Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2009

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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.

Nancy Cartwright edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is now a GA and I would like to take it to FAC eventually, so all comments and input are welcome. -- Scorpion0422 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 21:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article. I think it's ready for FAC after only slight buffing. Here are a few suggestions, all fairly minor.

Infobox and lead

  • I wondered where she got her middle name, Campbell.
    • Good question, I don't know, I haven't found any sources that mention it.

Lead

  • Cartwright continued to audition for voice-over and live-action roles" - Wikilink voice-over on first use?
    • I don't know if it's needed because Voice acting is already linked. I can add it though.
  • "For her work as Bart, Cartwright would receive a Primetime Emmy Award" - "Received" rather than "would receive"?
    • Fixed. That tends to be one of my more persistent writing problems: I use would a lot.

Early life

  • "the daughter of Frank and Miriam" - I believe I'd include the last name, Cartwright, here as well as the first names.
    • It wasn't included before because of redundancy (the name Cartwright is already in the sentence) but I added it.

Early career

  • "For several months she unsuccessfully tried to secure the rights the film" - Missing word? "to the film"?
    • Done.

The Simpsons

  • "The show featured shorts as bumpers, and aired between sketches." - I find this sentence puzzling. I know what shorts are but not bumpers. Perhaps a wikilink or a brief in-text explanation would help make this more clear.
    • Wow, that sentence is confusing. What was I thinking when I wrote it? Is it better?
Yep. Finetooth (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matt Groening let her try out for the part instead" - Delete "instead"?
    • Done.

Personal life

  • "She recalls that she joined because she was depressed that she did not have a 'committed relationship,' and wanted to get married and have children." - Something seems wrong with the chronology here. The article says she joined in 1989 but met Warren in 1988 on her birthday (October) and married him two months later (December). Am I misreading these numbers?
    • That's the chronology as given in the sources. I think what it means is that she discovered scientology, met her husband, THEN joined the church. I've tried rewording it and switched it to "She recalls that before joining"

Images

  • These seem fine, especially her mug shots, and the licenses look OK to me unless the star is considered a separate work of art protected by its own copyright (as distinct from the photographer's copyright). I doubt that it is, but copyright law is full of surprises.
    • The star is used in several FAs and has been looked over by several experts, so I think it's okay.

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely were helpful. Thanks a lot! -- Scorpion0422 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

I agree with the above: Very nice work on this article. I apologize for the extreme delay in getting to this. I have done some copyediting, and while the following is not a completely thorough peer review (I feel that the structures and the research are generally quite solid), I do have some questions and comments:

  • Nancy Cartwright was born in Dayton, Ohio, on October 25, 1957, the daughter of Frank and Miriam Cartwright and the fourth of six children. I'd like to reword this: "Nancy Cartwright was born in Dayton, Ohio, on October 25, 1957, the fourth of six children. Her parents, Frank and Miriam Cartwright, were..." but I'll need some info about her parents. I assume there is some in her autobiography?
    • Actually, her parents are barely even mentioned in the book. Their names aren't even mentioned in it (but were in an interview she did).
      • Okay, I changed it to: "the fourth of six children born to Frank and Miriam Cartwright". Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was her scholarship for?
    • Public speaking I'd assume. This is the exact passage that she mentions it in: "I ended up placing first in the National District Tournament for two years in a row. This had never been done before and I was awarded with a scholarship from the host of the competition, Ohio University."
      • Okay, I guess we'll have to leave it. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For future reference: If the quote isn't a complete sentence, then the final punctuation goes outside the quote mark. (Cartwright described Butler as "absolutely amazing, always encouraging, [and] always polite".)
    • Okay, it's confusing because different reviewers tell you different things (one of my English teachers once told me periods always goes before quotation marks).
  • The bit about her leaving the building during her audition for Cheers is confusing. What did that have to do with her getting the part?
    • Nothing really, it's just an anecdote in her book where she says she decided to try something different (leaving during an audition) and it worked. This is the passage: "I got a call to audition for Cheers. At the end of the audition piece, my character turns and says one more line before exiting the bar, and I couldn't resist. With a roomful of producers, assistants, casting directors and writers, I turned, said my line and walked right out the door. That in itself wasn't so surprising, but the fact that I kept on going totally threw everyone for a loop. By the time I got home, my phone was ringing and I was cast."
      • Okay, I changed it to: "Cartwright decided to take a chance on being different, and continued walking out of the building. The production crew was confused, but she received the part." Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cartwright describes Bart's voice as easy to perform compared to other characters. This sentence had an errant quotation mark at the end, with no clear corresponding mark at the start. You should check and see if some part of it is a direct quote — and if so, enclose it in quote marks.
    • I think there used to be a quotation there (something along the lines of "he's the easiest voice I do") but it was removed.
  • Could we get some more commentary about her autobiography? Were there any exciting revelations? Surely there were some positive reviews? What did fans of the show think?
    • It's actually a pretty boring book with nothing really exciting or controversial. There were some positive reviews, which I added to its page (My Life as a Ten-Year-Old Boy)
      • I think some of the info from that article could be expanded, with 1-2 tidbits thrown into her bio article. How about a quote from the section on finding out about Phil Hartman? Or something from the final chapter? Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I meant was that there were some reviews in that article, and if there were any comments you thought were useful, you could just copy them here. I did add a positive review and I could probably throw in a quote from the final chapter. Is there anything else from the book that could be added? -- ScorpionO'422 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further career" is an odd title for a section heading. What about "Other activities" or "Later career"?
    • I don't know, because "later" insinuates that it happened after The Simpsons, and "other activities" suggests things not relating to her career.
      • I still prefer "other activities" (I don't see it as removed from her career), but it's not a big deal for me. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the source titles is "Bart Simpson is spruiking Scientology". Is this word "spruiking" correct?
    • Yep (don't ask me what it means though, I have no idea).

Again: Nice work on this article, and good luck with the plans to move it ahead on the path to FA. Scartol • Tok 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully things will go smoothly. -- Scorpion0422 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting system 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 twice before this, but I have done extensive work on the article's content, structure and references since. I'm looking to possibly nominate this for FAC sometime soon. I'm looking for any suggestions here! I need someone else less familiar with the system to run through it and tell me if everything makes sense and looks good. Thanks!

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that explains a process that many readers might otherwise find mysterious. I have a few suggestions for improvement. None is complicated or involves any great change.

Lead

  • "currently in effect between" - Delete "currently"?
  • "NPB players have never been subject to the traditional Rule 4 Draft" - A brief in-text explanation would be helpful here for readers who will not have any idea what Rule 4 is about. Suggestion: "NPB players have never been subject to the traditional Rule 4 Draft that governs how MLB teams acquire amateur players." Or something like that.
  • "as seen when pitcher Hideki Irabu was dealt to a MLB team despite stating he did not want to" - I think you need "did not want to be traded" for the sentence to make sense.
  • "If the MLB team cannot come to a contract agreement with the posted player, then no fee is paid, and the player's rights revert back to his NPB team." - This could be tightened just a bit by deleting "back".
All great suggestions, all changed. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "was awarded the California League Rookie of the Year award" - Repetition of "award". Suggestion: "was named California League Rookie of the Year"
  • "After putting up good pitching statistics as a reliever, Giants' executives decided to exercise a clause in their contract with the Hawks that allowed them to sign one of the three NPB exchange prospects to a contract" - The Giants' executives didn't put up good pitching statistics. Perhaps "After Murikami put up good pitching statistics... "?
  • "the Giants agreed to send Murakami back to Japan after the upcoming 1965 season" - Delete "upcoming"?
  • "In addition to Soriano disliking the Japanese's intense practice schedule, the Carp denied him a salary increase from $45,000" - A bit awkward. How about "Soriano disliked the intense Japanese practice schedule, and the Carp denied... "?
Again, all great suggestions, all changed. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Process

  • "MLB teams submit sealed bids (in USD)" - Spell out as well on first use, thus: "MLB teams submit sealed bids in in U.S. dollars (USD)"?
  • "and the player's rights revert back to his NPB team" - Delete "back"?
Done! --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past postings

  • "These contracts range from $52 million on the high end to $1.4 million on the low end" - Tighten by deleting "on the high end" and "on the low end"?
Ha, ya, a bit redundant, eh? Done. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful postings

  • "(US$800,404 in 2003)" - Suggestion: "($800,404 in 2003)". There's no need to repeat the US.
  • "(US$594,453 in 2009) contract" - Ditto for this one.
Hm, not sure why I added this in the first place. Thanks. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and criticism

  • "a high bid simply to deprive the New York Yankees' an opportunity to negotiate with Matsuzaka" - Something's odd about "Yankees' an opportunity". How about "to deprive the New York Yankees of an opportunity"?
  • "Sheinin suggests that, if the negotiations were to fail, Boras could take legal action." - Since the preceding sentences refer to this incident in past tense, it would be best to stick to past tense, thus: "Sheinin suggested that... ".
  • "Boras does not believe that the transfer fee should affect a player's compensation in any way" - Maybe "Boras did not believe... " Also, delete "in any way"?
  • "Kurkjian claims that a number of other MLB executives" - Delete "a number of"?
All corrected. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The citations use a mixture of m-d-y dates and yyyy-mm-dd dates. You can use either format, but it should be used consistently throughout the references.
I think I like the m-d-y best, so I will start converting yyyy-mm-dd ASAP. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Alfonso Soriano would be better positioned on the left so that he looks into the page rather than out. This draws the reader's eye into the article.
I never think of little details such as this! Great suggestion. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • I had trouble throughout with constructions like "problems arose when NPB players began playing in MLB". I kept wanting to change "in MLB" to "in the MLB", parallel to "in the NBA", I suppose, but realized this would be incorrect. Maybe "in the United States" would be an acceptable workaround or in the Major Leagues or some combination of these here and there where these constructions occur.
I know what you mean, I originally had "the" in front of these acronyms originally, but then realized it was incorrect. I'll poke around a little and see what can be done to avoid these instances. --TorsodogTalk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Laser brain comments

Good work here! This was an interesting read. I had no idea this system existed. I've outlined below what I see as problems that should be fixed before taking this to FAC.

  • "The posting system was created to address both problems." Can we make this active voice and specify who created it? Example: "MLB and NPB worked together to create the posting system to address both problems."
  • The lead is good! I am interested to read more.
  • Just a pointer.. whenever you can replace the phrase "in order to" with simply "to" without changing the meaning, it's good to do go.
  • "An agreement was reached, and the Giants agreed ..." I think just writing "The Giants agreed ..." wouldn't change the meaning and would eliminate a redundancy.
  • "The posting system was created as a combined reaction ..." Same comment about passive voice as above.
  • I was left with a few questions after reading the Process section that indicate it needs fleshing out a bit more: "If the team consents, the player is presented to the MLB Commissioner." What happens if the player wants to be posted and the team doesn't content? Alternately, what happens if a team wants to post a player and he doesn't consent?
  • "Shocking both American and Japanese baseball executives, Matsuzaka received a high bid of $51.1 million." This is a dangling modifier. Matsuzaka didn't shock the executives, the bid amount did. Fix by rewording to something like "Matsuzaka's bid amount of $51.5 million shocked American and Japanese baseball executives." (You don't need the "both" either)
  • I'm concerned that not all views have been represented in the Controversy and criticism section. You have the views of Boras and of an ESPN writer, but that's about it. I think this will have to be expanded to include views on both sides of the issue to maintain a neutral tone. --Laser brain (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to run through the article! I addressed the prose changes you suggested here. However, the content additions will take a little time. I don't really know if the questions you posed about how it is decided that a player will be posted have ever been addressed. I hope they have been though because they are very valid questions, and I hope to find the answers to them. The Controversy and criticism section is also a valid concern. I had concerns about it myself, however, it is hard for me to find Japanese sources because of my limited knowledge of the language. I will do what I can though. Thanks again for the help! --TorsodogTalk 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Para Siempre 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 a second opinion about it. It is already listed as a Good Article, but I want to take it to FA status.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I did some minor copyediting, but the article could use a complete run-through by a skilled copyeditor. Here are a few other suggestions.

Lead

  • "Written and produced by Joan Sebastian, the album is one of the most successful mariachi records in recent times; it has sold over a million copies worldwide, receiving a gold certification in United States by the Recording Industry Association of America and a diamond accreditation in México by the Association of Producers of Phonograms and Videograms, becoming the biggest selling album by Fernández on this decade and also the responsible of bringing Mariachi music to a younger audience." - Too complex. Suggestion: Make two shorter sentences out of this one.

Album history

  • "according to Fernández's record label" - Wikilink record label on first use? - FIXED
  • "According to Fernández, the album was originally conceived as a banda album, and would be the first time that he records original music by Sebastian" - "was the first time that he recorded" instead of "would be the first time he records" since it already happened? - FIXED
  • "before this, in 1993, he included a cover of a song written by Sebastian titled "Verdad Que Duele" ("It Hurts") on his album Lástima Que Seas Ajena." - "Cover" is jargon that not all readers will understand. Maybe a brief in-text explanation would help. Or maybe linking to cover version would do it. - FIXED
  • "Vicente was not pleased" - Fernández rather than Vicente. - FIXED
  • "Vicente was not pleased with the idea of trading his classic mariachi style for banda, but accepted to record with Sebastian" - "he agreed" rather than "he accepted"? - FIXED

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efe comments
  • "in recent times" in the next decade, this will be outdated or confusing. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has sold over a million copies worldwide, receiving a gold certification in" for those who are not aware how the certification goes or how much sales for the album to earn gold certification. The sentence implies that because of the one million sales, it has received gold certification in the US. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of capitalization: "mariachi records" and "Mariachi music". --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three of the album's singles reached the Top Ten on the Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart: "Estos Celos", "La Derrota", and the title track" Dangling modifier? Seems like that the three tracks are charts. Perhaps a little reword or arrangement. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the release dates, only the earliest should be included in the infobox per WP:ALBUMS. The rest goes to the prose. --Efe (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Para Siempre is the 79th album by Vicente Fernández; it was released in September 2007 in several countries." I think could be removed off the first section. --Efe (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to record songs with banda" perhaps change with to in or "to record banda songs". --Efe (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About the recording, Fernández told" told whom? Perhaps change told to said or any synonyms of that word. --Efe (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop here. I have exams. If this don't get archived in the next week, perhaps I'll continue reading the article. Generally, its good, and as I have said, very neat. I hope these comments help you in improving the article. Good luck on FAC. --Efe (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability 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 have had a team of editors re-writing the article with the goal of bringing it up to FA status. We have now re-written each section and reviewed FA criteria. We would like general feedback on the article's readability and conformity to guidelines and FA criteria. We have specific questions with respect to use of "Main article," "Infobox," and "Topics related to" templates and our use of graphics.

Thanks, Sunray (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (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. 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article about a complicated subject. It's a long way from FA, although it has potential. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Layout

  • The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against sandwiching text between two images. Many of the images in the existing article should be moved to avoid these text sandwiches.
  • Generally, except for the lead image, it's best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a specific pixel width.
  • When an image is directional, as in the case of the dodo, it's best to position it so the reader's eye is directed into the text rather than out of the page. The dodo would be better positioned on the right.
  • MOS:SCROLL says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing."
  • Generally, lists should be turned into straight prose.

Direct quotations

  • The MoS suggests using blockquotes only for direct quotations of four lines or more. Shorter quotations should be embedded in the text inside normal quotation marks. The quotations should not be in italics.
  • Direct quotations need attribution within the text and not just in the footnotes. Otherwise, readers may mistake assertions for statements of fact. An example from the final section of the article is "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." This should be embedded in the text, put in quotation marks, de-italicized, and attributed to George Lakoff with a dialogue saying "according to George Lakoff" or "George Lakoff said" or "in the words of George Lakoff" or something similar.

Assertion vs. verifiable fact

  • It's important to make a clear distinction between what Wikipedia is presenting as verifiable fact and what an outside writer is advancing as an opinion. The distinction must not be blurred. An example of blurring appears in the first two sentences of the "Human settlements" section: "While sustainability is a major global issue, implementation must occur first within our communities, households, and organizations. The study of the interrelationships among these communities, households, and organizations must occur in order to determine a successful and quantifiable plan of action." If this is coming from Wikipedia, it violates NPOV. To avoid violating NPOV, it must be clearly labeled as the opinion of someone outside of Wikipedia. In addition, Wikipedia would not use "our" or similar pronouns in this way, partly for reasons related to NPOV. It's important to write as though seeing Earth from Mars, a detached reporter of verifiable events. Don't insert Wikipedia into the text as "we" or "us". I see several other places in the text that slip into "we" and "us" mode.

Bolding

  • Bolding is added automatically to the section heads. In the main text, it should be used only in the first line of the lead for the word "Sustainability". Otherwise it should be removed from all instances in the main text such as "Management of human consumption" in the "Implementation" section.

Sourcing

  • A good rule of thumb is to source every unusual claim, every direct quote, every statistic, and every paragraph. Although the article includes many citations, some sections have none. An example is the short "Chemicals" section.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most helpful. Many thanks Ealdgyth and Finetooth. We will keep plugging away at it. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, avoid linking words that most English-speaking readers would know, such as ocean or atmosphere. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Don't Preach edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 had recently passed its GA nomination, and the reviewer thinks that it could become a featured article. I believe it have the potential since all the major aspects are covered and most of the references are reliable if not all of them. My biggest concern is the prose and grammar, since one of the requirements is that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". English is not my first language so is a little difficult for me to see the mistakes. Any suggestions and comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
  • What makes Berger, Arthur Asa (2002). The Art of the Seductress: Techniques of the Great Seductresses from Biblical Times to the Postmodern Era. iUniverse. ISBN 0595230776 a reliable source? iUniverse is a self-pubishing company.
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.) 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Smallman12q (talk · contribs)

  • Its very well sourced, has pictures in a number of sections, and doesn't appear to have an edit wars going on. Seems ready for FA review.
  • My only comment is that it seems that more projects could be applicable...but I'm not quite sure which. Good luck with the FA review!Smallman12q (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article and an enjoyable read. It still needs a bit of polish. I did some light copyediting as I went, and I have further suggestions for improvement, as follows:

Lead

  • Wikilink remixed for readers unfamiliar with the jargon?
  • "The song was released as the album's second single in mid-1986, and was a commercial success, becoming Madonna's fourth number-one on the Billboard Hot 100, also performing well internationally, reaching the top position in Australia and the United Kingdom." - Probably too complex. It might be better to subdivide. Suggestion: "Released as the album's second single in mid-1986, the song was a commercial success. It became Madonna's fourth number-one on the Billboard Hot 100 and performed well internationally, reaching the top position in Australia and the United Kingdom."

Music and lyrics

  • "a moderate tempo of 116 beats per minute. The song is written in the key of F minor, an unusual choice for a pop song, as it is commonly used in classical music, like Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata. This inclusion produce a combination between pop and classical rhythms, which is clearly underlined by the instrumentation during the song's introduction." - I found this a bit confusing. The tempo, it seems to me, might contribute to something between pop and classical rhythms, but the key would have nothing to do with the rhythms. Or am I wrong? Maybe something like this would be better: "a moderate tempo of 116 beats per minute. The tempo helped produce a combination of rhythms somewhere between pop and classical, which is clearly expressed by the instrumentation during the song's introduction. In addition, the song was written in the key of F minor, an unusual choice for a pop song, but common in classical music such as Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata." Or something like that.
  • "Lyrically the song shows Madonna's interest at the time in her Roman Catholic upbringing" - Delete "at the time"?
  • "as the song theme is about a teenage girl who admits to her father that she is pregnant, and that she refuses to have an abortion or give up the baby" - Not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "... who admits to her father that she is pregnant and refuses to have an abortion or give up the baby"
  • "despite of what her friends are telling her to do" - Delete "of"?

Reception

  • ""if there is a problem with the album, is the lack of outstanding songs" - Is the word "it" missing from the quote?

Music video

  • "Alternating it with shots of a sexier Madonna with a more toned and muscular body, cropped platinum blonde hair, and a figure-revealing clothing, consisting of a 1960s-style black bustier top and capri pants." - This sentence lacks a verb. Suggestion: "The video alternated between tomboy shots and those of a sexier Madonna with a more toned and muscular body, cropped platinum blonde hair, and figure-revealing clothing, consisting of a 1960s-style black bustier top and capri pants."
  • "and the photography was in charge of Michael Ballhaus" - Doubtful. How about "and Michael Ballhaus was in charge of the photography"?

Cover versions

  • "The song has been sampled at the beginning of Mario Winans' 2004 single 'Never Really Was', and a slowed down version samples Keshia Chante's 2006 single 'Fallen'." - The last part of this doesn't seem to make sense. Doesn't the Chante single sample the Madonna song? Perhaps "... a slowed-down version by Keshia Chante samples the song in the 2006 single, 'Fallen'... "?

Formats and track listing

  • The Manual of Style advises against using bold letters except in the first line of the lead for the article title and in the section heads. I think that the bolding of "7" Single" and the other items in this section should be in regular type.

Images

  • The second and third image, especially the second, would be better if positioned on the right so that Madonna looks into the page rather than out. The reader's eyes will follow Madonna's.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efe comments
  • The sample File:PapaDon't Preach-KellyOsbourne.ogg fails to satisfy WP:NFCC #8. It only supports the literally the presence of the cover in the article. There's no technical/musical info included about the cover therefore the sample has no use. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest to remove the table for the certifications because it only consist of two entries. Better merge it to the prose. That section also makes the TOC long. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Table removed, also removed the titles. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is not at all controversy. Perhaps change it to criticisms or interpretation? --Efe (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done changed to Criticism from women's groups --Legolas (talktome) 04:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it to Reaction to the song's theme, but Im not sure about it. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It then spent three consecutive weeks at the top, fifteen weeks in total" the dependent clause makes the sentence unclear. It looks like that single spent fifteen weeks at the top spot, non-consecutively. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Across the rest of Europe, "Papa Don't Preach" also" I think the "across the rest" needs rephrasing because if that's the intro, the succeeding clause must be a generalization of the single's performance like "Across the rest of Europe, the single also reached the top ten" and then perhaps the next clause would be "including the Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and Norway". King of that effect. By the way, Eurochart Hot 100 represents the entire Europe so treatment to that must not be included in the regional charts. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the music video Madonna did a complete image makeover." "did" can be replaced with specific word like "sported" or any word you like. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt edit

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

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

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

George Washington judicial appointments edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is working on making complete, high-quality lists of federal judges appointed by various presidents. We would like to make some or all of these featured lists someday, and the beginning seems like a good place to start, so here are the appointees of America's first president. What does this list need to bring it up to featured status? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the automated suggestions, I added free images to the list and expanded the lead. – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: A few points for you to consider:-

  • There are numerous uncited statements in the lead, for example "a record ten judges", "10% of Reagan's appointment" etc
    • All of the data comes from the Federal Judicial Center database (as indicated in the first footnote). I suppose it should be simple enough to find a secondary source for the numbers.
      • The first footnote says that "All information on the names, terms of service and details of appointment of federal judges" comes from the Biography of Federal Judges. The information I have suggested should be cited is unconnected to names, terms of service or details of appointment, and is therefore not covered by the blanket footnote. It should be separately cited. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no, "a record ten judges" is a detail of appointment that comes from counting the number of appointments made, as listed at FJC. "10% of Reagan's appointments" is also a detail of appointment that's found by merely adding up (and dividing) the numbers at FJC. I don't want to get too hung up on semantics though, and as BD2412 said, we should be able to find secondary sources. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see the relevance of the "2% as of 2009" information, bearing in mind the growth of the U.S. between the 1790s and 2009
    • Well that's actually the point, to demonstrate how much the judiciary has grown.
      • OK, the point could be more explicitly made, but no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Supreme Court list, why not add the states from which these judges came? It would be interesting to see the geographical spread.
    • Not a bad idea at all.
  • A couple of bits of information that you may wish to work into your Supreme Court table: Cushing was appointed Chief Justice on January 26 1796 but declined to serve; Robert Hanson Harrison of Maryland was appointed an Associate Justice on September 24 1789 but likewise refused to serve. This information is worth footnoting, at least. Harrison's declined appointment means that Washington made eleven, not ten appointments to his Supreme Court.
    • The FJC doesn't count a judge as an appointment until the judge receives his commission (after all, there's no draft for judges). Technically, the table only covers successful appointments (i.e. those who served for at least a day as a federal judge). I do not know if Washington had any nominees (other than Rutledge, who was already "appointed") rejected by the Senate.
      • Even if you don't incorporate this information into the table, it is relevant. The article is called "George Washington judicial appointments"; Cushing and Hanson were appointed, but refused to serve. Worth footnotes, at least. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it's relevant and deserves a mention, even if it's not in the list itself. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusion with Rutledge: his Chief Justice term appears to have expired 4 years before his appointment. Footnote [5] does not clarify.
    • Fixed - that was just a typo.
  • Non-Americans don't understand the state abbreviations you have used in the District table. Perhaps the column heading could be "Court district", the repeated "D" done away with, and the state names given in full?
  • The Judiciary Act image is an unreadable grey blur - is it worth keeping?
    • I added some handsomer images - maybe we can get a clearer image of the bill (or a close-up of some text)?
      • Have you spoken to one of the image gurus? They are sometimes good about improving blurred images. Trouble is, the lack of clarity might be due to the state of the document rather than to the quality of the image. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I think so. I added the image just because I was looking for some sort of relevant free image to put in, but you're right that it's not all that useful. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these points help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope my responses help! bd2412 T 04:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments are very helpful, yes, and thank you. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have implemented all of the suggestions you have made. Thanks again! – Quadell (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islais Creek edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the prose is written poorly. I want to get more feedback on grammar. Hopefully, I can get this to FA in the future (the ultimate goal!).

