd recommend spending a full paragraph on that issue and any related ones.

To me, the article seems like a good skeleton that would benefit from being fleshed out more? Many readers will come to this page not knowing the history of colonialism and decolonization, I'm afraid. I'd recommend beginning with the historical section of at least a few paragraphs entitled "Background on colonialism" or something like that, and then go into the history of the list itself, again for maybe 3-5 paragraphs. It'd be nice if you could make those sections a self-contained narrative, you know, give them a flowing story-line, both for the writing itself and also so that readers have the chance to become engrossed, and not be interrupted by having to go to new pages sometimes written with a different style and emphasis. That double history might prepare the reader better to understand the sections to follow, on the current and former list members, don't you think?

The Criticism section might be easier to follow if it were organized into subsections, and also given a more flowing storyline. Sometimes you also seem to focus on the numbers, rather than on the narrative, which makes the point difficult to follow for uninformed readers like myself, e.g., " Of the 111 members who joined the UN between 1960 and 2008, 41 were never included on the list. Of those 41 in 1960, eight (mostly Arab) were ruled by the "Western" countries but 12 were ruled by the Soviet Union (now Russia), six by Yugoslavia (now dissolved), two by Czechoslovakia (now dissolved), one by Ethiopia, one by Pakistan, and 11 by themselves..."

It'd be also nice to have more details about the colonization and decolonization of the individual countries in the list, without having to follow the link. A thumbnail sketch, perhaps, with dates?

Hoping that this helps, Willow (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the split in United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Change_of_status between tabled and non-tabled entries. I thought there wasn't enough info in the non-tabled entries, so I'm trying to promote at least a new five to the table every week (:only 16 to go:). When I table it, sometimes the flag isn't available on Template:flag, the country doesn't have an entry in the CIA world factbook, the correct term for its change in status is not clear, or the best link for foreign relations is hard to find.
Please also excuse me making the point difficult to follow by focussing on numbers rather than on narrative. With my scientific and political background, when I see criticism of such official reports without supporting statistics, it sets off my political bias alarms. I feel that the number-less versions are only held up by citing news reports from companies that have their own views. I assumed uninformed readers would also feel that way. I can see that was a poor assumption. Yes, I agree that Tibet presents a large omission but simply saying so makes me feel anti-Chinese. Similar arguments on native inhabitants being left out of colonization decisions could also be applied to the US so not raising these criticisms makes me feel pro-US. When numbers come in though, it is clear to see that last century, the US ceded territories to independence and held several referenda that allowed territories to gain statehood or to remain in the grey area. As such, one can note that the US has dealt proactively with amending its colonial past and lost territory whereas China has been less proactive and actually gained territory. Similarly, numbers bear out that all French territories had actually been removed from the list but many British territories are still on it. Starting with these few points, one can begin to realize that this list's committee has glossed over Chinese, French, and Russian colonialism but has focussed on that of the UK and US. In hindsight, we can see how many countries strove for independence from the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia but were never put on the list. Not quantifying it though makes me feel anti-Slavic. I want to find a way to point out both the successes and failures of this list and its committee without feeling like I'm breaking WP:NPV and also in a way that makes it smooth for you and easy to follow. Perhaps I should put in another table, start a new side article, or contribute more to "Decolonization". :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Combat Group RAAF

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is ready for FA-Class, I do not just want an automated peer review, I want reviews form actual users for a better than mechanical answer to the article.

Thanks, CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • First thing that's evident to me is that it has too many mini-sections - 23 headings for a 23Kbyte article feels waay over the top.
  • I would also suggest reducing the lead per WP:LEAD - perhaps three paragraphs.
  • "Active" field in infobox needs to use en-dash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
  • "It comprises.." - "The Group comprises..."
  • "No. 78 Wing RAAF is headquartered at RAAF Williamtown." + "No. 81 Wing RAAF is headquartered at RAAF Williamtown." repetitive, stilted and not particularly engaging - I'm not convinced this level of detail needs to be in the lead.
  • "It is accountable..." - this can definitely be confusing as you just spoke about FACDU but presumably by It here you mean the ACG.
  • Link the aircraft type the first time in the lead, not the second time.
  • I think you could easily merge "Establishment and purpose" with "Responsibilities and bases"
  • 2000 ->2,000.
  • "NSW 2314" - NSW shouldn't be used without explanation and do I need the postcode?
  • There's definitely too much in the lead because as I read the sections in Training and operational history section (all of which could be merged) I read a lot of the lead again although, oddly, in less detail - I think it's the wrong way round.
  • "It has 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia." in resp & bases section, " One hundred forty-five aircraft, 163 aircrew, and around 2000 personnel make up the ACG.[2][3]" in the structure section. Repetitive.
  • I would number citations numerically unless there's a good reason not to (you have a [3][2][16] for instance)...
  • You abbreviate OCA and DCA but never use the abbreviations.
  • Same with IFF. And you abbreviate IASSF twice.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Initially in the lead you should spell out RAAF so that readers know what you're referring to. As it stands you assume the readers know what RAAF stands for, this can be viewed as jargon.
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, you have an entire paragraph devoted to the various unit numbers and wing numbers and the location of these squadrons. I don't think this belongs in the lead, it is too technical and should be part of the Responsibilities and bases heading.
  • Combine Headings "Establishment and purpose" with "Responsibilites and bases". Purpose and responsibilities go hand in hand and in response to the above critique that there are too many sections (which I agree with), this is a way to start condensing the sections.
  • Two stub paragraphs in Responsibilities and bases heading, should be condensed to avoid single or double-sentence paragraphs.
  • Intro to Training and Operational history is also two-sentence paragraph. Try to expand.
  • watch out for places where you write out numbers using letters and then write them out using numbers, for example: "and its 14 aircraft were drawn from No. 81 Wing's three frontline squadrons." It's fine to have No. 81 be numerical because it is the name of the unit, but you need to be consistent with the 14 and the three. Pick one or the other and stick with it.
  • The prose throughout the article is fine, it's well written and cogent if a bit dry, but we're not trying to entertain here.
  • refer to MOS:IMAGES photos should alternate right to left rather than the way you have them laid out.

Those are some of my thoughts, hope they help. H1nkles (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party

[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 major POV and serious MOS concerns riddle this article. Very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article. I would like to the article to be at least GA standard.

Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I am going to read through and comment as things arise.

Lead
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead is too long - it should be no more than four paragraphs but is currently six
  • Be consistent about numbers - spell out numbers 10 or less so giving them the eighth largest share of the vote (however they only contested English seats, and came 5th [fifth] in these
  • I think that controversial claims about a living person need a cite, even in the lead, so Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP was overtly anti-Semitic; ...
  • 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
References
  • There are quite a few dead links, see here Not sure if these can be found on the Internet Archive or not.
  • Avoid direct external links in the article, use inline citations instead (so fix for example the long quotation starting In a speech to local party activists in Burnley in March 2006, he said: "We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. ..." which has only an EL and no refs as such.
  • Article needs more references, for one example of many, see the Racial policies section As the party now states on its website: "The British National Party believes in telling the truth, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable to hear ..." is a long direct quote without a cite. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs should be in numerical order, so fix The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right[13][14][15][12] ...
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair[25],[26][27] ...
  • 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
  • Refs for books and journals are formatted inconsistently too - they should all follow WP:CITE
  • There are several citation needed tags which need to be fixed.
General and MOS points
  • There are three dab links - see here
  • 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 (Nick Griffin picture). Any chance for more images?
  • Why is the British National Party (1960) not mentioned or linked in this article?
NPOV

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 ><>°° 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyushin Il-86

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 obtain Featured Article status. I would like to know what others think of it so far, what they think is missing or incomplete (such as illustrations, perhaps), and what recommendations for additions or deletions they would like to make.

Thank you in advance. Peter Skipp (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Style! Sometimes it's too verbose for a technical subject: "doctrinal intransigence", "intractability of the powerplant", "compartmentalisation of a design bureau"; sometimes too technical: "six-light flightdeck" (what is it?). What is "aerodynamic amity of a wing"? Is "Tu-154 an airliner built to high technology principles", really, and what principles? Too many transliterations that (if necessary at all) would rather be placed in footnotes. Granted, I'm not a native English speaker, but it's still a very (unnecessarily) difficult reading. It should be refactored from scratch: keep it simple. NVO (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, NVO! I addressed some of your points in an edit today. A thorough subedit is pending. Peter Skipp (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Lists should be converted to prose whenever possible; alternatively, you could split them off into separate articles.
  • The references need to be cleaned up.
  • Per WP:MOSBOLD, "Bolded headings, though possible, will appear especially bold, and are not appropriate." Convert them to section headings.
  • Watch the POV language: "overwhelmingly", "very", "called for ingenuity", etc.
  • The prose needs attention from a copy-editor. There are redundancies, awkward sentences, and MOS breaches.
  • Date linking is now deprecated by the MOS.
  • "Unusually for a Soviet airliner, the Il-86 saw very limited military service." This needs a source.
  • Were there variants of the aircraft? How about further developments?

Overall, this article is not ready to be submitted to FAC. It needs significant cleanup. I suggest fixing the style of the article and finding someone new to go over the prose and then nominating the article for GA status. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dabomb87! I addressed some of the points you make in an edit today. A subedit is pending as pointed out above in the reply to NVO. Peter Skipp (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review by Ruslik. I have some comments:
1) The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD. It is too short—four paragraph lead is warranted for this article. It also does not summarize the article. The second paragraph is too ideologically laden and should be rewritten to reflect what is the article actually says about aircraft development.

2) Try to avoid idelogically laden POV statements like: "was restoring political positions lost (along with Yakovlev, in favour of Tupolev and Antonov) amid the anti-Stalinism of the Khrushchev era" or "Ardent controversy was known in Western aeronautical circles but entrenched doctrinal intransigence was typical most of all of Soviet ideology which propounded the idea that there was a single "scientifically-correct" solution for every problem." These sentences add nothing to the article, which should be about the aircraft, not about the Soviet ideology of that time.
3) The reflist is unsatisfactory: every reference must have title, url, author, publisher and date information. It is better to use templates.
4) The list of opertator needs an overhaul. Russia has three entries (the second unnamed entry, the named entry in the middle and an additional one for the airforce), which should be merged. Soviet union also has two entries. The first entry (for Armenia) is unnamed. The lists of airlines in each country should be converted into plain text, because current column format consumes too much space.
5) The table must have a citation for every parameter.
6) Abbreviations like TsAGI need to be explained.

In the present the article does not satisfies even GA-criteria and needs much work. Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ruslik! I made two edits addressing points you make. I have to subedit the article to clean it up and make it flow better. I feel the Soviet/ideological aspects are very important; they had a significant influence on the Il-86. I do take your point, and those of NVO and Dabomb87 on board, however, and will attempt to remove the non-neutral POV while retaining the sense. This will take some time to elaborate. I do thank all of you very much for taking the time to review the article and write down your opinions. Peter Skipp (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, at present the City of Oakland's Planning Commission and City Council is revising zoning and height regulations for new land development (i.e. skyscrapers) in the neighborhood. Currently, much public attention is focused on this neighborhood in the Hearing Rooms at City Hall down the street, around in the conference tables of local investment banks, and kitchen tables of local activists. Having spent many hours editing it, I'd hope this article reflects a modicum of accuracy and good encyclopedic writing.

In regards to specific questions, does the article lack detail about history and architecture? Does the article contain any major shortcomings in terms of meeting:

- manual of style guidelines, - words to avoid, - no original research - neutrality

Thanks, Critical Chris (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is some good work and article development here. You may want to review WP:LAYOUT for the standard "See also", "External links", etc. section orders. Continue adding references. The "Neighborhood Retail" section doesn't have any footnotes (want to see where this information is coming from). The writing is largely good, except euphemisms and irrelevancies sometimes pops up. For instance,
    • "on the west side of Oakland's urban saltwater Lake Merritt near Downtown Oakland, California" - 'urban saltwater' an unnecessary diversion from the purpose of that sentence. Try "on the west side of Lake Merritt near Downtown Oakland, California"
    • "map prepared in 1850 for the founders of Oakland, Horace W. Carpentier, Edson Adams, and Andrew J. Moon." - another diversion from the purpose of the sentence.
    • "Other residents enjoy the bicycle infrastructure..." - enjoy is probably not the most encyclopedic word here
    • "...a group of speculators purchased..." - speculators?
    • "...which has differential hours of service for customers..." - the operating hours of a fast food joint is not necessary.
    • "...the owners assembled a seasoned, well-connected real estate development team..." - puffy adjectives here. The paragraph goes into a lot of unnecessary background detail about a SF developer.
and so forth. Anyways, I'm generally not a fan of listing proposed developments in city-related articles because (a) they don't exist and (b) so many of them never materialize. If you're interested in seeing the article traffic try this [1]. --maclean 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Images: You're using several images with the {{Non-free historic image}} however the important part of that is that the image has to be unique and illustrative of some significant event; the street car (Image:Key175 A.jpg), and sailboats (Image:Z0001300.jpg) don't really add much aside from decoration and I've removed them. If the image is published prior to 1923 then {{PD-US}} or even {{PD-old}} may apply. Many images use non-descriptive names such as the previous sailboat name, please use either {{Rename media}} on the original photo, or upload a more descriptive title to rename them. Either way all of the images which aren't using fair use justifications should be moved to commons. You should also either upload the USGS version or at least provide a link to where you found the USGS image to verify the source. Also the article mentions "E.M. Sessions' 1869 map" is there a copy for readers to see? Something like that would be a helpful visual.
    • See also/adjacent neighborhoods: You don't need to put the names of other Oakland neighborhoods, they are all in the navbox. See also sections generally go above the references, and any links in there should be integrated into the text where possible.
Done, no more list of neighborhoods. Still working on the other tasks.Critical Chris (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References: A lot of the references are missing the access date parameter. Please fill that in with something like 2008-09-19 so that in the long term people could use the internet archive to link to pages if the original page goes dead.
    • Comprehensiveness/summary: Much of this article needs to be included in the main Oakland article, or broken out into its own sub-article (Wikipedia:Summary style). The parks section should integrate the two subsections into a few paragraphs without headers. There is also a lot of focus on proposed and new development, which may need to be pruned or split off into a subarticle.
    • Prose/general: "By 1920s" the article states the decades like that, it should be "By the 1920s", also this is repeated almost every line, and should be mixed up because it gets repetitive. It's (it is or it has) vs its(possessive pronoun) (See ITS). Also watch out for capitalization issues on the names. Also when you refer to things like bus lines make sure to write it for someone who doesn't know which line number you are referring to. Or Class one, two and three bike lanes (I didn't know they had classes, so a link there would help. Make sure to clarify when you refer to NIMBYs/YIMBYs whether they are organizations or individuals. Referring to the real estate division head as refusing to take responsibility is pretty POV/weaselly. The focus on the recent development also tends to be a bit sensationalistic in tone. You quote a lot on 14th and Madison as "vacant" and "underutilized", who are you quoting? Also referring to car-free in scare quotes, how come? The neighborhood organizations need a cite for their goals and objectives. Please add in a cite for the Chauncey Bailey murder just for future reference for others.

That's what I have for a first pass through and I'm sure this probably brought up more questions, but I hope it helps. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback. I'll be editing these changes into the article over the next several days.Critical Chris (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 input before taking it to FAC in the future. This is only the second film article I've extensively worked on, so if someone sees something missing, tell me. I know the 'cast' section hasn't been completed, but if people could look over my prose that would be great too.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really like the article. I'd just suggest reducing the use of the words "positive" and "negative"; a thesaurus should yield a variety of synonyms appropriate for one place or another. LL&P Fg2 (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found these phrases odd: "which moved Spock's death further in the story"; "Reliant's engine nacelle's destruction"; "Complaints about the film focus on what was seen as the tepid battle sequences"; "focused on what critics felt was aged acting by the stars". DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you find odd about them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prose-wise. "The destruction of the Reliant's engine nacelle" is easier to read than the double possessive. Similarly: "which moved Spock's death earlier in the story"; "Complaints about the film focus on battle sequences that were seen as tepid, and the age of the performers." DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I made modifications to the above phrases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I found this to be generally quite well done, although I agree there are some places where the language could be smoothed a bit, as well as some places in Cast that need to expanded (Uhura). Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Some references seem to be overused - for example in the William Shatner as James T. Kirk section, ref [3] is used three times in one paragraph without any direct quotes or intervening other refs. I think as long as everything in the paragraph can be attributed to the same source, one ref at the very end of the paragraph is fine.
  • Revealing my geekiness here - I recall seeing this film and thought it odd that Saavik (a female) is referred to as "Mr. Saavik", but later learned this is the proper address for a naval lieutenant - could this fit into the naval themes? I also thought it odd that Amazing Grace was played on the bagpipes for Spock's funeral - any commentary on this?
  • Problem sentence? should Besch and Shatner be possessive forms? Meyer stated that what he physically liked about Butrick was that his hair was blond like Besch['s ?] ([who played] the character's mother) but also curly like Shatner['s ?], making ...
  • Unclear whether the worldwide total includes the US total in Star Trek II grossed $78,912,963 in the U.S. and $97,000,000 worldwide.
  • Date linking is now generally deprecated but the dates in refs are all linked

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 ><>°° 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I was wondering about the 'Mr.' nomenclature too when watching, but there's no discussion about such specific themes in the special features or refs I've seen (ditto on the bagpipes, unfortunately, but I'll double check.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses Spock's death a lot and I think it should go in the lead, considering it is the start of the story arc ending in The Voyage Home? I know we maintain a fine line between courtesy and common sense on the readers' part, but what's the use of not mentioning such a famous cliffhanger? Alientraveller (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not leaving it out as a spoiler; I just didn't think it was that big a deal. It's not really a cliffhanger, per say. If you think it's important I will try and add it in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that's sorted, I recommend:
  • Adding a few pictures, especially since I haven't seen the film in a while and therefore do not understand: "A scene taking place at Starfleet Academy, for example, used scenery in the foreground to give the sense of a larger set than was created. Instead of having operational elevators, walls were wheeled out of position while the lift doors were closed to give the illusion of moving between decks." Are we talking about forced perspective, or could you just show us this bit?
  • The themes like aging (a little bit is in the cast section) and vengeance? I looked at the Memory Alpha page and there's great quotes which I hope are on the DVD.
  • Who created the Kobiyashi-maru test?

Alientraveller (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could add a 'Themes' section using Meyer's commentary (I know some of the quotes were definitely on the DVD, others I'm not sure.) I'm 90% certain the Kobiyashi Maru test's creator is not noted, but I'll double check the text and audio commentary. Forced perspective is what we're talking about, so I'll link to that. I'll try to make the lift think clearer, because an image wouldn't really illustrate it that well either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started the section. I think more or less it has what we need, although I found a possible good source for the life/death part that I have to get off Interlibrary Loan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 promote the topic of NBA awards to featured topic status.

Thanks, —Chris! ct 01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also help with this peer review as I am also trying to promote the topic of NBA awards to featured topic status. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Not many things, because the article is so short:

That is correct.—Chris! ct 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No—Chris! ct 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • Hmm, a short one. There's no more content about there? Nothing else that can be said about it? Since it's a championship trophy, Stanley Cup would be a somewhat similar (featured) article.
The Stanley Cup has been in this world for more than 100 years. This trophy has only been here for approx. 30. Also, the finals aren't called the Larry O'Brien Championships like the Stanley Cup Championship.
  • "replacing its predecessor Walter A. Brown Trophy" --> "replacing its predecessor, the Walter A. Brown Trophy"
DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is designed to look like a basketball about to enter a basketball net." - any way to not repeat the word "basketball"?
No. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same in the next sentence.
I think I fixed it...just make sure. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A new Larry O'Brien Trophy is made every year, so the winning team maintains permanent possession of that trophy." - I get what you're saying, but it should be clarified that they maintain last year's trophy.

Giggy (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done all —Chris! ct 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to reviewer: Can this article pass GAC/FAC?—Chris! ct 01:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. There is a discussion on the FAC talk page about whether very short articles that have exhausted all possible sources are deserving of FA status. However, I don't think this one would qualify. If you are trying for a featured topic, perhaps this could pass off for an audited article of limited subject material. Now GAC? That's a different matter, a question that I can't answer. Just a suggestion, have you considered merging this article? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend for this article to pass GAC/FAC. I have to ask because I and someone plan to nominate this article along with several others to featured topic. This article could qualify as an article with a limited subject matter, which required a peer view and a failed GAC/FLC.—Chris! ct 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I suggest submitting to GAC and if it fails because the subject matter is too narrow, then you can use the failed nom to justify the passing of the article as of limited matter. Obviouslt, if the article fails at GAC it won't pass at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we (since I think we're going to co-nominate together for the FTC) should GAC this article since I think all we need to do to make an article to have a limited subject matter is, a peer review. Also, if we put it on GAC, the reviewers will say that the article is a pre-mature article. Conclusion: just finished this peer review for the article to be considered to have a limited subject matter. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already asked on WT:FT?, an article has to have a peer review and a failed GAC/FAC nom done, in order to qualify for article with limited subject matter. Like Dabomb87 said, we need the failed nom to justify the passing of the article as of limited subject matter.—Chris! ct 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Just do the GAC for this article, and get our FTC nominaton ready. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm for sure. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 08:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I google it again and I can't find any info on the trophy.—Chris! ct 01:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed. This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article developed pretty well as the season progressed, and now that the season is over, I'd like to see what others think.

Thanks, Grsztalk 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first I have to say that I hate you. I am just starting in 2003–04 Calgary Flames season and was hoping it could become the first hockey seasonal GA. Guess you're gonna beat me on that one. ;o)
  • Overall looks good. First thing that jumps out at me though is the size of the TOC. I'd suggest removing some sections. An easy one would be to remove the "pre-season events" section and move the prose down to the Transactions and Draft sections. Those sections are going to require prose anyway, so this kills two birds with one stone.
Mostly Done.
  • I don't really like the Winter Classic logo in this article, and it may be invalid as a fair use image. I think replacing it with the image of the outdoor rink would be better, both in terms of free use images, and in that it conveys much more information about the event than the logo does.
Done. Much better.
  • Roster changes is excessive, in my view. A little too detailed. If I were writing it, I'd probably move the paragraphs regarding trades and players released on waivers to the transactions section, and roll the more important points (i.e.: injuries to Fleury and Crosby) into the regular season section.
Done. Worked into different sections.
  • Plans for the future belongs in the 2008-09 article, not this one, imo.
  • Images? I'm sure there are some images of players from the season that can be added.
  • Milestones:1st NHL fighting major? Very trivial, imo. I'd say same with things like 100th game, 100th PIM. I'd focus on the more significant milestones.
Done. You're right, that got pretty long.
  • Player stats, awards and records and draft picks sections need prose sections. Though, as mentioned above, moving some sections from the lead sections down will kill two birds with one stone.
Just some random thoughts, feel free to ignore what you wish. ;o) Resolute 04:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and get this article to GA status. It is comprehensive and well sourced, and I'd like to know what more needs to be done to make it a GA.

Thanks, Flewis(talk) 06:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It seems that the article was delisted because of several uncited statements. I think a good going over of the article and the addition of those citations and it would be back to GA status. I'd be thrilled to help get this article back to GA status. If you need anything, drop me a line. Mvjs (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Ive scanned over this article with the Link Checker tool, and removed any dead links. I will do my best to bombard the article with as many references and inline citations as possible --Flewis(talk) 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was specifically these unsourced statements that caused the article to loose its GA status. Mvjs (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done all of those particular sources have been removed or referenced with inline citations --Flewis(talk) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]
  • Prose isn't too bad and a few minor tweaks should be ok for GA. It is very fact-dense and will need quite a few inline references.
  • using a standard format for references is helpful in making them look uniform at the bottom of the article.
  • Eg for the Melbourne the city's history and development by Miles Lewis, put the full ref at the bottom and have only name and page numbers in the inline cites, like I have done in Red-backed Fairy-wren as an example.
 Done --Flewis(talk) 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is currently simultaneously nominated for WP:GAN. Please refrain from dual-nominating for two review criteria at once, it can be confusing to some editors. Let one process complete prior to beginning the second process. Thank you. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chatsworth train collision

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 received a lot of attention when it was on the main page's "In the news" section. I thik it can be brought up to GA status as the pieces of the puzzle fall into place and the content stabilizes. So I'm listing it for peer review to help getting it into shape. Thanks, Dhaluza (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Generally well done and good pictures - here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Please see WP:LEAD - the lead needs to be expanded to more than one paragraph. 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.
  • To follow the MOS for units and non-breaking spaces, using {{convert}} templates may help
  • Since this is a recent accident and more people may die, I think that the date should be included in some places. For example, in the Casulaties section The death toll may rise because many victims remained in critical condition.[17] would benefit from an "As of ..." date
  • American wreck, so use American English - see semi-automated peer review for examples
  • Would it make sense to have a "Legacy" or "Aftermath" section and put the Positive train control, Litigation, and Other railroads sections in it as subsections?
  • Dates in refs should not be linked (I know the access date for internet refs is automatically linked, this is the date of the newspaper article, etc.)

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 ><>°° 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bynum

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 it to good article status.

Thanks, —Chris! ct 02:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • I've got no idea what's expected for sportsperson GAs these days (there was a discussion at WT:GAN recently, I think), but just make sure you have as much info about, well, everything (personal life, playing career, etc....) as possible. Like that helps...
  • The lead probably needs expansion. Check out some examples at WP:GA#Basketball.
Will do —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can his nickname be placed anywhere in the infobox? (ie. is there a field for it?)
Removed, probably not notable —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Plainsboro.[3] but then" - should that be a comma?
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a senior, he averaged 22 points, 16 rebounds, and 5 blocks per game." - jargon.... what do these things mean? (wlinks work best here, if possible)
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wlink 2005 NBA Draft the first time it's used, not the second.
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than current Indiana Pacers player Jermaine O'Neal when he was drafted in 1996" - is this a record, or significant in any way?
Reworded —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the game, he missed his two field goal attempts but had two rebounds and two blocked shots - he made two blocks, or two of his shots were blocked?
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received technical fouls for the incident" - jargon
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially on both the offensive and defensive ends" - that's both ends... you can't say "especially on the entire field".
"Especially on the entire field" sounds confusing —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Basketball instructional coach Pete Newell" - could you just say "Coach Pete Newell"?
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rumors about his return was put to rest" - if rumours is plural then was should be (were)
Fixed —Chris! ct 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will deal with these tomorrow. —Chris! ct 06:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSY

[edit]
  • "In the 2005 NBA Draft, Andrew Bynum was selected 10th overall by the Los Angeles Lakers. At 17 years, 8 months, and 2 days, Bynum was 12 days younger than former Indiana Pacers player Jermaine O'Neal, the previous youngest player to play an NBA game." -- Do you mean to say drafted or play a game?
  • "This record will likely last for the foreseeable future, as the new collective bargaining agreement between NBA owners and the NBA Players Association requires players entering the draft to be at least one year removed from the graduation of their high school class and reach age 19 no later than December 31 of the calendar year of the draft." -- I know this is sourced but it cuts close to c-ball-gazing. As long as the feat is framed in the present tense it already demonstrates that the record has existed between then and now and continues to do so.
  • The whole narration of the technical fouls received by Shaq and Bynum seems undue. Almost every technical foul would be memorable then and worthy of mention.
  • He may not have had a meaningful playoffs career but some mention is warranted.
  • Overall, the structure and sources are fine but as pointed out above the lead seems weak and that's related to (or caused by) another point: the body is patchy and needs a more encyclopedic feel and tone to it. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Justice (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 would like to make it a GA. Now I know the Reception isn't finished, the attendance, and the times are not done. Pro wrestling history still has not placed up the results. I just want to fix all the small stuff before the DVD is released in October. I'm just trying to get stuff I have on the ppv list finished before Bound for Glory IV starts being hyped. So I want to know if the references are fine, if everything is sourced that needs to be sourced, if it reads well, really just everything that is needed for GA standards. Thanks, WillC 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ThinkBlue

Lead

ThinkBlue's comments
  • Lead:
    • This sentence ----> "The first was between Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon), and Christian Cage and Rhino in a New Jersey Street", has a lot of "and" repetitions.
  • Background:
    • The use of the brackets are only for tag teams and the use for it in Sharmell's name needs to be fixed.
    • This sentence ---> "This was followed by Sting hitting Joe in the back and the gut with a baseball bat", I don't think the mention of "gut" is important.
    • Angle and AJ Styles feud; "When the darkness was lifted", sounds off, may need to be reworded.
      • What do you think?
  • Preliminary matches:
    • This ---> "The match was mainly fast paced", sounds like POV.
      • I just removed it. It doesn't really help.
    • "Most of the match was dominated by Beer Money, Inc as they weakened the injured Homicide", how did they weaken Homicide?
      • How does it sound now?
    • Hmm ---> "When Rhino and Ray impacted with the table it did not break", "impacted"?
      • Any better?
    • "until Abyss (Chris Parks) came to Cage's and Rhino's rescue", "rescue" ---> "aid".
  • Main event matches: Angle and AJ Styles, damn that's long.;)
    • "The referee then began his count", "his" ---> "the".
    • "Angle went to perform some type of suplex", "some type"?
      • How about now?
    • "who has widely known to have broken his neck multiple times in the past" ---> "who has been widely known to conjure multiple neck injuries".
    • "While Kevin Nash asked him why he just attacked Styles", is it important to include?
      • Well I feel it is worth noting since TNA aired special footage between Sting and Nash later on Impact that week after Sting's attack on AJ.

Here are my comments. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. How does it look now?--WillC 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars with The Wiggles

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 This as a featured list I Added a Lot of Stuff and Balloonman Thought I should Nominate it

Thanks, Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While some work has gone into this, there is absolutley no way this is anywhere near ready for WP:FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Please read WP:WIAFL and look at some featured lists for models. This has no images and zero references (the biggest single problem). Without refs it does not meet WP:V, one of the five pillars.
  • The lead does not meeet WP:LEAD, nor does it meet WIAFL on leads: "It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."
  • It does not provide context for the reader - some of these are just segments of one song from the TV show (Yummy Yummy) while others are videos / specials (Santa's Rockin'!). See WP:PCR
  • I would ask for help on the talk page of The Wiggles, which is a FA.

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 ><>°° 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Games

[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 need to have input on the article's faithfulness to MoS. I also need to have a review of the citations for credibility and format. This article once was a FA. I'd like to return it to that status. Thanks, H1nkles (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sleep medicine

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is near GA quality, and if it could become a candidate for FA. Does my POV shine through? Are format and style, references, weighting (etc.) appropriate? (Off-wiki friends & my doctor only tell me how clever I am; now I want criticism, please.)

Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harvey Milk

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've rewritten the article within the past few weeks, and I'm interested in as much input from interested readers as possible before taking to GA or FAC. A film of Milk's life will be released in November. I would like to make sure the article is engaging and comprehensive. I'll be adding a few images within the next day or so, I hope. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. I'd suggest GAC first and then perhaps another peer review to get some more eyes on perhaps copyediting. This sentence in the lead: Not until 1978, when San Francisco re-organized their supervisor selection to come from neighborhood districts—as opposed to city-wide ballots—was Milk successfully elected. - might read better if reorganized to "Milk was not successfully elected until 1978, when..." as opposed to the other way around, which sounds a bit long/run-on. I'll try to go through the rest in more detail and add additional comments later. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cirt. No doubt it needs a copy edit when it gets stable. You marked the notes in small text. In considering ... crap... now I can't think of the word. The policy to make all the material readable for all browsers and those with poor eyesight. It's really small on my browser. I'll take all suggestions, however. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the word. Stupid words. I took the small tags out for accessibility issues. --Moni3 (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is poor. It should be possible to read it standalone as a summary of the main points of the article. Currently most of the intro is just a biography in chronological order, not an explanation of the subject's most important deeds. More individual pickinesses: In the second paragraph, Milk goes from "up against the existing gay political establishment" to "leader of the gay political movement" in a confusing jump. The sentence "his successes gave hope to disenfranchised gays around the country" is POV and probably inaccurate: were gays actually disenfranchised [denied the vote]? The title "city supervisor" is misleading for those unfamiliar with San Francisco government: "member of the board of supervisors" would give a better idea of the job. On a non-intro point: avoid sucking in material that conceptually belongs in other articles. The first paragraph of the "Castro Street" section should be a one-sentence summary, the rest belongs in The Castro, San Francisco, California#History. jnestorius(talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that the article should be a standalone summary of the article, and it is without going overboard. Much more detail and it would completely take over, making it another lead that ate Detroit.
  • I think it's reasonable to change city supervisor to a member of the Board of Supervisors. I'll do that.
  • I also think a tweak of words would make it clear that he became a leader of the gay movement, clearing up that confusion. I didn't see that, and I'm glad that was pointed out.
  • The remark about disenfranchised gays is not inaccurate. In a quote from Milk later in the article, he states he represented "the gay street people", and one of his "things" was telling people he got a call from someone from Altoona, Pennsylvania, or some kid from somewhere who needed to find a place to go. He told this story to reporters regularly. "Hope" became a theme in his appearances, and has become a large part of his legacy.
  • As you pointed out, not only the intro should be stand-alone, but the article should be as well. There's a lot of background about how the Castro became a gay mecca in the 1970s, and the forces of demographics and politics that not only led to Milk's popularity and effectiveness, but his assassination and the riots that followed. Milk's history is the same as the Castro's, in many ways. I'm quite comfortable with the background info in the article.
  • I appreciate the time you took to give comments. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to rewrite the intro, and let me see what you want. If I were reviewing, and you added a 4th paragraph focusing on accomplishments, I'd be happy with that. On the other hand, the 3 paragraphs there already are kind of long, and they are probably more readable, more narrative-like, than what I'm guessing you want. Your "up against..." comment is in line with this; you want more, Moni doesn't. I could go either way.
    • "were gays actually disenfranchised [denied the vote]?" MWOS gives: "to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote". Although the word is used often in the context of voting per se, when I hear people talk about social movements, it's always referring to empowering (sorry for the jargon) them to organize, become effective, and be heard. There is plenty of support in the Tributes section for this claim, and we can add more if you like. It's hard to see how the claim could be false.
    • "member of the board of supervisors": good call.
    • Castro street: This was the first time it ever happened that an openly gay man was able to get elected to public office in the U.S. Doesn't that make you wonder how that could have happened? Isn't it relevant that there was a large gay and lesbian population ... and how did that happen? I can see someone at FAC saying that a sentence or two should be shaved. It's hard to buy the claim that the paragraph is irrelevant to his election. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (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.
  • Only thing to note is I might trim down the external links section, it's getting large.
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.) 13:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks E, that does help! I'll check the EL's now and talk it over with Moni. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, most of the links are helpful and not controversial, I think: the opera, various archives, etc. The two schools named after Milk have at least some connection with his diversity message. If we need to remove some ELs, I'd probably pick any or all of:

  • The Forgotten Populist (an essay; if the essay says useful things, we can always put them in the article, the essay uses the same Shilts source that the article does),
  • The Harvey Milk Recreational Arts Center in SF (although it's named after him, I don't see any connection to him)
  • Eureka Valley/Harvey Milk Branch Library (ditto) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Blood (2003)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 being nominated as a Good Article and fixing the prose, I feel it could meet the FA Criteria. But I also think that it needs a good peer review to avoid any prose issues being brought up at FAC. In all honesty, I feel I wrote this better than SummerSlam (2003) :).

Thanks, SRX 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]

Image comments as requested. Mostly seems fine, just the one thing; what good does having an image of the DVD cover do, and thus, why is it necessary? (It's FUR doesn't help convince me.) Giggy (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?--SRX 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing it. The first part of the FUR can be done with text ("there were different people on the covers"). The second part is non-existent, as far as I can see. Giggy (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed it, I will let it get deleted as an orphaned image.--SRX 23:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkBlue

[edit]
Resolved comments from ThinkBlue

Background

Here's my comments. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (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.
    • MOS says no all capitals in link titles in references
    • Really picky, but current ref 25, should be seating chart, not seatin chart.
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.) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
All done.--SRX 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • All wrestlers were from the Raw brand - a storyline division in which WWE assigned it's employees to a different program, the other being SmackDown!. Change the hyphen to an en dash.
What is the wikicode for an endash? I searched it but couldn't find it.--SRX 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contests would include a belching contest, a "pie" eating contest, and a singing contest. Why does "pie" link to Crotch? And why are they eating it in a contest? O_O
I explained that better.--SRX 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Sunday Night Heat, the pay-per-view began with a tag team match where the Dudley Boyz (D-Von [Devon Hughes] and Bubba Ray ([Mark LoMonaco]) faced Rodney Mack (Rodney Begnaud) and Christopher Nowinski in a singles match. Confusing. Where does the parenthesis end?

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

Fixed, there was an extra one.SRX 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

[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 recently passed GA and I want to have a final polishing off before I submit this to FAC. It has been mentioned that this needs a good copyedit, so I think this is the place to address that.

Thanks, --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead

  • Refs [2] and [3] are not in cite web format
    • In this case, they could not work properly. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki[citation needed] 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? I don't see any problem. In any case they are identical citations, following so closely togethet that a single citation would surely do. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? they are most certainly not identical. They wouln't work using Cite web because the "Handloff (ed.)" and "in Ivory Coast: A Country Study" would not show up. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki[citation needed] 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, they're not identical, merely similar - sorry. But the cite web format works OK, as in this: Handloff, Robert E. (ed). "Relations with Israel in Ivory Coast: A Country Study". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2008-07-28. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help). There's no requirement from WP:CITE to use the cite web template, but you do so elsewhere in the article and there should be consistency. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the stuff about building the largest church is a fairly small detail in a very long presidency, and not worth mentioning in the lead. The lead is too long anyway, and in my opinion needs to lose 50 to 100 words.

I'll try to make some further helpful comments on the rest of the text, but I'd like to wait for the copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
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.) Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Institut Le Rosey

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there has been some progress in terms of content and referencing since its first failed GA nomination. Looking for comments and critiques with an eye towards the Good article criteria

Many Thanks, Jh12 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • The prose isn't bad; but as always, it could use work. Examples:
    • "To sustain an international atmosphere at Le Rosey, there exists a quota where no more than 10% of the students may come from a single country." Make the language simpler: "To sustain an international atmosphere at Le Rosey, no more than 10% of the students may come from a single country."
    • "The student body, ages 7 through 18, is composed of pupils from approximately 58 different countries, with 60% of the students being European." Fix: "The student body, ages 7 through 18, is composed of pupils from about 58 different countries; 60% of the students are European."
    • "In the 1950s and 1960s, the majority of students were Americans, Italians, and Greeks, in the 1970s came the Arabs and Iranians, in the 1980s came the Japanese and Koreans, and in the 1990s came the Russians." Needs reworking.
    • "Le Rosey students in Classes 6-2 (US 6th-10th grade; UK Year 7-11) choose their principal language and continue their studies in French or English." Simplify this some: "Le Rosey students in Classes 6-2 (US 6th-10th grade; UK Year 7-11) choose their principal language—French or English—to focus their studies on French or English."
  • Capitalization is the biggest issue here. I see many common nouns that don't need uppercase letters.
  • "Rosey-Abantara is considered the most important charity project in Le Rosey's history. The project is entirely financed by the Le Rosey Charity Committee, with costs amounting to CHF 1,200,000 (approximately $1 million USD)." Need references on this.
  • "he sons of high society playboy William Woodward, Jr.," According to whom is he a playboy?

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • 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
  • Several direct quotations do not have refs - for example Le Rosey's philosophy is inspired by what Harvard educationalist Howard Gardner has called "multiple intelligences": needs a Gardner ref, or 1880, the site of the Le Rosey campus was chosen by the school's founder, Paul-Emile Carnal, "a lover of nature, history and the countryside". ...
  • Image:Rainier 3.jpg needs a fair use rationale for use in this article or it will be removed.
  • History seems very sparse - any chance to expand it?

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 ><>°° 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jh12 reply:

List of WWE pay-per-view events

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FL status.

Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about the WWE, but I've worked on a few lists, so I'll have a crack at this.

  • I agree about the lead. Perhaps you could briefly introduce the WWE and why they have PPV events?
  • Perhaps you need to change the placement of the tables. For example, the first one, Current pay-per-view events, should be placed lower in the History section so that it's not the first thing the reader sees.
  • The first sentence is very unclear. The citation given is for the Rosemont Hotel being the site of the first PPV event, but not for the rest of the info. This sentence claims that the source cited is incorrect about the Rosemont, but there's nothing to back it up. There's also no source about Wrestlemania being the first PPV event. This is something you must address.
  • "The first two WrestleManias were undeniable financial successes, and after WrestleMania III became perhaps the best event in wrestling history, the WWF then decided to expand their pay-per-view offerings." Again, no sources. In addition, this sentence is full of peacock terms: "undeniable financial success", "perhaps the best event in wrestling history". Comment - Reworded a litte, will try and look for reference.
  • "The first Survivor Series event was offered on November 29, 1987, scheduled directly against NWA's Starrcade, traditionally considered to be that promotion's biggest yearly event."
"traditionally considered": by whom? This should be more clear. "Was offered": same problem. Perhaps it can be: "The first Survivor Series event occurred on November 29, 1987, scheduled to conflict with NWA's Starrcade." Done - Changed to that.
  • The sentence that begins, "These four events -" is too long. Break it up or delete some of the info. Done - Attempted to split up a bit.
  • This trend escalated to the point that by 1996, both companies showed monthly events on pay-per-view. Until recently, World Wrestling Entertainment had a once-a-month pay-per-view schedule, which they had from the late '90s until 2003 totalling twelve a year. The pay-per-view events in the United States can be bought through iN DEMAND, Dish Network or DirecTV.
What trend? I assume it's refers to the previous paragraph, but it's unclear that it was a trend. It says, "until recently" and then it says that WWE had a monthly PPV schedule until the late 90s until 2003. "Totalling (a misspelling) twelve a year is redundant. The next sentence should be: "The pay-per-view events in the United States are offered by iN DEMAND, Dish Network or DirecTV". Done - The second part, I'd have to leave it to iMatthew for the first part.
  • "they were scrapped in favor of": seems colloquial. Done - Changed to removed.
  • "announced to move on with": colloquial again. Done - Changed to continue.
  • "tr-branded": typo, "tri-branded". As as WWE-dummy, I have no idea what that term means. Done - Fixed typo, again I'll have to leave that to iMatthew.
  • I agree with SRX about the tables; they are a mess.
  • The sources aren't reliable enough to me, but I tend to be a stickler. After just a cursory look, it looks like the about.com is the only strictly reliable source. I expect that wrestling articles and lists would be an exception, since this list is about their PPV events, and they would know. It may prevent you from getting to FL, though.

Hope this helps! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stamata Revithi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Some decades ago Revithi was almost unknown. During the resurgence of feminism and the revitalization of women's role in modern society, she was treated as a symbol. A poor woman from Syros, who would never imagine she would become the theme of a Wikipedia article some 100+ years later! With very few existing sources, it was a temptation for me to create a nice and attractive article for "Melpomene" (if she is indeed the runner "Melpomene"!). User:H1nkles provided me with some excellent feedback in the article's talk page. More ideas and suggestions are expected, taking always into consideration the scarcity of relevant sources. My intention is to bring this article first to GA and then to FA status. Thank you all in advance,Yannismarou (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs

[edit]
  • I think there needs to be a bit more background information about the Olympics. The article goes straight from describing her life as it existed in 1896 to talking about someone encouraging her to run a marathon in the Olympics. It is probably notable to mention here that it was the first modern Olympics, which was likely a big deal in Greece.
  • Other details might also be interesting:
    • How far was it to walk from where she was living to Athens?
    • Why would someone expect that winning the marathon would get her a job?
    • Might also want to explain to people unfamiliar with the sport what a marathon is. (how long a race)
  • I think that this is already told in the lead: "marathon course of 42 ki". I don't think that definitions like the one in the marathon article ("is a long-distance foot race with an official distance of 42.195 kilometers") add anything to the reader's proper understanding.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on what the rules were for registering for the competition? Would it have been common to just show up? Were there rules as there are today about previous qualification or only X number of athletes from each country?
  • Any quotes on what she responded that marked her as "quick-witted"? That might be a touch of humor to add.
  • "but the real problem was her gender" - did the committee ever say that? If not, then this should likely be attributed to a historian, book, or article.
  • Any information on why she did not take part in the race with the American women?
  • The lead mentions that she was not allowed to enter the stadium. This is not mentioned in the article.
  • There is a disconnect between the statement that a woman was clocked in the marathon in 1926 and that the first race was in 1984. This does not make sense to me
  • This was the first official recognized timing of any woman running a marathon. But the first Olympic marathon race by women took place 1984. I thought it was already clear, but I tried to further clarify it.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there are so many notes mixed in with the citations, I'd recommend taking advantage of the new ref group="Note" syntax. That will allow you to separate out the notes from the sources so that people can see which is which.
  • The last image needs to make it clear that this is a painting of the muse, not of the woman referred to in the article by that name.

Karanacs (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG

[edit]

I'm sorry for the delay, Yannis; I've been really swamped. I lost my entire review to a Wikimedia Foundation error, so I hope I get everything this second time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We glean in the lead that women weren't allowed to participate, but we're not explicitly told that. Can it be clarified outright, so we're not left guessing?
Better?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the length of the race in the lead (with the conversions); it's never explicitly stated.
Done.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the section heading "1896 marathon race" redundant, could it be just "1896 marathon"?
Done.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Martin–Gynn joined in the citations when they are listed as two people in the References ?
What is the proper writing. Martin and Gynn, Martin & Gynn or something else?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations are very clean; I only see one thing. Publication dates are unlinked, while accessdates are linked. You can delinks accessdates by switching from the paramater accessdate to the parameters accessmonthday and accessyear (or accessdaymonth and accessyear for articles that use international date format).
I think they are somehow fixed by themselves!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which reminds me, should this article use international date formatting rather than US date formatting?
Which is the international date formatting?!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, clean article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. I'll soon work on your suggestions, but for the time being I am a bit off Wikipedia. I felt I needed some time to clean my mind, and come back soon. What's sure is that your suggestions are definitely taken into serious consideration.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I will be nominating this article for WP:FLC on October 10 and I need some feedback on what needs to be done in order for this artile to have all the FL criteria.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium '73

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it ready for featured article status. I believe the article is neutral, comprehensive, and well-sourced. In addition to general suggestions, I'm particularly interested in help with the intro (maybe outside eyes can do a better job of summarizing the topic). Suggestions on handling the citations wouold also be welcome. Thanks, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. It is fascinating and seems pretty close to FAC ready to me, so my comments will be pretty nit-picky. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so move the [22] in Hans Ji's widow, Mata Ji, and her 22-year-old[22] eldest son, Bal Bhagwan Ji (pronounced "Baba-gwan-gee" by followers)[23] ...
  • Put "(DLM)" after the first mention of Divine Light Mission
  • Some places could do a better job of providing context - I though "Hans Jayanti" was another family member at first in Hans Jayanti commemorates the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji. It was the largest of three annual (and numerous ad hoc) festivals that the DLM celebrated.[16]
  • There are a fair number of short semi-choppy sentences that break up the flow - the preceding example could be combined to something like Hans Jayanti,the largest of three annual (and numerous ad hoc) festivals that the DLM celebrated, commemorates the November 9 birthday of Hans Ji.[16] (not sure of tense - used the ones in there).
  • I would mention the capacity of the Astrodome earlier in the article.
  • Missing a word? A member [thought?] that that was probably an example of lila, the guru's divine game-playing.[4]
  • There are a few two sentence paragraphs - could they be combined with others or expanded?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I fixed the citations so that they all appear following punctuation. I've added "(DLM)" and a better explanation for the Jayanti festival ("Jayanti" apparently means "festival", so we have to avoid tautology). I've cut some of the chopy sentences, but I don't know if I got them all. I added the Astrodome capacity to the intro. A point of confusion is that some events have been staged there which have drawn greater than capacity crowds over a day or more. For instance, Elvis held two concerts in one day that attracted a total of something like 85,000 fans (possbily some people attending both performances). The missing word was already fixed. I'll keep working on choppy sentences and short paragraphs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flows better - a trick that works for me is to print it out and read it out loud slowly (especially after a few days of not working on it or rerading it). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous problems many of which are being discussed by involved editors in the article's talk page, so I will not address these here. My main concern relates to WP:NOR, in particular Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. The article contains information that has been never published, nor by the media, neither by scholars, violating the principle stated in WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Although primary sources can be used to make descriptive claims about the information found in a primary source, there is isubstantial nformation in the article relies heavily on primary sources which have not been described, studied and/or reported on secondary and reliable sources.

Another issue is related to process. I read above an intention to submit this article to FAC, but I have yet to see this article making it to GA, which may be a better first attempt. In any case, the article has yet to reach a stage of stability and maturity to warrant an GA nomination, let alone an FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NOR concern has not been raised on the article talk page. The claim of violating WP:NOR is both sweeping and unspecific, so it's impossible to respond. For useful input, please be more specific. As for your last point, the article is mature and fairly stable. The edits over the past weeks have been fairly minor and specific concerns have been addressed. All comprehensive articles should be edited with an eye towards bringing them up to GA and FA standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NOR concern is clearly stated: you are using primary sources that have never been published in secondary sources for large portions of the article. That is quite specific don't you think? The article, who carries an NPOV tag for the last week or so, if far for being mature or stable. Happy editing and good luck with a GA nomination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article no more violates NOR than Public image and reception of Sarah Palin does. If you have a specific objection then please raise it. If not please don't snipe at a good article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, when one works in the opaqueness of a private sandbox for a long time, there would be a tendency to have some editor's pride at play, which is understandable. The primary sources used in the article, that have not been mentioned or described in any secondary sources, are quite obvious. You do not need my help in identifying these as you wrote the article in tutto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That I wrote the original draft without your input seems to bother you as you keep bringing it up. Your input is invited now. Please say which sources are a problem. Apparently, I do need your help in identifying them. I'm also interested in how you edit Sarah Palin without violating NOR if newspapers and magazines are not acceptable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Palin? What does that bio has to do with the article discussed here? The NOR concerns are related to the primary sources you hav used in the article, sources which have not been described and/or referred to in secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mention the Palin article becuase it uses the same kinds of sources. I'm not sure I even understand your point about "primary sources that have not been mentioned or described in any secondary sources". I don't see anything about that in WP:PSTS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the comparison to Sarah Palin related articles is appropriate I don't know (Palin is now in the center of attention, probably not even at the top of her fame, for Rawat and related events that was 35 years ago), but I'd urge jossi nonetheless to list as clearly as possible which sources he considers primary and/or used inappropriately. Vagueness doesn't help, indeed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as written by WillBeback, contains dozens of errors. Example "probably" and "maybe" are not synonymous. "Members of the DLM" is not the same as "some members" etc. And, either coincidently or deliberately, the errors produce an article with a decided anti-GMJ bias.Momento (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is here to garner specific suggestions for future improvements to the article from uninvolved editors, not to rehash old disputes among partisans. That type of discussion is more appropriate on the article talk page, where you've already made the same point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references now mostly use Template:cite book and Template:cite news. Is Template:Citation now the preferred template? I've avoided using Template:Harvnb because the article is so thickly-cited that including the author and year in the text would be disruptive, IMO. I didn't realize it could work with having the citaiton info in the footnotes. I do like how the cites work in those two articles you mention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if {{Citation}} is the preferred citation template, but it is pretty standardized and improves uniformity, and also I think the other individualized templates don't work in conjunction with {{Harvnb}}. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Another question that you or someone else might be able to answer is how to handle unsigned articles. Most TIME and Newsweek articles are unsigned, as are some items in newspapers. When it is attributed to the AP or UPI I use those as the author, but sometimes there's nothing. The citations are otherwise sorted by author, but I've sorted unsigned pieces by the name of the publication. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some minor reformatting along those lines here. I am pretty sure that the convention in that case would be to just specify "TIME staff" and "Newsweek staff" in the author fields, though if there are multiple different references with those exact same author fields the second specification by date might (hopefully) kick in as well. I admit I am relatively new to this type of formatting as well, but I think it is a neat and helpful tool. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped templates - that was easy because the fields are mostly the same. "TIME staff" isn't too bad, but "Syracuse Post-Standard staff" is a bit clunkier. Even so, if the links work it'll be worth it. I'll start converting some refs to the Harvnb template and see how it works. Thanks for the suggestion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the first two cites to the Harvnb template, but the links don't seem to work.[2] Any idea what I'm doing wrong? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I was using "author" instead of "first, last". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working perfectly now, thanks for the help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria needed for GA is stability (#5 @ WP:WIAGA). Are editors here saying that this article is "stable"? How? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a GA nomination. This is a peer review. If you have any specific suggestins for improving the article they'd be welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Ruhrfisch comments I do not watchlist peer reviews I do, so I did not see the developments here until a few hours ago. I just went back and looked at the refs again - there are a few primary refs from the Maharaj Ji (sp?), but I did not see more than two of those (although there are likely a few more from other authors). I did see a lot of newspaper and magazine sources, but these are secondary sources (not primary sources). For an example of a FA with almost entirely news refs, see Virginia Tech massacre. Magazines and journals are valid sources - they generally fact check and can be sued if they misrepresent / libel in their coverage.

I am very aware that I make mistakes and it may be I have completely missed the point of Jossi's comments. Jossi, I would really appreciate it if you would identify some of the problem sources as you see them. Perhaps pick a section and give the specific problems you see in that section as an example. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources I am referring to are:
  • Bass, Jim (June 1, 1974), "Millennium Scoops The Press", Divine Times
  • Maharaj Ji (November 10, 1973), A Very Big Little Mystery, Houston, Texas
  • Maharaj Ji (November 1973), "A Letter From Guru Maharaj Ji, Bonn, Germany September 31, 1973", And It Is Divine: 2, Special Millennium '73 Edition
  • Manavdharam.org "Audio-Video Satsang
The above sources have never been reported or described in secondary sources, and are being used to support dozen of paragraphs in the article and entire sections. Other primary sources, are all the historical newspaper reports and op-eds of the time.
In addition, the article mixes and matches reputable scholars, such as Richardson, alongside tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, pulp magazines, yellow journalism (example "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him." in Oui magazine, or "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and why is he saying all these terrible things about God?", Penthouse magazine) without attribution and without consideration for historical context. For example, we would not write an article on the Japanese people, based on the newspaper articles from US media in the weeks after Pearl Harbor, right? We will be much more circumspect in how we use newspaper reports and op-eds and chose to rely more heavily in scholarly sources (that take in consideration the historical context of events).
If you take this article and re-write it based on the scholarly sources available and use judiciously newspaper reports and op-eds of the time properly attributed, you may end up with an article that is neutral, encyclopedic, and useful. Until that time, this article will probably remain in the real of WP:COATRACK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are (or were) all publications of the movement that sponsored the event. And It Is Divine was their monthly magazine and Divine Times was their newspaper. Both of those publications are used as sources in a number of scholarly papers. The Bass article is a review of press coverage of the event and isn't a primary source. One of the pieces by Maharaj Ji was the letter inviting followers to attend, which was published in the event program and was quoted by secondary sources. The other is a transcription of a talk he gave at the event, which is quoted in several articles. The last source on the list is a website belonging to the Indian branch of the movement, and it is used simply to show that the festival has been celebrated again. I don't see how the use of any of these sources is improper. Perhaps Jossi could be more specific about his objection to them. Lastly, this article hardly qualifies as a coatrack: an article that purports to be about one topic but is really about another. With the exceptions of minimal background material, followups, and explanatory notes, everything in the article is directly related to the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those publications are used as sources in a number of scholarly papers. ' Which? ; the letter inviting followers to attend was quoted by secondary sources. If that is the case, use the secondary sources, and not the primary source. That is standard practice and will avoid violations of WP:NOR that are abundant.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of those is used simply as an additional reference to a speech that has seven secondary sources.[3] How is that a violation of NOR? In another case, we use a letter as a source for a phrase that has been repeated in a dozen or more secondary sources, but in the letter we get the full sentence.[4] How does quoting a published letter, while making no conclusions from the source, qualify as original research? I don't understand your point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that Jossi, an admin, makes accusations of policy violations without providing any evidence of those claims. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being disappointed is your choice, Will. I have read the article several times, and expressed my concerns clearly. You may want to dismiss them if you want, but for me it is simply and extension of my original conecern expressed: NPOV is achieved when there is a vigorous debate and not when an editor works in the opacity of a private sandbox. So there is work to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I take it that you are dropping your assertion that the article violates WP:NOR? If not, please point to the problem so we can fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Ref 5 is broken - not sure how to fix it as I do not use Harvard refs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I agree with your classification of primary/secondary sources. And yes, the templates: not my favorite part of editing. I'm working through converting the cites to some fancy citation scheme. I know it'll be great when it's done, but doing the converting is a pain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Living End discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because… i believe it has become very close to FA status, with some tips/someone else reviewing it needed before making it a FAC.

Thanks, kiac (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I haven't done a peer review before, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt. Nonetheless here are some suggestions as to how you may improve the article. Hopefully they will be of some use to you.

Lead

 Done Discography always seems to be a necessity in discographies, they always say to add it in FAC conversations. I think sophomore is appropriate for those who may not know what sophomore means, it's not all that commonly used.
  • Some of the links in the lead go to redirects, try [[studio albums]] → [[studio album]]s
 Done
  • WP:MOSNUM suggests using numbers under ten as words in the body of an article. For this reason I am usually wary of writing "#1" and instead favour writing "number one". For consistency you should also use this for larger numbers, but can use digits in place of the number itself, for example "number 49".
 Done
  • With regards to double A-sides, note that WP:SLASH allows a spaced slash when one or both items has an internal space; for example "Second Solution / Prisoner of Society". This can be more readable but does require excessive piping if the articles are not similarly punctuated.
 Done Never knew that, learn something new everday.
  • The lead of an article is meant to summarise its contents, as such the lead should not contain information pertaining to the history of the band unless it concerns a release. Information regarding lineups should probably be removed, and regarding the formation of the band should be kept minimal. Also, you do not generally need to state what a list does not include.
Fair point, i'll give it a working over.
  • "Their sophomore album release..." – Use either "Their sophomore album..." or "Their sophomore release..."
 Done

Body

  • Date autolinking is now deprecated per MOS:SYL and so all dates should be delinked if possible.
 Done Autobot did it.
  • Are sales estimates really necessary when the certifications are given?
See, i'm not sure, but it's not like people know the significance of certifications, it might be of more value to just put a note somewhere, i'll check out how some featured discogs put it.
  • Again, avoid redirects where possible, such as NZ.
 Done thankyou.
  • For the notes section use the {{ref begin}} and {{ref end}} templates to minimise the line spacing. Also, the notes should ideally be in their own section, or with reference in a section titled "Notes and references". See WP:FOOT.
Will look into it, thankyou.

That is all I can come up with right now. If you found my suggestions helpful, I would appreciate some feedback on another peer review I have opened. Good luck with the FLC – Ikara talk → 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not replying earlier, i totally forgot to watch the page and had no idea you had replied. Apologies. Thanks for the review, helped a lot. Hopefully i find time to do a review for yourself, again thankyou. kiac (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevado del Ruiz

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what it needs to be featured. This will be only my second geography Fa if passed and I want to know what's wrong with the prose, referencing, etc.

Thanks, —Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday) · (Testify!) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Rennell Island

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was hoping other editors can make contributions for a featured article status. The island has vast history and is the only area falling under both Polynesia and Melanesia.

Thanks, Phenss (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Large chunks of the article are unreferenced, and this would be a problem at FAC. Strongly suggest finding references for most of the article.
  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Fixing the WP:V problems should be the first thing on your to-do list. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the main text. Ideally, it should include at least a mention of all the sections in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • Quantities expressed in the metric system should also be expressed in the imperial system. I find the convert template handy for this. I added some examples to the lead of the article so you can see how these templates work.
  • A copyeditor would see and fix many of the small errors I see in the article. For example, the section heads do not get terminal periods.
  • You might look at island articles featured on Wikipedia to get ideas. St Kilda, Scotland, for example, is a featured article about an island archipelago. You'll find a list of all the FA articles in the encyclopedia at WP:FA.

I hope you find these few suggestions helpful. If you have questions, please post them here. Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks to you both. I have done some more work and hopefully incorporated your suggestions. Phenss (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanism on Io

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I stumbled across this article during my wanderings and decided to clean it up. It was already a very decent article, and I think it may be suitable for GA, or better. I know the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm terrible at such things, so beyond this review, if someone would like to take a stab at it, it would be welcome. Thanks in advance, — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A21 road

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 improved very well recently and is actually one of the best UK road articles I have seen which lacks GA status.

Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The A21 is used for the 55-mile Maydayrun to Hastings which claims to be the largest non-organised event in the UK[2], attracting over 20,000 bikers. Are the bikers...motorcycles or bicycles?
  • four miles (6.3 mi)' this conversion didn't work  :-) You may wish to use the {{mi to km|6.3}} conversion template which will automatically do the conversion for you and it also looks after the   breaking space called for by Manual of Style for numbers. if you used the template, the M of S numbers will be fixed regarding space for the next distance.. twenty miles (32km) where no space is given at 32 km....and numerals over 9 are not written out in words, but rather left as numbers...ie 20 miles. ...1.7 mile (2.7km) ...25 miles (40km) no spaces ever between the numbers and the km....but just covert to conversion templates.
  • Wikilink the term short dual carriageway as in Canada this is called a twinned highway, and in the United States this is called a divided highway.
  • In the section...The route in detail... London...there are quite a few placenames,...can they be wikilinked? Lewisham, Catford, Bromley Hill, Farnborough, etc
  • Wikilink the term multiplexes as that probably is only well known to highway editors, and civil engineers.
  • The M25 then 'TOTSOs' Hmmm? is TOTSOs a verb? spell out the acronym and wikilink if possible.
  • The dual carriageway is more bendy than before and has less bridges. I don't know if more bendy is quite correct grammar.
  • You get to a second road to Tunbridge Wells (the A264). don't talk to the reader as in using the word you. Rephrase the sentence...perhaps... There is a second road to ....
  • From here the road is generally more straight than normal Re phrase or use citation for this fact. Normal has to be defined..what is nortmal...whose normal, or just say the road has a straight stretch.
  • Later on from the end of this bypass at Kippings Cross, the final 25 miles (40km) of the A21 is generally an often winding single carriageway road with several steep gradients across the Weald. In this sentence...this phrase...often winding single carriageway road...is it occasionally sometimes not winding, it just winds often? Me thinks it needs rephrasing to say what the road does all the time, not just what it does often.
  • This sentence ...There are few major centres of habitation and the road has remained a "poor relation" insofar as widening schemes are concerned..... The phrase "poor relation" is not used in common usage in other countries, so rather than a metaphor in an encyclopaedia, use the exact terminology.... the road has no need of being widened....the road has not been widened...
  • Fix At the The most recent bypass
  • Press reports such as this are commonplace. I don't want to click on the word this to find out what the press report says. paraphrase the report and add the prose to the article...such as....Hastings Today reported that a 22 kilometres (14 mi) section of the A21 is the worst highway of the south east, ane the 38th worst road in the country.[1]
  • South of the junction with the A25, the road enters the longest dual carriageway section along its length, the Sevenoaks and Tonbridge bypasses, which generally have two lanes in each direction. In this section the way it is written, there are only two lines in each direction sometimes, and not always,..due to the word generally.
  • There is also a local turning later on into Pembury. remove irrelevant words...There is a turning later in Pembury.
  • On October 2005 the "Preferred Route" to deal with the 3 mile (4.75km) section south of Kippings Cross was announced :see details here. The encyclopaedia is to tell the readers facts about the A21, and allow them access to more information via citations. Don't send the reader away to read the facts....Don't tell the reader see details here....rather....On October 2005 a preferred route was announced to alleviate congestion and traffic concerns on a 3 miles (4.8 km) section south of Kippings Cross.[2]....The reader can always follow the link given in the citation which does the same thing as see details here
  • However, some work has been completed. One of these, delete these extraneous words...Just say The 2 miles (3.2 km) £18 million Lamberhurst bypass, was opened on 23 March 2005. Whenever currency is mentioned, wikilink the currency sign identifying th country's currency origin.
  • wikilink land bridge rather than "land bridge"
  • The first mention of scotney castle got capitals and a wikilink!! good. The second time not even any capitals  :-(
  • wikilink roundabout. Why is it called a gyratory system earlier and now a roundabout. Are they different there?
  • link messed up...Flimwell]] bypass.
  • . It opened in 1992. what opened in 1992 the main street, te village or the bypass. It refers to the last mentioned noun.
  • * Plans have been published (see here) for a new dual carriageway between the southern end of the Flimwell bypass and the beginning of the Robertsbridge bypass. This would bypass Hurst Green.

nope I will not (see here). Please paraphrase and give citation.

  • From John's Cross the original route of the A21 passed through Battle and entered Hastings at Wishing Tree: this road is now the A2100 (and still meets the A21/A28 at Baldslow). too long of a sentence. No colon plop in a period.... then remove te parenthesis.
  • The present route takes the road to the east on a relatively straight, though undulating, journey, bypassing Sedlescombe before climbing a four-mile (6.4km) long hill to enter Hastings under a road bridge; the A21 has a junction here with the Hastings ring road, Too long of sentence. Does undulating here mean hilly? No semi colon but rater a period should be inserted. Period at sentence end not a comma..
  • The A28 and the A2100 and then continues through Baldslow where the A2101 makes for the town centre, Silverhill and Bohemia and eventually to the town centre to meet the A2101 again which meets the a259 coast road. something missing after the second and The A28 and the A2100 and then...should it be The A28, A2100 and the A2101 continue.... Does the A2101 make for the town centre...sounds very violent in a way. Maybe another re-wording would be that the A2101 heads for the town centre. The whole sentence is hard to read. As the A2101 heads for those the town centre, and two other places, and then circles back and goes to the town centre again??
  • The current plans are to dual the rest of the road through Kent and there are also plans to improve sections through East Sussex which may cause the lane on the short dualled section through the Kent/East Sussex border to reopen ....Loose the and create two sentences.
  • I am having deja vu....Why does the section Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst under Proposed Improvements repeat word for word verbatim the same words as the section Pembury to Lamberhurst under The route in detail. I really was reading, and I learned this already.  :-) Don't say the same stuff more than once. Pick the best section and stuff it there only.
  • There are no footways on this section and the verges are either very narrow or non-existent. The route alignment is poor and there are numerous frontages with direct access to the trunk road. The narrow verges limit visibility and this, combined with the numerous bends and crests, limits safe overtaking opportunities. This section is a direct quote from another article. It has to be shown like this...

There are no footways on this section and the verges are either very narrow or non-existent. The route alignment is poor and there are numerous frontages with direct access to the trunk road. The narrow verges limit visibility and this, combined with the numerous bends and crests, limits safe overtaking opportunities.

— Highways Agency - A21 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Improvement[3]

or some similar quotation template of your choice...Never ever plagiarize other people's works.

  • These schemes have also been proposed[22]:

Flimwell to Scotney Castle Robertsbridge to Baldslow Convert this into prose, a regular paragraph.

  • There are more than one inline citation style used in the article by looking at the reference section. Pick one method of citing sources and continue on....I have given the method of citation templates in the above examples.
  • The A1 road (London) has 100 references citations...compared with 22 each for the A21. Each and every fact requires a citation, and it is good to have one or two references for each and every paragraph as well.
  • The article does meet some of the GA criteria-but improvements need be made.
  • References made by the citation templates used above look like this...
  1. ^ ROADS NAMED AND SHAMED IN REPORT - Hastings Today - Back to Home Page, 19 February 2002, retrieved 2008-09-25
  2. ^ Highways Agency - A21 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Improvement, 25 September 2008, retrieved 2008-09-25
  3. ^ Highways Agency - A21 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Improvement, 25 September 2008, retrieved 2008-09-25

Armageddon (2006)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | 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 as much feedback as possible to get the article to an FAC.

Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Armageddon (2006)/archive1.

Lockdown (2008)

[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 wish to make it an FA. I need to get all the small things fixed. It is a little long but if you notice what type of matches took place and that it is TNA's third main ppv it is near impossible to get it smaller than it is. All the sources are reliable to my knowledge. They are PWTorch, Slam, Wrestling Observer, and WrestleView. I would like the references checked, if it is well written, if everything makes sense, and if anything can be taken out (besides background for matches).

Thanks, WillC 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lockdown (2008)/archive2.

London

[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've been working on the article for quite some time now, I've already had one Peer Review, and a failed FAC — so I want to know what can be done to the article, what improvements are required before I put it up for FAC again.

Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Let me know on my talk page if you need anything else. Gary King (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gondjout

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 to FA status. It has previously failed, but it was mentioned that I should bring this here.

Thanks, the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that there needs to be 14 days between a not promoted FAC and listing at PR. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that stupid rule. I guess I could withdraw this, because the only real problem with the article is that it needed copyediting, and I'm getting no help here. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a copy-edit of this article, and left inline comments in places. Address them as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the fist, they really were related ideas, so I kept them. Other than that, done. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 10:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited remainder of article, with more inline comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link for putchists was there to expain itself. Other than that, done. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Marshall Harlan II

[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 recently survived GAR and I want to known now what is necessary in order to make it a featured article. I am not a lawyer, so any ideas from people with a background in law are wellcome.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: My initial comments relate to the following areas:-

  • Referencing
    • There are about 25 standard footnote references, and around 40 direct links to US Supreme Court judgements. These latter are generally in the form of parenthetical references as described in WP:CITE. However, according to WP:CITE, articles should employ the same citation method throughout. The USSC links could easily become footnotes in the format <ref>US Supreme Court {{uscc|details|year}}</ref>, (admittedly, tedious to do so)
    • The judgements are typically around 15-20,000 words in length, undifferentiated into sections, and do not therefore give an easy means of verifying what's in the article. It's like a book citation to 40 or 50 pages of text. I'm not sure what the answer is to the problem of making these references more accessible.
    • Even so, I believe the article is under-referenced by FA standards. There are statements and views ascribed to JMH that are uncited, and which should be, and other facts which should be given a source. A few examples (there are others):-
      • In the Supreme Court career section, details concerning the Senate's confirmaton vote.
      • In the same section, [7] covers Harlan's friendship with Hugo Black, but not details of the issues on which they disagreed
      • Tn the Incorporation section, "Judge Harlan was strongly opposed to the theory that the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights..." etc
      • Same section: "Judge Harlan believed that the 14th amendment's due process clause only protected fundamental rights..." etc
  • Early life
    • While not wishing to quibble, I feel that the material in ths section extends well beyond Harlan's "early life", since it takes him to 52 years of age. Maybe the section could be divided between "Early life" (first 2 paras) and "Lawyer and soldier" or some such (last 3 paras). Or rename the section, possibly "Early life and career" - still not very good.
  • Quotes about Harlan
    • It seems odd to have a whole section devoted to this topic, containing a single (bullet-pointed!) quote. Unless you can find some others, I suggest you drop this section and find somewhere else to use the quote, if you think it worthwhile.

The article seems fluently written, although I haven't done a close prose reading for punctuation, typos etc. Before I do so, perhaps you would respond to the above. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I agree with the most of your points. I need to note that citations generally are to Harlan's opinions, not to whole judgements. These opinions are not necessary long. You are right that converting {{ussc}} template style references to inline citations is a tedious, but probably necessary work. I would apreciate furher comments regarding 1(a) FA criterion. Ruslik (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose

As indicated earlier, I think this article is well-written, with few major prose issues. The following are mainly suggestions for improving the flow, losing redundancies, etc. One significant problem is raised in the "Civil rights" section.

  • Lead
    • The first para would flow better if the first two (short) sentences were combined: "...an American jurist who served..."
  • Early life
    • This sentence: "Harlan's family had, historically, been a politically active one" could, I think, be improved to "Historically, Harlan's family ad been politically active"
    • - And later, to avoid repetitions, you might say say "He (not Harlan) later attended two boarding schools in or near Toronto, Canada: Upper Canada College and Appleby College".
    • "reaching the rank of partner" could be shortened to "becoming a partner"
    • "he long served as chief assistant for Emory Buckner" - sounds archaic and clumsy. Also, I think you serve as assistant to, not for. How about: "...he acted for many years as chief assistant to Emory Buckner"?
    • In my experience, "Croix de Guerre" might be written thus, or as "Croix de guerre", but never as "croix de guerre".
    • In this context, "soon after the end of the war" is redundant - you've mentioned 1946.
  • Supreme Court career
    • "for about one year" could (given the dates) be "for a year"
    • Shouldn't the nomination be to the United States Supreme Court, not just the "Supreme Court"?
    • Due process
    • I suggest the following, as a means of smoothing out the last pragraph: "Harlan's interpretation of the Due Process Clause attracted the criticism of Justice Black, who rejected the idea that the Clause included a "substantive" component, considering this interpretation unjustifiably broad and historically unsound".
    • Incorporation
    • "almost all..."? You list seven exceptions out of 26 (?) amendments. 19 out of 26 isn't really almost all.
  • Criminal procedure
    • "...The court's moderate wing" - who defined this group as "moderate", on what basis?
    • "Harlan was the author of..." What does this mean? That he wrote the Court's opinion? If so, better clarify
    • I found the last paragraph unclear, especially "the test for determining whether governmemt conduct constituted a search" What kind of "search" are we suddenly talkng about? Unfortunately, I found Harlan's comments in the next sentence equally obscure.
  • Civil rights
    • "...similar to his namesake" - would that be his grandfather?
    • This sentence is POV and non-encyclopedic (it reads as though imported from somewhere else): "He was a monumental judge during the civil righs movement, and if it hadn't been for his decisions of justice and equality, many rights given to minorities today would most likely be hard to imagine".
    • "He joined in..." Is this the same as "concurred"?
  • Voting rights
    • "justiciable" - is there a more familiar word that could be used?

I've done a bit of comma work while reading through, and fixed the odd typo. My feeling expressed earlier, about the need to incease the number of references, was reinforced.

I hope you find these comments helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if any of my comments need clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you review was extremly helpful. Ruslik (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Mitchell International Airport

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Been thinking of putting this one up for GAC in a few weeks time, there is need for improvment in this articles ref section, such as adding the source and access date. I will get to that task soon, but I wish to know what other areas you think need cleanup or some copyediting.

Thanks, I would love to give a PR to someone else also. --Marcusmax (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Lead has stubby paragraphs, and doesn't really talk about the history of the airport itself.
    • Looking through the article, there's some big Manual of Style issues, such as improper bolding, stubby sections (that arent a full paragraph) and the like. So the article needs some expansion and revamping.
    • The second major issue is sourcing. Many sections have next to no sources, such as the carriers list and the incidents list. I suggest using Ben Gurion International Airport as a model and reformatting the layout like that FA, then work on expanding and citing content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, i'll try to follow your suggestions as best as possible. -Marcusmax (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting those refs done -Marcusmax (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with David Fuchs' comments above, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Language could use some tightening, for example the first sentence could lose "the city" General Mitchell International Airport (IATA: MKE, ICAO: KMKE, FAA LID: MKE) is a county-owned public airport located five miles (8 km) south of the central business district of Milwaukee, a city in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, United States.[3] Since it has a wikilink and only cities have Central Business Districts, the city seems superfluous
  • Any chance for more images? The terminal exterior perhaps? I also note that 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.
  • Agree this needs more 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
  • History seems a bit sparse, decades long gaps in several places.

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 ><>°° 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pendulum discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Over the last week I've spent some time bringing this article from a bullet-pointed list up to its present state. I believe it will shortly be ready for WP:FLC so I have started this peer review. I am looking for any comments concerning the prose, layout or style of the article, the validity of its sources, or indeed anything that you feel may help a potential Featured List Candidate. Thanks – Ikara talk → 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Can you add inline citations to the information in the lead that tells about the singles' charting? Examples:
    • "Five singles were taken from the album, including "Slam / Out Here", the first single by Pendulum to reach the top forty in the UK Singles Chart." Done
    • "which reached number twenty in the UK charts and was the band's most successful single for almost three years" Done
    • "and was nominated for Best Single at the Kerrang! Awards 2008 ceremony." Done
    • "Pendulum's first release was the double A-side "Spiral / Ulterior Motive" in 2003, before the band relocated to the United Kingdom." Done, but might not be necessary as general references do cover this. I linked to a "by year" discography anyway (general is not sorted by default)
Feel free to add any more citations that I may have missed here – Ikara talk → 23:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This caption: "Pendulum live at the Electric Ballroom in London during their 2007 tour." is not a full sentence; therefore, there should not be a period at the end. Done
  • "Three singles have been released from In Silico so far, the most successful of these being 'Propane Nightmares',"-->"Three singles have been released from In Silico so far, and the most successful of these is 'Propane Nightmares'," Done although I chose to split this into two sentences omitting the "and" to make it more readable.
  • In the singles table—"Their Law: The Singles 1990-2005" needs an en dash between 1990 and 2005 instead of a hyphen. Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Thanks for the comments, they were very helpful – Ikara talk → 23:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – If you could check what I've done, particularly the new sources, it would help a lot. Thanks – Ikara talk → 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that one source, I think this article is ready for FLC. Great job! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kiac (talk · contribs)

  • That above suggestion, change "so far" → "to date". Simple. Done
  • This article should help you with reliability of some of the above sites. Used, moved to appropriate place above, thanks.
  • Norwegian chart reference doesn't reference "Voodoo People". It references "Out Of Space (Audio Bullys Remix)", which isn't the same song and i don't think it is by Pendulum, so the charting is inaccurate. Under consideration, actually the single was released as a double A-side with "Voodoo People" and the referenced song (which has not been released outside of this single). For some reason the site only acknowledges one of the songs. I may still remove this chart simply due to the difficulty of verifying it, in the meantime I have added a note stating the above.
  • In Albums. Why Warner Music UK in Europe? Does the UK company cover the whole of Europe? I think it would be better off just leaving it as Warner Music. Done
  • None of their singles have charted in Australia? Just checking. Checked. Surprisingly enough, no → link ("Coma" is by a different band of the same name)
  • "by Pendulum, and by various other artists" → "by Pendulum, as well as by other artists" ? Done
  • I'm not entirely sure if there's a policy on this, but you may be better off leaving spaces blank instead of writing "None" or "Unknown". Done
  • In Remixes, there is an Album column, even though only one or two of the items in the column are actual albums. Change Album to Appearance maybe? Changed to "Release", seems more appropriate
  • Might be worth using Webcite to archive the band's discography page, bands generally change their websites around every time they release a new album - removing a lot of material, etc. Nothing necessary, just a suggestion. Done, thanks for the suggestion

Hope some of that can provide you with some assistance. Nice article. kiac (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Thanks for returning the favour, best of luck with the FLC – Ikara talk → 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goan Catholics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the grammar the required information is not up to the mark

Thanks, Sanfy (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport, Iowa

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 worked hard to get this article to GA back in March, and would like to get it to an FA by the end of the year. Any help on making that possible is appreciated!

Thanks, Ctjf83Talk 02:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Davenport sounds like an interesting place, and this is a reasonably good article that seems to cover most aspects of the city. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • The lead needs to be re-worked to include at least a mention of the content of the lower sections. As it stands, it says nothing about the economy, sports, government, or infrastructure. An ideal lead is a brief summary or abstract of all that follows. To keep your lead from getting too long, I'd suggest removing the long final paragraph about the livability award to make room. The lead should not include material that is not mentioned in the main text; thus the livability award needs to be mentioned elsewhere. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • Image:St. Ambrose University.jpg lacks a description, source, date of creation, and name of image creator. Image checkers will not find the information they need to verify the license. Please see WP:IUP.
  • I recommend a copyedit by someone with fresh eyes. You might be able to find a copyeditor at WP:PRV, the peer-review volunteer list.
  • It's important when using direct quotes to attribute them precisely. The quote "let mother nature take her course, we'll all be better off" is attributed to "Davenport's elected representatives". The quote should be attributed to Phil Yerington, the former mayor, and not to a generic group.
  • Avoid weasel words such as "possibly" the oldest and "likely to be the second-oldest" in the lead. I see a few weasel words in the main text as well.
  • References to "current" time are generally deprecated because they are ambiguous. The article mentions "the mayor-council form of local government consisting of a mayor, currently Bill Gluba... " A reader can't be sure what "currently" means. Instead, you can say something like "As of 2008, Bill Gluba... "
  • Paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences are generally deprecated. They can often be merged with other paragraphs, or in some cases they can be expanded.
  • The term "mass mound" needs to be explained. Most readers will not know what it means. In fact, "Mass mound" might be the subject of a future article. Sounds interesting.
  • The "Government" and "Education" sections could be compressed. I'd suggest reducing the technical explanations of the inner workings of the government. The article says, "The city administrator makes policy recommendations to the council, but the council may or may not adopt them and may modify the recommendations. The city administrator is bound by whatever action the council takes." I think the wiki-link to mayor-council government pretty well covers things like this. I have the same thoughts about the list of elementary schools. The dry legislative explanations and the school list probably edge into unnecessary detail. The WP:WikiProject Cities/Guideline specifically deprecates listing all the schools in a city unless the list is short.
  • Include no-break codes between digits and the nouns they modify. An example from the article is "Davenport public schools serve nearly 17,000 students..." A no-break code is needed to keep "17,000" and "students" together on line-break (equivalent to carriage return). See WP:NBSP.
  • Who won the Rock Island Railroad lawsuit?
  • If Davenport is served by Amtrak, that should be mentioned in the transportation section. Ditto for the cross-country bus lines. Ditto for transportation by river. It occurs to me that Davenport is a river port, but I don't see much about that aspect of the city in the article. Barges, shipyards, sternwheelers for tourists, anything like that?

If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. If you have questions about my comments, please mention it here or send me a note. Finetooth (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer: Interesting city, well written for the most part. I have provided some comments below. If I happen to spot anything later that could be improve I'll add it here as well.

  • This is purely aesthetic, but all the images are aligned on the right side of the article. Changing it up a little by left aligning some of the would make it look better.
  • "...granddaughter of a Sac chief.", Who are the "Sac"?
  • "...for the army's Fort Armstrong.", Sounds awkward, I suggest "... for the U.S. Army garrisoned at Fort Armstrong."
  • Did they catch the people who assaulted Col. Davenport?
  • History is out chronlogical order. Col. Davenport dies at the end of the 2nd paragraph but is alive in the beginning of the 3rd.
  • "...at a meager price of $100,000." Is the $100,000 in today's dollars or in 1895's?
  • The info on Davenport being in Tornado Alley seems to relate more to climate than geography.
  • Do we need to know the average home price in Davenport?
  • Is there any reason Davenport has a lower cost of living than the national average?
  • United States is abbrievated as both "US" and "U.S." in the article. A consistent format should be used throughtout the article. See WP:MOSABBR.

You may wish to look at other cities that are featured (for example: Seattle, Washington, Grand Forks, North Dakota, Erie, Pennsylvania) to get some ideas on how this article can be improved. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from User:Maclean25: This looks great. I believe it is comprehensive, well-illustrated, and uses appropriate references. However, I found its weakness to be some of the writing style which in parts relies upon laying out facts rather than carrying the reader through a narrative. For example, from Sister cities, Davenport has three sister cities.[64] Kaiserslautern, Germany is the first sister city of Davenport. They became sister cities on June 10, 1960.[64] Ilhéus in Bahia, Brazil became Davenport's sister city on January 31, 2005.[64] Davenport's newest sister city, Carlow County, Ireland, became a sister city on September 26, 2006.[64] Instead try: Davenport has three sister cities. On June 10, 1960, Kaiserslautern, Germany became Davenport's first sister city. The coastal city of Ilhéus in the Brazilian state of Bahia, became, on January 31, 2005, Davenport's second sister city. Davenport and Carlow County, Ireland, became a sister cities on September 26, 2006.[64] That is still pretty simple but, at least to me, it flows better. I can see a lot of work went into this and it does deserve to become an FA. But, to be prepared, before taking the article to FAC please would solicit the opinion of one of the regulars there to gauge whether a copyedit is required. --maclean 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commments from Carcharoth: Not sure if this peer review is still open (the notice is still on the article talk page), but will comment here anyway.
    • Lead should mention the current mayor and possibly the current size (in terms of area) of the city. Both are in the infobox, but I think they should be in the lead as well.
    • I agree with the comment above that the lead should summarise more of the article. Ask for more specific advice if needed.
    • The "Livability Award" bit in the lead section should be a summary of something mentioned in the main body of the article. At the moment, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main body of the article, and is a bit long for the lead in any case (I see I'm repeating what others have said, but it is one of the more obvious things that can be said about the article, so it probably is worth the repetition).
    • More on the history in the lead, with only the last paragraph on current events and modern stuff.
    • The start of the main body of the article is a bit abrupt. Say who "Keokuk" is, rather than relying on people to click away from the article.
    • The paragraph on Davenport is a bit long. The whole "history" section, as the summary of a daughter article, could also be shortened somewhat, though it is important to have a comprehensive summary. The lawsuit bit is also a bit long. There is also more from History of Davenport, Iowa that could be mentioned. Try not to get bogged down in details.
    • Geography section: need a date for the Census data. I would also try and give the context within the USA. Say it is on a similar latitude to, and west of, Chicago and the southern edge of Lake Michigan. Say is is x kilometres from Chicago, x kilometres from the mouth of the Mississippi, and name three or four of the closest large towns and cities apart from the ones already mentioned. Also, is the surrounding countryside farmland, woods, grassy plains, rolling hills? I would also say how large the river is at this point - a good way to do this is to mention the longest bridge, or the length of the main bridge. If the river is very deep or shallow, that would be of interest as well. Also mention any nearby confluences (e.g. Rock River and Mississippi) and which direction they are in. Again, not too much, but just enough to give an idea of the geographical surroundings.
    • The link to Great Flood of 1993 was interesting. It seems that flooding is commonplace in Davenport because of the lack of levees. Is it possible to write a bit more about this, and talk about the history and about Davenport in relation to the biggest of the floods seen over the years on the Mississippi?
    • Mass mound bit should be mentioned in the history section as well. It is not clear that there was a hamlet in this location before the founding of Davenport - in fact, a brief paragraph on the history of the area (and the native American tribes in the area) before the founding of Davenport would help. Not too much, but just enough to set the scene.
    • Neighbourhoods - need more on downtown Davenport - the tallest buildings and skyscrapers. See here for mention of the "Wells Fargo bank building in downtown Davenport at 12 stories (17 including the clock tower) followed by the MidAmerican Building at 15 stories" - I think these are the two buildings dominating the main picture. See also here: "the 15 story MidAmerican Plaza Building" and " the ornate Wells Fargo Bank Building (formerly Davenport Bank and Trust Building)" - these two buildings need to be mentioned (the latter is also called the MidAmerican Energy Plaza, presumably to do with the MidAmerican Energy Company mentioned elsewhere in the article?).
    • Demographics and Crime sections are a little bit boring - any chance of finding a source that gives a narrative history rather than a whole load of statistics? How have the demographics changed over time, for example?
    • Three companies are mentioned under "Economy". Can you give brief details of what other companies there are in Davenport?
    • Culture section is good, as is the sports section, but some of the wording sounds like it is from a brochure or tourist website. Needs to be rewritten to be less "touristy".
    • Transportation section doesn't mention boats or any ports. If it doesn't have a port, that needs to be said, along with a section on industry (surely the city had a history of industry at some point, being on the river?). Ah, I see some of the industry is covered under "Economy".
    • Last few sections are a bit short. The article sort of runs out of steam and dribbles off at the end (sorry!). If possible, try and develop a strong forward-looking section (without having it date too much) looking at future plans and developments and forthcoming events. That also gives people a clue as to when the article was last updated.
That was a bit longer than I intended, but I hope it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 derived from a failed Featured Article candidate and I'm interested in further feedback.

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea! I must check that out. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Having reviewed the article this is derived from, I like this version much better. Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article needs more references, for example Media organisations and the police received many letters and postcards purportedly written by the killer, who was dubbed "Jack the Ripper" after one of the signatories. Despite an extensive police investigation, the killer was never conclusively identified. Both at the time and subsequently, many amateur and professional investigators have proposed solutions to the mystery. OR In the original television series, the story is depicted as the belief of Gorman but not of the detectives. One of the researchers employed on the show was Stephen Knight. Captivated by Gorman's story, Knight decided to investigate his claims further, and eventually published his research as the book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution in 1976. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should look into the text, so I think both images should be on the left hand side, looking into the text, not on the right looking off-screen.
  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - could these either be combined with others or expanded?
  • Since the article is now about the book, are there any reviews of it as a book that could be cited here?

Otherwise looks good, and I 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 ><>°° 02:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crane

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to nominate this article for FAC in a month's time. Since the last review (closed August 11), I have added several new images (all free) and I have completed the "Fiction and poetry" section. Several other changes have taken place in the lead and "Legacy" section. I am interested in knowing if the article is comprehensive, well written, and (of course) FA material. All comments and suggestions are welcome and would be much appreciated. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (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.
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.) 13:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks really good, but here are some nit picky suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • At FAC the use of "Today" might be problematic in Today, he is recognized as being one of the most innovative writers of his generation. Perhaps in the 21st century or something similar? Ditto for "now" in The novel is now considered an American classic.
  • Reworded both.
  • "Omnipotent"?? is this really the word meant in At the time of his death, Crane had become an omnipotent figure in American literature.
  • Yeah, it's a bit much. Changed to "important".
  • Should it be made clearer that the quote is (apparently?) from Crane himself in From the beginning of his writing career, Crane's "chiefest desire was to write plainly and unmistakably, so that all men (and some women) might read and understand. That to my mind is good writing."[36]?
  • Oo, good catch; reworded to make it clear that it is indeed a quote from Crane.
  • I think Badenweiler is best described as being on the edge of the Balck Forest On May 28, Stephen and Cora arrived at Badenweiler, Germany, a health spa near the Black Forest.
  • Changed.

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 ><>°° 04:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments! If you notice anything else, don't hesitate mentioning it. The more eyes the better. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit comments - Sorry it has taken me so long to get to this! It was a pleasure to read, however. I just here, drinking my Dr. Pepper, going "why didn't I have my class read Maggie"? :) Next semester, I think! Then I refer them to this wonderful article!