Thanks, —Chris! ct 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting urban creek, badly beat up but still alive. I have a few general questions and suggestions.

  • I wonder if there is some way to explain the course in a way that would make sense to readers not intimately familiar with San Francisco. A map could do it, but it might also help to explain where the creek is in relation to a famous landmark, perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge. It would also help to describe the course from the source to the mouth. That's the standard procedure for creeks and rivers. Thus, instead of starting the course description with "The original Islais Creek stretched from the San Francisco Bay 3.5 miles (5.6 km) west into the Glen Canyon Park[7] and O’Shaughnessy Hollow," I think it should be the other way around, flowing east (apparently) from Glen Canyon Park and O'Shaughnessy Hollow to the Bay. You might then be able to give a course description that identifies changes of direction, major streets, landmarks, or points of interest by the left bank, right bank convention from source to mouth. This should be possible even if much of the former creek is in a pipe or culvert. It also sounds as if the stream begins in one park and ends in another park, which is interesting.
I try to rewrite the course section and describe it from the source to the mouth. I will try to add measurement and direction info later. There aren't any famous landmarks nearby, though. —Chris! ct 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder in what sense the creek carries domestic sewage and industrial waste water. I'm assuming that San Francisco has modern waste water treatment plants and does not deliberately dump raw sewage into the bay. Does the culvert have sewer lines as well as the creek running through it? Do they cut through horizontally, or do they run parallel to the creek? Where is the sewage supposed to be going when things are working well? Is the creek relatively clean in Glen Canyon Park?
  • Has the creek got any fish living in it?
Don't think so.—Chris! ct 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any wetlands along the creek? If so, how extensive?
Historically, yes. But not today though—Chris! ct 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, I'd describe the parks, including acreage, major features, and plants and animals.
  • It's possible to find the source elevation by plugging the GNIS source coordinates into Google Earth. Once you have the source elevation, you can add it to the geobox, and you can also describe the creek at least generally in terms of slope; e.g. it falls X feet between source and mouth over a distance of 3.5 miles.
  • It's often possible to find the size of a drainage basin. This one looks tough, but Friends of Islais Creek might collect such data. If you can find it, that tidbit can be added to the geobox as well.
  • The lower park was badly damaged in 2001. How has it fared since then?
  • You asked about prose issues, grammar in particular. My advice would be to do any additions and re-writes first and then seek the help of a copyeditor. It's helpful sometimes to work in tandem with other editors who can see things with fresh eyes and point them out.
  • I noticed several places in the text with phrases like "Today, a small creek remains inside Glen Canyon Park... ". Generally, it's a good idea to avoid "today", "present day", "now", "current" and other time-related words that are inherently ambiguous in context. More specific terms such as "as of 2009", "in the 21st century", "since construction stopped in 1995" and descriptions of that sort are usually better.
  • Eliminating redundancy, even if it involves only a single unnecessary word, usually improves prose flow. For example, I noticed that the History section starts with "The history of Islais Creek can dated back to the 1700s... " This was missing a word, "be", but it also could be shortened to "The history of Islais Creek dates to the 1700s...". I made the change, but you can probably find other similar places to tighten.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here is my review. I agree with all of Finetooth's comments above. This is a good article, but it needs some work before it gets up to FA standards. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • It seems that a lot of the sources need to be looked at again to see what else is in them. The book San Francisco: A Natural History looks like it has a lot of information on the history of the creek and would be a good source.
  • There is a lovely map of the watershed in the External Links that could be used to make a map for this article.
  • This ref is the source of the 5000 acres, but it refers to the size of the drainage basin (watershed). The article needs to make this clearer - it could be read as meaning that the creek water surface area was 5000 acres - see The historical Islais Creek, at the time the largest body of water within San Francisco covering an area of 5,000 acres (7.812 sq mi; 20.234 km2)[4], ... I also note the ref is "nearly 5000 acres", not exactly 5000 acres> I think the figures used are too exact then and it should be something more like "the watershed was almost 5,000 acres (7.8 sq mi; 20 km2) in area..."
  • Or ref 1 mentions Franciscan Friars using the creek, but the article does not
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Columbia Slough is a recent FA on an urban creek that may be a useful model (and was written by Finetooth). There are numerous sections in stream FAs that could be added here - even if there are no animals there now, the historical ones could be added in a Biology section).
  • There are several places where language needs to be careful - for example, "parking area" seems odd - ships are usually "moored" (see During World War II, it served as parking areas for large ocean-going tugs.)
  • Would it be possible to get a picture of the Third Street bridge showing the creek? The picture of the train is nice, but it does not show the water. If the water is in the culvert here (and not visible) then perhaps say that it is in a culvert here in the caption.
  • One more thing - WP:FAC will look at the refs to make sure that they are reliable sources. Some of the refs look fine, but others are questionable. As one example, why is this ref reliable? Why are Pearl Winaker and Bernard C Winn reliable sources on the history?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger edit

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

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

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (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 awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger/archive1.

MacBook edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 work on this article to Featured Article status, and wish to know which areas I need to work on.

Thanks, Sk8er5000 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (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. 00:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is straightforward and informative. I have a few concerns about issues related to prose and the Manual of Style. Here are my suggestions:

Section heads

  • The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against repeating the main words of the article title in the section heads. Thus "Polycarbonate MacBooks" needs to be changed to avoid repeating "MacBook". Maybe "Polycarbonate version" would do it. Ditto for the other section heads repeating "MacBook". Section heads and subheads should be unique within a page; therefore duplicating "Industrial design" and "Model specifications" is also a problem. MOS:HEAD explains all.

Lead

  • "...it replaced the iBook G4 and 12 inch..." - Dimensions are generally given in imperial and metric. I like the {{convert}} template for doing the conversions and getting the spacing and abbreviations correct. This particular conversion, including the hyphen missing from the original, would be 12-inch (30 cm).
  • "the midrange model of the MacBook has been the single best-selling laptop of any brand in U.S. retail stores for the past five months" - This confuses the time sequence. Suggestion: "the midrange model of the MacBook was the single best-selling laptop of any brand in U.S. retail stores during the preceding five months".

Industrial design

Quality problems

  • Suggestion: Turn the two-item list into straight prose.
  • "discolored palmrests: where Apple asked affected owners to contact AppleCare" - Grammar. Maybe a full stop after "palmrests" would fix this. The next sentence might say, "In such cases, Apple... ".
  • Wikilink bezel?

Notes

  • "Enabling Wireless-N functionality requires one to purchase wireless-N enabler software from Apple in order to enable the functionality." - Wikipedia doesn't use "one" in this way. Perhaps "requires the purchase of a wireless-N..." would solve the problem.

Aluminum Unibody MacBook

Notes

  • "SSD"s should be spelled out on first use,thus: Solid-state drives (SSD)s.

If you find this review helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechOutsider (talk · contribs)

No major problems.

  • May want to change name of the section headed "Industrial design of Polycarbonate model"; per WP:MOS.
  • The "Quality problems" section is somewhat anemic. References should be placed at the end of a sentence, after a period, according to the Chicago Manual of Style
  • Put the article in context; maybe you want to explain what a chipset or front side bus is.
    • The above is unsourced; and bezel may need to be explained; I don't know what it exactly is...
  • Didn't see any wikilinks for 802.11n
  • "Minimum operating system required" is quite confusing. So, you have to have the 10.X version of Mac OS X for it to run on a specific MacBook? TechOutsider (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

The L Word 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 The L Word for peer review because the article has undergone significant change since the last peer review -which was over two years ago-, and we would like to get assessment to improve sections. Most especially "season outlines", "the Chart", and "spin-off" subtopics.

Thanks, --TLW (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: If I were the main contributor to this article, I would immediately reduce it by at least 50 percent. I would eliminate the "References in pop culture" section entirely as a violation of WP:TRIVIA, which says, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts". I'd delete the "International broadcasts" on the same grounds, though I'd think about adding one sentence about international popularity to the "Critical reception" section. I would greatly reduce "The Chart" section, which is almost entirely unsourced and may violate WP:NOR. I agree with the earlier reviewers that the plot synopses are too long, and if I were writing this, I would cut them further.

Starting with a much shorter version of the article, stripped of trivia and long plot summaries, I would think about adding something about the show's fan base, and I'd probably expand the "Title" section to include a sentence about the origin of the word lesbian. I'm thinking specifically of Sappho and the Island of Lesbos, something to place the show in a historical context deeper than 1980 or 1898.

After lots of chopping and a bit of adding, I'd re-write the lead. The ideal lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main points covered in each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD explains all.

In addition, I'd make sure that everything remaining in the article was properly sourced. Every paragraph needs a source as well as every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quote.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Jean edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to take this article to Featured Status and feel that a peer review is needed first. I welcome a thorough review to iron out any problems this article may have.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 11:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
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.) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, cheers. Pyrrhus16 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Laser brain

Wow, great work on this! You clearly did a lot of research and a lot of great information is presented here. Below I list some individual issues and a couple problem areas that should be addressed before considering FAC. I would strongly recommend getting a fresh copyeditor to go through it as well and smooth out any remaining prose issues once you make these fixes.

  • I think the fair use rationales for the video still and the moonwalk photo are somewhat weak; these may give you trouble at FAC. Remember, the image has to be the subject of critical commentary in the article and the fair use rationale should make a strong statement to that effect. You might need more than the short text you have there now.
  • "Originally disliked by Jones, the track was almost removed from the album after he and Jackson fell out." This doesn't provide any context. The reader will not have the background information to understand this. It might be better to say, "after he and Jackson had a falling out"
  • "The dance-pop R&B song was mixed 91 times by Bruce Swedien before the final product was decided upon, and showcased Jackson's vocal range." These are a little too unrelated to share a sentence.. consider splitting them up.
  • "... the song and music video propelled the sales of Thriller, becoming the best-selling album of all time." As written, the song became the best-selling album of all time. Requires revision for clarity.
  • The third paragraph is a bit sensational in its language. We need to find ways to underscore the importance of this song without sounding like Michael Jackson fans, if that makes sense.
  • "Covered and sampled by modern artists, including a 2008 remix by Kanye West ..." Needs revision.. as written, "remix" is an example of a "modern artist". Could be corrected and simplified by writing just "including Kanye West"
  • "Due to the stress, the singer suffered from nightmares." The stress of receiving all the letters? Can we explain a bit more about how he went from ignoring the letters to being stressed about it? Didn't he have people filtering his mail for him?
  • "To his mother's dismay, Jackson had the photograph framed and hung above the dining room table." At Jackson's own house? Or did he live with his family?
  • I think "metal asylum" may not be the correct term. I think you want "psychiatric hospital" since the link redirects there.
  • "With his female fan in mind, Jackson wrote "Billie Jean", and Jackson later stated ..." You can probably drop the latter "Jackson".
  • Attention is needed to punctuation in quotations; please see Wikipedia:Mos#Quotation_marks. The ending punctuation should be inside the quote if it is part of the sentence. Otherwise, it should be outside.
  • "... and didn't care for the song's bass." Need more clarity here. The song's "bass" won't mean the same thing to all people. Bass line? Amount of bass in the mix? Etc.
  • "Jones granted neither and the two fell out for a period of time." We can be more precise than "a period of time".
  • "The mixer was also told ..." The "mixer" usually refers to the piece of equipment. I'd prefer that you use his name or refer to him as an "audio engineer".
  • "It opens with a drum beat; kick, snare and hi-hat, containing hardly any reverberation." This is an incorrect use of semicolon. You've done it more than once in the article. A semicolon indicates the start of a related sentence, so the content after the semicolon should be a complete sentence. You probably want a colon here. Please check for this throughout.
  • "This is followed by a repetitive three-note synth, played staccato with a deep reverb." Avoid beginning sentences with "This", referring to a previous concept. Restate the concept (i.e. "This <noun> is ...")
  • "The defining 1m-2m-flat-3-2m" What does this mean? 1m?
  • "In the verses of "Billie Jean", the singer's vocals range from a tenor to a low falsetto." You've just explained that Jackson writes songs to showcase his range and then said "Billie Jean" does not cover his range; however, you give no reason for this disparity.
  • "The chorus is tied to a four note falsetto and only in the last line does Jackson peak at a full octave." This doesn't make a lot of sense.. how is the chorus "tied to" a falsetto? Peak at a full octave relative to what?
  • "Following the two sharp repeats of 'do think twice', at the end of the third verse, a cello-like synth cuts the chords of the fourth verse. Upon hearing that the baby's eyes resembles Jackson's, a voice laments, 'oh no'. This is met with Jackson's signature falsetto 'hee hee'." Perhaps too much detail. Attention needed to capitalization and punctuation of quotations.
  • "The bridge debuts the strings, holding a pedal tone with the exception of two lines and a chord leading into the chorus." Strings can't produce pedal tones, so I'm not sure what this means; the rest of the sentence doesn't make sense at all.
  • The whole Composition section doesn't seem to have been written with a keen understanding of the musical concepts. As such, most of the meaning has been lost through paraphrasing and incorrect terminology. Someone who understands the musical concepts being discussed needs to audit the text against the sources used.
  • "December 1, 1982, saw the commercially successful release of Thriller, in time for Christmas shoppers." Please revise to remove the anthropomorphism. The ending clause is quite culture-exclusive.
  • "The short film for Jackson's 'Billie Jean' is considered the video that brought MTV, a relatively unknown music channel, to mainstream attention." What is the source for this? I've read many opposing opinions of this statement and you'll need a reliable source other than a Jackson biography.
  • "It was the first video by a black artist to be aired by the channel, as they felt black music wasn't "rock" enough." Ditto above. Need a better source.
  • "Wearing a black leather suit with pink shirt and bow tie, Jackson's look was copied by children around the country." Badly written. Perhaps, "Jackson's look, a black leather suit with a pink shirt and bow tie, was copied by children around the country." Also, what country? I never saw a kid dressed like that.
  • "The imitation was so severe that Bound Brook High School banned pupils from wearing single white gloves; this was met with pupil protests." You didn't mention a white glove previously. And why is this example relevant to the article? Also, another "this" problem similar to above.
  • "MTV initially refused to play "Billie Jean" as they felt black music wasn't "rock" enough." You've already used almost this exact sentence above.
  • "March 25, 1983, saw Jackson ..." More anthropomorphism.

--Laser brain (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review. Mostly all done now. Pyrrhus16 17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet edit

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

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

It's just hit B-Class and i'm curious on how to put it up to A/GA class and then getting it featured.

There are more than 100 references, every position is in there. Some of the sections need a bit more meat though

Spinach Monster (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article is much improved since my last review. I have suggestions for further improvement.

Layout

  • I think the collection of mug shots looks good and works well, but I would change its placement on the page. My thought is to add an infobox in the upper right with a mug shot of Barack Obama, to expand the lead, and to move the box with the cabinet mug shots down below the lead and the infobox. This would result in a layout more in keeping with the standard Wikipedia page appearance.

Lead

  • The ideal lead is a summary of the main ideas in the text sections. Instead of using the lead to explain the arrangement of the article, I would try to briefly summarize the content of the article. In this case, perhaps the best approach would be to create three or four sentences that simply list the names and the offices. The first sentence of the existing lead is probably OK, but the second sentence might read "President Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State, Timothy F. Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury...". To keep this second sentence from running on too long, it might be good to break up the list with a third and fourth sentence that simply continue the list to the end. They might start with phrases such as "Other nominees confirmed by the Senate were... ". An additional sentence or sentences might list exceptions, withdrawals, rejections. Doing the lead this way would bring it into compliance with WP:LEAD and would help solve the layout problem. This basic structure for the lead would be easy to adjust as time passes and new information becomes available about nominations, appointments, withdrawals, or any other significant changes. The third sentence of the existing lead might work better as part of the caption for the cabinet mug shots.

Orphan paragraphs

  • The Manual of Style (MoS) generally frowns on one-sentence paragraphs. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge. For example, the sentence "The Secretary of State designate is reviewed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" stands alone as a paragraph. I would simply merge it with the second paragraph. I see quite a few of these orphans here and there throughout the article.

Overlinking

  • I see a lot of overlinking in the article. For example, I don't think United States Senate needs to be linked more than once in the entire article. Most readers will not need to click the link to see what the term means, and those who do want to click can do so from the link in the lead. After that, the blue is merely distracting in the same way that exclamation points or italics would be distracting. Ditto for Barack Obama. For another example, Treasury Secretary is linked four times in the Secretary of the Treasury section. One is plenty, and the others should be unlinked. I recommend reviewing all of the links and unlinking the redundant ones.

Images

  • Generally these look good, but some need to be re-positioned. Gary Locke needs to be moved down a paragraph or so to avoid bumping against a second-level subhead. Tom Vilsack would be better on the left (but not against the second-level head) so that he looks into the page. Image:Barack Obama in oval office with staff.jpg should be moved down to avoid creating a text sandwich between it and the images on the right.

References

  • Quite a few of the references are missing an access date.
  • Some notes like #61 and #134 are incomplete in other ways.
  • WP:MOSNUM says to use consistent date formatting in the notes. Some in the existing article are yyyy-mm-dd, while others are m-d-y, and others are d-m-y. Either yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y is OK for a U.S.-centric article, but all should be done in the same format.

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loihi Seamount edit

This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback came via the talkpage, instead. Now with a GA nom, so I'll close this one.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal). Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC. I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or be BOLD and do it yourself!

Thanks, ResMar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is obviously COPYVIO issues. Can you please point out specific trouble spots? ResMar 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you think that the article covers the topic comepletely, enough for a GA.?
  • Initial comments (coming back later):
  • The article doesn't look terrible, though it could use some thorough copy editing and expansion.
I've hit about a dozen resources, do you really think so? What part needs expansion? ResMar
Truth to be told I've exausted myself expanding it. See this diff. It made DYK, of course.

ResMar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done More and more put in. Now 24,576 bytes, up from 21,000. I've basically spent all the non-subscription refs I can find. ResMar 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, when using measurements you need to use the {{convert}} template. Ie. 30 miles
Except of the "Squared" mesurements (I Keep messing up there for some reason), that's all in order. ResMar
  • Images should not be directly under headers per MOS - you should check that out too.
Please clarify- do you mean that I should seperate the images from the headers with a few lines of text? ResMar
  Done Shifted all images into meatspace on right.

I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceranthor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! ResMar 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement: {{check mark}}  Y {{N}}  N.

Assess Criteria
1. well written
   (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
   (b) complies with Manual of Style:
        lead
        layout
        jargon
        words to avoid
n/a
         fiction
        list incorporation
2. factually accurate and verifiable
   (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
   (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
   (c) no original research
3. broad in coverage
   (a) addresses main aspects of topic
   (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
4. neutral
5. stable (no edit wars)
6. images
   (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
   (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions


List of notable Nashville Sounds alumni edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 promoted to a Featured List. I think it would do well if nominated now, but there may be some issues that I haven't noticed. Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me too, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • I think it might help the image captions if it not only said the player's name and position and time with the team, but also mentioned something about their awards later. So the lead image could be something like Ryan Braun, Sounds third baseman in 2007, won three awards in 2008, including NL Rookie of the Year
  • The header for the table is "Players" but it is right below the key where it says Coaches and Managers are also included, which seems odd to me. Could it be "Notable alumni" or something similar?
  • WOuld it make sense to add the number of awards / honors to the table for each player? This is done for Larkin and Mattingly in the lead, but it might be useful to have it in the list itself too.
  • Since Johnny Oates is the only "Manager or coaching staff" alumni currently listed and was Manager only, would it make sense to change this to "Manager"? Or is it there for later use if a coach is added in the future?
  • I also see Oates has had his number retired by the Rangers - would retired numbers be a good thing to add?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora's drift edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

One of the lesser-known episodes from the Shackleton era. Until the last few years the ordeal of the Aurora was either overlooked or quickly dismissed in Antarctic expedition histories, so the dogged heroism of such as Stenhouse and Hooke remained unhonoured. A few recent histories have redressed the balance somewhat. Here is the whole story of Aurora's 1,600 mile drift. Comments are welcomed from all angles, especially on the opening sentence which has caused me more trouble than all the rest. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2007 Pakistani state of emergency edit

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

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

Thanks, yousaf465' 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008 - I appreciate your enthusiam, but the article is a long way away from FA quality. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to work for good article status first, in order to better prepare for an FA attempt in the future. The article probably needs more work to meet GA standards, however. Just from a brief scan, I found some things involving the referencing that can be improved:

  • The citation needed tags need to be resolved before any GA attempt, let alone an FA try. Either cite the sentences or remove them.
  • The references should all be formatted with a publisher and access date. Also, the external jumps in the text should be converted to citations.
  • I saw a couple of uncited quotes, including a long one in Lawyer community strike. This also needs a cite: "The immediate response from most countries has been critical, with the measures viewed as running counter to liberal-democratic reforms."
  • Check the quality of your sources. Current references 21 and 30 are blogs, which usually aren't considered reliable sources. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates shouldn't be linked per WP:MOSNUM. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball LP edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some constructive feedback on how else this article can be improved to get it to GA or FA status. It failed GA a while back and several of the identified issues have been taken care of.

Thanks, KuyaBriBriTalk 19:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Dates shouldn't be linked per WP:MOSNUM.
  • The lead is a bit on the short side; a good rule of thumb is to summarize every level two header and all important level three headers in the lead.
  • Combine the one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • The see also link in the "Autry/Disney ownership" section should be moved to the top of that section
  • If you are eventually aiming for FA, be sure to get a good copy-edit; see WP:PRV for a list of potential copy-editors. Examples:
    • "Ultimately, the city was unsuccessful, as both a trial jury and an appellate court ruled in the team's favor."
    • "The Los Angeles Angels were an American League expansion team in 1961." I assume you mean "formed in 1961".
    • "52-17" Per WP:DASH, scores and court rulings should use en dashes (–) not hyphens (-).
    • "opting instead to donate game tickets in the suite to various charities."
    • "and also seeking to recoup an "
  • Be sure that all your sources are reliable, http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3482138 and http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796&Itemid=42 might be questioned.
  • Instead of linking to "year in baseball", why don't you link to the MLB season for that year?
  • Em dashes should not be spaced.
  • "Truth in advertising " Link?