Ahh! The pressure! :) María (habla conmigo) 13:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the most important events in Crane's life involved meeting Hamlin Garland in 1891. - I don't think the article really explains why this event was so important.
  • Added "the older author would later serve as an influential adviser and mentor".
  • These themes, which are particularly evident in Crane's first three novels, Maggie: A Girl of the Streets The Red Badge of Courage and George's Mother, include ideals versus realities, spiritual crises and fear, which involves courage, cowardice and conflict of war - I think this can be expressed better.
  • Agreed; changed to: "Crane's work is often thematically driven by Naturalistic and Realistic concerns, including ideals versus realities, spiritual crises and fear. These themes are particularly evident in Crane's first three novels, Maggie: A Girl of the Streets The Red Badge of Courage and George's Mother."
  • Regarding the theme of fear and the dichotomy of courage and cowardice, this is clearly represented in The Red Badge of Courage in which the main character, Henry Fleming, longs for the heroics of battle but ultimately fears it. There is therefore the threat of death, misery and the loss of self - Oof - so wordy! - What about something like - "In The Red Badge of Courge, the main character both longs for the heroics of battle but ultimate fears it, demonstrate the dichotomy of courage and cowardice. He undergoes the the threat of death, misery, and a loss of self."
  • Nice, like it; changed (with fixed typos :)
  • Extreme isolation from society and community is also a heavily utilized theme in Crane's work. - "heavily utilized" is vague
  • Changed to "apparent".
  • After the success of The Red Badge of Courage, Crane chose to write another tale set in the Bowery. George's Mother is less allegorical and more personal than his two previous novels - This suggests that Red Badge is allegorical as well as Naturalistic, however only the Naturalism is emphasized above. Perhaps this tension could be explained a bit to the reader?
  • Added example of allegory in Red Badge.
  • The "Short fiction" section has definitely been short-changed. "The Open Boat" is one of the most-anthologized and discussed short stories of American literature. Surely we could say a little more about Crane's short stories here than merely their topics and that a few of them are famous? Let's give students something to plagiarize! :)
  • Fleshed out, added information about collections, recognition or lack thereof, etc. Hope that covers it...
  • Crane also differed from his peers and poets of later generations in that he heavily used allegory, dialectic and narrative situations - "heavily used"? - I think we need to ban the word "use" from this article!
  • Nooo! Okay, changed to "in that his work contains".
  • WP:MOSQUOTE - Check that phrases have punctuation outside the quotation marks and full sentences have punctuation inside the quotation marks, etc.
  • WP:MOSNUM - There seems to be some inconsistency in the way that ages are written - some are spelled out and some are not.
  • Image:SCrane2.JPG - This doesn't have a source (note the weblink sources the image to Commons and the original image doesn't have enough information - "1900 magazine").
  • I asked the original uploader, and received no response; tried to be sneaky, and failed. That's it! Scanned and uploaded the (much cleaner) version from Davis' book, citing her as a source.
  • Image:Redbadgecover.jpg - How do we know this is the first edition, again? I don't think we established that at the last peer review. Note that the linked source doesn't explicitly state that.
  • I emailed the Stephen Crane Society with the hopes that they will have an answer. Until then, I've replaced it with a fine battle-esque image that Crane would have approved of (from the battle that supposedly influenced Red Badge): Image:Battle of Chancellorsville.png

I'd say after a few improvements to the "Short fiction" section and some image detective work, this will sail right on through FAC. Accolades will rain down on you! Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much to the second power, Awadewit! I think I'm nearly done... María (habla conmigo) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The King of Fighters series

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of characters in The King of Fighters series/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 advices in how to improve the article. I know that the article needs copy-edit but I am unable to make it. My concerns are if some character could be joined or something else.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jappalang

This is based on a cursory look.
Layout

  • For the team section: instead of listing out every character of each team, lump them together in prose form.

Prose

  • Avoid lingo. "Seiyu" is nothing more than the Japanese word for "voice actors".
  • Get a copyeditor. The reception section needs some smoothing over. The sentences are quite disjointed and mechanical. The feel is like "A is for apple. B is for boy. C is for cat..." with the "IGN praised .... Gamespot praised.... GameSpy criticized ...."
  • Quote exactly. GameSpy said "stupid-hard", not "stupid hard".

Sources

  • IMDb is not a reliable source.
  • Insertcredit.com is not a reliable source especially with this sort of statement.

Image

  • The image needs a more detailed rationale than "To show a large number of fictional characters at once". Refer to this dispatch.

That is all. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A little question, what source should be used for the voices? IMDb is the only one I have seenTintor2 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they are notable (not talking of Wikipedia notability standards here) voice actors or the circumstances of their hiring are notable, why should they be listed? (We could go on about WP:IINFO or WP:NCC, but a point is why should who-voicing-who matter to a general reader who never even heard of them.) Usually if the circumstances are notable, there would be mentions in secondary sources that are reliable. Failing that, press releases from the company, information from the official websites, or credits from the game could do (those are primary sources which could be used to verify information but not help to establish notability of the article). Jappalang (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rennell Island

[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 as per FAC withdrawal notice a great deal of work has to be done. This needs serious work on prose, sourcing, and images (four images from a single internet cafe?)

I need assistance from fresh eyes. Feel free to edit as much as you want.

Thanks, Phenss (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have recently closed a previous Peer review OR have had an unsuccessful FAC have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review. The thought is that the PR and FAC should have many comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting to peer review. Since the FAC is a very detailed review (I checked), it is a waste of scarce PR resources to peer review this in its curent state. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-orgy for slags sluts and prostitutes they will have fun whilst fucking the living daylights out of each other and licking their pussy till it runs dry automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback before I send the article to FAC. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not normally write meteorology articles, but here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks pretty good to me, so here are msotly nitpicks.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so that 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. Most of the first paragraph is a history of the Hurricane and is not repeated in the article. Again I am not a storm person, but it seems to me that this should be in the article too - perhaps as a background section. If it is storm style to do this, it at least seems to me that it needs some refs in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Missing word? The effects of Hurricane Noel in The United States were widespread, though [they?] in no deaths or significant property damage.
  • Extra word? Overall, damage in North Carolina totaled to $72,000 (2007 USD).[14]
  • A few places seem to need dates to provide context - for example the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic section has no dates that I see, or the first paragraph in New England could use dates too - when did they open shelters, etc?
  • I would use {{convert}} templates throughout - there are some wrong conversions (2 in is 50 mm or 51 mm, NOT 25 mm\; and I think 4 in would be more like 102 mm than 100 mm).
  • Images and refs look fine to me although I did not check refs.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your review of Colton Point State Park - I was glad to returen the favor when I saw this at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I fixed everything, and added a reference to the lead. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:02, 5 October 2008 (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.) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed that source, as I found nothing to prove its reliability. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 nominate it for FLC. Any comments is welcomed, Thanks, —Chris! ct 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh..."/archive1"? —kurykh 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the notice at the top of the page please, specifically Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term "archive" for these pages is purely historical). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here via a link on WikiProject page; if I knew there was a notice on the main page I wouldn't be so incredulous. Geez. —kurykh 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kurykh, do you have any comment regarding the list?—Chris! ct 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the lead seems unnecessary, as it's about the history of the lines rather than about stations. Otherwise, I think it's fine. But I'm not that into the FA process, so you can take my comments with a pinch of salt. —kurykh 00:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead is too short, then the FL people will probably complain. But I will take that into consideration. BTW, do you see any problem grammar wise? I am weak at noticing grammatical problem.—Chris! ct 01:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No grammar problems that I can see. I don't think that the line names should have spaces between the dashes (they should be dashes, not hyphens, but whatever) hyphens, but that's an optional change, I think. —kurykh 06:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Anything else?—Chris! ct 17:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me at the moment. Good job! —kurykh 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I removed the "The" from the first line.
  • "the Richmond–Fremont Line was the oldest, first opened in September 1972" - That line was a bit awkward, so I've changed it.
  • Did the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake close any lines or stations, and for how long?
Um, not sure.—Chris! ct 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and rearranged the sections for the notes, citations, and bibliography. You may want to take a look at Harvey Milk to see ref groups for adding notes sections a different way.
  • Make sure the images all have information tags, or at least include valid sources and are on commons.
They are ok.—Chris! ct 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly a bunch of minor things, I've tried to check against Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, but it may need someone with a good eye and knowledge for MoS issues. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 creating it and getting it on DYK recently, I realized how comprehensively that initial turn had covered this recent but relatively little-known (outside the consumer-law and arbitration communities) U.S. Supreme Court case concerning arbitration, one of the few times Clarence Thomas not only is not on the same side as Antonin Scalia but is the lone dissenter. Since all the briefs submitted were online, as well as some law-review articles discussing it from both pro and con perspectives, I thought this could be a GA or FA at some point. So here's the beginning of that road.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Hi Daniel, interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

My responses follow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of "Background of the case" has no refs, neither does "Subsequent jurisprudence". My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Agreed, I certainly have the same philopsophy in reviewing articles. I do need refs for the stuff about payday lending and arbitration at the beginning; and I'll put them in before taking this to GAC. As for the last graf, see below about legal citation style.
 Done Mostly ... I need to cite that bit about criticisms of mandatory predispute binding arbitration. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Took care of that now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not entirely sure what "Supra" meant as a ref - I think it means see above (Latin and all that) but such print terms are not generally used here since another editor could add another ref between these and then this would seem to refer to the incorrect ref.
Supra means roughly the same thing as Ibid.. It's the preferred form in legal writing, whether in documents related to a court proceeding or in journal articles, and as such we've been using it for articles about court decisions, or that reference court decisions. Lawyers reading it would expect to see it (I can wikilink it in the footnote).

Leaving aside my common response to the complaint about using Ibid., I will explain that this is meant to indicate here that the same decision is being referred to, not necessarily the same page or even opinion. Again, this is common legal-writing practice.

 Done After discussions with another user, I have decided to follow the guideline and just use the author name. Daniel Case (talk)
  • 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
I assume you're referring to the findlaw links ... at WP:SCOTUS we've been doing it that way for a while. I suppose I could convert them to footnoted links with the case title and publisher.
  • Any chance for a free picture - the Supreme Court building or Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia have to be available, or perhaps one of the payday loan places?
Hmm. I had thought about this. I'm leery of using the picture at payday loan for two reasons:
  • First, the case isn't about payday lending per se; it's about arbitration and contract law, which are abstract concepts difficult to picture. (Perhaps I could find an arbitration clause in one of those many contracts of adhesion we all have signed, like a credit-card agreement, and photograph that, but to me there might be copyright issues, and really, why take a photograph of something that's essentially textual?
  • Second, the photo at payday loan is really ill-suited for this purpose. It's long, and so would squish the text into the infobox at the point where it should be used in violation of WP:LAYOUT as well as generally accepted principles of online text-display aesthetics. And from an encyclopedic perspective the picture leaves something to be desired ... it's cluttered, with so much else to see in the window. It's OK for that article, I guess, since it provides context, but not for this one.

    I know you'll say I could take another picture, but New York doesn't seem to a particuarly friendly place for payday lenders (I've driven many times through poorer neighborhoods in the cities of the Hudson Valley and never seen any check-cashing place or similar business that offers payday loans, and those areas are usually where you would find them).

But a photo of Scalia — yeah, that'll work.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE there should be a ref right after a direct quote, so for example "While seemingly a mere reiteration of Prima Paint's holding," the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (IICPR) wrote, "the Buckeye decision both clarifies and expands an arbitrator's jurisdiction by adding potentially void contracts to an arbitrator’s domain and by unequivocally extending the severability and validity principles into state court." needs a ref.
Will do.
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be expanded: He suggests ways both legislative and judicial bodies could remedy this situation.?
Yes, certainly. I was on the brink of sleep at the time and was literally having a hard time keeping my eyes open. So I just ended it there. I will add the specifics.
  • "Aftermath" is a very short section - could it be made part of the Legacy section (perhaps "Aftermath and legacy")? There are several other short paragraphs (one or two sentences) that could be expanded or combined
Well, I want to distinguish between what happened to the actual case (the eventual settlement) and its impact on later cases like Preston v. Ferrer and how it was received and critiqued by the legal community.

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 ><>°° 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I do not know about legal sourcing or legal article style standards, so ignore my comments there. I have seen hidden comments at the start of articles if special citation styles are used. I am fine with the short section - just an idea. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Returns

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 other feedback to get this to FA-status. I still need to add Tim Burton's DVD audio commentary, but I'm open to other suggestions. More importantly I probably should expand the lead section.

Thanks, Wildroot (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask 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 - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up the language - an FA criterion is a professional level of English, but just in the lead there are problem sentences like Burton originally did not want to direct a sequel because of his mixed emotions of the previous film - "because of his mixed emotions of the previous film" is not grammatical, or ditto for "caused parental backlash controversy." in Batman Returns was released with financial and critical success, but caused parental backlash controversy. The top section of WP:PRV has people willing to help with copyedits.
  • There are several places where the article needs to provide more context for the reader - for example in the Reaction subsection in the Reception section (Reaction is an odd name, by the way) there are many sentences like this Paul Dini enjoyed the characterization of Bruce Wayne. - while Paul Dini is wikilinked, there should also be a brief description of who he is - see WP:PCR A good example of this in the article is Batman comic book writer/artist Matt Wagner quoted, ... although "quoted" is an odd verb
  • Refs should be in numerical so fix examples like Raquel Welch, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Lena Olin, Ellen Barkin, Cher, Bridget Fonda and Susan Sarandon were then in competition for the role.[11][3]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media for the FAs on films

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 ><>°° 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Crofts (footballer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's a potential GA, but want to know what might still need addressing

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

  • DoB template in infobox should include df=yes, for date format consistency
  • "in which a draw with Nottingham Forest led to the team's relegation from the Football League Championship" - which team, Forest or Gillingham? Just so it is 100% clear.
  • "In the 2005–06 season he was the team's most regular playing" - most regular player? I'm wondering whether the phrasing could be improved further, as it implies he was the one who ate the most All-Bran :-) Maybe that's just me.
  • "scored 8 goals" - eight goals, per MOSNUM
  • I would put the references in two columns as there's plenty of them

Overall, very good work I think. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations

[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've been working on it for a while and would like some outside input. Besides the glaringly obvious lack of citations, what else is there that needs to be done before GA/FA status can be achieved?

Thanks, Joowwww (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, pretty much the research and citations will cover it. That will tell you if there are any important subtopics that have been missed (if all or most of the high quality sources cover something the article doesn't, it needs to be there) or topics that have been given too much or too little space relative to their importance. Once you have that the lead can be fixed to properly summarize the article. So basically grab some really good sources and have at it. - Taxman Talk 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The "History" section only has information on the founding on the UN.
  • Em dashes should be unspaced.
  • "formerly six - the Trusteeship Council suspended operations in 1994" The hyphen should be an unspaced em dash.
  • I see "citation needed" tags, make these go away.
  • "The Security Council has been criticised for being unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis." "being unable"-->inability.
  • The "Specialized institutions" section has an expansion tag on it; put in more information from the main article.
  • "The United Nations Charter stipulates that each primary organ of the UN can establish various specialized agencies to fulfill its duties."
  • "there were renewed calls for the UN to become the agency for achieving world peace, as there are several dozen ongoing conflicts that continue to rage around the globe." Need a more neutral phrase than "rage around the globe."
  • "The UN is one of the official supporters of the World Security Forum, a major international conference on the effects of global catastrophes and disasters, taking place in the United Arab Emirates, in October 2008."-->The UN is an official supporter...
  • "This practice is not specific to the recognition of same-sex marriage but reflects a common practice of the UN for a number of human resources matters." "number of"-->other.
  • Basically, the article needs a copy-edit, more citations, and resolutions of disputes.

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meads

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 currently rated as Start Class. A lot of work has since been done.

Thanks, Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good stuff, but it needs to be more standardized. Try to find other FAs on areas of towns and/or towns of similar size and find the subsections that are included. Also look at the Wikiproject and other guidelines for what articles about city and other administrative divisions should cover. It feels like it is missing stuff. I can see an argument for not duplicating everything that the Eastbourne article would have, but there at least needs to be enough context to let the reader know what is going on. Specifically for Meads, it needs as much of the broad information any other human geographical article should have such as demographics, etc. 2) Needs more context in general. The Boudaries/Councilors section is a good start at describing the governance of the area, but not having the background in UK local politics I had no idea what was going on in the Councilors section. Give more background on what a Councilor is, how the local government works and what roles they have relative to the larger government bodies. 3) The history section is too long. Per WP:SS articles should allocate appropriate amounts of space to each subtopic and no one subtopic should dominate an article. They should be balanced with the most important facets of a topic getting the most space and the lesser facets getting less. But no topic can justify that much space. That's all for now, keep up the good work and good luck. - Taxman Talk 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comment A model FA article (or two) is helpful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several English settlement FAs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography#Featured_articles that would be good model articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

[edit]

Thank you to everyone who has already commented ... and to anyone else who will be doing so. It's kind of you to read through the article and I will be taking on board the points which you make.Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Episode One

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 bring it to FA status one day. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Boy, don't sound so glum... "one day..." :P Images:
All done Gary King (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, you might want to beef up the rationales, especially the gameplay image- how does it increase our understanding fo the work? The barebones one-liner wouldn't satisfy Elco, so just be warned :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to those at the moment. I'll see if I can, and then add them when I get them. Gary King (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idlewild and Soak Zone

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just looking for feedback on how to improve this article. It's a bit rough, as it's hard to find reliable sources, but I've done my best to use the history section of the park's website here, as well as some other sections I've tried to elaborate on. Thanks, GrszX 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, and I see possibilities for improvement. Here are a few suggestions:

  • The lead should summarize the main text. The existing lead seems to be an introductory paragraph rather than a summary. Ideally, the lead would include at least a mention of the main points in each of the main text sections, and it would not include information not developed in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
Let me know if it needs more done. GrszX 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could be improved through the use of images.
I agree. I'm not very well-versed in the free use policy, so I'll have to recruit help. GrszX 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a digital camera, or if you have a friend with one, you could make your own images and upload them. It takes a while to learn how to upload and license them correctly, but it's a lot of fun and very useful once you get the hang of it. Please see WP:UPIMAGE if this sounds interesting.
  • More research, which would uncover a greater variety of sources, would no doubt help. The amusement park's press releases and web site are OK as starting places, but they can be expected to be self-serving. They are therefore weak sources for satisfying WP:V. A quick Google search on the park's name produced this hit: Amusement Parks of Pennsylvania, which has a chapter on Idlewild and Soak Zone. You might have to visit a library or bookstore to gain access to the whole chapter since the on-line version includes protected (blank) pages. Newspapers and magazines are other possible sources.
I think I sufficiently expanded the history section. GrszX 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists of rides offer opportunities for expansion. You might think about writing a paragraph about each of the most interesting or unusual rides instead of just listing them. I'm not sure it's useful simply to list each of the water slides, for example. Unless they are explained, names like Hydro Racers and Little Squirts are hard to differentiate.
Expanded into prose that explains additions/history that isn't covered in the actual History section. GrszX 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct quotes need a citation. The first sentence of the "History" section should have a reference immediately after the end of the quoted material. Please see WP:IMAGE.
Done. GrszX 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the "History" section mentions William Darlington but doesn't say who he was or how he had the power to grant anything to Thomas Mellon. It would be good to tell the readers who Darlington was. In this same opening section, you mention Pittsburgh. Most people won't know how far Ligonier is from Pittsburgh. You might add this information and also tell us where the railroad went. Perhaps it was a short line from Ligonier to Pittsburgh?
Done. GrszX 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to have a copyeditor review the article. I see small errors such as the two in this phrase: " ...it's removal had little lasting effect. Under the MacDonald's... " You mean "its removal" and the "MacDonalds".
Went back through while I was expanding, but I'm sure there are still some issues. Will look again. GrszX 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find these few suggestions helpful. If you have questions, please ask. I'll keep a watch on this review page. Finetooth (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Congratulations. You've made remarkable improvements to the article in a short time. You asked for additional comments, and I have three more suggestions.

  • The lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the whole of the main text. I would aim for about three paragraphs that include more about the history, the various owners, and the specific rides and entertainments. I would certainly mention Mr. Rogers. In addition, instead of saying that the park is "regarded as one of the best family amusement parks in the world", which is a judgment not directly supported by a source, I would stick to naming the awards. This serves the same purpose without violating POV.
I expanded a bit, let me know what you think now. Grsz
Yes, that's better. Since one-sentence paragraphs are usually frowned upon, I merged the third paragraph with the first. I think that works OK. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The POV thought leads to my second suggestion. In the Parques Reunidos section, you say, "all of the company's parks would maintain their family-first attitude... " It's not clear what a "family-first attitude" means, and it sounds to me like public-relations language or advertising language produced by the owners. I mention this primarily because it has crept into the lead in the sentence, "Originally a family-run park, Idlewild maintains a family environment and is regarded as one of the best family amusement parks in the world." The thumping on "family" three times in this sentence gives off a whiff of POV that you don't need. The basic facts about the park make it clear that it is meant to attract families with children.
I think I fixed this how you suggested. GrszX 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK now. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting as I went through the revised article, but I ran into a sentence I couldn't fix. It is "The Wild Mouse was built by Vekoma and previously operated at Weiner Prater in Vienna and Alton Towers in Staffordshire, England, since 1985." I couldn't tell if that meant that Vekoma built the Wild Mouse in 1985 in Vienna or that the Wild Mouse operated in Vienna for a while and then at Alton Towers or exactly what. As I write this, I'm thinking that there must be more than one Wild Mouse. Maybe "since 1985" means that the Wild Mice in Vienna and Staffordshire are still up and running. Anyway, this sentence needs clarification.
I tried to clarify, let me know if you get what I mean now. GrszX 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. I removed the "since" date because it still was not clear what it referred to. The sentence now makes sense to me, but if the removed date is important, you might need to re-insert it somewhere. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these additional comments are helpful. Again, I'm impressed by how much you've improved the article already. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Moving Day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
While the episode list is being reviewed a third time, I'm thinking that this might be a good article, if nothing else, before this month's over. How close has it come?

(NOTE: This was a "Did you know?" entry back in late February.)

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments: Dabomb87

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Everyone is delighted to go, except Periwinkle, who does not easily conform to new settings." I think "adapt" would be a better word than "conform".
  • "He does not announce the plan until some time later, when the seven members come over to the other side of the hill and have a look at their new property."
  • He even finds his new room, which he will share with brother Dandelion, too large for his liking.
  • The package contains this episode, here entitled "Room to Move," and another one called "Carnival." Logical punctuation fixes needed (quotations should be inside comma/period), and I don't like the tone of this sentence ("here entititled").
  • This animated version stays faithful to the book, but with a few alterations..." "but with"-->except for.
  • Shouldn't this article use international date formatting?
  • What language is current ref 1 in? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is using British spelling, then shouldn't "anymore" be "any more"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments: The Rambling Man
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Three paras for lead is too many per WP:LEAD.
  • "La Famille Passiflore déménage" - the cover image says "La famille Passiflore..." i.e. small f for famille - which is it?
  • Gareth Stevens, if worthy, should be stubbed. If not, no red link please.
  • Is it worth saying that passiflore is bellflower?
  • " he disappears from the others' sight" - a bit odd - he makes himself invisible? I'd be more accurate - I assume he runs away, or hides?
  • Perhaps the lead should cover the English and Korean translations?
  • "and have a look" - "have a " is redundant.
  • Merge a couple of the Story paras - right now you have quite a few short paras which makes for slightly stilted reading.
  • "(The series actually debuted with "Slide On", the third in the official show sequence.[2][6])" - I dislike whole sentences in parentheses - if it's worth saying, just say it.
  • TV episode - Television episode.
  • "11-13" - use en-dash.

Hope some of that helps for the GA push. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supergrass discography

[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 it for FAC again and want to make sure everything is sorted before doing so. What work does this article need to be able pass for a FA?

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • First off, this has a better chance of being a Featured List than a Featured Article.
  • "This is a discography of Supergrass"—FL's don't start like this any more. Start off with "Supergrass is an English alternative rock band..."
  • This article needs copy-editing. That should be taken care of before submitting to FLC. If you want specific examples please ask at my talk page.
  • The main issues in the prose are wrong tense, awkward phrasing, and lack of commas or commas used in the wrong place.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples:

  • "The album reached number one in the UK where it stayed for three weeks." Needs a comma.
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album lead the band to four newcomer awards in the same year the album was released." "lead"-->led.
  • "'Alright' was released from the album which reached number two in UK Singles Chart." Comma needed after "album".
  • "In It for the Money which was the first album to be produced entirely by Supergrass peaked at number two in the UK album charts." Comma after Money.
  • "Their third self titled" Hyphenate "self titled".
  • "Both albums were included in the book "1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die"." This sentence does not belong in the middle of that paragraph.
Removed from article. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2004 the band released a singles compilation entitled Supergrass Is 10 to celebrate ten years since the band formed."-->In 2004, the band released a singles compilation entitled Supergrass Is 10 to celebrate ten years since the band's formation.
  • "The DVD version featured a documentary film in which the band members recall moments during their career in the group." Comma after "film".
  • "behind the scenes" Hyphenate.
  • "Road to Rouen is the fifth studio from the band"—fifth "studio album"
  • "and was difficult for the band due to personal reasons including Danny Goffey's tabloid ordeal and the death of the Coombes' mother. " Difficult to do what? Repetition of "band".
  • "Diamond Hoo Ha is the sixth album from the band and only peaking at number 19 in the UK album charts this release makes it their lowest charting album to date."-->Diamond Hoo Ha is the sixth album from the band. It peaked at number 19 in the UK album charts, which made this release their lowest-charting album to date.

That should help some. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but you missed a couple. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an English alternative rock"—needs band after this.
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consists of six studio albums, seven extended plays, two compilation albums, one live album, 25 singles, 21 music videos and contributions to three soundtracks." Comparable quantities should either be in all figures or all words, not mixed.
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of brothers Gaz (guitar and lead vocals) and Rob Coombes (keyboards), Danny Goffey (drums and backing vocals), and Mick Quinn (bass and backing vocals)." Incomplete sentence.
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band was formed"—Use British English "The band were formed..."
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album led the band to four newcomer awards in the same year the album was released." This sentence doesn't make sense now.
Changed to "I Should Coco led the band to four newcomer awards in the year the album was released." Better? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "...led the band to receive..." Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The track "Diamond Hoo Ha Man", one of the songs was first played at Guilfest, was distributed as the first single on a limited vinyl release, restricted to 1500 copies." Unclear.
Does it need a citation? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the wording of "one of the songs was first played at Guilfest" is off. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Mars

[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 as a newly-promoted GA, that User:Cornucopia and I hope to improve to FA status. Note that the article has been extensively revised since the prior peer review.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for those reviewing the article, please treat it like a(n) FAC; i.e. be as harsh and strict as you can be! ;) A "support" or "oppose" would also be good, so we know whether you would support or oppose it at FAC. Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:35, 9 October 2008 (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.) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So no featured content can ever use a WP:SELFPUB site, even for noncontroversial statements? See, I follow the policy chain like... WP:WIAFL references WP:RS which references WP:SPS, which is followed by WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within WP:V. Looking at that, it would appear that if the (admittedly pretty limiting) conditions of WP:SELFPUB are met, the source should be acceptable within both WP:RS and WP:V. However, I don't doubt that actual current consensus can markedly differ from what is written... does it? Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here's a review as if it were at FAC, although I do not usually weigh in on TV shows there. Anyway, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • Should the plot synopses say who the killer was in the Season One arc, or the solution to the bus crash or murder in Season Two?
  • Still some repetition, for example Plot has Stosh "Piz" Piznarski and Parker Lee are introduced as the respective roommates of Wallace and Mac while the Cast and characters section repeats this as The third season introduced two new series regulars, Parker Lee and Stosh "Piz" Piznarski. I also note this mentions the Mac character before he is described later in the paragraph.
  • Verb choice in Kyle Gallner acted as "Beaver", ... is a bit odd - perhaps "portrayed" or "appeared as" instead of "acted"?
  • Casting section is all one large paragraph - could it be split into two?
  • Rearrange As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project before it became a novel as a spec script. to something like As television scripts paid more, Thomas wrote the television version of the teen detective project as a spec script before it became a novel.
  • So say what happened instead For the third mystery, Thomas had wanted to present a situation where the Wallace and Mac could be fully involved, "key players [with] really interesting stuff to do".[21]
  • Assistant Location Manager Steven Lee said that the filming locations were decided [chosen?] by the director and by the production designer, Alfred Sole.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE the ref should follow the quote in things like Sole reportedly "really liked the look and feel of the school" and San Diego State University invited the series with "open arms".

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 ><>°° 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 82

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the first Washington and Oregon Interstate GA. I hope this article can be a FA soon, after some expansion and more tips from some reviewers. So, start reviewing! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I know the map is a standard format, but I find the two maps difficult to interpret - I do not know where the OR/WA border is or the cities mentioned in the article are, and it took me several views before I could figure out where the green planned extension was in the second map.
  • I am not a fan of refs in the lead and this may be an issue at FAC. Presumably all the refs are also in the body of the article too, so they are not absolutely required in the lead. I also think the lead should mention the important points in the article, so why not include the proposed extension to Tacoma over Naches Pass in the lead?
  • Is it normal for use stats to be the course description section? Also the stats for I-82 in WA are not given that I saw.
  • It seems very short for a FA, which is probably a sign that it is not as comprehensive as it could be.
  • A model articleis often helpful for ideas and exmaples to follow - see the highway articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport

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, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of PGA Championship champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm putting this list up for peer review, as I believe it will eventually meet all the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Also the numerous red links will disappear, as I'm periodically working on this. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Nice list, but apart from the images, the information is essentially that already listed in PGA Championship. What is the rationale for starting an entirely new list, when the existing one could easily be improved and enhanced? Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this was the case with [[List of Masters Tournament and more recently List of The Open Championship champions, the simple thing to do is delete the info in the main article, add a link to the list, and have a brief paragraph about the champions. NapHit (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An even simpler thing to do would be to replace the list in the main article with your enhanced list, bringing all the information into one place. I note the other examples you give; what is it about golf tournaments that requires parallel information? Anyway, I’ll comment on your list, but I feel that its future lies in integration with the main article.
  • Too many redlinks: I assume that the years are redlinked to provide future links to articles on the individual annual tournaments. Likewise the redlinked courses and locations. I fear that it will be a very long time before all the necessary articles are written, and meantime your list will have this mottled appearance; casual readers will wonder why some information is in red. My advice is to remove the redlinks and replace them with proper links as the required articles get written.
  • Golf information: Golfers will understand what "6 & 5" and "1 up" mean, some readers may not. A couple of explanatory footnotes should suffice. Likewise, understanding of concepts such as "par" should not be taken for granted
  • Prose questions: There are a number of these:-
    • "From 1917 to 1918" is better as "in 1917 and 1918"
    • "and are exempt" = "and is exempt"
    • "They also receive" = "He also receives"
    • Not a prose issue, but the prize is stated to be the Wanamaker Trophy. I imagine there is also cash involved?
    • "personally keep" – "personally" is redundant
    • "the next competition the following year" is a bit clumsy. Try "the following year’s competition"

That's all, really. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louvre Abu Dhabi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article, and I would like to receive feedback on the article, to determine what still needs to be done, and what improvements need to be made. Hopefully, with a bit of work, it'll be ready for WP:FA. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jordan Contribs 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Too many quotes! It's affecting readability.
  • Use em dashes instead of hyphens. Example:
Done. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are inconsistencies in currency: "US$525", but "525 million USD".
Done. I've changed them all.
  • Watch for redundancies: "525 million USD was paid by Abu Dhabi in order to be associated"
Fixed. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're consistent now, but they have repetition: "$27 billion USD". The dollar sign indicates dollars. It should be "US$27 billion". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted out. All of the costs now use this format.
  • Citation inconsistencies: Some last access dates are linked, others are not; date formats are differing, wording is different.
Inconsistencies are fixed. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted it to prose. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lazulilasher

First, please place quotes in quotation marks. See below. If there are more, please fix them.