I hope these comments helped. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homologous recombination edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to at least good article quality. The biggest problem in this article seems to be its lack of accessibility to people without a strong background in molecular biology. While I would like to keep the article useful and informative to undergraduates in the biological sciences and more advanced readers, I also want it to be interesting to and digestible for high school biology students. Other specific suggestions on how the article could be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Doncram This is really not a review. Extremely quickly, and with apology if this takes your PR request off the urgent-to-respond-to list, but a couple wikilinks from the article are not helpful. The three domains of life links to some "Summary" in which it is not clear what are the 3 domains. Also the "2007 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine links to an article where the 2008 award is explained prominently, why not just extend the phrase "...won by ____". Please check all your wikilinks! doncram (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Sasata I can take a look at the article this weekend. I have a "strong background in molecular biology", but I'll pretend not to when I read it :) Sasata (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here's some thoughts about the first half of the article. I'll add more later. Sasata (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I think the lead sentence could be extended a bit, or another sentence added directly after that states explicitly that the process involves the physical breaking and rejoining of DNA.
  • Done.
  • "evolutionarily adapt to changing environmental conditions over time"
  • Done.
  • wikilink DNA repair, mitosis
  • Done.
  • "In the pathway that occurs in DNA repair," -> "In the DNA repair pathway..."
  • Done.

Evolutionary origins

  • Done.
  • Protein names are capitalized, but gene names need to be lowercase and italicized
  • Because the article doesn't deal with species-specific proteins, but instead more with archaeal, bacterial and eukaryotic genes more generally, is that nomenclature standard? I believe I used the nomenclature used by the corresponding articles, which I can verify tomorrow. If there is a convention (ideally on WP, but outside would be fine as well), then please let me know. Emw2012 (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the acronym/shorthand HhH, as it isn't used again in the article
  • Done.
  • Figure caption: "Proteins involved in homologous recombination are conserved throughout biology. This diagram shows conserved protein domains in HR-related proteins across all three domains of life: archaea, bacteria and eukarya." Suggest trimming to "Conserved protein domains in homologous recombination-related proteins are conserved across all three domains of life: archaea, bacteria and eukarya."
  • Done, changing "three domains" to " three main groups" to avoid redundancy and possible confusion with protein domains.

In bacteria

  • "...is most advanced for Escherichia coli,[6] due to the organism's standing as a model organism in molecular genetics."
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "Additionally, due to recognition of recombination enzymes of specialized sites within the bacterial chromosome, foreign DNA can be degraded, thus protecting the E. coli cell ." Sentence structure sounds awkward to me.
  • "These enzymes are attracted to double strand breaks, search for sequence similarity between the duplex strands..." How about "Attracted to double strand breaks in DNA, these enzymes search for sequence similarity between the duplex strands..."
  • "These enzymes are attracted to double strand breaks, search for sequence similarity between the duplex strands and catalyze formation of a Holliday junction, branch migration, and resolution." This sentence is a big jumble. Suggest splitting into smaller digestible chunks. Also, the concept of branch migration isn't discussed until a couple of paragraphs from now, so I think this sentence could be confusing to the average reader. The word resolution is used three times in this paragraph, but it isn't explicitly/clearly stated what this means.
  • Chi site needs some explaining, especially since it's a redlink. It's mentioned that RecBCD is assembled at the double strand break, then RecC inactivated or lost, but I don't think the distinction is made quite clear enough (for the newbies, remember) that these proteins assemble and disassemble during the process.
  • "Once this occurs, RecD is inactivated or lost, and the enzyme continues to cut the DNA strand, leaving a 3' tail." Cut in what way? Cutting off both strands? Cutting just one strand? 5' or 3'? Removing one base at a time? A diagram would probably work wonders around here.
  • wikilink nucleoprotein, ssbp
  • Done.
  • "Splice products are crossover products, in which there is reshuffling of genes, while patch resolution yields non-crossover products." Another place where a diagram would be really helpful.
  • "In bacteria, homologous recombination introduces DNA into a bacterium through conjugation, transduction, or transformation." This isolated sentence needs some expansion and clarification.

In eukaryotes

  • "...when the Spo11 protein makes a programmed double-strand break in DNA." Clarify "programmed"


Comment by Emw2012: I've taken care of the lowest-hanging fruit, and will address the remaining issues beginning Thursday. Thank you for the helpful review so far! Emw2012 (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lapitch the Little Shoemaker edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 getting one or more steps closer to B-Class (officially). Ever since I created this, a page on one of my favourite cartoons (and a really obscure one at that—much of America, I swear, still hasn't heard of it despite Disney Channel and Sony Wonder's best efforts!), I have neglected to look after it so much that there's been an incorrect plotline lying in it for many, many months...

Sorry for the very long (but grammatically sensible) sentence.

With that in mind, I now know how much Wikipedia lives up to its logo: it's one giant, complex puzzle we're still trying to fill in and solve.

Any comments? If you're reviewing, leave me feedback especially on the rewritten plot and cast/character sections.

(I really needed to do something like this to boost my now-dwindling edits.)

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a review, yet, but...four redlinks in the lead? Including one (the fourth) that seems inexplicable. Redlinks should be used sparingly, where there is a realistic chance they might prompt an article, and you need to rethink your approach on this. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This sounds like a film I would enjoy. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • The ideal lead should summarize the article without introducing material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. The material in the lead about the 1913 novel is interesting and important to include, but it doesn't seem to appear in the main text.
  • Lapitch the Little Shoemaker (Croatian: Čudnovate zgode šegrta Hlapića) is a children's animated film, originally released in Croatian theatres in 1997 by Croatia Film." - Two of the links here are what might be called "Easter Egg links" because the reader can't guess what they link to. The link to 1997 in film looks like a link to 1997, which should not be linked per WP:MOSNUM. When I click on the link, it takes me to an article that does not seem to illuminate "Lapitch". I would simply unlink this one and others like it. To fix the first Easter Egg link, I'd suggest re-casting the sentence, thus: "Lapitch the Little Shoemaker (Croatian: Čudnovate zgode šegrta Hlapića) is an animated film for children that was originally released in Croatian theatres in 1997 by Croatia Film. I'd also be inclined to unlink Croatia Film or to create at least a stub article to expand the encyclopedia and turn the red link blue.
  • Wikilink cel? Many readers will not know what it means.
  • "and the title character is a mouse (as opposed to human roles in the original work)" - Suggestion: "and the title character is a mouse rather than the human character of the original work"
  • "who leaves the confines of his mean master" - "Mean" strikes me as not quite the right word. Maybe "grouchy", "overbearing", "domineering", or something else slightly more specific than "mean" would be better.
  • "Its popularity led to the production of a 26-episode spinoff television series... " - Rather than linking a long expression like this, it's good practice to make a more efficient link. Suggestion: "Its popularity led to the production of a 26-episode Lapitch the Little Shoemaker television series." This sentence also makes clear that the production is a spinoff, so the word "spinoff" is not needed.
  • "In February 2000, it received its North American debut as the first entry in Sony Wonder's short-lived "Movie Matinee" video series. The Disney Channel also premiered it on U.S. cable television later that same month." - I don't think "received" is the right word. Suggestion: "In February 2000, it first appeared in North America as the initial entry in Sony Wonder's short-lived "Movie Matinee" video series."

Plot

  • "Lapitch has to make sure the boots are the right size" - For clarity, this should probably say "the pigs' boots".
  • "When the piglet tries to fit them in... " - Suggestion: "When the piglet tries to put them on... "
  • "Lapitch wants to know why, but Scowler vows only to tell him when he is older" - Who vows, Scowler or Mistress Scowler?
  • "and goes off into the village streets, wearing the boots he was scolded with" - He wasn't scolded "with" the boots. How about "wearing the piglet's boots"?
  • "The following morning, however, Brewster happens to join him for the same reasons" - It's not clear what "the same reasons" refers to. Was Brewster also scolded? Does Scowler yell at the dog?
  • I did some minor copyediting to tighten the prose a bit in the rest of this section. I'd suggest combining some of the short paragraphs to make slightly longer paragraphs. It would also be a good idea to ask another editor to copyedit the whole article after any re-writes. I don't believe I caught every minor error.

Characters

  • MOS:BOLD generally frowns on bolding except in the first line of the lead and in places such as section heads or in templates that insert it automatically. The bolding of the characters' names does not seem to meet the guidelines.
  • Actually, I'm not sure you need this section at all. It mostly repeats what the "Plot" section already says. The Croatian names for the characters may be the only new information in this section, and they could be moved into the "Plot" section.

Cast

  • For efficiency, I'd suggest merging the table and list into a single table with a separate column for the English-dubbed version.

Production

  • "before heading on to helm 1986's 'The Elm-Chanted Forest' - "Helm" is not quite the right word. Maybe "direct"?
  • Since you've listed the casts for the Croatian version and the Canadian version, why not the German version?

Release and production

  • Suggestion: Move the ISBN into the footnote rather than embedding it in the text.

TV series

  • The Manual of Style generally deprecates one-and two-sentence paragraphs and sections as short as this one. I'd suggest merging this section with the one above it and merging several of the short paragraphs throughout the article with other short paragraphs with a similar thrust.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums of 2000 (U.S.) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination on 13 March: One nomination a day, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been notified by Rurhfisch. Check on my talk page. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this and the 2005 number-one albums list too. The lists in both cases seem OK, so my comments will be mostly on the lead. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I've said this before about these kind of lists, but I really still do not understand the use of present tense. Instead of this Pop outfit The Beatles' compilation album 1 is one of the three longest-running albums of 2000, topping the Billboard 200 for eight weeks non-consecutively., I would say something like Pop outfit The Beatles' compilation album 1 was one of the three longest-running albums of 2000, topping the Billboard 200 for eight non-consecutive weeks. I am also not sure "Pop outfit" is needed here - do The Beatles really need a descriptive phrase like that?
  • Problem sentence: In 2000, 20 albums topped the chart in 53 issues of the magazine, but two of which albums started their peak position in 1999 and are therefore excluded. Suggest "two of those albums", and I would explicitly identify the two excluded albums. If one album is exluded, I assume it is the one on the first week(s) of the year, but here I am not sure which are meant. I have already noted my tense concerns.
  • "of which" is also awward or even ungrammatical here. I suggest something like The first two of which [these] albums [each] topped the Billboard 200 for eight straight weeks. 1 charted for eight non-consecutive weeks, of which [a] stretch [which] began in late 2000 and continued in early 2001.
  • I think it would read more clearly if "debut" and "first week" were swapped in The album was noted for its debut sales figure of 2.4 million, the highest first-week sales in the Billboard 200 history.
  • Similarly I would fix The figure marked as [This is] the only album to have sold more than two million copies in a one-week period, and the album [it] retains the distinction until today [as of March 2009].[3][4] as noted. Avoid words like "today" as things can change with time.
  • Needs to be clarified - is this "second best" record for that year? for all time? The album's debut sales, over 1.76 million, held the distinction as the second best sales in a week.[3]
  • I don't understand these three sentences. How did it break two records - why didn't Mariah Carey's album break the record established by Alanis Morisette? The album opened at number one on the Billboard 200 on the strength of over 1.3 million unit sales, breaking the record for first-week sales by a female act.[3] Debut sales of Oops!... I Did It Again broke the record set by singer Alanis Morissette's Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, which opened with 469,054 sales. It also shattered singer Mariah Carey's record, whose album Daydream sold 759,959 copies during the week of Christmas 1995.[3] If I understand it right, I would combine the first two sentences to something like The album opened at number one on the Billboard 200 on the strength of over 1.3 million unit sales, breaking the record for first-week sales by a female act,[3] singer Alanis Morissette's Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, which opened with 469,054 sales [in year].
  • "band" seems too bland a description in Band Backstreet Boys' Black & Blue sold 1.6 million units in its debut week... either use no description or find a better one (Boy band? Former boy band?)
  • Glad to see a non-Billboard ref - I was going to suggest a copyedit, but I think if you fix all the things I noted here, I think that you will not need one.
  • WHy not sell out the full name of "Now that's waht I call music 7" or whatever number it was?

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 ><>°° 18:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums of 2005 (U.S.) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this and just did the 2000 number-one albums list too. The lists in both cases seem OK, so my comments will be mostly on the lead. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I've said this before about these kind of lists, but I really still do not understand the use of present tense. I would tweak this to Singer Mariah Carey's comeback effort, The Emancipation of Mimi, is [was] the best-selling album of 2004, accumulating 4.866 million units in sale[s]. (corrections as noted).
  • Same problem: it should be "sales" in ...accumulating 4.866 million units in sale[s] by the end of 2005
  • I think this needs to be fixed too She became the first female recording artist to have topped the year-end chart since Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill in 1996.[2] Perhaps She became the first female recording artist to have topped the year-end chart since Alanis Morissette, with Jagged Little Pill in 1996.[2] Otherwise it reads as if Jagged Little Pill is a female recording artist.
  • Would it make more sense to have all of the sentences about The Massacre in the same paragraph?
  • How about Coldplay's X&Y stayed at the top for three straight weeks; it [, and] gave the band their first number-one album.[5] ?
  • More suggested changes: Coldplay is the only non-American act to have topped the Billboard 200 for an extended chart run since [Canadian] Shania Twain had a five-week reign with Up!, and the only [first] British act with the longest stay at number one since The Beatles in 2000-2001.[6]
  • Perhaps combine these two sentences Another posthumous chart topper was Ray Charles' Genius Loves Company, which was released three months after his death and won Album of the Year at the 2005 Grammy Awards, spurring a massive increase in sales.
  • Glad to see a non-Billboard ref - I was going to suggest a copyedit, but I think if you fix all the things I noted here, I think that you will not need one.
  • Why not sell out the full name of "Now that's waht I call music 19" (and 20) or whatever numbers they were?

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,

Millennium '73 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article was peer reviewed back in October, and recently passed Good Article review. It was nominated for Featured Article, but did not pass. Many of the objections at FA concerned the quality of the prose. For that reason, copyediting suggestions are especially welcome.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I took a look at the automated peer review page:

  • Not sure which other places to link to this article from, this seems more like a recommendation.
    • Ah looking into this further this appears to actually be a recommendation to add more wikilinks in the article's text itself - that might be a good idea to do a pass through the article and examine that. (Don't want to overdo it though.)
  • Don't know if there is an appropriate infobox to use.
  • Cut down on the subsections/table of contents a bit, changed some subsection breaks to simply bolded formatting.
  • Disagree with the automated recommendation that the article should be broken up into subpages, it is well-written and organized as an article about the event.
  • Could perhaps indeed do with a copyedit to watch for redundancies.
  • The contractions appear in quotes and not in article syntax itself, so this checks out.

Cirt (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink potential

One redlink in the article at present - Eric Mercury. Might be worth doing some quick research and creating an article on this individual if satisfying WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started an article on Eric Mercury. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caversham, New Zealand edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I started the article a couple of weeks back and I think I've got it successfully to B-Class. Just looking for some pointers to get it from there to A-Class (or to shore up any gaps if it's not yet a B). Any advice welcomed.

Thanks, Grutness...wha? 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: A good start, nice photos. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

  • A good city article usually includes sections about government, weather, culture, the economy, parks and recreation, and some additional categories in addition to the ones in the existing article. Two good sources for ideas about what to include in articles about cities can be found at WP:USCITY and WP:UKCITIES. It's also useful to look at city articles like Bath, Somerset that have made FA. You can find all of the city FAs at WP:FA#Geography and places.
  • Images are best set at "thumb" rather than a specific pixel width. The image in the infobox is an exception, and it looks fine. The others are all too big. MOS:IMAGES gives details.
  • Metric units should also be expressed in imperial units per WP:UNITS. I like using the {{convert}} template, which gets the math and the abbreviations right. I added one conversion template to the Geography section, so you can see how this works.
I didn't mention another little trick, the adj=on parameter that adds a hyphen. I added two of these just now to two of your templates in places needing a hyphen. Finetooth (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manual of Style generally frowns on orphan paragraphs of only one sentence. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge. The orphan "Other suburbs nearby include Forbury, South Dunedin, Kensington, and Lookout Point" for example, could easily be merged with the paragraph above it.
  • A good rule of thumb for supporting an article through citations to reliable sources is to source every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation. Many paragraphs in the existing article are unsourced. Most of the Geography section is unsourced, and most of the Demography section lacks sources.
  • Use italics sparingly. Something like "Otago Benevolent Institution" should appear in ordinary type, not italics. WP:MOS#Italics has details.
  • The Demography section is a kind of hodge-podge at the moment. It includes information about schools, sports, and other topics not usually found in a demography section. If the New Zealand government publishes statistics about the demographics of Caversham, they could be included here. The Bath, Somerset article has a demography section that illustrates how this can be handled. Unrelated material belongs mostly in sections not yet created.
  • Some of the citations such as #11 and #13 are incomplete.
I like the "cite family" of templates for organizing citations. You can find them at WP:CIT and copy and paste any of them into your sandbox or into the article itself in edit mode and fill them in inside a pair of ref tags. I'd be happy to add one of these to the article by way of example if you'd like me to. However, if you choose to use the cite templates, you should use them consistently throughout the article, so it's a choice with significance. Finetooth (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not personally a fan of them (I find they take up a lot of space in the edit window and harder to follow the flow of the paragraph you're trying to edit), though I can see their utility for uniformity. For now, though, I think just leaving them in "raw" form is easier. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a complete sentence-by-sentence review that deals with prose issues, but I hope it proves helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I've made a start on several of these things - the images are now set at thumb (I'm glad to see that I cans et my preferences to see them at a larger size, since the standard 180px seems impossibly small to me, but that's neither here nor there). I have used {{convert}} for all instances of metrics/imperial. And I've made an attempt at completing the online references (though I probably haven't done that properly). The italics are removed (I hadn't even realise I'd italicised those!) I've also expanded and/or merged several of the orphan-sentence paragraphs.
The other things (Demography section, expansion of sections, further references) will have to wait until I have a little more time. One question, though - you link to examples for how to expand articles on cities (e.g., WP:USCITY), WP:UKCITY). Note, though, that Caversham is simply a suburb in a larger city - what proportion of those guidelines applies to an article on an individual suburb, rather than on a whole city?
I don't think there's any fixed answer to that. The US and UK guidelines are not identical, and editor judgment plays a large role in all cases. What goes into an article to make it eventually comprehensive without unnecessary detail depends on the individual case. If a particular suburb has no sports venues or teams, for example, there would be no use trying to add a sports section to match a set of general guidelines. If you'd like me to review again a few weeks or months down the road, I'd be happy to. Just give me a ping. Finetooth (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks for that, and for your suggestions. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the help. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration of Barack Obama edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 recent WP:FAC resulted in the feeling a PR was needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kingston upon Hull edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is an excellent addition to Wikipedia. The article really describes Kingston Upon Hull in a good and appealing way, while not being biased or unconstructive. I would like to read everyone's opinion about this article so please, go ahead and review.

Thanks, Neutralle 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments to get things moving
  • The reference marked with {{dead link}} needs looking into, the figures that it relates to could be updated with later figures and a new reference found for this.
  • The lonely planet reference (currently 15) is dead and the new page for this does not have information on car parks. May be the sentence needs to be rewritten and a new reference found.
  • Under Notable people the term "Hullites" is marked as requiring citation I think this could probably be removed as it is not the usual term for someone from Hull.
  • Under Sport the paragraph on cycling is unreferenced also the section is rather short and could probably do with some expansion.
Keith D (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I forgot to watch the review! Thankyou for your comments. I'll try to address some of these issues. Neutralle 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad, well-illustrated, stable, neutral, and appears to be well-supported. Hull is quite an interesting place, and I learned a lot by reading the article. I have some concerns about the many sentences that string clauses together ungrammatically with "with plus -ing" phrases tacked onto otherwise perfectly OK sentences. It will be tedious to re-cast all of these but worth doing. After the re-writes, another copyedit would be a good idea as well. I did a little copyediting as I went, but I don't have time to do a complete job.

Lead

  • I'd suggest expanding the lead. The ideal lead is an abstract or summary of the whole article. This one comes close but leaves out any mention of the main ideas in the Education, Media, Dialect, and Notable people sections and gives pretty short shrift to culture and sports. An article this long might need a four- or five-paragraph lead to fit everything in.

Governance

  • Generally, it's best to convert lists to straight prose. I'd suggest doing that with the list starting with "The council has several subcomponents... ".

Hull Blitz

  • "Hull was the most severely-bombed British city or town apart from London during World War II, with 95% of houses being damaged or destroyed." - This sentence includes a dreaded "with plus -ing" construction. Suggestion: "Apart from London, Hull was the most severely-bombed British city or town during World War II. Ninety-five percent of the houses were damaged or destroyed."
    • Changed, also re-jiged to prevent short sentence. Keith D (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • "Kingston upon Hull is near the east coast of the United Kingdom, on the northern bank of the Humber estuary, with the city centre being sited close to the Humber." - Another "with plus -ing". Suggestion: "Kingston upon Hull is near the east coast of the United Kingdom, on the northern bank of the Humber estuary. The city centre is near the water." If this seems too choppy, other options are possible.   Done
  • Wikilink "alluvial"?   Done
  • "Hull was hit particularly hard by the June 2007 United Kingdom floods, with the local topography resulting in standing water over a wide area affecting 20% of the city's housing and damaging 90 out of its 105 schools." - Another "with plus -ing".   Done
  • Wikilink "transepts"?   Done
  • "and included amongst Hull's Catholic churches" - The Manual of Style prefers "among" to "amongst".   Done
  • "The average total annual rainfall is 565 millimetres (22 in) with rain falling on 109 days of the year." Here's another "with plus -ing".   Done

Demography

  • "the largest minority ethnic group was of 749 Chinese people." - "749 people of Chinese ancestry"? They are British rather than Chinese, I'm guessing. Is "Chinese" correct, or should it be "Asian"? If Chinese, why? What was the attraction of Hull?
    • The source just indicates Chinese with no qualification. Keith D (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With regard to religious diversity, in 2001, the city was 71.7% Christian with 18% of the population indicating they were of no religion while 8.4% did not specify any religious affiliation." - With plus -ing   Done
  • "with a further 18,031 travelling between 5 and 10 kilometres (3.1 and 6.2 mi) to their place of employment" - With plus -ing   Done

Economy

  • "Freight handling is projected to rise with Network Rail overseeing a £14.5 million investment... " With plus -ing. I'll stop pointing these out from this point on, but you get the idea. I'd suggest tracking them all down and re-casting these sentences.   Done
  • "more recent additions including USC" - What is USC? Normally, abbreviations are also spelled out on first use, thus: "University of Southern California (USC)".
    • Its the name of a store not an abbreviation, made in to a wikilink. Keith D (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

  • "started in Hull in the mid-1990s and has released workings of Fila Brazillia[103] ,Mr Beasley and The Brilliance amongst others." - Something's amiss with the punctuation. The comma should come before the reference.   Done
  • "and Oasis in its history, whilst the Springhead, caters to a variety of bands - Suggestion: remove the comma after Springhead and change "whilst" to "while" per the Manual of Style.   Done
  • "which is one of Europe's largest travelling funfair" - Funfairs, plural?   Done

Dialect and accent

  • "The vowel in "Hull" is pronounced the same way as in northern English, however, and not as the very short /U/ that exists in Lincolnshire, although the rhythm of the accent is more like that of northern Lincolnshire than that of the rural East Riding, which is perhaps due to migration from Lincolnshire to the city during its industrial growth." - A bit too complex. It might be best to split it into two sentences.   Done
  • It might be useful to add a sound file here if one is available. I don't think most readers will be able to translate the written language symbols into sounds.

Good luck with the article. If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your extensive review! I will try to address most of these comments as well. I'm glad you found it a 'good read'! Neutralle 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rossen 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 believe it's at or near Good Article status and would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A short but succinct account - I don't see why it shouldn't get to GA if the following points are attended to. I have corrected one or two typos and commas.

  • Lead
    • "Rossen was twice nominated for an Academy Award for best director and once for best adapted screenplay and won the Golden Globe Award for Best Director for All the King's Men (1949)." Slight reword/repunctuation necessary, to avoid effect of two running "ands" in the sentence and also repetition: "for Best Director for All the King's Men"
    • Second para, first sentence: "again" is unnecessary
  • Early life and career
    • First paragraph: nine short/shortish sentences, seven of which begin with "Rossen..." Some variation essential - some sentences could begin "He...", others could be rephrased. Some sentences ought to be combined, to get a better flow.
    • "...and featuring Lana Turner" – "and" unnecessary, should be deleted
    • "...followed this up..." – "up" is unnecessary, should be deleted
  • Communism
    • "Rossen joined the American Communist Party in 1937. He left the party in 1947." This is a good example of the staccato style and repetitive prose that is hard to read. Why not "Rossen joined the American Communist Party in 1937 and left in 1947."?
    • "Rossen in 1948..." better as "In 1948, Rossen..."
    • ...Rossen took what came to be known as the "augmented Fifth" . This needs to be explained. Some - a few - non-Americans will know what "taking the Fifth" means. Practically none will know what an "augmented fifth" is.
  • Return to filmmaking
    • A link to pool, the game, is needed somewhere.

Hope the review helps. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because later this year I would like to nominate it at WP:FAC. There are a few small additions to the article on memorial highway designations and names I would like to add, but the information on it is substantially complete otherwise.

Thanks, Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 13:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it does. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — as I alluded earlier, I added the memorial designations section to the article. It probably needs a bit of a copy edit since it's brand new to the article, and I welcome suggestions on moving the section around. I'll try to get some photos, but since I now live 7 hours from my hometown, it might be a while before I take any myself. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • Commas are needed after city-state combinations such as Miami, Florida, in the lead. It's hard to see these, I think, because the brain reads the blue link as equivalent to end punctuation. I see quite a few of these throughout the article.

Lead

Route description

  • Do cities such as Marquette, Marinette and Menominee, which were linked in the lead, really need to be linked again? My feeling is that once per article is usually sufficient for cities and counties.

Rapid River to Covington

  • "before it turns westward to provide access to K. I. Saywer" - Sawyer is misspelled after the pipe, but more importantly shouldn't Air Force Base be included since most readers won't have any idea what K.I. Sawyer refers to?
  • "There it meets the eastern junction with M-28, and the two highways become concurrent for nearly 60 miles (97 km), during which they follow the Lake Superior Circle Tour." - Wikilink concurrent?

Mainline history

  • "The Portage Lake Bridge opened in 1959 at a cost of $13 million (equivalent to $136 million today)." - Instead of saying "today", which is vague, it's possible to use the {{CURRENTYEAR}} template, which updates itself automatically.
  • "The project wrapped up on November 22, 2005, when the new bridge opened to traffic." - Slang. "Ended" rather than "wrapped up"?

Portage Lake Lift Bridge

  • "The Portage Lake Lift Bridge connects the cities of Hancock and Houghton, Michigan by crossing over the Portage Waterway, an arm of Portage Lake that cuts across the Keweenaw Peninsula with a canal linking the final several miles to Lake Superior to the northwest." - The "with plus -ing" construction is deprecated. Suggestion: "The Portage Lake Lift Bridge connects the cities of Hancock and Houghton, Michigan, by crossing over the Portage Waterway, an arm of Portage Lake that cuts across the Keweenaw Peninsula. A canal links the final several miles of the lake arm to Lake Superior to the northwest."
  • "Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the bridge was painted the same color as the Mackinac Bridge — cream and forest green — however, in the early 1990s it was repainted in a cream and robins egg blue color scheme — the same colors as the National Park Service's ship Ranger III — to some denoting Houghton as the 'Gateway to Isle Royale'." - Suggestion: recast to avoid the em dashes. Also, the comparison to the ship seems odd. Why mention the ship at all?

Memorial designations

  • "Sheridan served as colonel of the 2nd Michigan Cavalry in 1862, later being promoted to the rank of major general during the war." - Suggestion: "Sheridan, who served as colonel of the 2nd Michigan Cavalry in 1862, was later promoted to the rank of major general during the war."

References

  • Rather than repeating the details of the Barnett reference seven times, it would be good to add a "Works cited" section with the Barnett details and then change the seven refs to "Barnett, p. X" or "Barnett, pp. Y–Z" between a pair of ref tags. This makes the citations neater and easier to read. See Noël Coward, a recent FA, to see how the editors handled repeat references to books. They used "Notes" and "References" as their section heads, but "References" followed by "Works cited" is OK too.
  • I know from working on something else that the link for citation 30 has changed to a new url. It is here. The old one no longer works.

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and replies:
  • The air force base closed in 1995. Since then, the signs and the locals call it just K.I. Sawyer. They would call it just Sawyer more frequently, but there is a Sawyer, Mi in the LP already...
It would be easy to add "a former air force base" to the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:*The Currentyear template is no more apparently. Any other suggestions to clear up this wording? It's not a template, it's a magic word, never mind. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had never heard of "magic word" before, but I could see that it worked. Finetooth (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 is generated by a template. Hopefully it will be updated soon.
True, but you can use a slightly different magic word "formatnum" to replace "formatprice" in the template. That doesn't add an autoref, and you can then add your own live ref with "cite web". None of this is obvious, but I had to work through it all recently for another article. Finetooth (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure how to handle the Barnett references. In other articles I've done, I've included something similar to our suggestion, but there were multiple books. This is the only dead-tree source used in the article, so I wasn't sure if a subsection for a single book was overkill or not.
  • I tried something for the single book. How's that for an idea? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anything like that. I think you'd be better off with a one-item section below References and above External links. Finetooth (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated the latest round of suggestions, including swapping out {{inflation-fn}} for a regular cite based on the corrected link. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments — Recent MDOT and the City of Marquette announced a project to rebuild the intersection between the east end of the Marquette Bypass and Front St on US 41. I've added a Future section to accommodate this new roundabout, which will be the first of its kind in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos Quartet 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'd like to see how the article rates. I know it's purty good in terms of references, but I'll take any (other) suggestions.

Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm working on adding all the Billboard listings I can find (which is a hell of a job!). Is that worth it for a classical contemporary group? I don't think I can do the same for charts outside the US (it's 39 studio albums, plus soundtracks, etc.), but I'd hate to be US-centric. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
  • Title
  • release date → Released
  • catalog info → Label(s)
  • Format(s)
  • Notes
  • Billboard top rank, # of weeks in chart; This column must be removed, because you should write only about their best positions (merged to notes column), giving emphasis to the number of weeks (when are of long duration). See also WP:CHART.
  • Examples of catalog numbers:
    • Landmark Records LLP-1505 → Landmark (#1505)
    • Nonesuch 79372 → Nonesuch (#79372)
  • In most cases, a comma is better than a slash.
  • 15 Aug 1986 → 15 August 1986 (You may find help in MOS:DATE)
  • song title → Song(s)
  • artist name → Artist (I know you are referring to a name)

  Doing... Cannibaloki 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • The sections should follow the same order as the infobox.
    • Studio albums
    • Compilation albums
    • Video albums
    • Soundtracks
    • Contributions
      • In the section contributions, merge the sub-sections into one. Cannibaloki 19:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think now? I think I covered all your points--though I see now that I have yet to add the number of weeks on the charts for some of the more popular ones. I'll get on that later. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, looks good. Cannibaloki 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Loki, I've added the weeks on the chart for selected entries. I think I've done about all I could do--what's the next step? (The one thing I can't do is get a nicer picture of the group.) BTW, you should listen to their version of "Purple Haze"--it'll blow you away. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! I did expand the lead and hope you like it. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, this was all that I could do to help you. How much more reviewers see your work, better it will be (regarding the possibility of ideas). Cannibaloki 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. I could never have done this without you. So, what happens next? You said FL candidacy, were you serious? (That's higher than I've ever even aimed at WP.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, now you known what should do, right? Cannibaloki 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesiomyia nudiseta edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a school project and we would really appreciate any feedback.

Thanks, amahajan17 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch comments

Undoubtedly a lot could be said about this article, but I'm going to limit myself to two important points:

  • The opening paragraph is important because it explains in a finger-nail sketch not only what the subject is, but why there is an article about it. Most users won't read very far beyond the first few paragraphs -- all they are interested in is enough information to either (1) confirm what they already know, or (2) to provide a clarification of what a given topic is. Compared to these expectations, your article disappoints: the opening paragraph -- a single sentence -- merely states that S. nudiseta was first described by one Van der Wulp. To learn what an S. nudiseta is, I need to read further into the article, which suggests that it is a kind of house fly. (FWIW, the "nudiseta" part of the taxonomen made me think of nudibranch, so I wondered if it might be a sea slug.) So why not say that at the opening? But looking at housefly, I see that those are more usually a specimen of the species Musca domestica -- what is the difference between the two? Not until I read deep into the article do I discover what that difference is: it is a tropical fly which feeds on garbage & animal remains. So why not put all of that into the opening paragraph, for example: "Synthesiomyia nudiseta is the scientific name for a species of fly which feeds on garbage and animal remains. It is one of the largest of the Muscides."
  • Your language is far too jargon-laden for the average Wikipedia reader. In the second paragraph alone words like "halteres", "calypters", "plumose 3 segmented aristae", and "sternopleural bristles" appear -- terms only an entomologist would recognize & understand. Yes, there should be a place for a technical description of this species, but so many of these words this close to the beginning of the article simply discourages the reader from reading any further.
For example of how to explain an insect in a far more approachable way, have a look at the Featured articles -- specifically Chrysiridia rhipheus, which is about a moth. In the opening 3 paragraphs, the reader learns about what it looks like, where it lives, & what is important about it. (C. rhipheus originally was misidentified as a butterfly.) And does this with a minimum of technical language; in three paragraphs, only three technical terms appear -- "junior synonyms", "setae", & "instars" -- of which only "junior synonym" requires an explanation (IMHO). I read the opening paragraphs of that Featured article, & feel confident that I won't confuse this species with a sea animal, as well as intrigued to read more about the subject.

At this point, rather than ask for feedback here (which might not focus on the content or the accuracy of your details), you should take the time to study several of the FAs & GAs on similar subjects & consider how they present their material. Then rewrite this one. Once you are satisfied with the rewrite, bring it back here for someone with an interest in insects to help you with the more technical parts. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrail conspiracy theory edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to know how to further improve this article.

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The second paragraph of the lead is one sentence with a quotation - I would either expand it or combine it with one of the other paragraphs
  • I know contrail is linked, but I would specifically take a few paragraphs to spell out what they are. That way the contrast between the actual contrails and alleged chemtrails becomes clearer.
  • missing word I think reasons given by those who believe in the conspiracy vary widely, spanning from military weapons testing, [to] chemical population control, to global warming mitigation measures.[10]
  • Refs I checked seemed reliable, but some are incomplete. 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
  • Also make sure newspaper titles are correct, for example this ref is from the Akron Beacon Journal, not the "Beacon Journal News" as claimed in Ref. 8
  • I have never seen so many individual refs packed into one inline citation (and this is done several times). Some of them do not fit - for example this article (the last ref in Ref 1), is about odd U-turn contrails, but does not mention chemtrails at all. It could be cited individually to say that even without this conspiracies like this, there are sometimes things with contrails that are not easily explained.
  • If you want to expand the article, why not address some of the individual claims in the refs - just mentioned one possibility. For another example, there are articles from the US and UK so you could cite a few to show this is not just an American phenomenon.
  • Would it make sense to break this up into types of claims in one section, then give the rebuttals in another section?
  • There are some other contrail photos in the Contrail article that would have more variety than the three used - a satellite photo perhaps.

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 ><>°° 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou.Smallman12q (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
llywrch comments

Two general points on this otherwise very readable article:

  • The first sentence of the second section begins: "Contrails can be visible for several hours" -- you may want to develop this point further. Obviously this is a key factor that the "true believers" use to insist that there's something happening here, & asserting this in 7 words only serves to make the believers think you are dismissing any validity to their claims. (Or, to use an old Wikipedia adage, "Write so your opponents will agree with what you say.")
  • "Many websites primarily devoted to far right nationalist views focused on chemtrails as well." -- This is something of a troublesome blanket statement: which websites are you talking about hee? Depending on my mood, I'm inclined to consider Free Republic or Little Green Footballs examples of those "devoted to far right nationalist views", which would be a curious situation since my one friend who believes in the existence of chemtrails espouses political views to the left of me!

Hope these help you. -- llywrch (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and restore a WP:NPOV.Smallman12q (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katsura Hoshino edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to GA, but I can't find a good model. It probably needs a copy-edit and an expansion on the influences and biography section. By the way, the character design image is under works because its longer than the influences section right now.

Thanks, ~Itzjustdrama C ? 05:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a Style section. I don't really know if it's focused enough. It felt like writing a reception section for a series. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone on enforced wikibreak until April 10. I'm not likely to see any comments here. Itzjustdrama as 71.167.77.138 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • A published biography, if one can be found as a source, would be most helpful here. As it is, the article relies heavily on the manga itself, and it's hard for me to tell fact from fiction. I gather that much of the autobiography and other information is coming from the manga series. It would be really good to add more information from magazines and newspaper articles and reviews if you can find any. Here are just a few other suggestions.
    • I'll see what more I can dig up. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really can't find anything other than what has been provided in the manga. She has only one interview that has a chance of containing biographical information, a copy of which I can't obtain. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choppy prose, passive voice

  • The prose is choppy in several places because the sentence pattern is unvaried. The sentences are short, and many use passive voice rather than active. Here's an example: "An anime adaptation, directed by Nabeshima Osamu and produced by Dentsu, was aired from October 2006 to September 2008. An English language release is licensed by Funimation. The first thirteen episodes of the anime are set for a DVD release in March 2009. Two novels, commonly named D.Gray-man Reverse, have been written by Kaya Kizaki. Two video games and a trading card game, all developed by Konami, have also been released." A few small adjustments would improve the flow and keep readers interested. Something like this: "An anime adaptation, directed by Nabeshima Osamu and produced by Dentsu, was aired from October 2006 to September 2008. Funimation licensed an English language version, the first thirteen episodes of which are set for DVD release in March 2009. Based on Hoshino's work, Kaya Kizaki has written two novels, commonly named D.Gray-man Reverse, and Konami has developed two video games and a trading card game."

Lead

  • "She made her debut in July 2003 with the publication of her manga Continue and is known for her current work, D.Gray-man (ディーグレイマン ,Dī Gureiman?), which began serialization in Shueisha's Weekly Shōnen Jump in May 2004." - Delete "current"?
  • "including an anime series and two novel adaptations" - Wikilink anime?
  • "The series has picked up attention in North America" - "gained" rather than "picked up"?

Biography

  • "Growing up, she liked to draw and drew manga every day to please her sister. She drew her first manga at twenty-one." - These two sentences contradict each other.
    • To be honest, the first sentence isn't cited by the citation at the end. The second is. I'm removing the first since I can't verify. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially, they only fought with each other." - Even though this is sourced, I would not use it in the biography of a living person. On the face of it, it is not true. They could not possibly "only" fight with each other.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2 comments, not much that I can say but here are my few suggestions:

  • Per WP: Lead the lead does not need references since it is all cited in the sections from the article.
  • "Living people, some of which include unnamed famous scientists, her editor, Aleister Crowley, and Yūsuke Santamaria, as well as the Tim Campi Design silver accessory brand, serve as models for various characters." has too many references, it would be better to reduce them.Tintor2 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broke it up into two sentences. Instead of one sentence and five refs, it's now two sentences, three and two refs. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obi (sash) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 just completely rewritten it as a translation from the Finnish version
  • the article has a Good Article status in fi.wikipedia, so I thought this might not be far from attaining the status either and I'm actually aiming for it — my only real concern is the language since while I can get my points across and get fancy with prose, I haven't had much exercise in writing encyclopaedic text. There might also be embarrassing botches since the article is so long.
  • the texts are longer in Finnish, so the pictures may need to be made fewer. I'd like other people's opinions on what should be ditched.
  • about the references and footnotes: I added them in the original Finnish version so they should be all right

Thanks, Pitke (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Truce terms edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because It is a relatively discreet and minor topic and I have utilised all the sources I can find. I would hope to pursue GA and possibly even FA later. If anybody is aware of any other sources, particularly relating to other countries I'd be deleriously happy. Thanks, Fainites barleyscribs 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emily Williams discography 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 wish to include the list into a featured topic that it under a lot of work, named "Discography of Young Divas and its members" or similiar. The list is very short and rightly so, it should only include her solo career, as her career with the Young Divas is covered in the Young Divas article. Aswell, this should not be mentioned in the article's lead as it is not included in the list's records. The list is very short. List of Minnesota Wild head coaches has one record and List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches has two records, and the latter has recieved a peer review before. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding is that for inclusion in a featured topic an article must be either FA/FL or GA in its own right. Is it realistic to expect this? The article is listed for deletion; if it survives I'll give it a detailed review (that won't take long with 143 words of text!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The FL criteria have been tightened, the two lists you mentioned may very well be merged into their main articles. Explain to me why this cannot be merged into the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Williams discography Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human musculoskeletal system edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an additional opinion on what is needed to progress to GA and to overall improve the article.

Thanks, Dondevoy01 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: With regard to what's needed to meet the GA criteria, the points at the GA review left here are a good starting point. The actual GA criteria can be found at WP:GACR. Because the review left by Doc James seems like a good skeleton of a review, I'll use that as a framework for this review.

  • First, the introduction (also called the lead) needs work. The current number of paragraphs (three) is good, but they should be increased in length slightly. Consider adding one or two sentences to the second and third paragraphs, and make the first paragraph similar in length to those two paragraphs once they're done. Also, keep the guidelines from WP:LEAD in mind: the lead section should serve as both an introduction to the subject of the article and a short, independent summary. To achieve the "summary" aspect of the lead, add a few sentence to the lead about each of the subsystems of the human musculoskeletal system (i.e. skeletal, muscular, nervous, etc.), including how they interrelate.
  • Rather than deleting the subsections on carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoporesis, I would have merged them into the 'Diseases and disorders' section as suggested by Doc James. Consider working the lone, hefty paragraph that constitutes that section into separate paragraphs, one for a few diseases of each subsystem of the musculoskeletal system. The current paragraph seems rather fluffy in its language, and should be significantly parsed down. For example, the following excerpt should be reworked to speak less abstractly about diseases, and instead specify which diseases (like carpal tunnel and osteoporesis) people are actually diagnosed with: "Articular (of or pertaining to the joints)[14] disorders are the most common. However, also among the diagnoses are: primary muscular diseases, neurologic (related to the medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it)[15] deficits, toxins, endocrine abnormalities, metabolic disorders, infectious diseases, blood and vascular disorders, and nutritional imbalances."

I'll be back to add more later, but this should be enough work for the moment. Emw2012 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) My knee-jerk response when reading this interesting article for the first time was the obvious need for a good textbook, rather than relying on internet sources. The article does not describe a system and this is a problem. For this article to successfully describe a system, I think a homeostatic approach is needed, to show how the parts of the anatomy work together. Can I offer some advice regarding the structure of the article?

I would start with an description of the bones—spongy bones, compact bones, and the bone cells, —especially the bone-building cells, the osteoblasts and the bone-sculpturing cells the osteoclasts and their parents the osteogenic cells. Then describe the skeletal system from head-to-toe; skull, spine, ribs and sternum, pelvis, hands and toes and arms and legs. Then a better section on the joints and their types—ball and socket (hip), hinge (wrist) for example. Joints need muscles to make them work. How big are these, how are they attached, how do they work, where do they get their energy from? How are they controlled? Which leads to the nerves, which are clearly a part of this system. Is the brain part of the system? If so, what part of the brain controls it and how does it do this? A lot of this is in the article, but it has not been brought together in a systematic way. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... thank you immensly for your contribution to this review. Sorry I got to this a little late. I will begin work on this as soon as possible. Cheers, Dondevoy01 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damien (South Park) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 just passed as a GA, and I'd lkce to nominate it for FAC. (This article is park of the South Park Featured Topic Drive.) Would appreciate the feedback before I nominate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Castle edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 sitting half finished for some time, it's finally been expanded, recently passed a very thorough GA review, and now I'm wondering whether it can get over the next hurdle. I has some gaps in the architectural history, but these are gaps where the sources don't exist – archaeologists are still unable to decide on the origins of the building, and even the usually-authoritative Pevsner is unable to specify a century of construction, let alone a date. I'm aware that, because information on the history of the structure is so scant, the history of the inhabitants seems unduly large, but I can't see an obvious way round that. Because of the gaps, this will be an unusual FAC, and ideally I'd like as many eyes as possible to take a look to try to weed out any issues missed in the GA review before it goes that far. – iridescent 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look & would have expected to see Bruce Castle at Images of England mentioned - at least to reference the fact that it is a Grade I listed building which is currently uncited - NB gives construction date of c1600. The other relevant sources from IoE are: Western boundary wall, South boundary wall & Tower. Based on those a little more description of the architecture would be possible. Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 18:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what architectural history there is, I think it's better to go by Pevsner – who says much the same, but in far more detail. I agree that the listing needs to be cited, and have included cites to IofE for the building and its tower, which is listed separately. (The boundary walls to the park are also listed separately, but I think mentioning them would be going into excessive detail.) – iridescent 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[conflict]The basic structure is said to be of the era of the Comptons (BritHistory online); but extensively modified for Rowland Hill.
You may want to look at Bruce Castle Park community excavation 2006 ; very kindly he marks the stream 'creative commons, with attribution'. There may be something usable from the finds' tray. There's an image here, showing the tower incorporated into the structure - but looking at the modern structure, I suspect it's been conflated from individual sketches. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Flickr stream is marked non-commercial use, which is incompatiable with GFDL. (I think it would be nice to have them – the current set of photos are rather sterile – but there's nothing with enough of a "wow!" factor to warrant the effort of chasing the photographer and pestering them into releasing rights.) Regarding the oldlondonmaps.com image, I think that image is either a conflation, or a trick of perspective – I don't believe there's ever been any suggestion that the tower once formed part of the house, and the 17th century image, which predates this picture (as it still shows the gables removed by James Townsend in the 18th century) shows that the two were clearly unattached at this point. – iridescent 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the BritHistory Online claim about the history; Pevsner, who's generally totally trustworthy, makes a convincing case for most of the house being 17th and 18th century remodelling, based on a shell by Compton, itself possibly part of a larger courtyard house which has since been demolished. Hill moved some internal walls, but AFAIK the only change to the external appearance of the house made under him was the building of the school extension at the back. – iridescent 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note re the automated peer review – I think "The Hill School" is correct in this context as "the" was part of the proper name. I'm aware the lead is short, but it covers all that needs to be said, and expanding it would just be padding for expansion's sake. – iridescent 13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

C. Rajagopalachari edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I had expanded the article a great deal. The article has been rated B but I feel it has vast potential. Would like to know ways to improve this article further. Thanks, The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment on lead: The lead seems really really long. Ideally it should be concise and to the point, i.e. a quick overview of the topic, and it should not introduce new information. Three to four modest paragraphs is plenty. I haven't read the whole article so don't know how much new information is in the lead, but it would be best to put everything new in the appropriate sections and then write a new lead by picking key highlights from the article. The second paragraph is simply too long. Stylistically 'affectionately' in the first sentence seems out of place - not very 'encyclopedic' in tone.

Criticism section. This section has virtually no supporting references. Can this be better documented or does it just depend on one or two paragraphs in a book?

Other section headings. Some of these have too many function words. I will cruise through and tighten them up.

Hope this is of use. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Not a review. Just a couple of quick observations.

Citations

  • Many paragraphs in the article include no sourcing information. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation.

References

  • I don't believe you need to include both ISBNs for each book. WP:ISBN says, "Please use the 13-digit one if available". It also says, "Use dashes if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of dashes varies between books."
  • Some of the citations such as #27 are incomplete or ill-formed and should be fixed.
  • Date ranges use en dashes rather than hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments
This is an interesting article. The subject is evidently important in Indian politics (something I don't know much about), and deserves a good presentation.