The only museum FA that I know of is Palazzo Pitti. I recommend that as a guide.

  • Thing that need to be "in quotation marks":
  • The Article: "The museum will be designed as a seemingly floating dome structure; its web-patterned dome allowing the sun to filter through. The overall effect is meant to represent "rays of sunlight passing through date palm fronds in an oasis" The Source: Designed as a seemingly floating dome structure... Its web-patterned dome allows the sun to filter through, reminiscent of rays passing through date palm fronds in an oasis. Extremely close to the source, don't you think? If "seemingly floating dome structure" is a quote, then it should be in quotation marks. This is not Wikipedia's prose, it is another author's prose and he should be quoted.
Sorted out: now quoted.
  • Again, this: The type and nature of the exhibits planned for the Louvre had been affected “to no extent so far” by the fact the new museum would be in a Muslim country, said Mr Loyrette. is a direct quotation from the National Newspaper.
You've fixed this one up. Thanks.
  • Saadiyat Island's Cultural District will house the largest single cluster of world-class cultural assets -- What is a "single cluster of world-class cultural assets"? What defines a cluster? What exactly are world-class cultural assets? Also, the source says: "Saadiyat Island's Cultural District will house the largest single cluster of world-class cultural assets.", which is the same sentence as the article. Since it is over three words, it is a direct quotation and should be marked as such (use quotation marks).

I am sure there are more throughout the article; if the text is taken directly from a source, then it needs to be rendered as a quotation. Lazulilasher (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for more instances and improve them, adding quotations. Jordan Contribs 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More quotations:

  • This text: The galleries of the museum will leave room for confrontations between artworks of different periods and geographical regions, emphasizing the dialogue between civilizations in the field of the arts is completely unsourced and is verbatim from: here. This needs to be sourced and marked as a quotation. For the time being, I have removed the text from the article. Jordan, please rectify these areas. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This text: the controversy that has surfaced in France is led by art historian Didier Rykner, one of the most outspoken critics of the French–Emirati deal is directly from here
  • This text: Henri Loyrette, the president and director of the Louvre, has responded to growing criticism of the museum’s new policy of establishing footholds abroad, arguing that the Louvre cannot ignore the “internationalization” of museums. is directly from the New York Times.
  • This text: The French Culture Minister, Donnedieu de Vabres, said the "noble" venture represented the globalization of French culture, the first step in a long-term cooperation with the wealthy Gulf Arab region. is directly taken from USAToday and totally unattributed. It was removed. see here

The article is mostly a collection of quotes. Some were attributed, some not. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another quote copied from the source:

  • The French Museums agency will operate in collaboration with the Tourism Development and Investment Company (TDIC), which is behind the transformation of Saadiyat Island. It will be chaired by French financier and member of the country's Académie des Beaux-Arts, Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere, publisher of the periodical Revue des Deux Mondes. I've marked this text as a quotation, taken directly from here.

Did you do the same thing on other articles? If so, please clearly attribute the author's words to the author. Not doing so misrepresents Wikipedia as the author. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Shannara

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC a third time and make it the charm... =D

Cheers! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jappalang

Based on this version

Plot summary

  • The entire section is broken down into too many sub-sections that are short one-two paragraphs each. The key concern should be just how much details are these necessary to understand the general gist of the story. Do a general reader need to know the exact time frames the events occur in? Do they really need to know about Allonan's gift of three blue stones (which never gets mentioned anywhere else) to Shea? Concentrate on the major events.
    • Have you ever read Sword? There are a lot of, well, 'weird' things that need to be known if you are to understand.
    • The 'History' subsections are now gone.
    • The 'History' section is there so that the reader understand just how much of a "nuisance" the Warlock Lord had been for a long time. It also shows why the Sword of Shannara was forged in the first place. —the_ed17— 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider this. If a person who did not read the book considers the story section of this article long-drawn, then what does that say? Wikipedia is to serve the general reader, not those with an intense interest in the back story of Shannara. The events mentioned in this article should be the key points of the story. Telling us Allanon gave blue stones to Shea is not crucial at all, since no where in the whole article was it mentioned why these stones are important elements of the story. Jappalang (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

  • I find this to be an indiscriminate list of characters. It is simply a list, much of it based on and presented as in-universe information. There are several characters (especially the minor ones) who are throw-aways: they do not show up anywhere else in the article except in this section. Thus, they come across as a "This is Joe. He gave the prince a lollipop." kind of statement. Be discriminate—take out the throw-away characters and leave the ones who played major roles in the story or have real-life coverage. Rewrite the list into prose. You can try putting them as paragraphs separated into factions or by chronology.

General

  • There are too many full quotes. Wikipedia is not a quote farm. I should not be reading ten sentences of Brooks' or MacRae's own words here if I could read it in their original articles. Analyze what they are saying and rewrite them into the prose. You can retain sentences or phrases that could not be rephrased without losing the essence of its meaning or flavor.
  • The layout suffers when the quotes are mixed in with the text without clear marks of delineation (even the big curly quotes do not help on a wide 1600 screen, it can be hard to differentiate the main text from the quote in "Similarities between Sword and The Lord of the Rings").

Sources

I too am not convinced of the reliability of this site. Its listing on the author's site as a fansite is not the same as the author personally stating, "This site accurately restates the events happening in my books. Oh hey, go read my interview there as well."

Images

I am not convinced of the fair-use rationale behind this image. The image does not convey the atmosphere of their meeting, if the event was notable at all. Neither does it show the faces of the two characters clearly, I see only two cloaked shadowy figures. As far as I can tell, Andy Simmons is not the official artist for the Shanarra series, and his representation would be his own opinion of what the characters look like. Is he notable in the fantasy art field as to have an influence or impact on how the art of Shanarra is recognized?
    • As stated on his page, he has the permission of Terry Brooks to do these; if they weren't accurate, he wouldn't be allowed to make them, right? Also, the only 'official' artwork was done by the Brothers Hildebrandt for (I believe) only the first edition books...meaning that someone who actually has a 1977 1st edition book (not me) who has access to a good scanner (not me) must do it...and when I'm the only significant contributor to Sword who is still here...=/ —the_ed17— 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is on the same principle as the fansite. Receiving permission to paint pictures of an author's characters is not the same as the author saying "Now this is what I pictured Allanon and Shea as!" Unless Brooks expressly states that Simmons' portrayals are accurate, Simmons' art remains fan-art and not the official portrayals. The characters of the book are already represented by Image:Shannara quest party.jpg and need no more additional images for their illustration. Jappalang (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I skipped going into details on the lead and Background (but the quote comments still apply to Background) as I believe the above are the main reasons for the articles failure at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 got stuck. Asides from the style, what is this article missing (content), and where should I get the refs from? I don't have the dvd, so is it possible to get this article to GA from "outside" sources? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is too short, try to model it after "A Streetcar Named Marge" or any other Simpsons GA articles.
  • Me or someone else at WP:DOH can probably help out with the production section.
  • The reception section is probably long enough (see "Kamp Krusty").
  • Removed the unsourced stuff from the Cultural references section.
  • External links should be SNPP, TheSimpsons.com, IMDb and TV.com.
--TheLeftorium 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to help out with the Reception section. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for all the help! It is much better now than the level I hoped I would get it to. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the lead section must be completely rewritten, and need help with this.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is the only section of the article that provides any information other than lists of albums and songs. The whole article could be expanded to offer reviews by secondary sources of some of the albums and then pared down to include less complex information in favour of a condensation of what would now be written in the other (expanded) sections. Basically, the lead it too long and should provide an overview of the rest of the article, which would be expanded to discuss the albums separately. I guess my personal opinion is that a lead should be useful by readers who also use navigational popups because I often hover over a link to get a brief, but useful, overview of the article if; instead of I were to press "click". fr33kman -s- 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring-tailed Lemur

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to submit it as a FAC shortly. I am looking for comments that would facilitate a favorable FA review. Copyediting would be appreciated. Suggestions for citation clean-up are also strongly encouraged. Otherwise, a general review would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Visionholder (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting, well-sourced, and well-illustrated article. I can't help with the biology, but I have a few suggestions about Manual of Style issues that might be useful.

  • Digits and the units they modify need to have non-breaking spaces between them to keep them from from being separated by line-wrap on computer monitors. Please see WP:NBSP. The first two of these occur in the lead in the phrase "19 years in the wild and 27 years in captivity... "
  • The preferred arrangement for the citation numbers in the main text is ascending order. This is a minor point, but you might consider moving the citations for "the brown lemurs were moved to the genus Eulemur in 1988.[1][15][14]" so that the numbers appear as [1][14][15]. This appears in the "Changes in taxonomy" section. I see a [12][17][14] in the next section, and there may be others.
  • Instead of "The pelage is dense, with the ventral (chest) coat and throat being white or cream, and the dorsal (back) coat and neck being gray to rosy-brown" I might suggest "The pelage is dense. The ventral (chest) coat and throat is white or cream, and the dorsal (back) coat is gray to rosy-brown." The problem here is that "with" and "being" don't work well as logical connectors. This leads me to a more general suggestion. A top-to-bottom copyedit aimed mainly at prose flow would probably identify similar constructions and improve the prose. The prose is generally good in this article, but I'm thinking of further polishing to meet the 1a criterion at FAC. I see quite a few similar "with" plus "-ing" combinations that are generally frowned upon. Re-casting these in various ways might be the most significant thing you could do to improve the prose in this article.
    • That instance has been fixed per your suggestion, also correcting for s/v aggreement. I agree that a good top-to-bottom copyedit is needed. I have been trying to improve my skills using the guide How to satisfy Criterion 1a. I've gone on to apply what I could to the lead, today's fix of the "Anatomy and physiology" section and last night's re-write of the "Conservation status" section. I will continue my efforts at copyediting, although outside assistance from a skill copyeditor would be appreciated. But thank you for the suggestion and example. - Visionholder (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your time and effort. Although I am very busy with numerous planned re-writes and reviews, I will try to help out in the future with the backlogged peer review page. - Visionholder (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wadi (1916)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
What would this article need to get to GA status?

Thanks, Flewis(talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choess comments:

I'm not really sure what the usual GA standards are for military articles. A few things I noticed:

  • The lede needs a bit of work. "Pushed" is a rather informal phrasing. "considered as a" should be "considered a". Refer to Aylmer by his last name, and explain why his losses led good old Townshend of Chitral to surrender.
  • In the background section, you've given Townshend the wrong rank!
  • The grammar needs a little tightening generally. The opening sentence of "Battle of Wadi" seems rather disjointed.
  • And...I just noticed a copyvio from 1914-1918.net at the bottom of that section. Stop, do not pass go, until you're sure the whole article is originally worded. Sorry. Choess (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnies & Burrows

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

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

I would like to see this article be as finely tuned as possible before submitting it for featured article review. I would like constructive critisism: harsh, blunt, what ever form it takes.

Thanks, Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I like Watership Down very much and am intrigued by this - is there anything on Richard Adams' reaction to the game? Was there any talk of suing the authors of the game for copyright infringement? Similar thoughts for D&D vs. B&B - is the name based on D&D - sure seems like it.
Good comments. I'll start here. Copywrite doesn't apply because there is nothing copywritten that was copied. The game is inspired/based by Watership Down, but it is not the same storyline, so copywrite wouldn't apply. D&D is a trademark, not a copywrite, and a similiar name is not copywrite infringement (or trademark infringement for that matter). If the game was Dragons & Dungeons, you might have something. Since neither of these are fact, they don't have a place in the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do think if you have a reliable source commenting on the similarity of the name B&B to D&D, that could be included. Otherwise it is OR and out. Would be cool if Adams has made any comments on the game. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the article twice and do not really understand what a game / campaign is like. What do the players do / what are the goals in a game - to establish a new warren? to find mates? to wander across the English countryside? (all ideas like Watership Down)
Your suggestions are possibilities. That is the interesting thing about RPGs. The game takes the players where ever they and the gamemaster wants it to go. A campaign could be a Bunny Fu kick boxing tournament if they wanted to. Previous reviewers had requested the gameplay section be cut down. Any suggestion on what a campaign would be like would fall under OR, as there is no "right" answer. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I still think more could be said on the 8 abilities and 9 classes. I know in D&D there were canned campaigns available, are there any model adventures in the rules as a starter or canned campaigns that could be described? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a published magazine. Have you checked out the entire site? Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did not realize it was a magazine - just looked like a personal site when I went to it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain what "GURPS" means / stands for?
Generic Universal Roleplaying System. That is why the word is linked. GURPS is the proper name. However, I see your point. That last sentence could be expanded a bit. I will work on it. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" section generally does not repeat links that are already in the article, but Watership Down is definitely linked, not sure about the GURPS links.
I will look at this. Turlo Lomon (talk)
  • Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - combine them with others or perhaps expand them
Gotcha. I will look at this as well. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publications section - these may need more information - place of publication for books, for example. See WP:CITE
I will review this again and see what was missed. Information is kind of lacking on a book out of print for over 30 years. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is very short for a FA. While length is not a FA requirement, comprehensiveness is in WP:WIAFA and this may need to be more comprehensive. Dungeons & Dragons is a FA and may be a good model article for ideas and examples to follow.

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 ><>°° 02:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were very useful. Thank you for them. I will be sure to take a whack at helping other editors out in peer review. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also try to avoid "now" - for example in ... this edition is now long out of print. could be something like ... this edition is long out of print as of 2008. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 24 September 2008 (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.) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon I of 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 it to featured level, grateful for suggestions that will help it pass at wp:fac.

Thanks very much, Tom B (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Albert Speer

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 soon and I could use feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: These initial remarks relate to the lead and first two main sections. Further comments will follow later.

  • Lead
    • The "listen" icon is awkwardly placed within the date parentheses
    • "the", before "ministerial office", is redundant
    • You say he served "most of his time" in Spandau. Wasn't the whole of his sentence served there? No other prison location is mentioned.
    • According to this, Baldur von Schirach showed at least some degree of penitence.
    • The "however" in para 2 is redundant - test by replacing it with "Despite this", and it makes no sense.
    • Suggest lose the comma after "1966" in para 3.
  • Early life
    • 1st para has too many short, choppy sentences. The prose flow would improvr if some of these were combined.
    • Same problem occurs in mid-2nd para. "It was there..." should be replaced with "where", after a comma.
    • "He became Tessenow's assistant". Can you clarify this rather vague role - did he join the academic staff, was he a sort of PA/dogsbody? What did he do?
    • Also, you need to clarify the nature of the "relationship" with Rudolph Wolters. I assume that this was professional, but perhaps "relationship" isn't the best word to use - it certainly reads strangely, especially as you use the same word with reference to Margarete Weber.
  • Nazi Architect: General - this section is almost 2000 words long, and since it is linked to a main article I think you should reconsider the amount of detail, with a view to shortening it in accordance with "summary style".
    • "...because his students urged him to" is an awkward prepositional sentence ending. Suggest something like: "...only on the urging of his students"
    • Also, in what sense were they "his" students? This touches on the lack of clarity noted above, in relation to his role as Tessenow's assistant.
    • The sentence ending "...many of whom had become corpulent in office" needs a citation
    • "Part of the land for the boulevard was to be found by building two major railway stations..." etc. This part is somewhat over-explained. Why not just say: "Part of the land for the boulevard was to be found by replacing an existing railway line with an underground link".

OK, I will continue the review later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work on these comments. I'll change "relationship" to "friendship" re Wolters. Speer began his sentence on the day sentence was pronounced, so he served nine months in Nuremberg and nineteen years and three months in Spandau. All of these will be addressed, not a problem. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented them. I cut back only slightly on the Nazi architect section, but I made significant cuts in the Berlin paragraph. The Nazi period is really the period people care about with respect to Speer, and we need to be showing what Speer was doing with his time at all times, so I don't want to totally get rid of any paragraph. As for the question about the students, I've clarified. Using today's terminology (which I do not do in the article), Speer was Tessenow's TA. Tessenow only taught a couple of classes a week and Speer, using Tessenow's lesson plans, taught the rest. Speer says about this, "I taught for him . . . I really taught nothing that came from me, I copied him." In Sereny, where Speer talks about why he went to see Hitler, he uses the words "my students" Judging from the way Speer describes things, though he does not address this point, he likely handled most of the interaction with the undergrads, and it is logical for him to think of them that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the review:-

  • Minister for armaments
    • "...Speer recounts the meeting between him and Hitler, and that the architect was reluctant to take on the ministerial office, and only did so because Hitler commanded him to." This sentence is a bit clumsy, with too many "ands", and another prepositional ending. I suggest it could be simplified to "...Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, only doing so because Hitler commanded it".
    • "...was not yet geared for war production" Shaould this be "not yet fully geared..."?
    • "No sooner than five..." ?? "No fewer than five..."
    • Suggest "sought the appointment of Hanke"
    • "In January 1944 Speer fell ill and would remain away from the office..." Unnecessary subjunctive mood. "...and was away from the office" would do just as well, or better.
  • Nuremburg trial: No particular comment
  • Imprisonment
    • Either here or in the previous section it should be clarified who the "four occupying powers" were.
    • Para 3: what was the book of major importance that he had completed by 1954?
    • Avoid repetition of the "early release" phrase in the final paragraph
  • Release: No particular comment
  • Legacy and controversy: I suggest that this section should be slightly reorganised. The first brief paragraph should become a short subsection entitled "Architectural legacy". The second short para (beginning "Speer's actions involving Jews...") should be transferred to the next section entitled "Actions regarding the Jews". "Knowledge of the Holocaust" will form the third and final section.
  • Knowledge of the Holocaust
    • Suggest that "Speer" in second line becomes "he"
    • In the quote, what is Speer referring to when he says: "These seconds..."?
    • The statement in quotes: "Golhagen's accusations would certainly have been more convincing" should be preceded by something like: "According to historian Joachim Fest,..."
    • In the brief paragraph that begins "In 2007..." Speer's name is repeated five times (3 times in one line). The personal pronoun needs to be used to avoid over-repetition.

General comment: I've done a bit of fiddling with commas - probably more could be done. In general this is an important and engrossing article. I found the prose a bit uneven - very compelling in parts, a bit clunky and awkward in others. Perhaps a thorough copyeditor could smooth things out a bit. Definitely a good FAC candidate after a bit more work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. At this point, I'm going to close the peer review, and when I've made the changes I'm going to start the FAC. I really appreciate your work in what is a long article. Let me know if I can review one for you sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Gumble

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for FA-readiness. Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with the above comments and do not think this is yet at GA level, let alone FA, but there is a good start here.

  • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD. 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 many more references - the whole first paragraph in the Personality section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The article is written chiefly from an in-universe perspective and should be written more from an out of universe persepctive. Only 2 of the 14 refs are not directly from the Simpsons episodes or DVDs. What have critics said about Barney? The stuff people associated with the show say about him is good, but there has to be more. See WP:IN-U.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on fictional characters that many be good models, see Troy McClure or Jabba the Hutt

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 ><>°° 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiprovtsi

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 for FA status. My main concerns are grammar and prose quality because try as I might I'm not a native speaker and the article has not been proofread by anyone but me. Don't hesitate to bring up any issues with comprehensiveness, formatting or referencing either. Please note that the place in question, despite its rich history, has 2,000 inhabitants and as such it is impossible to use only English-language sources, as the best studies are published in Bulgarian and are unlikely to ever be translated. The goal with this article is to have the best English-language source on the topic, after all :)

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Los Angeles, California

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 was demoted to B-class one month ago, and I need some feedback. All reviews provided will be channeled into the featured article drive for WikiProject Cities that I am planning.

Thanks, Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article includes a great deal of interesting information but needs a lot of work. Here are a few basic suggestions for improvement.

  • As others have noted, the citation problems need to be addressed. An article with clear WP:V problems is not good.
  • The next thing that leaps out is the overlinking. I would suggest going through the whole article looking for common words such as "aviation", snow", "automobiles", and "inches" to unlink. The sea of blue is disturbing in places. For example, the "Landmarks" subsection includes only six words that are not wikilinked, and some of the landmarks are linked twice. I'd recommend looking for ways to distinguish between useful links and the set of all possible links. Please see WP:OVERLINK.
  • Related to the overlinking is the reliance on long lists. Some of these lists are of questionable value and, when each item is linked, add to the sea of blue. For example, the two lists of LA-based companies in the "Economy" section wouldn't have to be long to be effective. Perhaps an overview paragraph supported by a few important examples would improve the readability of these list-dominated sections.
  • I'd suggest looking at FA articles about cities to get ideas about how to improve specific sections. See New York City, Houston, and Detroit, for example.
  • The lead should be a summary of the main text. It should include at least a mention of the content of the main sections. The existing lead ignores sections such as "Sports", "Education", "Media", "Government", and "Transportation".

These are only a few ideas, and a lot more could be said. If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

A quick comment for now:

  • I think a sentence or two for each of "landmarks" explaining why they are important to L.A. would help.

I agree with Finetooth, using an FA city article as a model helps a lot. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matsudaira clan

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 reactions on its current status and views on how it can be improved.

Thanks, Tadakuni (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Biggest problem I see is that the article needs more references, for example none of the three Sengoku period subsections has a ref, nor does the whole Key Genealogies section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Key Genealogies does not follow WP:HEAD, should be Key genealogies
  • There are some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - could these be combined with others or expanded?
  • Key Genealogies is very listy - could it be split into a separate list article?
  • Or provide context for the reader on the Key Genealogies - who are these people? I know they are wikilinked in most cases, but a phrase or sentence on some of the more notable would help. See WP:PCR
  • Nice images and refs seem OK.

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 ><>°° 12:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riley & Scott Mk III

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to go through the GA process, but I'd like any quick advice or recommendations which can be given before then. Anything basic that I might have missed, any layout or word use.

Thanks, The359 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jappalang

Based on this version, there are quite a number of issues I have with the article.

  • Firstly, I found it hard to keep my concentration on it. I am no car nut (though I have interest in racing vehicles) and it seems to me the article is going way over details on the development of the car and its components.
  • Secondly, the article is heavily based on "World Sports Racing Prototypes". I see nothing on this fansite that indicates it could be a reliable source of information (unlike Fuller's site which was mentioned in published media as a good source of information).
  • Lastly, and most crucially, the article has quite a lot of grammatical errors scattered throughout. The following are only examples of what I encountered:
    • Incorrect use of words
      "As part of Mills' design, the front end of the car was replaced with entirely new bodywork attempting to fulfill two problems."
      To fulfill two problems? That implies that they are deliberately trying to create two problems. It should be "to rectify (or correct) two problems"?
    • Spelling errors
      "aircraft design John Roncz"
      "aircraft designer John Roncz", right?
    • Jargon
      "fast enough to compete for overall wins."
      What is an "overall win"?
    • Parallel structure violations
      "This opened a large amount of empty space around the rear wheels and exposing much of the floor of the chassis."
      "This opened a large amount of empty space around the rear wheels and exposed much of the floor of the chassis." Content-wise, this begs the question of what was the floor exposed to or why should the floor be not exposed to the unknown object.
    • Mismatched sentences
      "The nose of the final Mk III was very similar to the original design model from 1993, featuring a nose which sloped downward towards a splitter extended from the front of the car."
      The nose featured a nose? If the nose in the latter clause was supposed to be the 1993 design, then it should be "The nose of the final Mk III was very similar to the original 1993 design; it sloped down towards a splitter extended from the front of the car."
    • Missing articles
      "was positioned behind cockpit"
      "was positioned behind the cockpit"
    • Awkward phrasing
      "The squares could be filled with bodywork of various shapes and sizes effectively closing or opening the holes as much as the team wished."
      "The holes could be closed off in various degrees by filling them in with bodywork of various size and shape."

I seriously advise a heavy emphasis to be paid on brushing up the language (preferably by getting a copyeditor). The next goal should then be either to obtain more reliable sources or to investigate why "World Sports Racing Prototypes" can be considered to be a reliable source. Help on the investigation can be obtained by reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield (The Simpsons)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Any suggestions for improvement (especially in-universe clean-up) would be fine. Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I just reviewed Barney Gumble and thought I would continue on a Simpsons kick. This is more substantial as an article, but I still do not think this is yet at GA level, let alone FA, but there is a good start here.

  • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - but the reference to "Blame it on Lisa" is only there (and why not identify the episode)? 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 many more references - for example, the whole Rivalry with Shelbyville section has no refs or there are some direct quotations without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I also worry some of the refs do not meet WP:RS - what makes ABout.com a reliable source, for example?
  • The article is written chiefly from an in-universe perspective and should be written more from an out of universe persepctive. Most of the refs are directly from the Simpsons episodes or DVDs. What have critics said about Springfield? The stuff people associated with the show say about the city is good, but there has to be more. See WP:IN-U.
  • People and culture section is very listy - if this ever goes to FAC it will need to be converted to prose.
  • There are many one or two sentence short paragraphs and sections. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the Ned Flanders' quote on Ohio, Nevada, Maine and Kentucky is given at least twice (and is not cited one of those times)

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 ><>°° 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinemaidens (Wagner)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd be pleased to receive any advice or comments as to how this article might be improved, in terms of prose, images, anything else. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discipline (Janet Jackson 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 would like to take it to FA. I'm particularly unsure about what direction to take this article. Jackson and this album are in a unique position at the moment, with her first tour in ages and lightening split from the record label. Assistance on the coverage of this and advise with general sourcing/MoS welcome. — Realist2 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, — Realist2 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • there is too much before the comma in the opening sentence for there to be no connecting word between JAckson and released. Perhaps something like "it was" or "which was".
  • in the second sentence "it was her only albumn released" also seems a little clunky, perhaps "it was the only one of her albums that was released for the..."
  • the sentences beginnin "jackson worked with producers such as..." and "JAckson's long time producers Jimmy Jan and..." could be merged."
  • The last lines of the paragraph also work to interrupt the flow of the prose a little.
  • lead, 3rd paragraph, "it was better than" could be "it was an improvement over" seems a bit less general.
  • In the Rock Witchu Tour section, the second sentence is only one paragraph and should be merged with the first.
  • first two sentences of "departure" section can be merged. This section might also benefit from some expansion if there is anything more than can go in. Is there a reaction from the record label?
  • all the chart positions and release history sections might benefit from some topic-related imagery if there is any available.
  • excellent citations and refs
  • references section could be titled "notes" and then a references section containing any sources that were drawn from heavily (Operation Camargue is one I have done which shows what I mean - I always link as I can never explain what I mean correctly - but this is just my own personal taste feel free to ignore :))

Overall, it does feel like it is missing a bit of content, each section is a little on the light side, but I also can't see much that you haven't covered, aside from a sentence or two alluding to the previous work that this album now follows, and the significance of this being a landmark release for her, but these are things you do cover.

Prose wise, it doesn't quite flow as well as it could, try a slightly less sentence.sentence.sentence. approach and a "more loquacious flowery but within limits as this is, after all, an encyclopedic article," approach.

Good work and sorry I can't be more helpful! SGGH speak! 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have started doing some of these things. — Realist2 21:58, 27 September 2008 (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.) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gregory House

[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 know what has to be expanded on this article before I list it for FAC for the fourth time. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, --Music26/11 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that 14 days must pass between an unsucessful FAC and putting an article up for PR. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jew

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its a well-sourced and well-documented article, its clear and good to read and well-lengthed. In definitive, its a great article and very close to The perfect article.

Thanks, Fixman(Praise me) 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Peer review Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Sorry for the delay but there's a lot of holidays now.

1. There's probably nothing you can do about the template, but Emma Lazarus being the fourth most prominent Jew in history?

2. The words `people' and `group' surrounding the word `ethnoreligious' should not be bracketed, their meaning has nothing to do with the topic Jew.

3. Same as above for the phrases `political economy' and `national homeland' preceding the phrase `land of Israel'

4. Something to think about. According to the `ethnoreligious' article you can't separate the concepts `Jew' and `Judaism', yet this is exactly what you are trying to do! Actually, as I think about it, one article on Jews, Jewish, Judaism, etc. would be too long.

5. "'included' and `have been `absorbed'" seems to be saying the same concept twice.

6. In footnote 10, who or what is Johnson? I see no references to him or her or it.

7. The last sentence in the first paragraph probably needs a footnote or two.

8. In the first sentence of paragraph two, it is too easy to read the semicolon as a comma. Put in a transition word such as `comprising', or `consisting of' or something.

9. In the last sentence of paragraph two, you have `secular' and `political' underlined. I don't think that `secular' needs to be underlined as a hyperlink, and the hyperlink from `political' is, at best, misleading. I don't think misleading the reader is fair. I would put the words `law of return' explicitly into the sentence. The same applies to the `who is a Jew' link in the proceeding sentence.

10. In the next paragraph, do you think anyone will click on the word `biblical'?

11. I have a difference of opinion with regards to the Judges. I see them only as local liberators, and that autonomy didn't begin until King Saul. But I may be wrong.

12. In the next section, I think the link `Khorastan' should link to `Greater Khorastan' instead of a disambiguation page. Hmmm, perhaps it shouldn't be `Greater Khorastan'. Please check this out.

13. I think the number of citations is getting smaller on a per paragraph basis.

14. Instead of `Emancipating', shouldn't it be `Emancipated'? Furthermore, I read the sentence as saying that Germany and Poland were freed, not their Jewish population. Anyway, what's wrong with using the word `Haskala?

15. Again, as in section 9 and 10 above, I don't think anyone will be clicking on United States, Australia, or the U.K.

16. Under `Who is a Jew' I think your cites of nation.. are appropriate. They are relevant to the article and they afford the opportunity to be compared to each other within the scope of Judaism.

17. Why didn't you bracket `matrilineal descent'?

18. Under ethnic divisions paragraph 2, you say that in medieval Hebrew Ashkenaz means Germany. In the gemara in Sanhedrin chapter chelek, it refers to the country "Germamia shel edom" (Germany in Europe), where Rashi explains that Germamia means Ashkenaz. That would be 450-500 CE. Whether it was used before that, I don't know. I do know that it was referred to long before the middle ages

19. In the paragraph before the section header `DNA and Jewish Interrelationship' sentence 2 is partially false (all countries are previously without Jewish communities) and I think sentence 3 contradicts it.

20. A. Try `genetic studies of DNA' to stop avoiding the subject, and 20. B. Why is the link relevant to the concept `Jew'.

21. You are back to a better density of citations. Good.

22. In this DNA section, your phenomena alternately proves the folklore that conversion affects a persons DNA, i.e. a convert literally becomes a son of Abraham.