(i)This article is very chronological, presenting a tour of Rajagopalachari's career, one fact after the other, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph. There is very little context provided, so that someone not familiar with Indian politics in the twentieth century is faced with a blur of names and dates. Flesh out some of the narrative with small amounts of background prose to help the general reader.

(ii) The article has a lot of sections. It might help to for example group some as subsections under a level 2 heading, e.g. one level-2 heading 'Pre-Independence' that would have the current 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sections under it; and then a second level -2 heading 'Independence' (or the like) with the current sections 5-8 under it. This might help the article seem less like a random collection of paragraphs. Doing this might also help to see if there are parts of the article that can be split out into separate sub-articles. I don't know what the best organization is, but some thinking on this will make it better.

(iii) There are many long paragraphs. To improve readability, these should be broken up into shorter chunks.

(iv) Many paragraphs and sections have spotty or no supporting citations. Improving citations throughout will greatly improve the article.

(v) The second paragraph of the lead appears to summarize Rajagopalachari's entire career. It is too long for the lead. Perhaps it could be made into a section called "Career Summary". It seems out of place either way, but making it into a section gives it a place.

(vi) The subject of the article is variously called " Rajagopalachari" or "Rajaji" throughout. It should be one or the other. I assume the latter is more informal, so since this is an encyclopedia article then " Rajagopalachari" should be used.

(vii) I will take a whack at copyediting, and post notes on items that need clarification.

(viii) As I noted above the lead needs to be reworked – a small number of concise summary paragraphs, to the point, no new facts, etc.

Thanks, hope this is of use. John Jomeara421 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusion I've gone through each section of the article. I have done copyediting as well as leaving Talk Page comments on each section re to-dos so that editors can take note and then take action as they see fit - or not. Ideally, a copyeditor not invested in the content will take another run through the entire article. It is not entirely neutral, and is still has a somewhat reverential tone, so not entirely NPOV in my opinion. A lot of work also needs to be done to improve citations (lacking in many places). This article has been rated 'B' but I think that is pretty generous.

I hope this is of use. Thanks. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to eventually take this article to FAC and all input is welcome.

These are my main concerns with the article, so any thoughts, input or opinions anyone has on any of these are more than welcome.

  1. What does anyone think of the formatting of the page? It used to be with info on the format of the two events, then a huge history section ([1]). However, I felt there was a lot of repetition in there because many of the things were related. So the current version merged everything together and split it by Events > men's/women's tournaments > [various games] (I also added a rules section).
  2. Should anything be added to the rules section? (perhaps a small section on doping rules?)
  3. Should a "status of professional players" section be added? I almost added one, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
  4. Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
  5. Is it too focused on Canada? It's true that Canada did dominate the tournament for a long time, but some may claim there is a bias towards Canada in the article. (although I think I have devoted just as much time to the Svoiets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
  6. Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
  7. Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
  8. Have there been any hockey related doping issues that should be mentioned? There really hasn't been anything major, José Théodore ran into problems in 2006, and Dick Pound is always running his mouth about how drug filled the NHL is, but should these be mentioned? Perhaps a small section on doping could be added to "rules"?

Thanks, Scorpion0422 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Miami Heat head coaches edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 list has cannot be promoted to featured list status, as a result of the community 10-item minimum, and also because of featured list criteria 3c.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:39, 15 March 2009 (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 Miami Heat head coaches/archive1.

Twitter edit

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 feedback of any kind.

Thanks, WhatisFeelings? (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about a popular subject. At least two parts, the lead and the technical material, need work to make this into a good article, which is certainly possible and desirable. Most of the parts of the lead and the Technology section that deal with the technical aspects of Twitter need to be re-written with the non-tech-savvy reader in mind. The lead also needs to be re-written to summarize the entire article, and elements such as the technical explanations need to be moved to the appropriate sections. I have concerns also about the prose in places, some of the references, and a few violations of the Manual of Style guidelines. I did some light copyediting as I went, but the whole article could use another copyedit after revisions and re-writes are done. Here are suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • The ideal lead is a summary or abstract of the rest of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main points in each of the text sections and not to include anything that is undeveloped in the main text. The existing lead explains some of the technology that is not explained later, and it has nothing that summarizes History, Finances, Reception, Prominent users, and so on. WP:LEAD explains all.
  • "SMS" - It's a good idea to spell abbreviations out on first use, thus: "Short Message Service (SMS)". Ditto for RSS, CEO, XMPP, and all the many others in the article. Otherwise, readers who aren't familiar with the abbreviations quickly get lost.
  • "Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them." - It would probably be good to add that the profile pages are on Internet web sites (if that's the case) and that the updates are entered by the user (if that's the case). Someone unfamiliar with Twitter might imagine that it operates only or primarily via a hand-held device like a cell phone. It would probably be helpful to imagine an audience of readers who have just signed up for a basic computer class at a public library and do not necessarily know the difference between "e-mail" and "web site". If the article makes Twitter clear to someone like that, it will be useful to a very large audience.
  • "The service is free to use over the web... " - Perhaps World Wide Web (web) of the Internet would make this clear to everyone.
  • "As of March 2009, Twitter has received more visibility and popularity worldwide." - More than what? Perhaps what is meant is something like "Since its inception in 2006, Twitter use has grown steadily worldwide".
  • "Twitter is often described as the 'SMS of Internet' in that the site provides the back-end functionality (via its APIs) to other desktop and web-based applications to send and receive short text messages often obscuring the actual website itself." - I don't know what this means. "Back-end functionality" is jargon with no obvious meaning. "APIs" means nothing by itself. How does Twitter obscure a website?

History

  • "Twitter was founded by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams. It began in March 2006 as a research and development project inside San Francisco podcasting company Odeo. - Thinking again of the reader in the library class, I'd be inclined to link podcasting rather than "research and development" or "San Francisco". Almost no one will have to click to see what "San Francisco" means, but lots of people might find "podcast" mysterious because it is a term of much more recent origin.
  • "SXSW" - This should appear right after the first use of South by Southwest, thus: South by Southwest (SXSW).
  • "Twitter acquired Summize and rolled it into their own site at the subdomain " - Wikilink subdomain? Twitter is an "it", not a "they".

Privacy and security

  • "Nitesh used fakemytext.com[1] to spoof a text message, whereupon Twitter... " - The direct link to a site outside of Wikipedia needs to be turned into an in-line citation. Ditto for the Shakespeare link in the next section. Ditto for the direct link to twitter.com in the Outages section. Ditto for the Red Cross later in the article.

Outages

  • Wikilink uptime?
  • "For approximately five months, instant messaging support via a Jabber "bot"... " - "Jabber" and "bot" need brief explanations or linking.

Reception

  • "But some users are starting to feel 'too' connected... " - Remove apostrophes?

Similar services

  • "is touted as an enterprise version of Twitter" - What does "enterprise version" mean?
  • Quite a few paragraphs in the article consist of only one or two sentences. Generally its best to either expand these or merge them with other paragraphs.

References

  • Some of the references such as #83 and #84 are incomplete. Some have dates in ISO format, while others are in m-d-y format. WP:MOSNUM allows you to pick a preferred format for the dates in the notes but insists on consistency. It appears that changing the non-conformers to ISO would be the easiest fix. The date format for the notes can differ from the date format, m-d-y in this case, in the main text.

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechOutsider (talk · contribs)

Echoing Finetooth's comments, the article is a little technical.

  • Wikilink, or provide a concise definition of words such as "APIs", "podcasting", "XMPP", 'hashtags"
  • Spell out "Corp." the first time
  • May need to remove quotations around "Summize" for consistency
  • "Dorsey, the man behind the concept of Twitter" is a little vague
  • Weasel words; "light-weight"
  • "start from scratch" doesn't sound encyclopedic
  • early adopters needs to be wikilinked properly; avoid all redirects. So does NPR
  • Some external links being used as references under the "Reception" section
  • "The fail whale has been featured on NPR." Quite a random sentence sticking out of the "Outages" section ...
  • Garry Trudeau's is not formatted correctly; the correct way is Garry Trudeau's.
  • "Jon Stewart described the service as a gimmick." More information please.
  • Some one sentence paragraphs; merge with other paragraphs, remove, or further develop.

Best of luck and success. TechOutsider (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Smallville edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 been 2 years since it was last reviewed (for anything, that includes GA), and the page has been expanded quite a bit since that time. I'm looking for feedback on just about everything.

Thanks,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Haven't been here in a long while, and I can already see quite a bit has changed. Here's just a few things things I noticed:

  • The lead could probably be expanded to summarize most, if not all, of the article.
  • Cast section could do with an image of the cast. If you don't want to use a fair-use image, you could add individual images of the actors (which would be free images).
  • Could the crew changes section be expanded? I remember reading something about the change in writers in the second season article.
  • Critical reception could be expanded to cover later seasons as well, although I do know of the lack of reviews. ;)
  • Ratings could be given their own section, with a brief explanation of the table, a la Friends.
  • Any additional images would be great.

That's about it for now. The article looks fine, and there are no obvious issues (although the plot section could be expanded). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't had a chance to revamp the lead. It's always last on my list. As for the cast, Clark, Lana, Lex, Chloe and Lionel all have articles (pictures there), and the rest are on the character list page with pics for the majority of them. A fair use image couldn't really be justified for this article (not sure if really is justified for the list article), and we'd clutter the section is we put in free images of everyone (or even a couple of them). The only writer change in season two was the creation of a writing staff. I'm not sure how much actual "changing" went on. A couple of new people came on board (but without a reliable source discussing such a thing, and I've never come across one just talking about the addition of new writers), but just about the same people from season one were there in season two. The thing is, you're asking for expansion of an already large article. I've already had to cut the plot stuff, and the cast stuff down to bare bones because it was needlessly repeating what's on other pages and bloating this page. It's already sitting at 102 kb (with actual size in readable prose at 51kb). That's pretty large, and there aren't really any sections that can really be split off on their own. As a matter of fact, I should probably cut some of the strictly season one reviews out, and allow the season articles to act as the publisher of the season reviews. The page would become obscenely large if we tried to cover each season in the reception section. I agree that the table could be explained a bit more. Not sure about separating it. Would probably need to create a new section header and then a subsection header for the non-table information (Started testing that out). All images have to meet fair-use requirements, so I cannot just stick pictures in the article if I cannot justify their use. Even free images need to have a basic rational of use (just not as rigid as the non-free ones).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well that was all well explained. I think everything is okay now, but if any additional (free) images become available, it would be great to see them. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually love to get (though I don't think they've ever done one), a free image of the cast together. That would be awesome (kind of like how the Buffy article has). P.S. I have expanded the lead of the article substantially, so it now covers just about everything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw; looks excellent! :D Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing to get any sort of comments. The cast, music, and home video sections aren't complete, but those are relatively minor and rather than sit on my hands waiting for the sources I figured I'd put it up here to gather feedback. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pat Condell edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 don't know what to do next.

Thanks, A pinhead (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Here are a few suggestions. This does not amount to a comprehensive review, as I am unfamiliar with this sort of article, but these points may be helpful in your attempts to improve it.

  • The lead should be expanded so that it becomes a summary of the whole article rather than a brief introduction to it.
  • The prose needs a thorough copyedit. Just a few examples of awkward prose:-
    • "He got in to comedy during the 1980s performing alternative comedy around the City of London, UK."
      • "Got in to" is unencyclopedic - "commenced his career in" would be better.
      • A comma is required after 1980s.
      • "...around the City of London, UK." "Around the" is pretty meaningless as a geographiical description, and London is never referred to as "City of London" unless you mean specifically the financial center. I'd replace the whole phrase with something like "mainly in London."
    • Ungrammatical: "This led for a short while to writing weekly topical poems for Time Out magazine."
      • "which led to a job writing writing weekly topical poems for the Time Out magazine." - better?--A pinhead (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He did comedy sketches..." "He performed comedy sketches".
    • More unencyclopedic prose: "By the mid 1990s he was sick of the late nights and travelling, as he was by then regularly notching up 200 to 300 gigs a year around Britain, and he started writing for others, whilst still doing the occasional live gig." Please note that there are many more examples of what I would call rough prose, hence the suggestion for a complete copyedit.
      • Changed to "During the mid 1990s, Condell was performing over 200 times a year, due to the late nights and regular travelling, he decided to start writing for other comedians whilst still doing the occasional performance." - better?--A pinhead (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thirty two" should be written numerically
  • Long verbatim quotes such as in paragraph 3 of the "Comedy" section should be avoided. Quote the key phrases, paraphrase the rest.
  • Overlinking. This is particularly evident in the lead. The links on "English", "writer", "1980s", "London", "U.K.", "monologue", "death threats" are all unnecessary - these are all everyday phrases or locations. I don't understand the purpose of the "Internet personality" link, it goes to a list of names unconnected to this article.
    • Partially fixed, more feedback needed. Many of those you mentioned are linked to because they are relevant and many other articles appear to link to them.--A pinhead (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are citation tags in the lead and the On-line videos section. Refs [5] and [30], to which the tags are added, are to the same web page. I imagine the editor who posted them had problems understanding what information this source is providing. Have you contacted the editor to establish what problem was being highlighted?
  • Some on-line refs are not properly formatted, chiefly by omission of retrieval dates.
    • Fixed, I think. All retrieval dates are now present.--A pinhead (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is really all can usefully do. I hope this review enables you to work on the article towards positive improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of nuclides (complete) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I think it doesn't need much to become featured.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: What is the relationship of this article to Table of nuclides? If this is meant to be an offshoot of the larger-scope article, i think it cannot possibly become featured without the larger-scope article being much better developed. Relationships between the articles need to be clear. For example, "Table of nuclides (complete)" conceivably could be a section in the Table of nuclides article, with a summary there and a "main article" link pointing to this expanded explanation of what a complete type of table is, as opposed to other types of tables that are to be discussed in the "Table of nuclides" article. Also, is there documentation of "Table of nuclides (complete)" as being the common name for a particular type of table? I hope this helps. doncram (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is pretty cool - I have only seen these in print before. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per doncram's comment above, would a different name help? Perhaps "Complete table of nuclides"? or "Table of all nuclides" or "Table of of nuclides with a half life longer than ..."?
  • The print versions I have seen and the Brookhaven web site (more on that later) all start in the bottom left corner and go to the top right - that seems to be the convention. This starts at top left and goes to bottom right. I can imagine it is easier to code that way here, but is that acceptable? How much weight should / does the standard convention for presenting this type of information have?
  • The lead does not really summarize or explain the table sufficiently. Although the symbols Z and n are wikilinked, I would add them to the mention of atomic number (Z) and neutron number (n). I think it is useful / interesting to include some summary information in the lead too - so which element has the most nuclides? Which Z has the most nuclides? How many total nuclides are there listed here? That sort of thing might make this a bit less dry.
  • It is not clear to me what the selection criteria are for this table. This phrase in the first sentence in the lead including all with half-life of at least one day seems very odd as most of the nuclides in the table are white in color and thus have half lives less than a day.
  • There are a number of formatting issues with the table, chielfy inconsistent use of balnk cells / squares in the table. For example, the row with n = 53 has no blank cells, but the row for n = 49 has one blank cell (there is no Rh-194, so why not drop the Rh cell down one cell?) or n = 77 and n = 78 have blank cells ABOVE elements, which looks even odder. I can see a blank cell where there are nuclides on either side (n = 64 row, Ba column, there are Ba-119 and Ba-121, but no Ba-120) but when it is the beginning or end of a row or column, it just loooks odd and is done inconsistently.
  • There is an awful lot of white space - could some images of elements / isotopes be added?
  • The one and only ref is not formatted correctly - internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The one and only ref is also given as an external link, I thought you were not supposed to link exactly the same page in both places.
  • The iodine column is very narrow - can it be set wider?

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, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planescape: Torment edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently the focus of a collaboration between WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and WikiProject Video games that resulted in a successful GA nomination. We'd like comments on the article to move it in the general direction of FAC. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this article as the format in this article shall be the base I use to tweak the episode lists of Case Closed.

Thanks, DragonZero (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • Currently, none of the summaries is too long or too short, but having summaries that are more than twice as long as other summaries is detrimental to the visual appeal of the list. I suggest slightly trimming the longer ones and slightly expanding the shorter ones, just a bit.
  • The references need cleanup, most notably, they should all use the appropriate citation templates, give publisher and accessdate, and not use stylized or all-caps text.
    • General references require accessdates as well.
    • Mind WP:ALLCAPS and similar parts of the MoS. (Use "Funimation", not "FUNimation".)
    • All dates in the article should use the same format, including those in the references.
    • Use citation templates for all references. (This also means that you can't cite more than one episode at once.)
  • I had originally assumed that the Japanese general reference sources the original airdates, but now that I've actually looked, I can't find them there.
  • The table uses the default color scheme. There's nothing wrong with that, but choosing different colors might increase the visual appeal.
  • Split episodes 11-12 into two rows.
  • You are cramming "dub title" and "translated title" into the same line. It is a bit unusual to leave in literally translated titles once official ones are available, but that's alright. However, the '/' separating them should not be bolded.
  • A list should not start with the words "This is a list of".
  • Use either "airdate" or "air date", not both.
  • Maybe you can combine note B and E?
  • Try not to abbreviate company names: "Funimation" -> "Funimation Entertainment".
  • Mind WP:OVERLINK. Linking the first occurence of a term or name is in most cases sufficient.
  • "The season 1 DVD Box set" - This isn't good. Try "The DVD Box set of the first season" or something similar.
  • Expand contractions.
  • Use {{nihongo3}} when the romanization is shown first.

If you have not already done so, check out Category:FL-Class anime and manga articles for good examples. This list still needs a lot of work. I could give more comments, but this should be enough to keep you busy for a while. Good luck! -- Goodraise (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Added a few more comments. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All caps text? Well for the translated title, maybe they should just be removed. I'm not sure about that. DragonZero (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "名探偵コナンDVD PART1 vol.1" becomes "名探偵コナンDVD Part1 vol.1", per WP:ALLCAPS. As for the titles, precedent suggests that they are not needed for comprehensiveness, so it's up to you. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is that the only ref problem? DragonZero (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified in the comments. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments. I think I may be keeping 11-12 together though so the Orig Ep# match up on the main list. DragonZero (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is it. DragonZero (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Barnet edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Parallel WikiProject Military history peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Barnet

I am aiming for Featured Article with this article on a historical decisive battle in the Wars of the Roses; thus, I am soliciting any comments and suggestions to help it reach that mark. Your help is appreciated, many thanks in advance. Jappalang (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chrysomya bezziana edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are new to Wikipedia and would like others to edit our article and see how it stands against Wikipedia standards. I would like others to double check our grammar, tell us how the content flows and let us know if there are any changes we could make to improve our article in content and/or for Wikipedia's standards. Thanks very much for your time! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a good start indeed—great in fact since you're new to Wikipedia. I tweaked the lead section a little, but here are a few suggestions you can work with. 1) Work to make paragraphs complete ideas. Either merge short paragraphs (1-3 sentences or so) with other related material or research to find new information to expand the paragraph. 2) As you expand the article continue to prioritize your coverage by giving the most space and detail to the most important aspects of the topic. Good research helps with this since you can see the various topics that various sources find important, but you still have to work out the big picture. I don't see anything that says you're not doing this now, it's just easy to lose sight of. 3) The lead section (See WP:LEAD for more guidance) should be a bit longer and an ideal lead section is basically a perfect summary of the more detailed information in the rest of the article. 4) Finally make sure to include context for as much of the jargon or as many of the technical terms used as possible. For example the first time myiasis is referred to is should be followed by a parenthetical remark describing approximately what it is. Incidentally right now the articles first use of the word myiasis refers to other species instead of describing how this fly relates to myiasis. I hope that helps. Just to let you know, peer review doesn't always result in much editing from others of your article. Since you have the relevant sources and knowledge guidance is often the best help we can give. - Taxman Talk 03:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review! You've definitely given us ideas and things to work on. Thank you very much for taking the time to read it! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleridae edit

Article (edit | visual edit | 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 any constructive suggestions and criticism, content and grammar checking, and any general ways to improve this article. Thanks, Blm2010 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The images are lovely, but one of them appear to violate copyright / the terms of the license under which they are made available. For example File:Thanasimus dubius on bark.jpg is a free image because is US government work (USDA employee), but File:Trichodes nutalli.jpg is not free for use on Wikipedia as its licence is Creative Commons but for non-commercial use. I have nominated it for deletion on Commons as a copvio.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase so fix things like Their tarsal formula is 5-5-5[3], meaning that on...
  • Article is generally well-cited, but needs more references in some places. For example This trait is very important in correctly differentiating checkered beetles from Melyridae. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Example species in "Feeding Habits" section need refs.
  • Per WP:HEAD headers are not capitalized correctly - "Feeding Habits" should be "Feeding habits" as one example.
  • I would try to give more specifics in addition to the vague generalities. Things like These beetles can be found in numerous areas as well due to the great variety in trees across the world. really tell me nothing without more details - an example or two from each continent where they are found might help.
  • Watch disambiguation links (or dabs) tarsi is a dab. Generally the first example is linked too.
  • 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:JARGON watch technical terms and try to explain them, especially if they are not linked. This is done well in some places, but not in others Their elytra have tiny pits or depressions, and never expose more than two dorsal plates (tergites).[3] No clue waht an elytra is, nice explanation of tergites.
  • Article has several fairly short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Be consistent throughout - "N. rufipes" is italicized one place (correct) and not in another, for example.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four color theorem edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently listed as A class by WikiProject Mathematics, but I think it could use improvement in the "fine writing" category. Also, things like style and formatting. I'd like to know how it reads to someone unfamiliar with the topic, preferably not too much into mathematics. I think the topic itself is more approachable than most advanced math topics, so I would like a "layman" perspective.

Thanks, C S (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Histeridae edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We have listed this article for peer review because we'd like feedback on grammar mistakes, incorrect information, or anything that can be worked on to better this page. We welcome any type of suggestions, comments, or contributions. This page has been written as a group project for a Forensic Entomology class at Texas A&M University. [2]

Thanks, Klfoster (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda:

  • The first thing I noticed about the article was that, although it has a list of references at the end, the article has no inline citations. This is against Wikipedia policy (see WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE for more information), and makes it very difficult for anyone to check or find more information on a particular fact, as they cannot tell which particular reference was used. This is a major issue which needs to be fixed.
  • On the topic of references, while many different citation styles are permitted (including using templates such as {{cite journal}} or {{Citation}}), you may like to consider following the tips at Wikipedia:CITE#Links and ID numbers to make the title of the reference link to the web page, rather than having a bare URL. For example instead of
you would have
  • Myers, P., R. Espinosa, and C. S. Parr. "Family Histeridae." Animal Diversity Web. 1998. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 22 March 2009
  • Also on the topic of references, you need to make sure that all sources used satisfy the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Basically references need to be published by reputable publishers with a reputation for fact checking, so articles in peer-reviewed journals, books published by major publishing houses etc. One has to be careful with websites. http://bugguide.net isn't a reliable source because, as its disclaimer says, the content is contributed mostly be amateur naturalists, who are solely responsible for the content. The particular bugguide entry which you cite, http://bugguide.net/node/view/6577, lists some print sources which you may be able to use instead (however notice it also cites Wikipedia as a source!)
  • The first section of the article (the "lead") should provide a standalone summary of the article, according to WP:LEAD, so that if someone stops reading after the lead, they have got all the main points of the article. In this case I don't think this has been achieved. A corollary of this function of the lead is that Wikipedia articles (and encyclopedia articles in general) do not require a "Conclusion" section, as it would just be repeating the lead.
  • There are some places where the language is non-encyclopedic in tone. For example Thus, when an investigator happens upon a scene it is wise for them to check for the existence of Hister Beetles and to have some knowledge about them. This is giving advice, rather than presenting facts. The Histerids will also eat adult insects, so if you are trying to cage them they cannot be kept with other bugs. This addresses the reader directly ("you").
  • Wikipedia uses "sentence case" for its capitalisation of article names and section headings, which means that, with the exception of proper nouns, the only word which is capitalised is the first. Thus the section heading Origin of Name should be Origin of name. (This actually sounds a bit stilted, maybe just Name or Etymology would be better).
  • One-sentence paragraphs (like this one) are discouraged.
  • The "Characteristics" section seems to mostly consist of anatomy and feeding habits. Is there any particular reason his information is not in those sections?
  • The "Anatomy" section is reasonably heavy on jargon, and would probably benefit from a diagram indicating the different parts of the beetle. Also "elytra" is plural—you are treating it as singular. I am also slightly confusied by the fact that the first sentence indicates the members of the family are diverse, yet the next paragraph gives a very specific description of "the Hister beetle", which I understood to be a synonym for all members of the family.
  • The "Genus and species" section should give some idea of why these particular genera and species are listed out of the 330 genera and 3900 species. Also note that genus is singular, the plural is genera. This could possibly be moved further down the article, as there is the danger the reader will not scroll past this long list, and will thus miss the section on forensic entomology! The list might be more suitably presented as a table (see Help:Table for the syntax), e.g.
Genus Species Notes
Atholus Atholus rothkirchi note here
Aeletes Aeletes angustisternus
Aeletes angustus Maybe even put an image here
Aeletes basalis
  • Some consistency in the name used for the beetles throughout the article would be helpful. For example in the sentences The Clown beetle will hide under the dead body in the soil during the day and come out at night to feed. For this reason it is important to examine a dead body at different times of the day. When the Hister beetle is collected from a body they must be isolated during examination because they are predacious beetles and eat anything in their way., "clown beetle" is used in the first sentence, but "Hister beetle" in the third. This gives the impression that two different types of beetles are being discussed here.
  • The "Current research" section does not actually describe any current research!
  • The article needs to be read through to check for redundancies. Since a group of you have been writing the article it looks like different people have added the same information. For example in the "Habitat" section
Histeridae found in varying environments have varying characteristics. The flat Hister beetles are usually found in tree bark, while the cylindrical beetles are not. This diverse group of beetles has characteristics that vary from species to species. For example, certain species of Hister beetles live under bark. These species have flattened bodies.