23. Note 38 under Ukraine is literally correct. I would try to find another source on purely aesthetic reasons, although I wouldn't put a lot of work into it.

24. Note 52. I finely found out who Goldstien, Johnson, etc. are. They are sources in the reference section. I don't know what wiki protocols apply here. BTW, Goldstein is spelled wrong either here or in the reference section.

25. Section Diaspora. Paragraph 2. Why aren't Canada and Argentina marked as links?

26. Are you sure that the `Islamic Republic of Iran' is not an Arab nation. if it is, it needs to be further from `Arab nation' to avoid confusion. If it is not, it doesn't belong in a paragraph beginning `The Arab countries of..'.

27. I think this entire section from `History of the Jews' thru `Israel' should be spun off into its own article. Whether this new article be independent or merged with `Jewish History' is a matter for further discussion. I will say that this section is very well written.

28. The illustration `Jewish prayer at the Western Wall' is in the wrong place.

29. I wish the end of the section on the holocaust was a little more horrific.

30. The rest of the article is fine.

31. Try submitting this article for review to someone who is not Jewish after you change it. (sic).

Respectfully submitted, Phil_burnstein Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juno (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 believe it has the potential to be a FA, but I think we could use some advice on clearing up defects in the article before proceeding with FAC.


Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from [[SriMesh | talk 01:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Is the monetary amount $ American / $ Canadian dollar currency? $6.5 million - $60,016 - and etc...every time currency is mentioned
  • The infobox image is [[Wikipedia:Non-free content}Non-free content]] add the template described on Non-free use rationale guideline on the actual image description page for your article. Do this for every non free image being used in articles. This image has an example...Image:Bhagavad-Gitas.JPG Better yet use public domain images. Put in a request.
  • This entire section has no citations or references at all. Every fact needs a reference. Each paragraph should have 2 - 3 references minimum.
  • The film appeared on many critics' top ten lists of the best films of 2007:
  • Antifeminist --> Anti feminist screenwriting-->screen writing
  • Wikifiy the word blog
  • CDs should be spelled out the first time as compact discs and wikified abbreviation added in parenthesis if CD used again in article. And are they sound CDs or DVD CDs?
  • catalog is american spelling catalogue is british be consistent throughout article
  • Is cartoonized a word?
Thanks for the comments, I'll implement when I'm less tired. More comments, anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2008 (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.) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Calgary Flames general managers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list is part of the core of what I intend to be a featured topic on the Calgary Flames hockey club. As there have been only five general managers in Flames history, I do not believe this list is large enough to qualify as a featured list, thus I am bringing it here for a formal review. The prose is my primary concern, and given how short the article is overall, I am hoping for some effective feedback on what I can do to ensure this list is of the highest quality possible. Thanks, Resolute 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Watch the POV language:
    • "the formerly inept Leafs quickly developed into playoff contenders"
    • "while Leeman scored only 11 goals in a Flames uniform"
      • Awww, c'mon. Everyone knows the Leafs are inept.  ;) The point of the statements were to highlight just how drastically that deal altered the fortunes of both teams. I'll revise the statements.
    • "during which the Flames qualified for the playoffs just once"
      • That didn't seem overly POV to me... would "only once" work better?
  • "The team also won it's first playoff series in 15 years" "it's"-->its.
    • Bah, fixed.
  • "Doug Risebrough succeeded Fletcher in 1991 and quickly paired up with Fletcher to complete a ten-player deal, the largest in NHL history." Confusing, if Risebrough succeeded Fletcher, why did he team up with him?
    • Because it takes two to tango, so to speak. I'll revise.
  • Why does ref 2 say: "Insert Calgary Herald newspaper link here"?
    • Because I'm an idiot. When I wrote the paragraph, I knew what the reference said, but didn't have a copy of that specific article handy. That was a note to myself to complete that citation, which I promptly forgot about. It shall be fixed.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback, Resolute 00:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed as a GA, and I would like to get it to FA now.

Thanks, LAAFansign review 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

[edit]

OK, so I'm just going to run through issues as I see them in the text...

  • First sentance is a run-on sentance with a nonsequitur in it. It should be split into two sentances, "MLB is the highest level..." and "It is composed of 30 teams". These two ideas should not be one sentance.
  • The lead organization should be cleaned up a bit. Especially in the first paragraph, if we are running the history of organization, we should probably start with 1903 and the first world series, THEN we should at least mention Kennesaw Mountain Landis as the first commisioner, since the office of commissioner was the first attempt to bring the two leagues under a single jurisdiction. You should also consider reorganizing the whole thing. The first paragraph, for example deals with MLB organizational structure, and rules, and perhaps this can be split into two.
  • In the history section, we need to explain a little more about the origins of baseball and the rise of professionalism in the sport. It need not be more than a paragraph, but we need something. We just dive right into the founding of the National Association. We even have an acronym (NABBP) that goes undefined. This really needs some work.
  • As a whole, the history section suffers a bit from imbalance. We have lots of unneccessary detail in the early sections, and almost nothing in the later sections. We even skip from the dead ball era straight to 1957!!!! Remember, we have subarticles for a reason. Pehaps I can suggest the following general organization:
    • Paragraph 1) Origins of baseball and of professionalism in Baseball
    • Paragraph 2) Early major leagues (National Association, National League, American Association, Federal League, etc.)
    • Paragraph 3) First world series
    • Paragraph 4) Dead ball era, corruption, Black Sox Scandal.
    • Paragraph 5) Commisioner Landis, Babe Ruth, segregation
    • Paragraph 6) Integration, Jackie Robinson, and the move west
    • Paragraph 8) Labor issues: Curt Flood, Andy Meserschmidt, Free Agency, the strikes of the 80's and 90's, Expansion from 16 to 30 teams.
    • Paragraph 9) The steroids era
  • The above organization would allow us to give equal due to all of the important history in the majors, and allows us to not get so detailed that we swamp this article.
  • The rest of the article is an organizational mess. I would prefer to move the teams section to the end, and keep the graphical parts from the text parts. Also, we should probably have the following sections:
    • League structure (office of commisioner, club ownership, MLBPA, "franchise model" (which is distinct from the European league model), relation between majors and minors (farm system).
    • Season structure (spring training/regular season/playoffs/"hot stove" season)
    • Labor relations and player compensation (we need something in here about this, and the drug policy could go under this section)
    • Media (put TV, radio, blackout policy, print media, all under this heading)

The quality of the writing is pretty good, but the article is so scattered and disorganized it really detracts from it. As I said a few times above, theres some stuff that is too detailed for, and other stuff that is entirely missing. If you need any more specific help, I have worked on articles like this before. I'd be glad to help see this through to being featured. It would be nice to have this featured by, say, opening day next season, cuz it would make a GREAT front page article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:17, 4 October 2008 (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.) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock Band

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this game revolutionized gaming as did Guitar Hero, but this time they added drums, vocals, rythym and bass. Also this game is becoming a world wide hit. Please look over my article about it and give me as much feedback as you can. I want this article to give the game the credit it deserves. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ynhockey:

  • Before I start, let me say that I edit video game-related articles very rarely, and don't know the specific FA requirements that might be expected of such articles.
  • The main problem I have with this article currently is that it takes the notion that long prose is better than lists/short paragraphs too far. Prose is in fact better, but not in this kind of presentation. For starters, it needs better organization into paragraphs. Also currently it has too many unneeded punctuation marks (especially quotation marks, e.g. musical "notes" - why not simply notes?) and a severe lack of wikilinks. For example, I'd expect 'master recording' to be linked, a link far more useful than 'Rome', for example (not against that link by the way, just saying it's less important than some others).
  • Some sections lack sourcing. In addition, while this may be difficult because the game is recent, I think more varying sources should be found, especially those with a good reputation. For example, there are several well-known gaming magazines (e.g. PC Gamer), which aren't even cited once. Again, not sure about sourcing standards for gaming articles, but it's usually not great if most sources are from the same 2 websites (GameSpot and IGN).
  • Organization - the article is overall organized properly, but some choices are strange: for example, why are advertizing and pricing under 'development'?
  • Finally, let me commend all contributors to the article on the good work - overall the article is of high-quality, especially the lead section and smart use of tabular data.

Good luck!
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Wanderone

[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:

This article has been a GA for some time and needs to progress to FA.

There is also a dispute between the two most-contributory editors to the article (one much more so than the other, but that shouldn't be a major factor) on the overall shape and flow of the article. The original GA form of the article had bibliographic and filmographic details interspersed throughout the prose. This was changed into a version with separate filmography and bibliography sections, with the material in the main prose considerably summarized. An even more summarized variant with these sections also has been produced, but the article is presently back to an integrated version with no film/biblio sections (and considerably more material than the original). A fifth option (no diff to show) would be to keep most of the material in the prose, but pared down, and have very summary bullet-pointed bibliography and filmography sections (this would permit moving minor details about these things to those sections, and even removing questionably notable talk shows and stuff from the main prose and only mentioning them in those sections). Note: A great number of minor improvement edits are not accounted for in the above edit history links; they are provided just as an easy way to get to the four versions for structural comparison purposes. I.e. the fact that the later versions are better than the earlier ones in several unrelated respects shouldn't affect what article structure to use.

One of the two major contributors also feels that the lead is overly long (as was noted in the original pre-GA peer review, when the lead was even longer) and not focused enough on what makes Wanderone notable, while the other major editor disagrees.

Input from editors experienced at peer review and FA work, and not involved in the editing of the article, would probably be quite valuable here.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Bellflower Bunnies (season 1)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now that I'm done with this list, it's off to the season pages. Though only a realllllly short debut season (Seinfeld, anyone?), this could be another FL in the wings. The references should definitely pack a punch as well.

Look out for the next two seasons within a week or so.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Finetooth (talk · contribs · count)

Finetooth comments: This is a well-sourced short article about what sounds like a fun show. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • Paragraphs consisting of only one sentence are usually frowned upon. I think you could safely merge some of the shorties.
  • It would be good to include a little more variety in the language. In the "Production" section, for example, "was produced early in the show's production" should be re-written to avoid circularity. Something like this might work: "The company created a one-minute promotional pilot ... early during the show's production."
  • Abbreviations such as NATPE should be spelled out on first use. It should look like this: National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE). On subsequent uses, it's then fine to use NATPE. The first instance of Featured Films for Families should have (FFF) after it so that we know what FFF means later in the article.
  • CINAR looks like an abbreviation but isn't. It appears that Cinar is correct.
  • I wondered what Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3 referred to exactly. You might add "Asia", "Europe", or whatever to the section heads unless the regions are too complicated to be explained in a word or two.
  • The "Reception" section consists of only one sentence. If other people published reviews, it would be good to expand this section a bit by including them. Critics usually express a variety of opinions. Did everyone like the series? Did they like all aspects equally? Did they like all the episodes equally?
  • For readers who might be unfamiliar with production terms, you might briefly explain or wikilink things like "pilot", "trace and paint department", and possibly "layout" and "animation".

I hope you find these brief comments helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved...but even after all this hard work, I'm afraid the review covered in "Reception" is the only thing I can find for this. If only someone else can provide more details...otherwise there could be a merge or removal. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Japan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a long time since the FAC for this article. I am still think the only problem with the article is a grammar check, but most of the other issues have been solved, such as translation or the placement of titles.

Thanks, User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title, do not link the bold text in the lead.
  • "However, historically, the sun has had a religious connotation in Japan, and the rising sun has had important symbolic meaning." Add an before "important".
  • "Even members of the same family, such as a son, father and a brother, had different flags to carry to battle." Even is POV.
  • "The Hinomaru was legally the national flag from..." How about: "The Hinomaru was the legal national flag from..."
  • "Sources differ on the degree to which the use of the Hinomaru flag was restricted, with some using the term 'banned'."-->"Sources differ on the degree to which the use of the Hinomaru flag was restricted; some use the term 'banned'."
  • "Teachers have gone so far as to bring brought criminal complaints against Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara and senior officials for ordering teachers to honor the Hinomaru and Kimi ga Yo."
  • "The ratio, according to the proclamation, is going to be seven units high and ten units wide (7:10)." Wrong tense.
  • "Negative perception towards the Hinomaru still exist in former colonies of Japan and Okinawa." Still exists.
  • "In China and South Korea, both occupied by Japan during World War II, Japanese flags are burnt during protests against Japan's foreign policies or if a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo." "are burnt"-->were burnt.
  • "Also, many bus companies have been operating buses with the flag attached on holidays, in part to inform passengers that it is a holiday." Need a source for this.
  • "A very well-known variant of the sun disc design is the sun disc with 16 red rays".
  • "While not an official national flag, the Z signal flag played a major role in Japanese naval history." "While"-->Although. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
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.) 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical economics

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 looking for a close copyedit reading as well as a general test for comprehensiveness, accuracy and readability. I will eventually take it to FA and I'll be around to fix comments added (so a c/e review doesn't mean c/e it yourself).

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (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.
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.) 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Comments from Taxman (talk · contribs)

  • Well lets see, I'll try to come back for more, but here's a start. The article isn't balanced yet. The history section is really long and the applications section is very short. The applications section is probably the most important in the article and therefore should justify the most space. The history, while interesting, is not the single most important facet, so shouldn't take up so much space. Summarize it and move some of the detail to a subarticle. You could also stand to mention the dichotomy in economics journal articles between those that are highly mathematical and those that are not. Of course all economics makes at least some use of mathematics, there is a fairly clear break in the amount and focus between different journals and articles. Not that you even need to present it that way, just to make it clear the difference in mathematical level of different economics research. - Taxman Talk 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf the Peacock

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 made GA status and I am looking for suggestions to advance it to FA and A-class status.

Thanks, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting article and could become more interesting with a few modifications. Here are suggestions for improvement:

  • Something like 25 of the 32 citations are to the Magnusson translation of the Laxdaela Saga. I imagine the critical studies of the saga might be a thin pile, but if you can find some and work them in, it might greatly improve the article. For example, it would be interesting to know how reliable as history the Laxdaela Saga is thought to be and whether any controversies have ever arisen about its content or interpretation. You refer to Olaf as a "character" in the saga, and this suggests fiction rather than non-fiction. It's not clear to what extent Olaf is real and to what extent he is invented. If critics have discussed this question, it would be good to include that information.
  • A section with background material would be most helpful to a general reader. This might include basic information about Iceland's relationship with Norway at the time and its relationship with Ireland. A bit of Iceland history would be helpful. Inhabited by whom? For how long? What attracted them? What threatened them? How many people lived there? What did they do for a living? A brief explanation of concepts like the Althing might go into this section. Ditto for blood-feud and family honor. Help the reader get his/her bearings a bit, in other words. Don't assume that the reader knows anything about 10th-century Iceland or will always click on the wikilinks to find out.
  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the main text. The existing lead consists of a single paragraph that introduces the subject but doesn't summarize the main text. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the content of each of the main text sections and not to include material in the lead that is not mentioned elsewhere. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • I'd recommend a copyedit. I don't see a lot of big problems, but I see quite a few small ones involving punctuation. For example, in constructions such as "his mother Melkorka" it's important to separate two names for the same thing with a comma; i.e., "his mother, Melkorka". Otherwise, the phrase implies that he has at least one other mother. Another example of the same problem is "Olaf's alleged grandfather Myrkjartan", which should be "Olaf's alleged grandfather, Myrkjartan..." unless he has more than one alleged grandfather.
  • The image of Egil Skallagrimsson would work better if placed on the right so that Egil's eyes look into the page instead of out. The reader's eyes will follow Egil's eyes.
  • It's not immediately clear from the image caption of Jarl Haakon Sigurdsson that he is the same person referred to in the text as Haakon Jarl. You could use the same name in both places or use both names serially in the main text: Haakon Jarl (Jarl Haakon Sigurdsson) if you think that's better.

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (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.
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.) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson

[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 recently became a GA, and I would like to know how far this article is from FA. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BarretBonden. Here are some brief suggestions for improvement.

  • Early years; the opening sentence is too long and the reference should go after punctuation. Perhaps it could be split into two sentences.
  • "He received two dozen scholarship offers to play football, but turned them down." – Why did he turn them down? Link "scholarship" and change "two dozen" to 24.
  • "In each of his four minor league seasons" – link minor league.
  • "going 2-for-4" – I have no idea what that means.
  • A few peacock terms in the article – memorable, remarkably, famous.
  • "In 1986, he led the AL in runs scored" – What is the AL?
  • "homers", this is slang, use "home run"?
  • Link "triples" to triples?
  • Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over.
  • Per MOS:NUM, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine should be spelled out in words.
  • This article contains a lot of quotes. Are they all necessary and could some of them be worked into the main body of the article?
  • Don't assume that the reader knows anything about baseball or will always click on the wikilinks to find out.
  • The following link does not appear to be working:

BarretBonden (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2008 (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.) 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

United States Academic Decathlon

[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 successfully went through GAN and I would like to know what needs to be done before I submit it to FAC. Any and all criticism is welcome!

Thanks, Yohhans talk 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This article is in very good shape. Most of concerns I raise below are based on sourcing concerns, which you should be able to resolve before going to FAC (sometimes sources get mixed up during copy editing, etc). Best of luck, and I hope that this helps!

The Lead

  • Perhaps replace "currently" in the first paragraph to "as of 2008"

1968-2000

  • Current reference #2, in the first sentence, points to a FAQ website which does not mention Dr. Peterson or 1968. Perhaps I am not looking in the correct area.
  • Why did the 1984 competition include "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and South Korea", while others did not?
  • I have not been able to find a source for why other countries have not competed in other years, but I have explained why those four countries competed when they did. I also included a statement saying that it is unclear why countries have not competed much. Do you think this is sufficient, or should I just drop the information about international cooperation all together? - Yohhans talk 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having difficulty verifying the second sentence of the second paragraph, where the initial events are listed. The source provided (currently #9) does not seem to list the original events.
  • The reference states that both Art and Music become their own events this year. While it does not explicitly state that Art and Music come from the division of Fine Arts, it is implied. Hopefully this is enough? If not I'll see if I can reword it so it better reflects the sources available. As it stands, I cannot find a source that explicitly states that Fine Arts was split into the two current events. - Yohhans talk 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What promoted the change in policy, which required the use of USAD materials only?
  • It's unknown what prompted the change. USAD has issued some statements that have led me (and a whole host of others) to believe that it is a reaction to the success of third party suppliers like DemiDec or Acalon, but they have never come out and explicitly said as much. The closest they have come is statements like, "No. [Purchasing materials from commercial companies] is absolutely unnecessary and a waste of money. U.S.A.D. materials are all that is needed to participate and compete successfully in the Academic Decathlon." (source - click on "Do you recommend purchasing materials from commercial companies?") and "Purchasing study materials from commercial companies is a waste of money." (source) But, this is all speculation. Nothing actually flat out says, "USAD switched their policies because commercial companies were infringing on their profits."

2000-2001

  • The inlef provided for the "plummet in scores" sentence doesn't seem to verify what is written (currently, reference #22)
  • Hmmm. You're right. It doesn't exactly corroborate the causality I've presented there. I've reworded the Music sentence to just, "A decrease in scores followed these changes." What do you think? - Yohhans talk 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the inline ref used for El Camino Real High Schools victory does not seem to provide the actual scores, or note that it was the lowest ever.
  • Also (to be nit picky) it read that it was the second lowest score (which was wrong anyway). But thanks for catching this. I've gone through and added proper references here and to the national winners table further down. Hopefully that solves all the referencing issues. - Yohhans talk 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #23 came up a dead for me.

Controversies

  • Perhaps we don't need: "As with any large competition"

Copy editing

  • Look for redundancies and unneeded words, such as "additionally", etc. For example, "far differently" could be "far differently"
  • I have fixed the instances you have mentioned, but unfortunately I am far too close to the text at this point to be very good at copyediting. I've asked someone to give it a once-over though. - Yohhans talk 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good job. Everything looks to be progressing well. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement! I've tried to address all your points. Let me know if anything else can be improved on. Thanks for the review. It was very helpful! - Yohhans talk 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
    • Is it Industy Week or Industy Week. Ref 6 has it plain, ref 7 has it italicised.
    • I have a few concerns about using http://web.archive.org/web/20060925233926/www.fcoe.k12.ca.us/spc_proj/acadec/topics.html as many times as you do, considering that this is, basically, a self-published source?
    • Current ref 31, the NB is definitely Original Research, probably need to rework this.
    • The article is sourced in a large degree to Academic Decathalon sources, either US or state level. You need to be very careful of using this much information coming from the subject of the article, and may run into difficulties at FAC about this.
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.) 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Adobe Systems mergers and acquisitions

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 eventually bring it to WP:FLC. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Per a request, here's a check of the sources:

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done on Britannica. Macworld is Macworld, a magazine; it's definitely reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for clearing that up. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead could be cleaned up a bit - for example, the sentence t was founded in 1982 by John Warnock and Charles Geschke, who established the company after leaving Xerox PARC to develop and sell the PostScript page description language.[1] could be a bit tighter as something like In 1982 John Warnock and Charles Geschke established the company, after leaving Xerox PARC to develop and sell the PostScript page description language.[1]
  • Since the article is about Adobe's acquisitions etc., I think these should be mentioned sooner in the lead, in the first paragraph in all cases. I would move the sentence During the company's 26-year lifetime, it has acquired 25 companies, purchased stakes in five companies, and divested six companies, with most of them being software companies. to the first paragraph and omit the other The company has made 25 acquisitions since its founding.
  • I would explain that the value of the acquisition etc. is not available in most cases in the lead.
  • I think the statements in the Notes need references.
  • Using another encyclopedia is generally not the best source / reference (tertiary sources vs secondary sources).
  • VHaving said that, the Encyclopedia Brittanica article says Apple Computers took a 15% stake in Adobe - should this (and any other companies taking stakes in Adobe or divesting themselves of such) be mentioned in the list?

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 ><>°° 14:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme points of Bulgaria

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becuase I am try to get it to Featured List status. Any suggestions would be good, because this is my first time working with an article of this type.

Thanks, Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is new to me too. I didn't realize people were writing "extreme points" articles until I saw this one. It is interesting, and the photos make it more so. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • In geographic uses, "elevation" is preferred to "altitude". I recommend changing each instance of "altitude" in the article to "elevation", including the table column heading.
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the main title in any of the section heads. I would suggest changing "Extreme points" to something like "Surface coordinates" or "Latitude and longitude" and "Extreme altitude" to something like "Highest elevation".
  • WGS84 should be spelled out on first use, thus: World Geodetic System (WGS) 84.
  • I've never seen the slash parameter used in the conversion template before. You could recast the sentence slightly and use this instead: "At 1,463 metres (4,800 ft), Veykata is... ", which would be preferable to the slash.
  • If you give the mountain elevation to the nearest tenth of a meter, you should probably give the imperial equivalent to the nearest tenth of a foot. Maybe rounding to the nearest whole number in both cases would be best. The coordinates look strange too. Some are given to the sixth place to the right of the decimal, some to the fourth, and the last two only to the first. I'm not sure what the standard is or if a standard exists.
  • It might be useful to give the coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds as well as the decimal form.
  • An encyclopedia and a travel web site are generally considered weak sources of information. It would be better to use government or scientific sources for the Mount Musala and Black Sea data if possible.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas, myself and User:Mr.crabby have worked on them and introduced most of them (the first five and the last one). However, note that the lowest point is the entire Black Sea and it would be a bit pointless to have the precise coordinates of its central point in the article. As for the degrees, minutes, and seconds and decimal form, that's a good idea but I don't think it's that important, the rounding is not that big of an issue either. The standard for an extreme points list seems to be the FL Extreme points of India, and it's not as detailed as this one despite having much more to write about (larger country, disputed points).
One thing that I have to note is that the Indian article lists their Antarctic base as one of the country's southernmost points: do Antarctic bases actually count as areas of national sovereignty? Because Bulgaria has a base (St. Kliment Ohridski Base) on the South Shetland Islands that can be listed if it counts. Todor→Bozhinov 15:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm preparing this article for FAC, so I would like lots of detailed feedback. I do have have some specific questions: Are the sections ordered effectively or would another arrangement be better? Is there too much or not enough or "just right" biographical detail? Do I need to add more on "Mont Blanc"? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of a Six Weeks' Tour/archive1.

The Office (US TV series) season 4

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
What's wrong with this list that it failed FLC twice? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anniemal

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 currently a GA, and any suggestions on how to improve it to FA quality would be helpful.

Thanks, PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on an artist and album I have never heard. Briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many album FAs that would be possible models at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music
  • 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, if desired.
  • This sentence seems problematic - "happy and melancholy" is unclear. She stated that she thought melodies that are happy and melancholy "[sound] timeless…Very Scandinavian of me!"[10] Having read the rest of the article, could it be rewritten to something like She stated that she thought melodies that are happy with a bit of melancholy sound "timeless … Very Scandinavian of me!"[10]? Also moved the [sound] outside the quote and added spaces around the ellipses per WP:MOS
  • I realize "Annie" is her stage name, but it seems odd not to mention her full name, especially since the background goes far enough back in time that it seems possible she had not yet adopted it then.
  • Any reason not to reverse the order of the two clauses in On its list of the top 50 albums of 2004, Pitchfork listed the album at number fifteen ...?
  • Since she is presumably not a native speaker of English, could there be any discussion of her decision to record in English? I know many Scandanavian groups do, and imagine it helps them reach a larger audience, but it seems as if it should be mentioned here in some way. Also any idea if "Anniemal" works as a pun / play on words in Norwegian as it does in English?
  • Is this an error - album on a singles chart?? The album debuted at its peak of number six on the Norwegian Singles Chart.[23]

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 ><>°° 18:37, 29 September 2008 (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.) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
In the event that someone reads this when the article goes to FAC, I used the About.com article because it's an interview. Annie's statement there is a primary source, so the article should meet WP:RS even though the site's secondary material would not necessarily qualify. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Hilaire Aubame

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 it to FA status. Any constructive criticism is applauded.

Thanks, Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of House 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 I'd like to get it to Featured List. I've reviewed the past failed FLC nominations and the past peer review, and it looks like most of the issues listed there have since been addressed. Note that this hasn't had an FLC or peer review for 18 months now, so not only has House changed since then, but so has Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
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.) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Tv.com is not a reliable source, I'm sorry.
  • The lead is to short, per WP:LEAD. Maybe you should check this list or this list for inspiration.
  • Although it's not required, it would look better if you place a little bit of information above every season (see this list).

I'll try to help you this week if I find some spare time, I hope my comments have been usefull. --Music26/11 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the lead a bit, added an image and added (and deleted) some references. The list might need a bit more referencing, but it's much better. As I said before, a little bit of information would look better if you list it for FLC.--Music26/11 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice referencing, I think induvidual episode reviews should be included in the article in question.--Music26/11 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poole

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently achieved GA status and I would like advice on how to further improve it towards FA status. Any feedback, suggestions and help would be appreciated.

Thanks, BarretBonden (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's very nice, I could find no major problems and without reading the entire thing, I couldn't even find any minor ones except that the complete citation information for the Cullingford reference shows up with the first citation which is nice (even though it is in the later section it's nice to have there) while it doesn't for the first use of the Legg reference. Overall, I'd say if you have the time, de-list it from PR and list it at FAC. People may find things you need to fix there with language and so forth, but I'm fairly confident you can fix anything that comes up. The balance of coverage is nice, the comprehensiveness is nice. Well done. - Taxman Talk 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. BarretBonden (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article, and it is nearly ready for a trip to FAC. I have a few minor suggestions for improvement that you might consider before seeking promotion.

  • Digits modifying nouns need to be held together by no-break codes. Otherwise they break apart on some computer monitors and slow the readers down. Examples in the History section are "2,500 years" and "3rd century". Please see WP:NBSP.
  • En dashes are used in page ranges rather than hyphens. For example, "Sydenham (p.69-71)" in the References and notes section should be "Sydenham (p.69–71)".
  • Photo captions that are complete sentences need a terminal period. Captions that are sentence fragments get no terminal period. Captions that contain at least one complete sentence plus a fragment or fragments get a terminal period after each. I see several captions that need a period, although many others are fine as is.
  • The caption, "Poole Quay, once a busy centre of maritime trade, it has become increasingly popular with tourists" should probably be "Poole Quay, once a busy centre of maritime trade, has become increasingly popular with tourists."
  • The caption, "The Guildhall, built in 1761, it now functions as a Register Office" should probably be "The Guildhall, built in 1761, functions as a Register Office."
  • This section needs a fix: "The trade was a three-cornered route; ships sailed to Newfoundland loaded with salt and provisions. Caught, dried, and salted, the fish was brought back to ports in Europe before returning to Poole with wine, olive oil and salt." I might suggest: "...ships sailed to Newfoundland with salt and provisions, then carried dried and salted fish to Europe before returning to Poole with wine, olive oil, and salt."
  • Usually, unless they start a sentence, numbers from 10 up are given in digits. I'd suggest changing "rescue flotilla of sixty cutters" to "rescue flotilla of 60 cutters", for example. Ditto for 15 sheriffs in the next section. You might find more of these here and there.
  • Orphan paragraphs like the one at the end of the "Coat of arms" section are usually frowned upon. I'd suggest merging it with the paragraph above.
  • The preferred unit for rainfall is the millimetre rather than the centimetre. I'd suggest changing the numbers in climate chart to reflect this.
  • In "Demography", a word might be missing from this phrase: "The town has a built-up of... " Should it be "built-up area of"?
  • It's customary to arrange the embedded citations, when they occur in multiples in the same place, in ascending order. Most of the existing citations are not multiples, but I see a couple of multiples that should be flip-flopped. These are 17 and 15 after "terraced housing" in the "History" section and 83 and 81 after "ceremonies" in the "Guildhall" section.
  • Other small problems comparable to some of those I've mentioned above might be detected and fixed by a final top-to-bottom copyedit by someone with a fresh eye. I don't think there's a lot to fix, but it would be good to get the number of nit-picky errors as close to zero as possible before heading to FAC.

If you have questions about any of my comments, please post a note here. I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and comments. BarretBonden (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Conference Center

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 see what areas I should be looking to expand it in or otherwise improve the article. I'm at a loss of where to go next, and since I've created it, it has been rather stale.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Galleries are discouraged on article pages.  Done
  • Expansion ideas:
    • Add information about notable events that have taken place here.
    • Design.
    • The grounds around it.
    • Are there any book sources on the center?
  • External links section should come after the references section.  Done
  • "It was built by Xerox in 1974 under the name of Xerox Document University (also known as the Xerox Conference Center)[3][2]" I would put inline cite 2 before inline cite 3.  Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy XIII

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve this unreleased video game. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eugene Izzi

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 difficult to write an article about a reasonably obscure author who's been deceased more than 10 years. However, it's an interesting story and I was shocked to discover Izzi did not have a Wikipedia page.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Bundito (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Izzi sounds interesting, and I might have to try one of his books. Here are some suggestions for improving the article.