That's probably enough from me for the moment. I hope you find these comments useful. Dr pda (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucilia cuprina edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate feedback in order to make this article better.

Thanks, Alexandra.anzaldua (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Biggest problem as I see it is a near total lack of inline references, for example Habitats/Diet and Forensic Importance each 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
  • Drop the Conlcusion section - this is a Wikipedia article, not a term paper (even if it is written for a college assignment, it should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style
  • Language needs to be cleaned up - for exmple something is either fatal or it is not, so "quite fatal" is not needed in The later emerging larvae cause large lesions on the sheep, which may prove to be quite fatal.
  • Be consistent throughout the article - is the name Lucilia cuprina or Lucilia cuprina or L. cuprina or what?
  • The article has many short )one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow - these shoiuld either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Refs come after punctuation, no space, and there is a space after the ref, so fix things like mesothorax is much enlarged while the prothorax and metathorax are reduced. [1]Blow flies
  • 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 mesothorax is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Use {{convert}} to give both metric and English units.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One quick idea of something to fix- change your headings. You only capitalize the first word, not all of them unless it is a proper noun. Another thing would be to change it from Ways to control an infestation to possibly management, or something a lot more concise. I'll read your entire article later with more ideas for you to fix! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muscina sp. edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 this is my first article uploaded to Wikipedia, I feel my article could still be improved tremendously to meet the high-standards of a typical Wiki article. Please don't be shy, any kind of feedback will help.

Thanks, Hieu87 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

  • article should be renamed to Muscina
  • remove period from taxobox caption (sentence fragments don't need ending punctuation)
  • genus name in infobox should be italicized
  • avoid repetitive wording in species list by using shorthand M. instead of spelling out the genus name every time; put the species list in alphabetical order
  • Is there a type species and authority that could also be put in the taxobox?
  • "The Muscina genus currently consists of 27 species including Muscina stabulans, Muscina dorsilinea, Muscina flukei, Muscina fulvacrura, Muscina levida, Muscina pascuorum, Muscina prolapsa, and many more. This number is subject to change as new discoveries and data are found.[1] Muscina sp. can be found worldwide.[3]" suggest rewording all this to this: "The Muscina genus, consisting of 27 species, has a worldwide distribution." Reason: no need to give a partial list of species, when a complete list in shown in the taxobox. Also. the fact that the number of species will change is the same for any genus of any organism, so it doesn't need to be stated here. Of course, this change makes the lead too short, so you'll have to fatten it up with choice tidbits from the article.
  • "...and have moderately curved fourth veins with the lather also having a black palpi." what's the significance of a fourth vein? lather->latter?
  • "These flies average 8mm. in length." There should be a non-breaking space after a measurement before the unit; mm shouldn't have a period after it.
  • "Circular spiracular plates could be found..." Need to explain what what this is.
  • "...and are rarely found in cities (Neotrop. Ento. 2004).[8]" There's already an in-line cite, so the Harvard-type cit in parentheses should be removed).
  • Re: "Life Cycle" section header (and others below)- only the first word of section headers should be capitalized (unless there's a name involved).
  • Muscina isn't consistently italicized throughout the article; Many instances of Muscina could be shortened to M.; in general use the full name in the first occurrence in a new section, then the short form after that.
  • "Moreover, a study conducted in New Haven, Connecticut using certain species of flies..." The study location isn't relevant and should be removed. Same thing later. Those who really want to know can look at the citation.
  • "...fly incidence peaked about 4-5 months" use an endash for number ranges (other instances throughout articles need fixing too).
  • In the Intestinal myiasis section, too mush detail is given on the experimental details (eg. "By attaching a camera to a MOTIC BA 300 digital compound microscope, pictures were taken...) Just summarize the importance results.
  • "The larvae were confirmed by Dr. M. T. James of the College of the Washington and Drs. C. W. Sabrosky..." Honorific titles like Dr. aren't used in Wiki articles for cases like this.
  • "...also appeared in samples collected at 200 m altitude and above." use the convert template to conveniently give both metric and imperial units.
  • Remove the conclusion section completely, and integrate that information into the lead.
  • Italicize names in external links section.
  • The article could use a copyedit to tighten up the prose; make the changes suggested above and give me a ping if you'd like me to do that for you. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that this article is part of a class project, so me doing a copyedit might not be fair game... confirm that's it's ok with your professor if a copyedit is desired. Sasata (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oiceoptoma noveboracense edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 information I found was not as in depth as I had hoped. It looks like the description and life cycle are complete but the other sections may need a little help. Also, if you know of any research that is currently being done that would be a good addition to the research section. Any help with making this article the best it can be would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Shealamartin (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trucking industry in the United States edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare for FA review. I need feedback and to work out the kinks before submitting it for FA review. Article is already listed as GA-quality. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Trucking industry in the United States/archive1.

Anglesey Central Railway edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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, to which I have contributed significantly, made GA grade seven months ago. Since then, I've ignored it for some time, which enabled me to come back with fresh eyes and make further improvements, and I'm eyeing up the FA process. Before I go there (this is my first time!) I'd like to ask for an 'outside' opinion on what is missing, needs doing, or ought to be improved.

Thanks, Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A comprehensive article with some good points, but not yet ready for FAC.

  • The lead is not adequate as a summary of the whole article, and needs to be expanded.
  • The prose, while readable, is rough in places. Examples: "by the now Major Rich"; "it opened to passengers throughout on 3 June"; "switched from exporting ore by sea to by railway". There are other poor constructions, and some unencyclopedic language, such as "known to this day". It really needs a competent copyeditor to go through the whole text, but I would advise you to wait for this until after other amendments have been carried out.
  • There are some gaps in the chronology. For example, "Early days" records various failed attempts to start the line, then suddenly it's up and away. How did that come about? Later, there is no mention of nationalisation, apart from the unexplained "Under British Rail..." Some readers, particularly non-UK readers, will have no idea what "British Rail" means, unless you explain.
  • Check for overlinking; terms like "railway" don't need linking
  • Some sections of the article have too much small detail. Examples are in the paragraphs dealing freight prices, timetable information, and in particular the 3rd and 4th paragaphs of the 1923-46 section. This information could be much more briefly summarised.
  • Some of the prose is too technical for the general reader. Terms such as "type A or B staff" need proper explanation. The wikilink on "staff" I found unhelpful. Sentences like "The Gaerwen-Llangefni staff section was replaced with Gaerwen-Holland Arms and Holland Arms-Llangefni sections, but the single line to Red Wharf Bay was operated as one section" are very difficult to fathom if one is not familar with the subject.
  • MOS etc: there are numerous nbsp violations; the convert template should be used throughout (in the first line of the article it isn't); the section heading "The railway reaches Amlwych" is contrary to approved heading style.
  • Thec "Route" section has no citations. Where did it come from?
  • Image:Anglesey Central Railway map.png - it would help if the main Chester to Holyhead route was clearly indicated.
  • It would also help if modern-day equivalents were given for some (not all) of the cost figures. The MeasuringWorth.com website can be used for this purpose.
  • I'm afraid I don't understand (3928 t). What does it mean?
  • Is "Dickson" a company or an individual? Is it/he the same as "Dickson and Russell"? if so, what happened to Russell?
  • "Act" as in "Act of Parliament" needs a capital. I've fixed some but there may be others.
  • I enjoyed looking at the illustrations.

Clearly, much effort has gone into this article, but it needs quite a bit more if it is to reach featured standard. I hope that these comments will help you get started with the necessary work. You will also need to address the points raised above, re reliable sourcing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast inverse square root edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to send it to FAC. It may need some work clarifying the "proof" section--I'm kind of stalled on doing that right now. This article received some ce help from others and a good GA review, but I feel it needs some close attention from an expert or interested party. It's neither strictly mathematics nor computer gaming, so I placed it here.

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an addendum, I know the sourcing is borderline, but I think that a cursory review of the sources advanced will show that they are reasonable for the subject matter. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, Lomont, Eberly and McEniry. Eberly, interestingly enough, has the worst analysis of the code but is the only SPS (AFAIK)--he has a book published on 3-D computer graphics (which is also references, completely by accident, actually). Lomont's paper is referenced a half dozen times, in scholarly papers (one of which is cited in this article) and on most of the web articles. McEniry's paper is later, so it missed the craze, but I am willing to stand by it as a good source. It is web available and it is easily the deepest look of the bunch. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will be the first to admit that I do not understand much of the article, so take my suggestions with a grain (or shaker) or salt. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would try to provide context to the reader wherever possible. Some places do this well already, but just in the first sentence "(IEEE 754-2008)" is a complete mystery without some context - see a method of calculating the reciprocal of a square root for a 32-bit floating point number (IEEE 754-2008). I know it is linked, but could it be a method of calculating the reciprocal of a square root for a 32-bit floating point number (the IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic, or IEEE 754-2008).
  • I would link 32-bit, perhaps in the second paragraph of the lead (I know it is also in the first paragraph)
  • Would this sentence read better as Next, a logical shift right of one bit is performed and the result [is] subtracted from the "magic" [hexadecimal] value 0x5f3759df. I know 0x is linked, but most people have trouble understanding binary and do not know or recognize hex
  • I am not sure the casual reader would know that "the code" in Specifically, when the code was developed in the early 1990s, most floating point processing power lagged behind the speed of integer processing.[1] refers to the Fast inverse square root algorithm.
  • I am unsure about refs in math / computer articles - my normal rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but when there are many one sentence paragraphs with equations, I am not sure this applies. Still, the article feels under-referenced to me. For example the whole part in "A need for fast..." from the beginning "To normalize a vector,..." to the end "...the inverse square root of the distance components." seems like it should have a ref. Or these sentences later in the Overview section This integer subtraction and bit shift results in an integer number which when converted back into floating point notation is a rough approximation for the inverse square root of the input number. One iteration of Newton's method is performed to gain some precision, and the code is finished.
  • Since this is taking a square root (albeit an inverse one) is "division" correct in This bit of code proved faster than table lookups and approximately four times faster than regular floating point division.[4]?
  • Why the use of quotes in The advantages in speed offered by the "fast inverse square root" hack came from converting the floating ...? The term is not in quotes elsewhere.
  • My eyes glazed over from the Magic number section down to History, so I am skipping over them here too - sorry. I do note that File:Float example.svg uses "fraction" where the article uses "significand", which is confusing.
  • In History I have no sense of time - could years be added? Also the chronology seems to go backwards (most recent to most distant in the past) which can be a bit confusing, although I understand this is how the chronolgy was discovered (I think)
  • Headers do not all follow WP:HEAD - use of "a" and "the" for example.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already a Good Article and I wonder what more I'd need to do to get it through WP:FAC. I wondered whether it might be too short, but it's a couple of hundred words longer than Hellingly Hospital Railway which was on the Main Page a couple of days ago.

Thanks, BencherliteTalk 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V.
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.) 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from doncram

  • The infobox shows two more or less blank entries, actually showing just a dash (—) for men's_headship= and for women's_headship= fields. Perhaps that is an "em-dash". What is meant by the dash? If unavailable or not applicable, I would think it would be better to write out the words. Or better to blank the field, which in most infoboxes would then remove display of that field. The dashes are not meaningful to me. doncram (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "not won" in both cases. Thanks. --BencherliteTalk 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that was a prompt reply! Hmm, maybe that is better for people who understand what is meant already, but i still don't get it. I was thinking "headship" fields were intended to report the men's and women's team directors. Now, I'm guessing that you meant for "Men's headship" to mean something like the last time a "Head of the Charles" type river race was won by the Men's 8 or 4 team or something, and now by "Not won" you might mean it has never won one. Or you mean that they didn't win this year. It's not clear. The Headship link does not define what headship means. This is too cryptic for me still. Perhaps it is a fault of the infobox, which may be used in other articles too, but I think then that the infobox should be fixed to be more clear, and this would be an obstacle to promoting an article using it to FA. doncram (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "never won". Head of the River (not Headship) does in fact define the term: The term "Head of the River" has also been used for winning crews in regattas since the 19th century, such as the college bumps racing in Oxford or Cambridge. And the third sentence of the lead is Neither the men's nor the women's 1st VIIIs have ever won the main inter-college rowing competition at Oxford, Eights Week (an achievement termed being "Head of the River"), so I'm not sure what else I can do to make it any clearer. Any thoughts? BencherliteTalk 07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting better. But the Head of the River article, which is pipelinked from "headship" in the infobox does not in fact define or use the word "headship". I thought i was linking to that when i wrote the preceding; it was a surprise to me that headship has a different article. It would be appropriate for the Head of the River article to define headship, and that would make this article clearer. Can you define it there? Or would that get erased by whoever might "own" that article. If the Head of the River article cannot contain a definition of the word "headship", then a new target article for the pipelink from the infobox should be found. Also, I note that wiktionary fails to define the term as you and the infobox are using it. You could perhaps remedy that absence at wiktionary, but the current absence suggests to me that usage of the term in the infobox is a reflection of private jargon that is not accessible and then should not be used in wikipedia. Actually, what do you mean precisely by headship? The last date at which ownership of the Head of the River trophy was won? (then infobox field is filled by date). Membership in the set of all previous owners of the trophy? (then infobox field is filled by Yes/No). Is headship really only used for 8s that win the Head of the River only, and not 4s that might win there, and not singles, 4s or 8s or whatever that win the Head of the Charles in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or other head of the river-named races. I doubt that a monopoly on the term is enforceable, either. Anyhow, it is not obvious to me what your definition would be, and then whether it is being used correctly in the infobox or not. doncram (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I follow now. I've tweaked the infobox to say "Head of the River – Men", to avoid using "headship". 4s / pairs / sculls don't compete in the Oxford Head of the River race and don't have a headship race of their own (AFAIK, certainly nothing on the same scale as Eights Week). --BencherliteTalk 07:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Saturn edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 is an important topic for laymen who are interested in astronomy. I wanted to nominate it as a featured/good article, but I'm not sure if it has too many pictures (is it possible to have too many pictures of Saturn?), or whether the writing and polish is up to scratch for a featured article. What do you all think?

Thanks, Bryangv (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

  • Per Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow." There are a number of single-paragraph sections that should be consolidated to improve the flow.
  • Please address the multitude of Fact tags.
  • There do seem to be too many images, and some may have overly long captions.
  • It needs a copy edit for polish, to eliminate ambiguities, reduce subjectiveness, merge 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs, and to make the wording more encyclopedic.

–RJH (talk)

Brianboulton comments: I agree with the above remarks, and have other concerns. Specifically:-

  • Images are supposed to illustrate the text, with brief referential captions. In this case, with thirty or so images (some very large), the text is overwhelmed. I would suggest reducing the images by at least half, and incorporating lengthy caption material into the text.
  • The "expand" banner from June 2008 may be redundant now but, as stated above, the "citation needed" tags must be dealt with. I am not sure that they indicate all the instances where citation to a source is required.
  • The prose isn't bad, but early examples of non-encyclopedic wordings are "the very first person", "a lot of empty space" and "Mystified, Galilieo wondered..." A full copyedit as suggested should deal with these and similar faults.
  • The subheads in the History section should be level-3 (===) headings, not simply bolded characters. There is further misuse of bolding further down, where it is used for emphasis contrary to MOS.
  • Metric distances should be converted, and should be written as (e.g.) 4,800 not 4800. Using the WP convert template will do these things for you automatically.
  • Some online references are not formatted properly. All require retrieval dates. In the references I also saw "Londin" (?"London"). Is "Harland" a book, a magazine article, or a news report?

Attention to these issues over a period of time will bring the article to the standard you require. It's an interesting subject and well worth the effort. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

243 Ida edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 undergone major improvements, and I would like to know if there are any remaining issues that need to be addressed before sending it to FAC.

Thanks, Wronkiew (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/243 Ida/archive1.

Adam Levine edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 is in the home stretch to becoming a GA, but it is not there yet.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Queenie (talk · contribs)
  • I'm looking at this from the point of view of a GAC reviewer, as you requested.
    • Well, the lead section certainly needs expansion, to begin with. Read WP:LEAD for more criteria; the lead needs to adequately summarise the whole article. As noted in Wikipedia:LEAD#Biographies, big facts shouldn't overwhelm the lead, yet shouldn't be overlooked either.
    • Maybe merge "early life" with the next sectin to make "early life and career"...? I don't know. They seem to be very short on their own.
    • There cannot be any {{Orly}} tags in a GA.
    • Redlinks need to be removed/replaced with bluelinks.
    • MySpace is not a good thing to link to.
    • The "personal life" section seems very bitty; try go get it more flowing.
The second part of the article in particular [Maroon 5 and mainstream success onward] is very well written; but the article needs a bit of work to get to GA standard. Queenie 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead

Kara's Flowers

  • The text in this section makes no mention of Kara's Flowers. That seems a bit odd.

External videos

  • These belong in the External links section rather than in the main text sections.

Sources

  • I agree with User:Queenie about the citation-needed tags. In addition, parts of the article that are untagged lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every unusual claim, every set of statistics, and every direct quote. Two paragraphs in "Early career" are unsourced as is one in "Other work".

Short paragraphs

  • Paragraphs of only one or two sentences are generally frowned upon, especially if an article has a lot of them. Two solutions are possible: merge or expand.

Copyediting

  • I see small errors in the article that a copyeditor or proofreader would probably catch and fix. For example, NY should be spelled out as New York in the sentence about Hancock, New York. In the references, "MAROON 5 SOUNDS OFF" should be in title case rather than all caps, thus: "Maroon 5 Sounds Off", per the Manual of Style.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Good luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yellowstone National Park related articles edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because: Another editor has suggested this Yellowstone List be nominated for Featured List status. As of yet, it has not undergone a peer review.

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that some work has been put into this, I think it is a candidate for deletion (although much of it can be salvaged as actual lists). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The most basic problem with the list is the title. Wikipedia calls organizations of article categories, not lists. The organizing criteria for a list should not be the fact that all of these articles are in the Yellowstone category, but rather that they all are about the same topic. I think the list as it currently exists is way too broad a topic, but I also think big chunks of it could be saved / serve as the basis for better, smaller, more focused lists. Please read Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists carefully.
  • Next read Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Then read this article. Here are the two most obvious FL problems:
    • It has no (zero) references, but a FL must meet the criteria for verifiability, citations, and reliable sources
    • The lead is one sentence. The FL criteria says Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Please see WP:LEAD too.
  • This also has a Trivia section, which is discouraged in any article, but especially in Featured content - see WP:TRIVIA
  • The information that is there is not organized in an obvious way that I could tell - people are not in alphabetic or chronological order, topics seem to be listed at random, there is little overall structure.
  • I would split out a lot of the smaller sections as real lists. "List of people associated with Yellowstone" is one obvious example. Another would be "List of geysers at Yellowstone", but wait I see there is already a List of Yellowstone geothermal features, which this list includes. Lists do not generally include other lists.
  • Perhaps Rivers, lakes and waterfalls of Yellowstone could be another list.
  • I will give you a week to salvage things, then nominate this for deletion. will move the top part to a new name, perhaps List of people associated with Yellowstone.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Hope this helps with other better lists. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Ruhrfisch. This article would need quite a lot of work to get towards featured list quality. I would definitely start by deciding exactly what is the scope and purpose of this list, then rename it appropriately. Start looking at other featured lists to get a model. I think the most important aspect to consider is that a featured list is never really just a list, but offers significant additional information that a category isn't capable of providing. Best of luck with this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a FLC reviewer, I'm not sure that this list would ever be eligible for FLC. It just seems like this is a structured and wikified category—with pictures. Not all lists can be potential FL material, just as some very short articles may never pass muster at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Park Community College edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA status, but am not sure which direction to research/expand it in.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The statement about the AAUP censure is intriguing, but it would be helpful to include a brief summary of the specific issues involved.
  • You might include a bit of the history of Quapaw Technical Institute.
  • I especially wanted to know more about the students and more about what they are studying.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 delevep the article further and I have but I'm having problems with adding reliable sources. On the plus side the Cast, Music, Plot and Intro sections are complete and they're okay. But for reception I cannot find any sources that are deemed reliable. I've googled it many times and can't find any reviews that I think constitute as professional and reliable. I want to get this to FA status sometime but I need all the advice and help I can get. Please point me in the right direction.

If for some reason some information cannot be accessed becuase it has not been released will this affect the FA potential this article has? If articles such as Spoo and aXXo can get to FA and GA respectively I am sure this article can get to FA some day. Just like the articles mentioned since sources are limited all the info that has been gathered, I'm sure, will make this GA in the least. It cannot be penalised if such information is rare or has not been published explicitly.

I want help in the following areas:

  • Reception
  • Production (on its own, excluding Cast and Music)

Thanks,  Dumbledore  14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Spoo nor aXXo is a featured article. They are both only good articles. Featured articles are on a whole different level. I'm afraid this article will never become featured. As for sources, one review is already listed in the external links section. It doesn't belong there. It should be citing a sentence or two in the reception section. It also seems that Anime News Network has reviewed the film. With those two you should be able to write a very basic reception section. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at one time Spoo was a FA article. Will this ever become a Good Article instead?  Dumbledore  18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. It mostly depends on the sources you find. If two reviews is all there is, then probably not. Good luck. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this section into 3 suitable sized paragraphs based on 3 reviews from 2 websites. I think this is enough for the section until I find more (possibly), do you agree that its fine now?  Dumbledore  19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you squeezed too much out of those three reviews. Look at featured articles about films, like 300 (film). They write far less. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between film and manga are very original research. It probably needs to be removed.Tintor2 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, I didn't add that section but wasn't too sure if it could be deleted. Now it's confirmed I'll delete it.  Dumbledore  20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get more advice?  Dumbledore  17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the film really written by Chuck Norris? -- Goodraise (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The music section needs some explanation. The film itself has no tracks. You'll have to give the name of the CD and its release date. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll expand these sections and add references, I'll also fix the infobox.  Dumbledore  19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I see it as a potential candidate for a GA. I'd really appreciate a great copyediting and some general ideas to improve the article (I can deal with the specifics). Thanks in advance, -- A talk/contribs 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Underneath-it-All (talk · contribs)
  • The first time a country is mentioned its proper name should be written. UK → United Kingdom.
Done. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain consistent. Either use USA or U.S.
Done. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation in the "Track listings" section seems odd and out of place. Also, maybe catalog numbers could be added to the section?
Done. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishing information should be added to citations.
Done wherever possible. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line "...the rest of the European countries" in the lead seems awkward. Which European countries?
Done. Changed to many other European countries. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For such a popular song there should be many more critical reviews. Were all the reviews positive? If there are some negative reviews I would add them to the article for balance.
Done. Though all the RS had the song as mostly positive. Only negative review I found was at Digital Spy and Sputnikmusic but they were removed as not noteworthy.--Legolas (talk2me) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist2

I have the article a clean up, but the following references need replacing because there are unreliable sources.

Also, this is interscope.com, not lady gaga.com as mislabeled in the references section

— R2 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Legolas (talk2me) 06:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Frcm1988 (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the countries in the lead should be linked, they are to common geographical places.
  • The composition section dosen't seem to be correct in some parts. The sheet have it in common time not compound
  • The metronome is the instrument that measures the beats. I believe the correct word is tempo.
  • The song is written in the key of A minor, "which is typically used in songs with dark undertones", do you have a source for this.
  • The next part: The song begins with a medium tempo followed by electronic chord arrangement and drums which anticipates the lyrics to follow. The opening chords and the melody emphasize the tonic of the leading notes: Am---F♭---G♭---Am---F♭-G♭. This is followed by the sound of dance music, produced by a powerful beat from the instruments and a stuttering hook following the chorus, seems like a copy of the composition section of the "Papa Don't Preach" article. The sheet music dosen't have this, so this fails under original reaserch.
  • In the sample you wrote "which plays the chorus, where Gaga's voice spans from G3 to C5", how do you know her voice spans that range in the chorus, according to the sheet music that range is for the entire song not only the chorus.
  • Online magazines and reviewers like Allmusic and Popmatters don't go italicised.
  • This sentence: Gaga became the first artist since Madonna's 2006 single "Sorry", I think is odd, it sounds like Sorry is the artist.
  • You have to be consisted with the numbers in the chart performance, for example you have: debuted at number thirty and the song debuted at number 41, choose only one format.
  • The countries listed for Europe should be in alphabeticall order.
  • I think the succession boxes are too long, it should be trimed down. There is no need to have every chart listed.
  • I don't know if this is a requierement for GA, but the references need to be corrected. Many of them have the wrong names, for example "Lady Gaga throws off Silbermond from the top", I couldn't find it in the article, the correct one is "Swiss Singles Top 100: Issue Date: Sunday March 15th, 2009.
  • Some of the publishers are incorrect too, for example the BBC is not the publisher for the UK Singles Chart, is the The Official Charts Company.
Done --Legolas (talk2me) 06:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of references is quite shaky. Dates should be (October 25, 2008) for the publishing date and "Retrieved on October 25, 2008" for the retrieve date. Check to the italics on publishers. Websites, news channels usually aren't in italics. Magazines, newspapers, books usually are. You also need to remove the image of her performing life. Absolutely no fair use rational would be sufficient to support that particular image of a living person. — R2 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League 2008–09 knockout stage edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 I have been working on summaries for the Champions League matches and would like to see how the page could be improved in terms of references, prose and also finding free images.

Thanks, 03md 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boho, County Fermanagh 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 massively researched and expanded from its original form (pre-2009 or so); I'd like to get some input from other editors on what they think of the standard and how it could be improved.

Thanks, Fattonyni (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into building this article up from a stub, and the active editors are to be congratulated. I would probably grade it B at the moment, but it is could be brought up to GA quite quickly if attention is given to the points listed below.

  • The pictures are wonderful, very evocative and a great asset to the article.
  • Although in many ways informative, the general tone of the prose is ofter unencyclopedic. It is sometimes the language of a tourist brochure or publicity handout. Examples:-
    • "Boho also boasts a fine array of flora and fauna, some of which is unique..." etc (encyclopedic = "Boho has varieties of fauna and fauna, some of which are unique...")
    • "Other interesting geological features..." etc (encyclopedic = "Other features...")
    • "...the Boho area has an amazing diversity of..." etc (encyclopedic = "the Boho area has many...")
    • "...the pub boasts an impressive open hearth..." (encyclopedic = leave it out) You will need to go through the whole article to check this type of writing which would be fine in a magazine but not for an encyclopedia.
  • I'm not sure about some of your sources. What makes Family Tree DNA a reliable source? Some references are not formatted properly – [48], [49], [50] for example. Irelandseye.com is the publisher of the "Irish Fairies: Changelings" article - what makes this source reliable?
  • Some whole paragraphs are without any citation at all, for example the first and 2nd paras of the "Flora" section,and the first and second paragraphs of "Folk tales". Other paragraphs are very lightly referenced, with just a single citation.
  • Sometimes, citations do not specifically support statements in the article. For example the specific statement "The positive side to this low intensity agriculture is that Boho still retains examples of environmentally important species that are in decline on a national scale, such as rich hay meadows, pastures and semi-natural habitats." is cited to [35] and [36], neither which relates to the statement except in a very broad and general way.
  • There is overdetailing, particularly in the "Harvesting hay" and "Folk tales sections". The section listing other places called Boho is completely inconsequential, unless there is evidence that these places have a known link to Boho, Fermanagh. The information you have included concerning a school seven miles from Boho, in Enniskillin, also seems out of place in this article.

I hope that these points give you some ideas as to how to continue the good work, and I hope you will do so, as potentially this is a delightful article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo (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 mainly want to see what I can do for it in order to reach it up to Good Article status. I've recently been adding/improving references and adding bits of information here and there in order to reach it up to B class from Start class. Thank you!

Thanks, I'mperator 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • This website may be useful for research. I'll let Brian share his review before I take a close look so there are no redundancies. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: (Thanks, Erik, for the additional information)

As the nominator's aim is to get this to Good Article standard, I looked at some of the many existing GA film articles. My view is that at present this article requires much work before it can realistically aspire to the standard of the existing film GAs. Here are points which need attention:-

  • Images: What is the basis for the assumption that Vertigo is out of copyright? The image licensing is wierd – in each case one licence says they are out of copyright, another gives consent to use by the copyright holder. I have not seen this form of licencing in any of the firm articles I've looked at. I think an acknowledged WP image expert ought to take a look.
  • Lead: on the short side, and with some prose errors, e.g. "starring" and "costars" in the same sentence, doubtful use of "whom", and "is not who she claimed to be" (tenses conflict).
  • Plot: at almost 1,000 words this is decidely on the long side for film articles – most at GA are no more than 700 to 800 words. There is some loose writing, e.g. phrases like "much later" (how long is "much"?), and the summary is quite confusing at times. Here is a passage I found hard to untangle: "Judy writes him a letter in which she admits (in voice-over) that she was in fact the woman that he knew as "Madeleine," but was not the real woman herself. Elster bribed her to act as mentally unstable when in fact the real "Madeleine" fell from the tower and was already dead when she was thrown from the tower by her husband. Elster had hired Scottie to follow the false Madeleine simply in order to have someone reputable to corroborate his claims of his wife's suicidal tendencies." There are other passages I found similarly opaque. This section needs considerable editing, including excision of small detail and a clearer exposition of what is, I admit, a convoluted plot.
  • The article does not have a cast list, which seems to be a feature of nearly all film GAs.
  • Likewise, there is no analysis section, which is apparently an essential feature of all film articles
  • Both the Restoration and the Locations sections are overdetailed, the latter especially so, with its lengthy bullet-point list. These sections should be substantially cut down, to restore some balance to the article.
  • The Popular culture section is essentially a list of trivial facts associated, often tangentially, with the film. Wikipedia does not generally approve of trivia lists, even if called something else. Few if any of these facts give any greater understanding of the film, and I would suggest it should be ditched altogether.
  • References: I would suggest that you list a bibliography, instead of incorporating it in the references list. The general format of book citations should be e.g. "Aulier, p. 30". Can you also explain ref [22], which cites something to "Katz"?
  • Prose generally: I've mentioned a few problems, but I feel that the prose generally needs some attention. The first line of the plot section is incomprehensible as it stands. Perhaps a fresh pair of eyes should look at it.

I hope these criticisms will not discourage you from working on the article to bring it up to standard. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


WikiGuy86 comments:

  • Infobox needs a little work. For example, I personally use a reference anytime I list a film's budget.
  • Lead section could be a bit stronger. Since it's the first thing people see when they come to the page, it should really be a summation of the work throughout. (Production, Original box office performance, restoration, etc.)
  • Excessive number of images on page. They seem to be planted all over the page, yet none are production stills, so there isn't really much use for so many.
  • Plot needs a little work. It could stand to be tightened and shortened.
  • As well-known and influential as the musical score is, its section definitely needs to be improved upon.
  • The American Film Institute bullet points should be written into sentences in the Re-evaluation section. I don't think Wikipedia encourages anything being listed on pages, so it'd be hard to get a GA evaluation with any material written in that style.
  • All bullet points in Filming locations section need to be written in paragraph form.
  • The In popular culture section should probably be turned into a Cultural influence section. I suggest organizing all listed works in chronological order, then re-writing in paragraph form, and finding references for each work.

Hope this helps. I've actually been meaning to work on some of Hitchcock's film pages as well, and I've been telling myself I'm going to try and get the North by Northwest page to GA/FA by the end of the year. You get so sidetracked on Wikipedia, though! WikiGuy86 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Denning, Baron Denning edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it up to FA. A previous review was done before the GA, and those two both helped shiny everything up. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley (talk · contribs)

Good stuff, and a good read! Generally there are a lot of semi colons in this piece. You might perhaps consider chopping some of the relevant sentences into two sentences. Otherwise, only a few pernickety points on grammar, usage etc.:

*Quotation marks: you have used the English version (single quotes) rather than the American (double) – but the latter is the Wikipedia standard.

  • "A draper by profession" – "by profession" seems unnecessary.
  • "but he accepted anyway" – a little informal for encyclopedic use? Perhaps "nevertheless" or some such?
  • "…due to a systolic heart murmur" – traditional grammar would require this to be "owing to" – and "because of" is plainer than either.
  • "…shortly after completing one, a German aeroplane dropped a bomb" – the plane didn't complete the bridge – suggest "shortly after one was completed…"
  • "Applied Mathematics … Pure Mathematics … Geology" – are the capitals desirable?
  • "only been given Royal Assent a few days before" - suggest "been given Royal Assent only a few days before"
  • "From 1937 until 1944 he acted as Chancellor of the Diocese of Southwark, and from 1942 to 1944 was Chancellor of the Diocese of London." – was the former merely an acting appointment?
  • "His work as a divorce judge was relatively sound;" – POV – needs substantiating.
    Substantiated in the next bit of the sentence, surely? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Maybe - but look out at GA review! Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already been through it, and with a wonderfully thorough reviewer :). Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"led to Denning being invited in 1949" – grammatically, gerund needed here – "Denning's being invited…"

  • "…claimant would have to prove their injuries were due to war service before they would be granted" – singular/plural confusion here – suggest pluralising the lot: "…claimants woud have to prove…"
  • "The British Legion chose 73 cases and asked Denning to let the legion present them outside court time" – I can't quite work out what "outside court time" means here – can you spell it out for laymen like me?
  • "After less than five years as a judge" – "fewer" would be grammatically corrrect.
  • " had a personal license" – the noun is "licence" in ordinary English usage, though I am quite prepared to be told this is the correct legalese.
    No idea; I'll go with your spelling, my spellchecker allows both. The only confusing legalese word is "judgement", really (or judgment, rather :P). Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "judgment" (always go for the shorter word) but either is okay according to the OED and Chambers. What you lawyers prefer is not for us laymen to say. Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the thing; when talking about legal decisions (court judgments) it must always be judgment, never judgement. Wonderfully fun at GA/PR/FAC, as I'm sure you can imagine. Trying to explain to a dozen users why you've used judgement in some places and judgment in others gets tiring. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*" altered on what grounds hospital staff" – suggest "altered the grounds on which…." – and semi colon after it needs to be a comma.

  • " (where judges had a rota for taking cases) assigned cases…" "he assigned…" would help the eye here, perhaps.
  • " He made the leading judgment…" – Denning not the the Lord Chancellor – suggest "Denning" not "He" to avoid ambiguity.
  • "…and, appropriately, dissented…" POV – perhaps "characteristically" might just squeeze in.
  • "… morals of ministers was not their concern" – "were not", I think.
  • " as such, he sent a letter of resignation…" – an odd construction – perhaps "therefore he sent…"?
  • " involved him speaking…" another gerund – either "involved his speaking" or "involved him in speaking".
  • " with people queueing outside Her Majesty's Stationery Office to buy copies" [not a criticism, but you don't add that HMSO opened its bookshop doors at midnight to satisfy public demand for the report the moment it was out of embargo. I worked for HMSO and know this by personal info, so it is inadmissible – but may, if you think it of any interest, be verifiable from some proper source.]
  • " The success of these lectures led to him being invited…" another gerund – "his being" would be grammatically correct.
  • " Denning became possibly the most well known judge" – "most well" should be "best", I suggest.

I see you have not mentioned Denning's ruling against Ken Livingstone's "Fares Fare" policy in the 1980s, for which many Londoners will not forget or forgive him, but let that pass. An admirable article, and I'm sure it will go well. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forti edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a current good article, and I would like to improve it to featured article standard. I've never taken an article through a FA nomination before, so really any feedback and advice would be much appreciated!

Thanks, --Diniz(talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of this, I think I'll pretend it's an FAC so I'll compare it to the FAC criterion (I won't review sentence by sentence, I'm not good at that kind of thing):
References: Referencing in itself looks fine, same standard used throughout, the only problem is "F1 Rejects". In a recent post by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), who checks the sources regulary at FAC, she says: To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. A further complication is that interviews are considered a primary source and should be used with caution
I'll have a look at all of my references and see if the F1 Rejects ones can be phased out. It will be difficult to completely remove them, however, without also removing information from the article. I think the site owners have access to period Autosport magazines, which would certainly be good for me!--Diniz(talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead looks fine size, no reason to add or take away.
I really think the graph should be in the 1996 season, seeing as it concentrates on the 1996 season as a whole.  
"Forti appears in the PlayStation video game Formula 1, the first in a l..." - that to me just shouts out trivia. After all, every team is featured on the PlayStation games. If we to mention every single game a Ferrari F1 car was in or something we'd get a list that's very long.  
I don't think "dead/red links" are ever questioned at FAC, but might be worth creating stubs for some (I wouldn't mind lending in a hand and creating a few stubs along the way as well!)
I think I can create articles for Vittorio Zoboli, Nicola Tesini, Fernando Croceri, Enrico Debenedetti and Nino Fama, but probably not any of the other redlinks without more information.--Diniz(talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of structure, that's all I have. If it did happen to fail it's first FAC, don't be disheartened... it took me three FAC's with 1995 Japan before it was rewarded with the shiny star! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

See my comment to DMN above. I don't think this website can pass the criterion of reliability as he quoted above, so I'll try to remove as many of these references as I can. It's a shame, though, as I've never encountered any factual errors in the website, and it's the only good online source of information for many obscure F1 drivers and teams.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AtlasF1 subsequently merged with Autosport, one of the UK's (and worldwide) best-known and widely published motorsport magazine, so all Atlas material has this 'seal of approval'. This reference can be replaced if need be, however, with the one immediately below it in the footnotes list.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the website for Autocourse, the well-respected and established motorsport annual. The website was working when I last checked it a couple of weeks ago, so I imagine it should come back online soon. In the meantime, I'll see what web.archive.org can do... --Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An archiveurl parameter is now in operation for that reference.--Diniz(talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)  [reply]
  • Formula 1 Review: Forti – Constanduros, Bob. Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 71 .. is this a book or a magazine? We need a publisher
  • Same for 1995 Grands Prix - Argentine Grand Prix – Constanduros, Bob; Hamilton, Maurice and Henry, Alan. Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 103.
  • Same for 1996 Grands Prix - Monaco Grand Prix – Constanduros, Bob; Hamilton, Maurice and Henry, Alan. Henry (ed.) (1996), p. 147
  • Same for Storm Clouds Gather? The State of Formula One – Henry, Alan. Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 38
These last four all refer to the relevant Autocourse annuals (1995 and 1996) given in the "Books" section immediately below the footnotes section. There may be a better way of writing the reference, as I tried to make it more specific instead of just giving the general editor for the entire volume.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)  [reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
For the Autocourse stuff, I think you're trying to give too much info in the citation. I believe (Ealdgyth may be able to correct me) that it's sufficient to give the author (or editor, in this case) name, year and page number in the citation, with full details of the book in the list of references. That's enouhg for another researcher to find and check it. I don't think you need to specify for each citation which article within the book it comes from or who wrote it - unless there's more than one possibility on the page. So for these it would be 'Henry ed. (1995) p.88' etc. as a citation. The only exception I would make to that would be if I were quoting an opinion, where I might say 'Bob Constanduros says that "Button's really cool" (Henry ed. (2009) p.35'. 4u1e (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I've left a message on Ealdgyth's talk page requesting her opinion on the matter.--Diniz(talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Greer 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'd like to get it promoted to Featured Article status. It is presently a listed Good Article.

Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 13:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

I don't know a lot about baseball (I've learned most of what I know from Wikipedia articles), but I found this article informative and generally well-written. I do have some concerns, however. Some are quite minor, others will require rather more work.

  • My main problem is with the History section, which in my view is overdetailed and therefore much too long. At around 1,800 words it represents more than half the article outside the lead. A reasonable summary of the stadium's history does not need to include so much minor detail about each stage of its development; I would recommend you try to reduce it to a succinct account at around half the present length. There is possibly further overdetailing in Other events section
  • Although the prose is generally engaging, it tends sometimes towards sports journalism/baseball terms. I realise this won't be a problem to most of your readers, but the encyclopedia has to aim for a wider audience. I'm not suggesting elimination of all the specialist terms, but hear are a few which struck me either as too informal, or which had me totally mystified:-
    • (Lead) "it hosted"
    • (History) "on the road"
    • (All-Star games): "recorded the save" and "scored the loss"
    • (Major league games):"Among those on hand for the game" and "faced off against"
  • The article is well illustrated, mainly with your own photographs, but placement could be improved. Why not try a few on the left?
  • Questions may be asked about the reliability and impartiality of some of the sources used, around 50% of which are connected to Nashville Sounds.
  • Some minor points:-
    • Citing the capacity in lead is unnecessary, as the same information is linked in the body of the article.
    • Can the "baseball ballpark" repetition be avoided? It rather jars, as you begin reading the article. Perhaps "baseball park", or "baseball venue"?
    • You should wikilink first mention of All-Star games
    • Why does a baseball stadium need an organist?

I hope that you find these observations helpful. I do not keep a long-term watch on articles I review here, but will always return to the review if you ask via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Act edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 thinking of taking it to FAC, but am not sure it's got enough context in it for non-horse people to understand. Prose and flow concerns also gratefully appreciated!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, and I had no trouble understanding it.

Lead

  • "In 1913, the Jockey Club and the owners of the General Stud Book passed a regulation, named after the proposer of the Act, Lord Jersey, that prohibited the registration of horses in the General Stud Book unless all their ancestors had also been registered in that book." - Suggestion for better flow and to avoid repetition: " In 1913, the Jockey Club and the owners of the General Stud Book passed a regulation, named after its proposer, Lord Jersey, that prohibited the registration of horses in the book unless all of their ancestors had also been registered". I think it's clear from context that "registered" meant registered in the General Stud Book rather than registered elsewhere.
  • "Although American breeders protested the Act... " - I believe "act" should have a lower-case "a" except where it is part of the formal title. A few more of these are lurking in the article.
  • Book titles generally appear in italics. I changed a couple, then saw many more instances and went ahead and italicized them all.

Background

  • "The rules for registration allowed a horse to be registered if one of two conditions were met, the first being that all the horse's ancestors were registered in the General Stud Book. The second option was that the horse was bred outside of Britain or Ireland and was registered in the stud book of its country of origin." - Suggestion for tightening: "The rules allowed a horse to be registered if all of the horse's ancestors were registered in the General Stud Book or if it had been bred outside of Britain or Ireland and was registered in the stud book of its country of origin."

Repeal

  • Another reason was that it made little sense to exclude some of the most successful racehorses in Europe from registration, which just hurt the British and Irish breeders in the long run." - Maybe this could be shortened to "Another reason was that it made little sense to exclude some of the most successful racehorses in Europe from registration". The "second-rate" sentence in the "Effects" section makes clear the negative effect on British and Irish horse breeders.
  • You might consider merging the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end with the paragraph above it.

Citations

  • I'm used to seeing commas separating the parts of the citations. An example would be "Willett, Classic Racehorse, pp. 71–74".
I've never had any concerns with this style at FAC Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 5 needs a publication date.

Images

  • These look good to me, and the licenses seem fine.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above, thanks for the very helpful suggestions! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jericho 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 want to try to get the article to FLC, and I need major help with the grammar of the episode summaries, and to a lesser extent, the lead. Any help given would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

  • Structure: you have said that your aim is to bring this to FL standard. I suggest that you go to the FL page and see how featured lists of TV episodes are generally structured. Pick two or three to look at, because they are not all the same, but the various "Lost" series may be a good place to look first. You will see that these articles tend to have separate sections for Cast & crew, Reception, Media history (DVD etc). You are cramming everything into the lead, which ought to act as a overall summary of the article, not as a general ragbag of assorted facts.
  • What is the purpose of the citations for each of the producers listed in the first line? Why do they need individual citing in this way?
    • I could not find a citation of all of them to one particular article, so I did an exhaustive search until I could find all that had been labeled as executive producers.
  • [5] is a citation to another Wikipedia article
    • It is actually a citation to the episode itself; I believe that it generally considered acceptable.
  • Some of the sources look distinctly dodgy. For example ref [11] ("Gawker"). What makes this reliable? I suspect the question may be asked about one or two other sources, if Ealdgyth gets here.
    • I looked through WP:RSN archives before I used it, and so I found that it was reliable per this.
  • I am unsure there is sufficient justification for the use of this NFU image. Since it consists solely of a stylised rendering of the name "Jericho", can it really be said to increase significantly the reader's understanding of the article? I recommend you get an opinion on this from an image reviewer.
    • I'm not really sure, and you are probably right. I'll wait for a third opinion on this one.
  • List headings: one of the columns is headed "Morse Code". What does this mean - it's not explained anywhere as far as I can see?
    • I have an explanation in the caption, but I'll add another footnote.
    • Does the footnote already attached to the "Morse Code" column not explain this? If so, how can I make it more clear?
  • The numbering columns should be properly headed, rather than by #. Is it necessary to have two numbering systems for the episodes?
  • The episode summaries need to be looked at by someone who knows the series – these synopses mean very little to me. The prose is quite poor in a number of places; here are some examples (not by any means exhaustive):-
    • (episode 1): "differing stories on where he had been" → "different stories about where he had been"
    • (3): "Robert Hawkins is shown handling a metal canister with an NBC suit on." → "Robert Hawkins is shown in an NBC suit, handling a metal canister".
    • (3): "The town follows Jake's plan to search for information, and Jake finds a plane that had emergency landed, returning with its flight recorder." This is two sentences: "The town agrees Jake's plan to search for information. Jake finds a plane that has carried out an emergency landing, and returns with its flight recorder."
    • (4): "Hawkins sends an email to an unknown recipient" → ""Hawkins sends an email to an unidentified recipient"
    • (9): "who orders that the bridge not be destroyed" → "who gives orders against destroying the bridge"
    • (11): "who is then elected mayor" → "who is subsequently elected mayor"
    • (13): "Dale tries to steal a governor for the windmill, but is caught and about to be executed when a group from Jericho's neighboring town, New Bern, save them." → "Dale tries to steal a governor for the windmill but is caught, and is about to be executed when a group from Jericho's neighboring town, New Bern, saves him." (or "saves the Jericho party." )

With some further careful work there is no reason why this article shouldn't rise to the level you are aiming at. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I shall go through and copy edit myself a few times and see if I can get another party to do so well. Thank you for your review! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live action role-playing game edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really appreciate any feedback that will help the article become a successful featured article candidate. I think that the writing style, referencing, and completeness are all at the "good" stage but need work before featuring, and I'm not sure how to progress them so would love some input on those areas, as well as any other issues that jump out.