  • It would be good to provide sources for the claims in this article that are unsourced. The "Background" section and the first half of the "Writing career" section are unsourced.
  • Sources should include the author's name (if known), as well as the title, publisher, date of publication (if known), the url (if any), and the access date (if the citation includes an url). Instead of trying to remember what goes into a citation or how to arrange the data, it's often easier to use templates in the "cite" family. Please see WP:CIT for details.
  • An infobox with a free- or fair-use image would add interest to the page. See Ed McBain for an example of how this might look.
  • The lead should summarize the whole article. The ideal lead briefly covers the main points covered in the main text, and it doesn't cover material not mentioned in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, dates in the main text are no longer autoformatted. I ran a script to de-link them.
  • Nothing in the main text should be bolded except Eugene Izzi in the lead.
  • Orphan paragraphs consisting of one sentence are generally frowned upon. It's good to either develop them or to merge them with other paragraphs.
  • More material about Izzi is available on-line from reliable sources. Book reviews are often a good source for material about authors. Here's one I found just now by doing a Google search that led me to Time magazine. Since sources sometimes have different insights or may disagree with one another, it's good practice to check as many as you can and choose the best. Inevitably, some will have surprises.

If you have questions about my brief review, please post them here. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Recently, WikiProject Anime and manga created a topic workshop to help the promotion of potential Good and Featured Topics in the article's scope. I nominated a topic for Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl (proposal seen here), and two of the articles (both lists) are not up to FL status, but both have the potential. I request a peer review of this article to get ready for WP:FLC, and it also needs a general copyedit. Thanks. --十八 07:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list on a series I have never read or heard of. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think under WP:NFCC there needs to be a more detailed caption on the first image, explaining who each of the characters is
  • Article needs more references, for example all of the name meaning explanations are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Refs are almost all from the books themselves - are more third-party, independent sources available? Would it make sense to have more critical comments about the characters in their sections, or if the creators have talked or written about them, include that.
  • Make sure the article is written from an out-of-universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. A model article may be useful here - there are several FAs about fictional characters, such as Jabba the Hutt, that may be useful for ideas and examples to follow. I would also look at FLs that may be models.
  • Article needs a copyedit to cleanup the language in places. For example, Hazumu Osaragi (大佛 はずむ, Osaragi Hazumu?) is a student, born male, at Kashima high school in the fictional setting of Kashima ward in Tokyo, Japan near Mt. Kashima, and is the main character in the series.[1] is a bit of a runon sentence, or some things do not seem encyclopedic in tone or seem POV, naturally in She has been practicing the flute for many years and is very good at it, so naturally she joins her school's music ensemble when she enters high school.

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 ><>°° 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louvre

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is nearing FA criteria. In May, this article had a failed FAC nom and a Peer Review. The concerns raised in these reviews have been addressed, but I hope for one more critical review before going to FAC. Thanks much for your time!

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a quick look, much improved. The amount on the early building seems about right now. The pyramid paragraph seems oddly placed - it would be better moved up to fit into the chronolgical sequence. Referencing and prose seem improved, but the article still has a strong whiff of the guide-book. Some stuff on evening opening, admission prices, number of entrances - is it only through the pyramid? do they still close on Monday is it? are the queues still terrible? would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2008 (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.
    • Usual order of refs/etc is See also, notes, then works cited. Might consider changing that.
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.) 13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this (although I guess you won't see my thanks :)--I'll come to your talk later today. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs)

  • This is a well-written article. I suspect that's the reason there hasn't been much input in this peer review. I think it's pretty much ready for an FAC. The only thing to say is that I concur with Ealdgyth's above comments about the order of refs/ect. Good work, and best of luck. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Modernist (talk · contribs)

  • Fair enough. I see what you are saying; though, one of the problems is the length. In other words, there is much to be said about the architecture, administration, acquisitions, the art itself, history, etc. The article is currently quite lengthy. If length/readability/summary style is taken into consideration and the article is to be expanded even further, then that is fine. But, I am concerned with the length. In other words, would something else have to go? What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest writing or rather adding the material in copious and full fledged sections without thought or worry about length. When the article is sufficiently and substantively informative about one of the world's greatest museum's - then you cut away the extraneous and unnecessary material. First keep adding the good stuff.....Modernist (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments What is there is well written and looks good to me, but I am not an expert on the Museum or its collections. Here are a few suggestions / ideas for improvement.

  • I do know that most art articles have some sort of critical reception section / treatment - what do critics say about the museum and its collections and the way it displays and conserves them?
  • I do not think the article is too long now and think it could be somewhat longer easily, especially to meet comprehensiveness concerns, which are an FA criterion. There is a readability tool here [6] which shows the readable text is only 26.7 KB, which is not that long. For comparison, this much more obscure state park (which is much less important than the Louvre) has five supports and no opposes at FAC now, and is 82.5 KB total size, 41.8 KB readable text. A well written article on an important topic can be longer.
  • The Louvre is so well known that the article has to be really excellent to pass FAC and satisfy everyone - I would look at all of the comments from the previous FAC and see if they have been met. If you think they have, ask the reviewer then to look at it again now and see if they agree.

Hope this helps, this is much improved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree length is not an issue yet, although the effect of pictures - obviously essential here - does impact loading times. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was wrong :) I'm not sure how I got it into my head that 50kb was the maximum; I think I misunderstood that as 50 kb total size. I spent a few weeks trimming. Ok, I do agree heartily with the above; I'd just been operating under the impression that there was a "cap" and had lately been concerned with cutting material. Fair enough, I don't mind adding more material, especially since everyone agrees it is a good idea. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here and their Peer Review for recent discussions on the issue. As people have said, this article also covers a huge topic & can justify a large size. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's one of the discussions which led to my length concerns. Ok, I feel better about it now. I wasn't sure if the Louvre qualified as broad enough. I personally felt that it did qualify as a broad topic -- it's 800+ years old, most visited, it's a palace, strongly influenced the notion of state/universalist museum, etc) -- but, I didn't know if others would agree. It seems like everyone does, which is good. On the inverse, it will take awhile before an FAC nom, but that's OK. There isn't presently much history post-Revolution (and there's information missing also about the development: i.e. from the Lux Gardens that I'd earlier felt was overly detailed). Lazulilasher (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never understand, or know how to use, the different ways of calculating size. You might ask one of the more knowlegeable editors for a comment on this point. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch's tool (above) is useful. Regardless, everyone promotes expansion. This is good feedback from a Peer Review. Plus, I learned something (FAs aren't hamstringed by a 50kb file size), and this article qualifies as broad enough in topic. The truth is: the Louvre is unique: it's perhaps the first universal suvey museum; it has over 800 years of architectural history; contains arguably the most important collection of Western painting; largest collection of Egyptian art outside of Egypt; etc. So, I'm glad everyone feels the same way. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Mills Show

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm really just looking for ways that I can improve the article. I have made quite a few changes to the page and I think they are improvements but is there anything I can take out or add to make this a better article? Please let me know your thoughts, they'll be much appreciated.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is also for a summary of the whole article - it currently reads more like a mix of facts randomly thrown together. -- how do you turn this on 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I need to echo the above, really. Not enough citations; most sections are a tad too short; lead needs slight re-writing. Also, the history section currently reads more like a history of Scott Mills himself than this show. Having said that, this is a fairly solid start for an article, and in all honesty (citations aside), it could be brought up to a very high standard fairly quickly. Good work thus far! TalkIslander 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holywell, Eastbourne

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is currently rated as Start. A lot of work has since been done.

Thanks, Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starstriker7 Comments Hey Mikeo, I took a look at the article. I'm kind of new at this, so you might also want to go ask someone else for aid on the article in terms of peer reviewing. Note that I am looking at the WikiProject Cities United States guideline when I identify with this, but only because I know it fairly well (but much better than the WP:UKCITY guideline). There is sure to be someone at the peer review volunteer listing.

  • I note that, above all, the history section deserves an expansion. I see two big, big gaps; the one from World War II to present day, and one referring to the history before the reference to William Figg's map. I think that you might be able to find domestic information on the modern history right here on the Internet somewhere, but I think anything on paper would help you much more. If you live in this area, you should check the local library.
Yes, this needs more research but I do not have easy access to reference materials at present.Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AmendedMikeo1938 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the picture on the left in the "Chalk Pit Cottages" section, I notice how it reads out like this: "All that remains of the cottages at Holywell are some foundations – soon erosion of the cliff will remove this vestige." It doesn't really sound encyclopedic to me, and probably could be improved.
Amended wording. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the very last section on the Holywell telegraph cable, you could use the reference at the end of every paragraph to show that data was lent from said reference to each block of information.
DoneMikeo1938 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note other problems with the Second World War subsection; the commonly accepted way of writing it out (at least in the United States) is World War II, I believe; also, I do not think that the map reference needs to be written out completely in this article, but should rather be included somehow into the reference itself.
Second World War redirects to World War IIMikeo1938 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but the title was not what I meant. I just don't think that raw numbers should appear anywhere in the text if it can be replaced by a word without making comprehension difficult. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Ive moveed the MR to a footnote.Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • The whole article could use a read-through, so necessary wikilinks can be added (Ex. [[World War II]] in the Second World War subsection, [[George V of England|King George]] and [[Mary of Teck|Queen Mary]])
OK - I've added some links but avoided overlinkingMikeo1938 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New sections could probably be added, even though this is a small region of a larger city. Try Economy, Culture & Media, and Governance, for starters.
It's hard to think of other sections - there is no economy, apart from the school and the water pumping stationMikeo1938 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for now. You can ask me on my talk page to swing by again. Thanks and cheers, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 12:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comment A model FA article (or two) is helpful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several English settlement FAs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography#Featured_articles that would be good model articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

[edit]

Thank you to everyone who has already commented ... and to anyone else who will be doing so. It's kind of you to read through the article and I will be taking on board the points which you make.Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian heraldry

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… there were some issues raised when I nominated for GA. I think the issues have been addressed, but I want to make sure the article is as good as it can possibly be before re-nomming.

Thanks, Prince of Canada t | c 12:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thehelpfulone
This is my first time reviewing, so if I get something wrong - don't be afraid to say so! The comments are a little short, because I'm still learning...

  • First section, History - there is too much whitespace from the image left over. Either expand this section or make the image smaller.
  • Grant Process is a broken link.
  • Make sure all cite webs use, publisher and access date.
  • Some short paragraphs of one or two sentences need expansion, otherwise merge them together.
  • Link checker shows 1 broken link, and a few references without access dates or publishers.

Hope this helps, The Helpful One Review 14:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Much help, thank you! Prince of Canada t | c 14:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • "achievements—coats of arms—in" – "achievements, such as the coats of arms, in" – change to this to make it flow better; also, I'm assuming this is what is meant
  • "United States of America" – "United States"
  • remove the periods from image captions are not full sentences
  • brackets are used way too much in the article; merge them into the prose
  • there's too much "e.g.", "etc.", and whatnot. It's as if the sentences just give a few examples then trail off! Remove the "etc."
  • quotes should be double-quotes, not single-

Gary King (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think. Many thanks! [ roux ] [x] 12:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite (visual novel)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My reason for requesting a peer review is so that I can attempt to achieve a good topic on Key's visual novels, of which include this article and six others (in Category:Key games) which are all GA, including the company article. It seems it is needed to have an "individual quality audit that includes a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed" for any article not up to GA/FA/FL status. Thanks.--十八 04:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Rewrite (リライト, Riraito?) is a Japanese visual novel being developed by Key playable on the PC as a DVD." Add that is after PC.
  • Specify what Key is.
  • "However, Na-Ga does provide his assistance assists with computer graphics"
  • "and Romeo Tanaka, notable" use known instead of "notable"
  • Current refs 6 and 7 deadlink.

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks.--十八 04:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck at GTC! Dabomb87 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corner Gas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am new to editing TV series articles, and have tried to follow the guidelines. Many editors have worked on the article, it would be good to pursue GA or FA status for the article, and begin here.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk 03:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead of the article could do a better job of following WP:LEAD. I think it goes into too much detail on some things (which episodes the mention of it being the only gas station in 60 km) but neglects to mention other things in the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too - please see WP:LEAD
  • There are a number of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections (including the 3rd paragraph in the lead and the WGN America distribution section). These should be combined with others or expanded if possible.
  • Biggest problem I see with this reaching GA or FA is a lack of references. For example, four of the five subsections in Setting have no refs, and the Dog River subsection only has refs in one of its three paragraphs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Any chance of a cast photo? It would have to be a fair use, but I think it would be justified.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs which are about television shows, see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media

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 ><>°° 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

[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 list-article for peer review to prepare it for resubmission to Featured Article status. The article was peer reviewed before, and I believed it was ready for Featured List status but its nomination failed. A critic there commented that there were numerous problems, but did not detail them all. I am hoping that this forum will provide for a semi-formal review and discussion of the issues that the critic expressed or did not yet express, and that this would also provide for other improvements to the list-article. Thanks in advance, doncram (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive2.

Rings of Neptune

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 rewritten and I need an input from editors not familiar with text, before I can go to FAC.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I did not think that bold words in the lead could also be linked - see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, spell out numbers less than ten, so fix As of 2008, it is known to consist of 5 named rings. Also could this sentence and the next be combined to flow better?
  • Provide context for the reader, so I owuld explain that Triton is Netune's largest moon in William Lassell, the discoverer of Triton, thought he had seen a ring around the planet.[1]
  • I like the lead image Image:Neptunian rings scheme.png, but the labels are not really legible on my computer in the article (300 px wide)
  • Isn't Uranus iteself younger than the solar system? Their age is probably less than the age of the Solar System.[3]
  • Article could use a copyedit to clean up the prose a bit - for example The width of this ring is about 2 000 km and [its] orbital radius is 41 000–43 000 km.[2] It is a faint ring with the [an] average normal optical depth of around 10−4,[a] and with a[n] equivalent depth of 0.15 km.[b][3] The fraction of dust in this ring is ]varies?] from 40 to 70%.[11][3] Should percent be spelled out?

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 ><>°° 03:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a review. What do you think is better to increase the size of the image or the font size? Ruslik (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is plenty big already! I'd increase the font size, personally... MeegsC | Talk 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would make the fonts bigger, not the image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Veronica Mars episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Cornucopia and I have done substantial work to prepare this article for FLC. We'd like more input.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (I am over-nitpicky on purpose, and not all of my comments may be gold - you know the show and the article better than me)

  • I always include an external link to IMDb because it is a very convenient link to find out guest stars, to see if the airdates are correct, and what awards episodes got etc.
  • The lead is IMO overreferenced, e.g. the first sentence is not controversial at all and thus doesn't need ref'ing
  • The second sentence would not need a ref if you noted the change of channels in the season lists. After reading the intro again, I see that not having the refs would/could lead to OR accusations, so better leave them in. – sgeureka t•c 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd use the present tense instead of the past tense in the season summaries in the lead because the episodes still exist, and the summaries still apply (also per WP:WAF#Contextual presentation).
  • "While a decrease from the first season" - so obvious that it doesn't need repetition; maybe merge the word "decrease" with the previous sentence
  • maybe explicitly mention in the first two sentences that the show ran for three seasons (it is implied, yes, but not really mentioned)
  • I'd lose the "described as a "critical darling", " because it was already mentioned earlier that the first season was "critically acclaimed"
  • "When the hiatus ended, the series" - VM or Pussycat Dolls Present?
  • "At the 2007 CW Upfront" - a rough date or "x months later" will be more helpful for the reader than this vague whatever-it-is
  • "Thomas stated that he was interested in writing a feature film based on the series, in the interest of ..." - the word "interest" twice
  • Michael Ausiello has his own article, so link him
  • "He met with Bell" - Ausiello or Thomas?
  • "and it would be tough to believe that the FBI stationed Veronica in Neptune" - it is never mentioned before what "Neptune" is (I just know from the AfD) so better add Neptune to the premise information

(more to come tomorrow) – sgeureka t•c 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm more busy in real-life than I expected, and I'll be away on the weekend. I skimmed over the season summaries, and the main problems I see are

  • simple past versus simple present per above
  • redundance in wording, and repeating the same words like "murder" and "force"

Addressing issues 1 shouldn't be a problem for you. I always point to User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a as a great eye-opener for issue 2, but it takes some time to read through it and to do the exercise part. Instead of my reading through the list and noting possibilities for improvement, I think it's faster for me to read and fix redundant wording in the season summaries as I go, with your watchful eyes on where I mess up with plot or accidently with grammar. But give me a few days for that please. :-) – sgeureka t•c 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're always glad to have the help! Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Blood (2004)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bad Blood (2004)/archive1.

Goan Catholics

[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…

Thanks, Sanfy (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dineshkannambadi

  • The sentence Their architecture and music encompass some of the notable contributions to India and the world needs citations from reputed books on architecture. I read the section on "Architecture" at the bottom and see blog cites are used for reference. Also, you can't use an image as a citation. Blogs are best avoided unless it supports a book source.
  • The very first section after the lead, "Ethnic identity", is sourced from blog sites which is not the best place to source from. One citation referes back to another wiki page and this is considered "circular reasoning". There must be some good books to source from.
  • The Kadambas mentioned here are the Kadambas of Goa (10th century-1340CE), a later day branch of the Kadambas of Karnataka (4th-6th century). Yes, you are right in writing that the Kadambas were Kannadigas. Even the Goan Kadambas minted coins with Kannada legends and inscribed inscriptions in Kannada language.
  • The sentence Goa was ruled by the Muslims for about 60 years before they were removed by Harihara I, of Vijayanagar Empire. is a repeat sentence.
  • Is this sentence encyclopaedic? was in these districts that the Portuguese undertook their most zealous efforts to convert the local [pagans] to Christianity.
  • The history section in general is poorly cited.
  • In the "Geographic distribution" section, the word "many" has been used atleast 6 times. Needs a re-write.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the section "Language and Literature", the sentences Goan Catholics have strong feelings towards the Konkani language. This love and affection for their language can be seen when most of the Goans united and fought for Konkani as their mother tongue. needs a citation. While I am sure this claim is accurate, there must be numerous sources that mention Goan struggle to make Konkani the state language. So a citation should be easy to find.
  • The sentence Today Goan Catholics have all strata of the society conversing in English and in fact taking pride in the same contradicts the above sentence on Konkani pride.
  • Ambigous sentence-Goan Catholics have another set of people who are pursuing this language just for the love for it. Who are another set of people?
  • Unclear sentence The first book in Konkani and any Indian language was
  • I suggest you refer to a book such as these which give plenty of info on Konkani literature.
  1. Various (1987) [1987]. Encyclopaedia of Indian literature - vol1. Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 8126018038.
  2. Various (1988) [1988]. Encyclopaedia of Indian literature - vol2. Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 8126011947.
  3. Various (1996). Encyclopaedia of Indian literature - vol 5. Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 8126012218.
  • When you write Other [forms] of their literature..., you should be focussing on metres and genres, not specific book titles, OR just remove "forms" are mention important writings.
  • This sentence is UNDUE and does not sound encyclopaedic-However, the relations between the upper castes and lower castes among the Goan Catholic community continues to remain strained in some parts of Goa. For instance.... Too much weightage for a news paper article and too much coverage in this article. There must be other interesting things to write about the various sections of society.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everthing done in accordance to Dineshkannambadi's comments.SanfyT.

June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is nearing FAC status. I'd be pleased to receive any advice or comments as to how this article might be improved Thanks, Rvk41 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems to be a comprehensive and well-illustrated account. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • It would be good to find a copyeditor to go through the article to find and fix small errors and redundancies. The first sentence of the "July 3" section begins, "Following a series of violent tornado outbreaks that claimed the lives of 26 people in mid–May and 12 people in late–May, a stationary boundary formed across the Midwest separating a seasonally cool airmass covering most of Canada from the very warm and moist airmass over the Southern states and the Gulf of Mexico." I see several problems with this sentence. "Air mass" is two words; "late May" gets no hyphen; "killed" is more direct than "claimed the lives of", and so on. I might suggest, "After a series of tornadoes killed 26 people in mid-May and 12 people in late May, a stationary boundary formed across the Midwest. It separated a seasonally cool air mass over Canada from a very warm, moist air mass over the southern U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico." The next sentence of the "July 3" section includes the phrase, "and on starting on June 3", a clear mistake. The whole article could use a clean-up. If you could choose just one thing to improve the article, a careful copyedit would be it.
  • The source links in some of the photos, including the lead photo in the infobox and the Omaha damage photo, do not seem to work. It would be good to update them if you can since fact checkers will otherwise have trouble making sure the images meet the WP:V requirement.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when a number starts a sentence, it's customary to spell it out rather than to use digits. Thus the second sentence of the lead should start with "Two hundred seventeen... "
  • Rainfall amounts in the metric system are usually reported in millimeters rather than centimeters.
  • WP:MOS says, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer... " It might be better to say "Reported storms" and "Derechos and other events" rather than repeating the word "tornado" in the section heads.
Thanks for giving the article a peer review, but I am confused on this one. I was hoping you could clarify this for me Finetooth. Rvk41 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan paragraphs such as "Damages from the derecho totaled to $750 million (2008 USD)" in the "June 5 Great Plains derecho" section are usually frowned upon. I'd suggest merging this mini-paragraph with the paragraph above it.
  • Words like "current" are tricky in an encyclopedia article. "Current President George W. Bush" leaped out at me because it will not be accurate in a few months. In this case, you could fix the problem by deleting the word "current".

This is not a complete review. If you have questions or comments, please post them here. If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this needs to be audited for quality for a current FT nomination, and possible instability related to a discussion at WT:WPTC prevents it from becoming featured at the moment. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "2002 Atlantic hurricane season" should not be bolded, it's not the page title.
  • Check dash spacing in the dates, dates like "July 14 – 16" should be: "July 14–16".
  • "October 14 - 16"—Hyphen needs to be an en dash, and like I said, should not have spaces.
  • "The season ended early, with no tropical storms forming after September 21." Awkward.
  • "and it ties 2007 for the"—Change 2007 to "the 2007 season" so that it doesn't look like a solitary low-value year link.
  • This is a matter of personal preference, but I think that the lead sentence should be split up: from "The 2002 Atlantic hurricane season was an average Atlantic hurricane season, officially starting on June 1, 2002, and ending on November 30."-->"The 2002 Atlantic hurricane season was an average Atlantic hurricane season. It officially started on June 1, 2002 and ended on November 30." Tell me if you like that.
  • "the bounds of the season are from June 1 to November 30" Why is this information repeated?

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy

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

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

...Ted Bundy is probably the most famous serial killer in American history and one of the most famous ever. I have put quite a bit of effort into the article over time, drawing from six different Ted Bundy books and drawing heavily from four books. Ideally, I would like this to be a Good Article or even a feature article. My purpose at this time is to draw input and suggestions for improvement towards that end.

Thanks, Vidor (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - expand this to three or four paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of University years or this whole part On October 18, 1974, Bundy murdered Melissa Smith, the 17-year-old daughter of Midvale police chief Louis Smith; Bundy raped, sodomized, and strangled her. Her body was found nine days later. Next was Laura Aime, also 17, who disappeared when she left a Halloween party in Lehi, Utah on October 31, 1974; her naked, beaten and strangled corpse was found nearly a month later by hikers on Thanksgiving Day, on the banks of a river in American Fork Canyon. or most of the list of Victims. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • As noted above, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. I also note that the article has four fair use images, as well as several free images - does this meet WP:NFCC?
  • There are at least three blockquotes, but per WP:MOSQUOTE they should be at least four lines of text (two are less than this on my screen). One has no ref either.

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 ><>°° 03:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple mergers and acquisitions

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 eventually bring it to WP:FLC. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Sunday (1969)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for a strong copy-edit and further source search before I take it to the "short FAC". Given the sources available in English, this is about as long as the article can be. I think if we found an editor who can read Turkish this article would be slightly longer and more comprehensive but note that The turkish wikipedia article is much shorter and unreferenced. I will also post a link to this on the Turkey Wikiproject.

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • This is so short that I doubt it would pass FAC in its current state - while length is not a criterion, comprehensiveness is and this seems too short to be comprehensive.
  • One way to expand it would be to provide more context for the readers - more history, more background, etc. I am not an expert on Turkish history, so I am not sure what else could be added. See WP:PCR
  • Article is lacking a lead and has no sections. 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 (once it has sections)
  • Could more be written on the second "Bloody Sunday"? Perhaps make the article on both and call it Bloody SUnday (Turkey)? Just ideas, not sire what else to say.

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 ><>°° 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I initially listed this for a project that was looking at outstanding articles of <1000 words for subjects which don't have sufficient sourcing to become full featured articles. I'll check again to see if it can be expanded. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Now try to source some of the articles online (the journals). --Adoniscik(t, c) 08:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Fields Forever

[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 it promoted to Featured Article.

Thanks, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (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.) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I have reviewed this twice already, I am not sure I have the distance to review this well, but here are some suggestions for improvement. There are pretty nit-pickyIf you want more comments, please ask here.

  • It seems to me that the direct quotes like "I buried Paul" in the lead should have refs too - see WP:MOSQUOTE
  • Since McCartney wrote the intro to the song, should this be mentioned in the lead (where it seems to say only Lennon wrote it)?
  • Should there be a link or brief explanation of double-tracked in The chorus functioned as a bridge instead, with Lennon being double-tracked.?
  • Need to make clearer who the the Swedish television director is in It was directed by Peter Goldman—a friend of Klaus Voormann, who had recommended the Swedish television director to the group.[48]
  • Usually try to avoid "today" in things like "Strawberry Fields Forever" was well-received by critics, and is still considered a classic today. perhaps "As of 2008" or something similar?

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 ><>°° 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland A.F.C. season 2007–08

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 what I can improve on to take it to Good Article status. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • I made a few minor corrections (MoS, spelling etc), where it was quicker to change them than discuss.
  • "their 105th in The Football League and 103rd in the league system of English football." - those numbers don't seem to add up? Comment - In Sunderland A.F.C. seasons there is all of the seasons Sunderland have competed in. They've played in 111 overall including the 1939-40 which was abandoned early. Before joining the football league in 1890-91 they competed in six seasons where they only played FA Cup games. Dicscounting the wars my count on the number of seasons is 111, 105 for football league and 103 in the leauge system.
I make it 101 seasons in the Football League including the abandoned 1939-40 season, 7 in the Premiership, 6 pre-League (cups only), plus an extra 10 war seasons? --Jameboy (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"their 105th in The Football League" - the Premier League is not part of The Football League, so last season cannot have been Sunderland's 105th (or anythingth) in The Football League, this needs changing. Also, I can't figure out how they can have spent less seasons in the English league system than in the Football League/Premier League. If you make it 105 in the FL/PL but only 103 in the "league system", could you elaborate as to which two FL/PL seasons you feel were not in the "league system", as I'm at a loss..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem now, I count 100 football league seasons if not counting the abandoned war season. I took the english league system style from the Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 article and it's just all of the seasons we've been in a league, so premier league and football league combined. If you still think its incorrect just say. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris is right, it should say seventh season in the Premier League, not 100th in the Football League. --Jameboy (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed such a glaring mistake, fixed now. Sunderland06 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very brief look. Hopefully I'll get time to have a full read through and provide more comments. --Jameboy (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sailor Moon episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Featured List status.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • What is there looks pretty good to me, although I do not normally work on anime articles.
  • In the lead, since the fifth season was never released in North America, should this sentence It was released and dubbed in North America by DiC Entertainment and Cloverway.[1][3] be changed to something like The first four seasons have been released and dubbed in North America by DiC Entertainment and Cloverway.[1][3]?
 Done
  • Language clean up In 2001, ADV Films released the English dubs of the first two seasons in a [on ?] 20 VHS volumes.[6] The two first seasons were taken to [released on 14 Region 1 DVDs] in 2002 by ADV, released over fourteen Region 1 DVDs.[7]
 Done
  • I would refer to the 3rd and 4th seasons by their names in the lead - the lead is a summary of the article and these are important enough to name in the lead
 Done
  • Biggest problem I see is that the episode lists have no inline citations - I assume they could have one or two refs in the header of each list (all come from one or two sources)
 Done
  • I would explain why the dubbed episodes do not match up with the original episodes in the intro to the first and second seasons, not wait until the third season intro.
 Done Can you read it through to see if it's OK?

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 ><>°° 03:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I believe I have addressed all the points above. I left a question further up. --TheLeftorium 11:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the season intro paragraphs and they are helpful - now it does seem a bit odd that the last two seasons do not have any introcutory text. Could you add a sentence or two before those too? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Speight

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This has just had a failed candidacy for featured article status. I would like feedback so that when I take it back to FAC in a few weeks, it will go a lot more smoothly, without people bringing up big issues on the second to last day.

Thanks, -- how do you turn this on 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
Jbmurray, who went through the whole article, removing apparent plagiarism, would be the one to speak to here. I actually agree with the quote anyhow. Partying is the exact wording used by Speight. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speight was questioned by police since he was the only other person living in the flat, and the BBC cancelled the Saturday repeat edition of SMart" - he was questioned because the BBC cancelled an episode? That's how it reads.
  • "but he was released on bail" - remove the "he" (keep an eye out for little things like this)
  • Another little thing to keep an eye out for
Someone else changed all of those. I had it as Collins' too. -- how do you turn this on 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Collins's is right; Collins' is wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that she had suffered 60% burns to her body" - were these as a result of the drugs/alcohol, or something else?
    • Oh, wait, you mention hot water next sentence. Probably should mention it before you mention the burns.
      • That whole paragraph could be resorted a bit so it's more logically sequenced.
  • "after he had been dropped off at Wood Green tube station that morning, but never showed up" - maybe end the sentence before this, then have a new one with "Despite being dropped off at Wood Green tube station he never showed up"
  • "Speight missed her because she was not home when he called" - rather than throw in a "her" without making it clear the counsellor was a woman, reword this entire sentence

Hope these help. Giggy (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David

[edit]

 Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is an overuse of non-free images! The first image conveys nothing that the second image doesn't and should be removed per WP:NFCC minimal use. Efforts should be made to get a free image from his ex-agent/publicist/TV company/Flikr. If a non-free image needs to be used, then a fair use rationale should be added per WP:NFCC 10c Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the Speight of the Art foundation but they've yet to get back to me. I very, very much doubt the BBC would provide a free photo, and flickr simply doesn't have any (and the one it does has, the owner has refused to release rights on it, which is a real shame, but nothing I can do about). I will, however, remove the second photo. -- how do you turn this on 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the first photo with the second one, since the second one is more descriptive, showing him actually doing some of his work. -- how do you turn this on 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have kept the second one over the first too, and approaching the foundation seems a sensible step Fasach Nua (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr had nothing last time I checked (during the FAC). Giggy (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:SeeitSawitBBC.jpg needs an expanded FURG. Giggy (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you could say what needs adding, I'd be very grateful. -- how do you turn this on 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a response from the Speight of the Art foundation, who said they'd be happy to provide a free image as long as they are attributed. So I'm just waiting for them to send me the image, so I can then get it verified through OTRS. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Artist Swyer

[edit]

A bit unsure what I'm doing here but hey.

  • "Still, some parents criticised..." under "Death and legacy" is weaselly.
  • The Daily Mail is not known for its balanced reporting and its love for the BBC; I would be wary of its glaring headline. Perhaps take it with a pinch of salt. Is there another source you could use? Preferably one that doesn't quote the DM's "sick and appalled" stance. This from the BBC itself looks like a good explanation of actions.
  • Otherwise, good. It just seems a bit short to be honest. I know most people know him for his tragic death but there must surely be a lot more to write about SMart: perhaps descriptions of some of the art and attitudes towards getting kids into art. This is what he is commendable for.
  • "Speight worked on numerous other shows, ranging from children's television to adult factual programmes". Call me thick but it isn't obvious which of the programmes listed were art shows, children's shows, factual shows, etc. Oh and did he and Collins get married in fancy dress? It's left hanging.

More if I think of any. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller

[edit]

I thought it was pretty good, but just needed some fine-tuning by an uninvolved copyeditor. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It did have several people copyedit it though, which was why I thought that suggestion wasn't particularly useful. -- how do you turn this on 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'm surprised. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1923 FA Cup Final

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not 100% convinced this article is quite of FA standard (although feel free to disagree :-) ), but is certainly a potential GA. Nonetheless I'd like to know what little tweaks I might still need to do.....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will give this a proper review when I have the time (which I'm afraid could be a while). But I just thought I'd let you know that I have an old video about the history of the F.A cup final, where they talk for a about 10 mins about the crowd problems. So I could add in some info from that if you wanted. BUC (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've watched it again. It's achally more like 5 mins and the only thing in it of any major use is interviews with two men who were spectators at the match. BUC (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, it must indeed be an old video then! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've put the two quote from the interviews into my sandbox. See what you think. BUC (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that - I've added one in and taken the liberty of correcting what appeared to be a couple of typos. Don't suppose you have the name of the director of the programme, to complete the citation template.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Wellham, Paul Armstrong and Tony Pastor. BUC (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in what I think is useful. BUC (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead could do with a bit more just so that it cover everything in the article.
  • The tables in the "Route to the final" section look really ugly. The Bolton one is ok but why is the West Ham one lower down? it's cutting into the next section.
    • A slightly perplexing comment given that it was yourself that put them into the current format. Also, I don't understand what you mean when you describe the West Ham one as "look down" - what does this mean?
      • Yeah but I still don't like it. BUC (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The tables are so placed because they each sit alongside the paragraph about the relevant team's route to the final. After a re-jigging of the paragraphs the table no longer cuts into subsequent sections (at least not in my browser)....
  • "by the time officers arrived there was little they could do" why not?
    • Done
  • "it is likely the match would have been abandoned" a bit POV.
  • First sentence of the "Match" seems more suited to the "Build-up" section.
    • Changed
  • "Watson missed another good scoring opportunity when he misjudged a kick" how did this make him miss the opportunity?
    • Reworded
  • "Dick Pym initially fumbled the ball but managed to save it at the second attempt" I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Are you talking about the shot from the last sentence? If he didn't save it the first time how come it didn't in the goal?
    • Yes, it is the shot from the previous sentence. He fumbled the shot but then recovered and got to it before it went in - I've reworded it slightly, hope it is clearer.....
  • "Details" section has no ref.
    • Put ref in in what seemed the most appropriate place
  • "Oswald Mosley was chastised for characterising the fans" who chastised him?
    • Noted
  • The third paragraph of the "Aftermath" section reads a bit like a list.
    • Re-jigged a bit, hope it looks better now
  • Just a seggestion but the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section could go under the sub-section title "legacy"
    • Done
  • Other than the first sentence of the article, there is no mention of this match being known as "the white horse final".
    • Added it into the "legacy" section
  • Shouldn't the refs that use articles on findarticles.com mention the site they are on as well as the paper they were originally in?
    • I dunno, I've seen many other articles which use findarticles and give only the original paper in the ref, so I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule. I'll see what other people think on this issue.....

BUC (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • "The 1923 FA Cup Final, (also known as The White Horse Final)," I don't think the brackets are needed.
    • Done - someone else put the brackets in and I hadn't noticed
  • "Bolton had appeared in the final once before, in 1894," perhaps wikilink the 1894 Final.
    • Done
  • The "Route to the Final" section looks messy with the two boxes creating an ugly white space. Unless this section is expanded, I would suggest moving one box to the left hand side.
    • Done. I wasn't actually seeing any whitespace in my browser, but hopefully the change will rectify the problem for those who were
  • "The gross gate money for the match was £27,776, of which each team and the Football Association took £6,365," What happened to the rest of the share?
    • Sorted

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Mexico City earthquake

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


 Doing... Some comments and suggestions for the article. This article is large so I will post comments here as I review. It might take a few days to get through the entire article, so please bear with me.

  • General comments:
    • This article contains a lot of technical facts that may be difficult to understand for some readers. It is important, therefore, to describe the events using terminology that the average reader can understand. That typically means using technical terms and then immediately following them with a simpler description in plain English.
    • Make sure you have a verifiable source for each statement and properly use inline citations.
    • The first paragraph is very important. It provides a summary of the entire article and is a form of teaser to attract the reader to read the whole article. This paragraph should be factual, easy to read, and most importantly, easy for teh reader to understand.
    • Avoid drawing conclusions. Just state the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Some examples to avoid//change:
      • First sentence is unsupported by refs and contains peacock terms. Just state the facts, viz: "The 1985 Mexico City earthquake was a magnitude 8.1 earthquake that struck Mexico City, Mexico on Thursday, 19 September 1985.[1]"
    • Do not wikilink any dates (see WP:MOSNUM) and maintain consistent date formats throughout the article. Make sure you do not mix 19 September 1985 and September 19 1985.
    • Avoid the word "but" and unsupported comparisons, and simplify whenever possible. For example, in the first paragraph, suggest changing "The locations of the quakes were off the Mexican Pacific coast, more than 350 km away, but due to strength of the quake and the fact that Mexico City sits on an old lakebed, the distance was no protection. The event caused between three and four billion USD in damage as 412 buildings collapsed and another 3,124 were seriously damaged in the city. While the number is in dispute, the most-often cited number of deaths is about 10,000 people." to "Although centered more than 350 km away off the Mexican Pacific coast, the strong quakes killed about 10,000 people(ref) and caused between three and four billion USD in damage as 412 buildings collapsed and another 3,124 were seriously damaged in Mexico City, which sits on an old lakebed."
    • Use consistent verb tense throughout. For example, "The 19 September quake was a multiple event with two epicenters and the second movement occurring 26 seconds after the first." mixes tense. It would be better if "occurring" were changed to "occurred".
    • Good usage of pictures to illustrate the article. Please make sure they follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy for what can and cannot be used as pictures, and that they are properly licensed for use.
  • Specific comments
    • The Legacy section seems somewhat disjointed. This type of section should describe the long-lasting effects of the quake. The first sentence doesn't do that and belongs somewhere else in the article, if it's needed at all. The second sentence might be better started as "Because of the earthquake, a new alert system, Sistema de Alerta Sísmica ... was created." This pair of sentences "An alarm is supposed to go off in Mexico City (similar to an air-raid siren) when an earthquake of 6.0 or higher is detected. However, it does not always work." is overly negative compared to the cited ref (My Spanish is average). Better might be "The system should sound an alarm when an earthquake of 6.0 or higher is detected; sometimes it has failed to sound the alarm." The rest of this section is good.
    • In the Torre Mayor section, the first sentence ends with a comma. There should be a period (full stop) after "damage occurred".
  • to be continued ...

Truthanado (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I did a heck of a lot of work on it! About as complete as its gonna get. Thanks, Thelmadatter (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder

[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 managed to get this article up to GA status, but I now believe that a FA status is possible. Please may you list a series of points I need to cover to bring the article up to this level :) Many thanks. Marcus Bowen (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (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.) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead does not follow WP:LEAD as I see it - it is too detailed and not an inviting summary and overview of the article. I also think the paragraphs are not balanced - the first is only two sentences, the second is too long - this may be seen as an issue under WP:WEIGHT too.
    • I have copied and pasted the Wilco lead, and changed it accordingly with a few other statements added. It now looks equally weighted and not lengthy.
  • When I saw they were from "South Wales", I originally thought they were from "New South Wales", i.e. Australia. Perhaps this should say something about the UK / Britain?
    • Thanks! :-), have now added more detail :-).
  • The article needs a serious copyedit to polish the language - a few examples
    • "These consisted of a few bands they played in including a stint as sound engineers, before forming a rock band called 'Reel' and sacked their bass player before replacing him with Taka Hirose, who placed an advert in Loot." This is a run-on sentence and should probably be split into two sentences (or three?). The languiage makes false impressions or statements in places - it sounds like they were in a band of sound engineers or that the bass player placed the ad (the band did).
    • Errors in Before the album[']s release, "We Are the People" charted at number twenty-five in the singles chart, making it their worse [worst] chart placing for a lead single since 1999's "Day in Day Out". I think "chart placing" is also awkward - chart position perhaps?
      • Could you give me a brief analysis on the other problems you noticed please? :-), I have addressed the ones you have mentioned.
        • I do not do copyedits - sorry. I read for comprehension and still saw a lot of errors / places that could be polished. here are some things to fix in the first paragraph of the lead: Why not combine the first two sentences to get something like Feeder are a British rock band formed in Newport, South Wales in 1992 by singer/songwriter/guitarist Grant Nicholas, and drummer/guitarist Jon Lee. and why isn't Jon Lee linked here? The third sentence has problems too: Feeder's line-up was completed when bassist Taka Hirose placed an advert. First I think "advert" is too informal for an encylcopedia article. Second, it was completed when he joined the band after placing an advertisement (the act of placing the ad did not make him a member). The lead makes no mention of the member who replaced the guy who committed suicide. The sentence They have been in the past, joined for live performances by Dean Tidey ... is not correct and should read something like In the past, they have been joined for live performances by Dean Tidey ... I am not sure these all need to be in the lead, but do not write music articles. Finally Feeder have charted twenty-four UK top 75 singles, and eight UK top 75 albums.[1] violates WP:MOSNUM and should read Feeder have charted 24 UK top 75 singles, and eight UK top 75 albums.[1] I wonder if this and the last sentence could be combined to read something like Feeder have charted 24 UK top 75 singles, and eight UK top 75 albums,[1] and their music has been inspired by a wide variety of artists and styles, including The Pixies and The Smashing Pumpkins. Not all paragraphs need this much work, but the article needs a copyedit - try asking a volunteerr listed in the first section of WP:PRV. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on the refs statements above.
    • I have been cleaning up the references, and sent a message to the other peer reviewer asking which ones flagged up should stay, giving my reasons, as a few FA status pages have used them also and the feederanorak references are reliable.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • There are three sound clips and at least one non-free image - how do these meet WP:NFCC?
    • A fair use rationale has been added for the non-free use picture, and have copied/pasted a rationale from a similar picture of The Smashing Pumpkins which is of FA status, and then changed the text accordingly. As for the sound clips, a fair use has been used on each one also similar to the ones used on the latter article's sound clips. I have also made the pictures smaller where it can be done without being too small (the portrait orientated pictures can be made smaller, but end up too small). Marcus Bowen (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I understand NFCC is asking here is "What does the fair use image from 1997 add to the article that other (free) images do not add? For example, all three band members pictured in the fair use image are also shown in the next image: Image:FeederVirginMegastore2001.jpg.

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 ><>°° 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your responses from my talk page and replied to them here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the third article of a series, the first two of which have reached featured status. Likewise, I intend to nominate this article once this PR is complete. I'm finding that after each article I write, the quality of the prose is improving, but as always, there are areas that will need an objective look. All feedback is appreciated. Resolute 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that I will not be copyediting this one as I've written too much of it to have fresh enough to see where to correct stuff. Maxim(talk) 22:10, 6 October 2008 (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.) 13:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, the joy of two different people with two editing styles collaborating. Correcting this. Thanks, Resolute 15:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article is in need of a copyedit - for example, in the lead there is an extra the and the word "compete" is used twice in one sentence This continued expansion was partially the brought about by the NHL's attempts to compete with the World Hockey Association, which operated from 1972 until 1979 and sought to compete with the NHL for markets and players. could be something like This continued expansion was partially brought about by competition for markets and players between the NHL and the World Hockey Association, which operated from 1972 until 1979. Or missing words in the Overview section After several years of discussion, the NHL announced in February 1966 that [it would?] expand by six teams, doubling the league's size.
  • Does Canada have Freedom of panorama? The photo of the Gretzky statue is probably copyright by the artist - if there is no freedome of panorama, then a fair use rationale is needed (and the image should be on Wikipedia, not Commons)
  • Maybe it is becasue I ma neither Canadian nor a huge hockey fan, but I am not sure I see the need for the Summit Series section to be as large as it is. While I understand this used Canadian NHL players, these were not official NHL games and they did not use non-Canadian NHL players. I am not saying that it should be eliminated, but 8 games get more coverage here than almost any other topic in the article - does this meet WP:WEight?
  • Images look OK, but I would make better use of colors in the Timeline chart. For example, when a team is moved, I think it should stay the same color - if the California Golden Seals and Cleveland Barons were the same color, then I think it would be clearer that it was the same team that moved.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, I will look to address your comments as time permits. On the Gretzky statue however, yes Canadian freedom of panorama laws are much more relaxed compared to Americans. That picture is compliant with Canadian copyright law. Resolute 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Hamburg

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've improved this list over the last months and would like to take it to featured lists. I'd be pleased to receive any advice or comments as to how this list might be improved, in terms of prose, style, anything else.

Thanks, Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please don't ask me to review articles, I'm not a native speaker and think my style, tone, grammar and spelling is too bad. I'm sorry, Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article needs more references, for example the information in the lead that is not also in the list should be referenced. The tables also need refs - assuming all of the information is from a few sources, this can go in the top of the table. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I would make the format of all of the tables consistent - do not collapse some tables or make some just rows of data and not actual tables. Also any reason why these are not sortable tables?
  • As you note, the language needs to be cleaned up - this needs a copyedit. You can ask for help at WP:PRV in the first section (people willing to do copyedits). "Scripture" in English refers almost exclusively to religious writing (Heiliger Schrift), for example.
  • If you are going to have a "Note" column, then please use it. Otherwise, get rid of it.

Hope this helps. I won't ask you to review something else. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank very much. I'm busy at the moment, but will try to change the points.
  • The note column is because to make the table consistent (but I'll try to add some more information on the mayors).
  • The list not in table style should be changed in a visible table? Okay I'll do it.
  • As for references, it's hard to add them and not do OR. (The main source, the list at the official Hamburg website is offline.)
  • The tables are not sortable because I thought this should be chronolocigal. At the beginning I thought, there should be some sortable columns; but as for start or end-term dates, some are years only, some are with day and month, that is not really sortable.
Again, thank you. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 added a whole lot of information to it. However, I need someone with more architectural and/or religious knowledge (sorry, Im not Cathoic!) to look at the terminology. Most of my sources are in Spanish, which I speak, but my native language is English. Some of the saints' and virgins' names are not linked because I am not really sure who they really refer to.

Thanks, Thelmadatter (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I bring no special knowledge of church architecture to this review. Even so, I find the article interesting and the photos impressive. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • I'd recommend that you add an infobox. For an example of how this looks, please see St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, a featured article about a religious building. If you haven't created an infobox before, an easy method is to copy and paste the template with all of its parameters into your article and then to fill in the relevant parameters. If this idea doesn't make sense, please let me know.
  • A longer and more complete lead would be good. It should be a summary or abstract of the whole article; ideally it would include at least a mention of the main ideas in each of the sections of the main text.
  • Galleries are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia articles. You might use some of the photos in the galleries by inserting some of their images into the main text. I would consider reducing the overall number of images, however. Use them to illustrate points in the text rather than as a separate photo display. In addition, the Manual of Style recommends avoiding layouts that sandwich a column of text between two or more photos. The existing article has a photo sandwich in the Sagrarium section. Please see MOS:IMAGES.
  • Quantities are generally expressed in Wikipedia articles in metric and imperial units. An easy way to get the conversion numbers and abbreviations right is to use the Template:Convert. I added one of these templates to the lead, and you can see by this example how it works. "Convert" will handle most units of length, area, volume, weight, and other kinds of measurement.
  • I see many small errors that a copyeditor would probably catch and fix. For example, the main text is not usually in boldface except for the introduction of the main subject in the first line of the lead. Thus, "Altar of Forgiveness" and other similar constructions would probably be better in plain type. Dates are not typically wikilinked, but "East side chapels" has several linked dates. Several paragraphs have double spaces between them for no apparent reason; others have "br" codes for no apparent reason. Date ranges and page ranges get an en dash rather than a hyphen. Copyediting would repair this sort of thing.
  • You might look at other featured articles about architecture and religious buildings to see what other authors and editors have done with similar subjects. You can find the complete list at WP:FA.
  • The two external links in the first "External links" section don't work. One is dead, and the other links to what seems to be irrelevant information. In addition, you should have only one "External links" section.

This is not a complete review, but I hope this short list of suggestions proves useful. If you have questions or comments, please post them here. I'll put a watch on this page. If you find this review process helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Jacket Required

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 done extensive work on the article (See [here], and [here] for what the article looked like before I got ahold of it,) and would love to see what else the article needs for improvements. One section that I would love to get an opinion on is the "Songs" section. I had at one point made sub-sections for each song (See [here for latest revision with the edits], before another editor changed it, which I still am not sure on. Another section I'd like to get feedback on is the "Tour" section, as I am not really all that sure on what the section specifically needs. I am pretty much looking for ANY sort of feedback I can get for this article.

Thank you so much, and anyone's views are appreciated! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • Rather than using "#1", use "number one" (except in tables of chart figures); it reads easier and looks better  Done
  • "("Don't Lose My Number" wasn't released as a single in the UK)" - I doubt this is important enough to mention in the lead  Done
  • Billboard needs to be in italics (MOS:ITALICS, magazines)  Done
  • "and the three singles that were released in the UK all reached the top 20 on the UK charts." --> "while the three singles released in the UK reached the top 20 there." or something like that  Done
  • ""No Jacket Required" features various guest vocalists" - album, italics  Done
  • Not sure if you need to say which song the performers appeared on, just that they were there (in the lead, at least)  Done
  • Films also need italics  Done
  • The lead doesn't really talk about the album itself. The musical content, lyrics, etc.
  • No information on recording, production, development of the album as a whole (in the lead, or in its own section)?  Done Each song has information about the production in its own sections
  • "The Maître d' argued that the jacket wasn't "proper".[4] The Maître d' who refused service at the famed..." - wikilink stuff the first time it's used  Done
  • "The Maître d' who refused service at the famed "Table Number One" was named George Montgomery, and he passed away in 1992." - on second thoughts, is this relevant? (or sourced?)  Done Took it out
  • TV programs also need italics :)  Done
  • Reception section can probably be beefed up a fair bit. Take a look at some other album FAs for ideas.  Done
  • Commas always out outside brackets (see some of my edits...).  Done

Hope these help. Will look again some time soon. Giggy (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

This article is looking good; it's clear that you've devoted a lot of time and effort to making it better. Kudos for your dedication. I hope my comments here will help as you continue to improve it.

Taking an article to FA status can be very rewarding, but be prepared for a lot of work. The most important thing is for you to check and re-check and double-check and triple-check everything yourself, to catch simple mistakes so other editors don't have to. If you haven't already done so, read some existing Featured Articles about albums and see how they've done things. No two FAs are identical, but you can get some rough ideas about how to proceed. (Keep in mind that articles which became FAs several years ago sometimes had a different – usually less stringent – set of requirements to meet.)

Here are some responses, ideas and questions I had while writing the article.

  • The infobox pushes down the quote box about the jacket incident. This causes a large gap on some computers between the section heading "Album title" and the start of the first paragraph. I'm not sure how this can be fixed, but removing the info about "Singles from the album" from the infobox is one option.  Done Doesn't do it anymore.
  • One of the most important elements missing from this article is information about its creation. When and where was it recorded? Which musicians/producers joined Collins on the project, and how did he come to work with them? (Some of this info is at the end of the article, but rather than a list, it should be woven into the text of the article itself – preferably in a section of its own earlier in the article.) Again, take a look at existing album FAs and get a sense for the kind of details they offer.  Done Did this as much as I could, but more improvement is definitely necessary.
  • Don't use boldface for the song titles. Boldface writing should really only be used at the very start of the lead. I would recommend compressing the section about the songs, making them into more fluid paragraphs (rather than a list of items, as it is now).  Done Changed back to what it originally was.
  • The "Reception" section should be expanded. I suggest taking the info from "Chart performance and sales" and putting it into "Reception". I also suggest removing the chart showing its #1 position in various countries; the same info could easily be represented in a single sentence. ("The album reached the number one spot on charts around the world, including in Canada, Germany, etc etc")  Done It has been very expanded. :)
  • Be very fastidious about your references. I recommend using either MLA style or APA style, since they're pretty easy to format. Specifically, when referencing a post from Mr. Collins on the forum, you need to indicate that it's from him (and preferably on the talk page, indicate how this has been verified). Otherwise, editors will assume you're just linking to some random crackpot writing about what s/he thinks.

Good luck with this! Please let me know if you have any questions. Scartol • Tok 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pallid sturgeon

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Requesting peer review for this article. I have made substantial improvements and feel that the article is close to featured level, however, wording and some of the scope may need improvement, enhancements and fine tuning. I appreciate any suggestions that others may have.

Thanks, MONGO 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article - here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think the lead should have some more basic information on the species - typical size and weight, perhaps the fact that it can live to be 50 to 100 years old
  • I also think it would help provide context to the reader if there were a paragraph or a few sentences on the history of dam building on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers - see WP:PCR
  • A map showing some of the major rivers mentioned in the article might help too
  • I once had an article at FAC which said rocks in a park were older than the dinosaurs and was asked to take it out. I personally think it helps provide context, but wanted to mention it here.
  • I also note the article is apparaently inconsistent on the age of the species - in "Taxonomy and Etymology" (which should be "Taxonomy and etymology" per WP:HEAD), it says Pallid sturgeon are some of the most primitive and ancient fish species, having originated during the Jurassic Period 200 million years ago.[10] The pallid sturgeon is a relic of the dinosaur era and has remained virtually unchanged over the past 70 million years. What changes happened in the first 130 million years?
  • Avoid needless repetition The "Physical characteristics" section is next and nearly repeats the second sentence mentioend above as The species is ancient and has remained virtually unchanged for 70 million years, since the Cretaceous period. I like the specific mention of the Cretaceous.
  • Article needs a copyedit to polish the language in some places. A few examples (not an exhaustive list)
    • Typo? "and" does not make sense in Instead, pallid sturgeons have cartilaginous skeletons and in addition they have and 5 rows of thick cartilage plates that extend along their sides, undersides and backs, as well as most of the head.
    • Larval or larvae? In Missouri, at the Lisbon Bottoms section of the Big Muddy National Fish & Wildlife Refuge, wild pallid sturgeon larval were collected in 1998. These wild pallid sturgeon larvae ...
      • This is confusing...what I read is that "larva" is singular..."larvae" is plural...but some sources I have been reading use the term "larval"...so I am not sure what to do...but I went and changed all to Larva and Larvae to maintain consistency.MONGO 12:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any way to avoid repeating "pallid sturgeon" quite so much?
    • I read the article for comprehension and noted a sentence where the same word was used three times, but now I can't find it. I think the word in question was location or production or something like that
  • Dates are generally left unlinked now
  • Pallid sturgeon have no known natural predators aside from man. probably needs a ref
  • Refs and images look good

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 ><>°° 12:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have adjusted the sections you mentioned and did some more fine tuning. I surely appreciate all the time you spent making suggestions. I am still searching for some kind of range map that is suitable..most that I have found are pretty plain looking. I am trying to not go into a long speal regarding dams ro make a political statement too loudly about how daming has impacted the habitat...preferring to mainly stick to discussion on the species itself, though I think further cleanup is needed yet on these issues, as you mentioned. Thanks again!--MONGO 12:55, 11 October 2008 (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.
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.) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Raphael

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 effectively, fully, but succinctly covers Raphael's life.

Thanks, RossF18 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this as if it were headed for WP:FAC - it is a good start and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is a bit sparse and could be expanded. 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
Every section except prints & workshop had a mention, but I have added these. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biggest problem I see with this is a lack of references. For example, everything but the first phrase in the first paragraph of the Urbino section is uncited. Or there are several direct quoatations without refs, for example He had already shown talent, according to Giorgio Vasari, who tells that Raphael had been "a great help to his father". My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Almost all points not otherwise refed are Jones & Penny. The example given is covered by the next ref. Citing Vasari pages is little use in practise as there are his 2 editions, and 50 million later editions, but I will add some. Obviously they are all from his Life of Raphael, unlerss stated otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (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
They are mostly museum images, but I will add names. There are now no "web-only" refs, in the sense the guideline uses, except the Amazon one which is dated. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, for portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower if desired (when using "thumb").
  • Some places sould provide more context to the reader - there are several references to "the Pope" but it is not always clear (at least to me) which one is meant, for example in He was made a "Groom of the Chamber" of the Pope, which gave him status at court and an additional income. See WP:PCR
I have said "Pope Leo" etc at a few, though in fact I can't so far find whether it was Julius or Leo in this example - Vasari has it but doesn't say which did it. He was still Groom at his death anyway. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color of the day (police)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 spend a lot of my time here doing wikignoming or doing dispute resolution via WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB and only occasionally create new articles or do major mainspace edits. So I'd like an opinion on this article I've created from scratch. I don't ever expect it to be WP:GA or WP:FA but think it could be improved beyond what I've done to B class perhaps. I'm trying to do more mainspace edits because although it is my declared intention to be mostly involved in dispute resolution, I think that a mediator should first and foremost be a good and experienced mainspace editor. Please be as critical as you'd like: I have an extremely thick skin :-)

Thanks, fr33kman -s- 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask 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 My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - I think this should be at least two paragraphs per WP:LEAD
  • Article is in serious need of more references - there are citation needed tags and the whole "Purpose" section and the last 4 or 5 sentnces in History 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
  • I think See also is for links not otherwise in the article, but NYPD is already in
  • I think more concrete, specific examples owuld help and could be used to expand the article.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • ANy chance for some images (even one)?

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 ><>°° 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keating!

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 to expand and improve it and am really interested in getting some feedback, particularly as this is the first time I've really edited a musical theatre/music-related article and I'm a little unsure.

Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Should there be some sort of dab statement at the top on the politician and other uses of the word Keating?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - one FA that may be a good model is A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant, a musical too
  • The article has no reception section - separate material on what critics thought, etc.
  • The plot section seems overly detailed to me, and has no refs. I am not sure if plot needs refs or not, but the model article has them (see above)
  • I like the four fair use pictures and two fair use sound clips, but do six fair use media files meet WP:NFCC? I am not an expert, but this issue may arise at GAN/FAC.
  • Second paragraph of Music has no refs.

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 ><>°° 03:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, this is really helpful! I'm working on addressing these now. Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome - the images should follow WP:MOS#Images, so images on the left inder headers are discouraged. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The O.C. (season 4)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 the last season in the series and I would appreciate any comments before taking it to FLC.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • Check out Fox Broadcasting Company, which refers to it as "Fox", not "FOX"
    •  Done, and i'll try to remember to do the other seasons some other time.
  • "against Lost and Criminal Minds" --> "against ABC's Lost and CBS's Criminal Minds"
    •  Done
  • "anymore" --> "any more" or "additional"
    •  Question: I changed "any more" -> "anymore" the other day as, according to this, "anymore" is the AmE version.
  • "This was the first season without one of the "core four";" --> "This was the first season without one of the "core four" characters;" do you have a reference for "core four"?
    •  Done and  Done
  • Does the sentence "Before the season was shown on television, it was available through on demand streaming." refer to Aus? It's not clear.
    •  Done
  • Move "In the US streaming was available from October 26, 2006 at 3:01 a.m. ET on Fox Interactive Media's MySpace and MyFoxLocal stations.[9]" to the end of the third paragraph, with the other stuff about it being availiable through other outlets
    •  Question: I don't understand. Currently it is the penultimate sentence of the third paragraph already. It is the one sentence before streaming in Canada as chronologically it was streamed in America first.
  • "having previously been a recurring role." singular, but discussing two people. "held" sounds better than "been", I think
    •  Done
  • Perhaps say that Chris Brown is the singer
    •  Done
  • I would move the cancellation section into the Reception section, and not bother with a section heading.
    •  Done
  • "With the death of Marissa, and low ratings it was rumoured that the show would not return," seems out of place. Rumored it would not return when? For a fifth season, for this fourth season?
    •  Done
    • "rumoured" --> "rumored" US-English for US subject
      •  Done
    • Try "Due to a combination of low ratings, and the death of Marissa in season three, it was rumored that the show would not return for a fifth season."
      •  Done
  • Also the September 06 comment by Rachel appears before the June 06 comment by Fox, which is odd, chronologically
    •  Done
  • "however president Dawn Ostroff" --> "however, CW president Dawn Ostroff"
    •  Done
  • mention in the Lede that this is the final season
  • "[...]" instead of "(...)"
  • Ref 24 needs a publication date
    •  Done
  • Try to find alternative to Amazon.co.uk and DVDorchard.com.au, so it doesn't look as if we're positively biassed towards those particular sales sites. Magazine articles, perhaps? Or does WB have DVD sites in the UK and Australia?
    • ✗ Not done whilst I agree, I can't find anything else that reliable for Aus or the UK. (I found one for S3 but that's no real help here)

Looks alright otherwise. Matthewedwards 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed or questioned all of your comments. Please let me know your responses to the things I have either questioned or not done. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Campus, Yunnven (2005-09-19). "A 20 años del sismo del 85" (in Spanish). Mexico City: Televisa. Retrieved 2008-10-04.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/October_2008&oldid=704356181"