Cheers, Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber edit

  • Lede looks promising - need to watch repetition, as the word 'character' is used 3 times in first two sentences. maybe try and change the last one if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Any thoughts on another way of saying "in character"? Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried removing the second "character". Think it retains its meaning. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything much about venues or locations used - i.e. many are in woodland or forest reserves (?) What other specific locations? famous historical houses? Anyone lucky enough to play in a castle? (maybe in Europe only) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There are currently a few mentions of venue but they are very general: "can involve elaborate venues", "may be played in a public or private area", "the environment is sometimes decorated to resemble the setting", as well as the photo of the custom-built medieval venue. Mentions of more specific venues could add flavour, so long as they're weighted appropriately. To my knowledge, larps are played in public reserves and forest, private houses and bars, camps, fields, halls... really, you can play them anywhere. And yes, a number of European larps are played in historical venues like castles, see "Treasure Trap, formed in 1982 at Peckforton Castle" for example. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose in History section is a bit choppy. I might have a go bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the help. It's probably the weakest section in terms of prose. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa language edit

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

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

..."Ottawa language" passed Good Article about a month ago and I am interested in taking it to Featured Article. Ottawa is a prominent dialect of Ojibwe, an indigenous language of eastern North America. I think the article is reasonably comprehensive - the one component I could add would be audio recordings, but it will take a while to get access to a fluent speaker. When describing linguistic features of Ottawa I have tried to present elements that make Ottawa distinctive. I have tried to make as much of the article as possible understandable to non-linguists and non-specialists in Ojibwe but inevitably some sections are more complex in that regard, in particular "Phonology" and "Grammar" - I would be interested in advice on how to maintain readability particularly in the places that might be challending for non-specialists.

I have tried to avoid including material that overlaps with the general "Ojibwe" articles, which are of variable quality and have some organizational problems, but there are probably places where there are bits and pieces that could be excised or cross-referred to other Ojibwe articles. I have Split several sections, notably Phonology and Morphology, so that some of the 'heavier' prose has been booted out to those articles, and I will try and work them up later. Sooo, any suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks! John Jomeara421 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V.
These have been cleaned up. John Jomeara421 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have restructured the entry for this site clarifying that it is the companion web site for a published enyclopedic book that is the standard source for general information about languages. It's not perfect (when you have some 7000 entries, including many for poorly documented languages and dialects, it's hard to be perfect) but it is the most widely accepted source. John Jomeara421 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Re your second question... Ethnologue is a pretty widely accepted source for basic language information. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with it (they're linguists, so there are plenty of people who argue with the ways Ethnologue has divided up languages, etc.), but it is pretty much the standard source (and if people want to disagree over something, Ethnologue is what they disagree over). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that seems pretty well done. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • If at all possible, could there be an image in the upper right corner of the lead? Perhaps a photo of some native speakers or the map?

I've experimentally moved the map up to the top; an editor very kindly contributed a scanned page from a 19th century book by an Ottawa speaker, which I place in the 'Grammar' section. I tried it out up at the top, but something non-verbal looks better.

  • This is is a matter of personal preference, but I always think the lead reads better with as few references as possible - since the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, all the refs should be repeated there anyway. Quotes or extraordinary claims should be cited even in the lead in any case.
  • The lead needs to be cleaned up, and I've started to work on that. It makes to write up the lead properly after everything else is in place. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are places in the article that need to provide context to the reader - for example I might add either US and Canada or at least North America to the first sentence - not everyone is as familar with US states and Canadian provinces. So perhaps something like Ottawa (also spelled Odawa) is a dialect of the Ojibwe language spoken in southern Ontario in Canada and northern Michigan in the United States.[1]
  • I've cleaned that one up, and will look for other places where context could be improved. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, and 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 Rama and Curve Lake seem to only be in the lead. The etymolgy of the word Anishinaabe also seems a bit too detailed for the lead.
  • OK, have taken out Rama/Curve Lake references (not needed anyway) and have moved the detailed analysis of the names elsewhere, leaving a shorter sentence behind. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the writing system is not there that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The map shows a prominent area of apparent native speakers in Oklahoma and nearby states, but this is not mentioned in the article per se - only in the infobox, map caption, and a note.
  • I have incorporated text on Oklahoma, supported by a reference. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in places where it is clear only part of a sentence is quoted, you do not need to show elipsis The relatively low degrees of mutual intelligibility between nonadjacent Ojibwe dialects led Rhodes and Todd (1981) to suggest that Ojibwe "...could be said to consist of several languages...".[13] could just be led Rhodes and Todd (1981) to suggest that Ojibwe "could be said to consist of several languages".[13]
  • The hardest standard for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, professional prose. This reads decently, but needs some work. One example: Ottawa communities for which the most detailed linguistic information has been recorded are Walpole Island in southwestern Ontario near Detroit, and Wikwemikong on Manitoulin Island, with lesser amounts of research conducted at Cape Croker and Saugeen (both on the Bruce Peninsula south of Manitoulin Island).[16] This needs to make clearer that all of these places are in Ontario and repeats things needlessly, so perhaps something like Ottawa communities for which the most detailed linguistic information has been recorded are all in Ontario. The two most researched are Walpole Island in the southwest near Detroit and Wikwemikong on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron; soth of the latter on Bruce Peninsula are Cape Croker and Saugeen, each with lesser amounts of research.[16] Still not great, but provides more context and hopefully flows better.
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I have revised that sentence accordingly, and will look for other places that need similar first aid. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Chippewa is another name for the dialect, should that be in the lead?
  • It's not, but the evident lack of clarity around the fact that some Ottawa speakers call their language "Chippewa" needs to be straightened out. I will work on that. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs more references, for example the 5 syncope points in Phonology have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Yikes, I think referencing for that section was neglected because it ended up as a summary for material that was moved to a separate article. I've furnished the requisite citations, and have gone through the entire article so now think that everything that needs to be referenced is now covered appropriately. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet refs STILL need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See current refs 21-26 (no publisher or aquthor or date if known) and ref 91 (not even a date). These would be problems at FAC. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • OK, I had the full citations in the "References" section but put all web citation details in the footnotes to remove any ambiguity. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 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 ><>°° 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those comments look very helpful. I will go through all of them and see how to improve the article. BTW, I did also peer review an article that had been languishing: Wikipedia:Peer review/C. Rajagopalachari/archive1 Jomeara421 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thaqt and glad my comments were helpful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon and the Sandals edit

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

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

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should be longer per WP: Lead. Try adding a short overview of reception.
  • For only 2 volumes the plot sections seems to be very long.
  • If if you know information about the creation of the manga it would be good to add it. Since the publication section is a bit short merge it with the section about creation once it is created. I guess it could be named Development and publication.
Agreed on the plot (I wrote it to replace the incorrect one there, but left a note on the talk page that it needs paring down). I will recheck the volumes tonight to see if there is any production information, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Rams 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'm looking to improve this article from good article status to featured article status.

Thanks,  The Windler talk  04:01, 21 March 2009 (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. 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adelaide Rams/archive2.

Aglossa cuprina 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 this particular animal has little information on it, and we would like help in organizing and conveying the information in the article as efficiently as possible to increase awareness and maybe spur on new research. ANY critique is welcomed. From grammar to subtitle heading changes to reference format to new research that we overlooked, we appreciate all commentary. Please help us out. While this is a part of a school project, it's also helping to bolster the field of Entomology; you are doing us a great service.

Thanks, Nanayaagh (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of inline references, for example the first three subsections of Description, the first paragraph of Forensic importance, and the first two paragraphs of Research each have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Drop the Conlcusion section - this is a Wikipedia article, not a term paper (even if it is written for a college assignment, it should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style
  • Add a caption to the second image please
  • I would explain the actual name in Taxonomy - Aglossa seems to mean "no tongue", what does cuprina mean?
  • Refs come after punctuation, no space, and there is a space after the ref, so fix things like ...formerly named Aglossa pinguinalis[2][3], ...
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that impede the flow - these shoiuld either be combined with others or perhaps expanded. For example the Description section does not need to be divided into four subsections, two of which are just one sentence long.
  • Use {{convert}} to give both metric and English units. So The moth has a wingspan that averages about an inch and a half, and ... could be The moth has a wingspan that averages about 1.5 inches (38 mm) , and ...
  • I would use the cite templates, like {{cite book}} for refs to make them more consistent.
  • Article seems to contradict itself Research on the species' life cycle has yet to be completed, ... but later in the same section The life cycle of A. cuprina has been recorded to range from approximately 12 months to over 2 years depending on weather and temperature conditions. and the lead speaks of its holometabolous life cycle
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. But holometabolous life cycle is only in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Be careful with WP:JARGON
  • Watch peacock words - the lead says it is unusual as a scavenger, but then doesn't seem to explain why in the article.
  • Language could be cleaned up a bit - two examples: At the egg stage, A. cuprina is of a rounded oval shape, and gives off a white color. could be just The egg of A. cuprina is a rounded white oval. and this - surely "Grain Moths" is meant in Aglossa cuprina has similar feeding habits to those of the Grains Moths.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You guys managed to pull out a really nice article, especially considering how little information you had. I only have a few suggestions. Firstly, the information on the life cycle of A. caprealis doesn't seem like it would belong under research. I understand why you put it there, but it seems like a lot of extra information when the only part of it that ties it to "current research" is the first sentence. The rest of it seems to be extra information that doesn't really relate to the current research on this particular species. The only other suggestion is that you refrain from using words like "groundbreaking", because it sounds like it has a biased connotation and might not be an neutral POV. But other than that, good job on what you have! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest expanding the taxonomy section, if possible. Try making a list of sources and checking off the ones you've exhausted. (Coming from someone outside the project) Ceranthor 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry it took me a little while to get over here. I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't even begin to pass judgement on whether it is comprehensive or not. From a layman's perspective, however, here are some issues I think should be fixed.

  • In your references list I see Clark, Dale. “Moths of Dallas County, Texas.” 8 Sept. 2008. 18 Mar. 2009. Is this from a book, a journal, or a website? It needs a publisher so we can evaluate whether it is reliable.
  • I'm not familiar with this source to be able to judge whether it is reliable or not. Can you provide a little more detail? Aglossa pinguinalis.” Universal Biological Indexer and Organizer. 2009. The Marine Biological Laboratory. 18 Mar. 2009.
  • I'm a little disturbed that several of the sources are so old. Generally, when I see a lot of Google books sources that are 100 years old or more, I suspect that the article isn't truly comprehensive and may be inaccurate - a lot of times more modern research refutes things that had been previously held to be true. I highly encourage the use of libraries with real books that might have been published more recently.
  • What is The BayScience Foundation?
  • Unfortunately, a teacher's lecture is not a reliable source. If the lecture was published somewhere, then it might be. Instead, I'd ask her where she got the information - then you have a new source that has been published and you may find more details than what was examined in class.
  • I can't evaluate this source because I'm not sure if that is a website or a book or something else 1421 Large Tabby Aglossa pinguinalis.” UK Moths: Your guide to the moths of great Britain and Ireland. 2009. Ian Kimber. 18 Mar. 2009
  • In general, if your source is a website (or can be found on a website), include the link so that others can go look.
  • This article is just chock-full of jargon, which tends to scare people like me who have no idea what some of those terms mean. For example, "holometabolous" would likely be enough to make me leave the article. It's good that you are wikilinking some of these words, but we need to explain some of them too.
  • I'm not sure what this actually means - "via any sufficient observation"
  • I think the lead is too short. It should adequately summarize the entire article. (See WP:LEAD)
  • There are a lot of really, really, really, short sections. A section should ideally have more than one or two sentences. This tells me that either a) the article is subdivided too deeply and sections need to be combined or b) the article is not comprehensive and we need to do more research to fill in the gaps.
  • Need citations for the descriptions.
  • The descriptions are very vague. That doesn't really help me figure out what it looks like.
  • Any measurements need to have a corresponding measurement for metric. See
  • The second paragraph of distribution needs citations
  • Can we draw a more specific link in the second paragraph of distribution as to why these moths tend to be around humans?
  • first paragraph of Forensic importance needs citations
  • The forensic importance section seems misplaced as its own section. I suspect that this information would do well in other sections (such as behavior)
  • Research should be retitled Life cycle.
  • First two paragraphs of research need citations.
  • The conclusion section should be removed. Allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. - I see that another reviewer mentioned this last week, yet that section is still there!!!

Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live to Tell edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, just as the "Papa Don't Preach" article I believe this have the potential to become a featured article. I would specially interested in comments about the prose and grammar, as well as to verify the reliability of the sources and references. Any suggestions and comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 13:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Review from Recognizance (talk · contribs) I've never participated in this process before, but I stumbled upon the peer review area and decided to help out. Here are my thoughts:

  • The lead says the video "shows Madonna first image makeover, featuring her with a cleaner look, shoulder-length wavy golden blond hair and subtle make-up". Do you mean it was the first time she "reinvented" her image so to speak, so it was a cleaner look than her previous work? It's unclear.
  • Similarly, the background section says the mood was "inspired by a different facet of her image makeover and her desire to focus on something different". Which facet? Different from what? (If "something different" is a quote it also needs to be marked.)
  • Even sourced it sounds POVish to say "The song is also about childhood scars and had an extreme emotional pitch, achieving it in a divine sense." Unless you mean there's a spiritual aspect, in which case it just needs a little rewording.
  • The music video section hints at the image issue when it says "she toned down her appearance, inspired again by Marilyn Monroe". But this is the first mention of Monroe's name in the article (again?), and as above, don't assume the reader is familiar with Madonna's earlier career - "tone down" relative to what?

So in other words, outside of the New Madonna / Old Madonna thing, you're pretty much FAC-ready as far as I can tell. :) Recognizance (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Pelinka edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very extensive and complete. I think it is an article that has WP:FA potential.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article but I think it needs some work before it is ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Most difficult criteria for most articles to meet is 1a, professional level of English. I think this needs a copyedit after the other issues are addressed. I will pick one sentence from the lead for some examples: As a senior, he was overlooked by many scouts and recruiters at the Division I-level entering his senior season, but his MVP performance in a four-game tournament where he made all 42 of his free throws and impressive senior season statistics propelled him to a highly recruited status. First off this is quite long and could probably benefit from being split into two. It is needlessly repetitive (are all of these needed: "As a senior" and "entering his senior year" and "senior season"?) "propelled him to a highly recruited status" just seems awkward. How about something more like Entering his senior season, Pelinka was overlooked by many Division scouts and recruiters. However, his MVP performance in a four-game tournament, where he made all 42 of his free throws, and his impressive season statistics made him highly recruited by the end of his senior year.
  • The second paragraph in the lead does not use his name once (only "he"). As impressive as his high school basketball career was, does the article really need one of three lead paragraphs solely on his high school career? This is a man who helped take his team to the Final Four three times! See WP:WEIGHT
    • Given Pelinka's athletic accomplishment, his high school career is relevant. He does not have any more high school content than say   Tyrone Wheatley, although Wheatley's is spread out over various paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not have a problem with the level of detail on high school in the lead, just would prefer to see it spread out like Tyrone Wheatley's lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of his mother or any siblings. Even if his mother was absent from and early age, at least say so.
  • More language that needs to be cleaned up: do there need to be three sentences in a row in Education that refer to the Walter Byers Scholarship (in three different ways)? Could these be combined?
  • Or this Pelinka chose to attend Michigan Law School immediately after graduating from his undergraduate program instead of playing basketball in Europe and became a top law school student. could be something like Instead of playing basketball in Europe, Pelinka chose to attend Michigan Law School after graduation and became a top law student. I dropped immediately as we already know he played in the NBA Summer camp and I assume he did not graduate then start law school the next day.
  • Lots of places where you need to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Many places could use years or dates to make things clearer. What year did he graduate from law school? Or this At this time, he first met Arn Tellum and decided not to play basketball.[1] The name is not spelled right - it is Arn Tellem - and there is no context provided. If you don't already know Tellem is a sports agent, this makes no sense. Even if you do know, why did this meeting lead to the decision? Or even identify WJR as a Detroit radio station (you don't have to say it is the Great Voice of the Great Lakes though). Or what year did this take place He then branched out on his own and founded The Landmark Sports Agency.
  • Organization is odd in several places and could be tightened up - so as to be more chronological. I would combine the basketball and education sections. As it is we are told about his HS bball, then college bball, then go back to hs again, then back to college, then on to law school. This is confusing.
    • It is not unusual for an article to organized topically rather than chronologically.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer chronological, but it does not have to be organized that way. I would try to make sure things are as concise as possible. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the focus on Pelinka. Why does the fact that some of his former teammates appeared in a movie that he had absolutely nothing to do with belong in this article?
    • I can not connect him to the movie directly, but nonetheless find the indirect linkage interesting and not too far from the topic at hand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, again this is your call, but my preference is to axe the movie, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much does he make as an agent? If a percentage is standard, say that. As it is the agent section is just sort of "here's a famous player. Pelinka's his agent. Here's some things Pelinka said about this player. Next player." Does he have a reputation as a good agent? A hard bargainer?
    • I do not know what his reputation is in terms of WP:RS, but I do feel that the Boozer situation may be an indicator that he believes in getting his player what they are worth more than he believes in loyatly. In terms of whether he is good, I would imagine that if he has been able to be Kobe's agent he is pretty good. I don't think Kobe would put up with a so-so agent. I will try to find something about agent salaries from a WP:RS, but I believe they make 3-7% of their players' salaries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear a lot of work has gone into this, but it needs a lot of polish and further work to get up to FAC standards. 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 ><>°° 04:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William de Corbeil 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 already had one round back last year, but I've made some additions and corrections and would like to take it to FAC at some point. Prose and prose flow are big concerns, as is any missing context that isn't obvious to a non medievalist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, so far as I can see. Maybe, and just maybe, lenghtening the lead with a few more details, but that's the only thing that comes to mind to me anyway. John Carter (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and illuminating. I did a bit of minor copyediting, and I have a few suggestions for improvement. None is onerous.

Lead

  • "William was soon involved in a dispute over primacy... " - Wikilink primacy?
  • "He was known as a builder, having built the keep of Rochester Castle in England." - To avoid repeating "builder", "build", perhaps "constructed" instead of "build".

Early life

  • "and was present at the translation of the body" - Wikilink translation if that is what is meant?
  • "primacy of the see of Canterbury" - Wikilink see?

Archbishop of Canterbury

  • "The monks of the cathedral chapter and the bishops of the kingdom disagreed on who should be elected; with the bishops insisting on the election of a non-monk, and the monks insisting that they alone had the right to elect the archbishop and that the new archbishop must be a monk." - The "with plus -ing" construction is deprecated. Perhaps this would be better: "The monks of the cathedral chapter and the bishops of the kingdom disagreed on who should be elected. The bishops insisted on electing a non-monk, and the monks insisted that they alone had the right to elect the archbishop and that the new archbishop had to be a monk."
  • "However, only two bishops in either England or Normandy at this time were monks (Ernulf Bishop of Rochester and Serlo Bishop of Séez), and no monk other than Anselm of Canterbury, Ernulf, and Ralph d'Escures had been elected to an English or Norman see since 1091, so recent precedent favored the bishops." - A bit too complex. Suggestion: "However, only two bishops in either England or Normandy were monks (Ernulf Bishop of Rochester and Serlo Bishop of Séez), and no monk other than Anselm of Canterbury, Ernulf, and Ralph d'Escures had been elected to an English or Norman see since 1091. Thus recent precedent favored the bishops."
  • "William refused to concede that Thurstan, archbishop of York, was independent of the see of Canterbury, an attempt by Thurstan to solve the long-running Canterbury-York dispute that dealt with the primacy of Canterbury over York." - The last phrase seems tacked on in an awkward way. Suggestion" "William refused to concede that Thurstan, archbishop of York, was independent of the see of Canterbury. Thurstan had claimed independence as a way to resolve the long-running Canterbury-York dispute dealing with the primacy of Canterbury over York."
  • "William was the first Augustinian consecrated Archbishop in England, a striking break with tradition that had favored monks in the see of Canterbury." - Couldn't an Augustinian be a monk?
  • "However, King Henry I and of the emperor Henry IV, King Henry I's son-in-law managed to persuade the pope... " - There seems to be an extra word here. Delete "of"?
  • "A compromise between York and Canterbury was hammered out" - Slang. Perhaps "was reached"?
  • "allowing York the supervision of the dioceses of Bangor, Chester, and St Aspah" - Wikilink diocese?
  • "the pope nixed it and substituted his own solution" - Slang. Perhaps "the pope rejected it"?
  • "However, this was merely a postponement of the problem, as neither Thurstan or William had renounced their claims." - Subject-verb disagreement. Suggestion: "However, this merely postponed the problem, as neither Thurstan nor William had renounced his claim."
  • "In 1127 the council condemned the purchase of benefices or the entry to clerical orders or of entry to religious houses." - I think this should be re-cast to make clear what was being forbidden. "Benefices" is clear, but "entry to clerical orders" seems a bit vague, and "entry to religious houses" might be misunderstood if taken literally to mean walking through doors into churches.

William an architect

  • Shouldn't the section head have a comma, thus: 'William, an architect?
  • "at Rochester was built within the stone curtain walls" - Wikilink curtain walls?

Footnotes"

  • I'm used to seeing the parts of a footnote separated by commas. It might be that no commas is OK, but I'm not sure.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will, thank you very much. I'll work on these in the next few days. The one reply is that Augustinian's are an order of canons, so they aren't strictly speaking monks. The exact reason why is just one of those weirdnesses of history. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of all of these, if you have time to double check them it'd be great! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Most of the changes look fine to me. On my most recent read-through, I noticed a couple of things I missed on the first round; I thought of a couple of further possible refinements, and I have a question prompted by curiosity.

Titles

  • I think Archibishop of York should have a capital "A" in the lead and elsewhere because it is part of a formal title. In places where "archbishop" is used in a more general sense, it gets a small "a". Probably "Bishop of Durham" and "Bishop of London" in the "Early life" section should get big "B"s on the same grounds, just as Bishop of Rochester does in the next section down. Just plain "bishop" used in a general sense would get a little "b". You might look through the whole article again to make sure the capitalization of the proper-noun titles and lower-casing of the common nouns are correct and consistent.

Early life

  • "Later he became prior of the Augustinian priory at St Osyth in Essex,[7][8][8]." - This one's got a duplicate ref, two 8s.

Archbishop of Canterbury

  • "William refused to concede that Thurstan, archbishop of York, was independent of the see of Canterbury.[10] William refused to concede that Thurstan, archbishop of York, was independent of the see of Canterbury." - Echo sentences. Probably the second one should be deleted since it is the unsourced version.
  • "Thurstan had claimed independence as a way to resolve the long-running Canterbury-York dispute dealing with the primacy of Canterbury over York." - On second thought, this would be even better if one of the Canterbury-York repetitions were deleted, although the link could be kept with a pipe, thus: "Thurstan had claimed independence as a way to resolve the long-running dispute dealing with the primacy of Canterbury over York."
  • "However, this merely postponed the problem, as neither Thurstan or William renounced their claims." - This one hasn't been fixed and still has a subject-verb agreement problem. "Neither" is singular and takes a singular verb, "his". This forces "claims" to become "claim"; i.e. "neither renounced his claim". You might compress the phrase to read: "neither archbishop renounced his claim".

William as an architect

  • The comma question is answered, but on this round I'm noticing that "William" repeats a word from the article title. The Manual of Style suggests avoiding this. A solution might be to shorten the section head to "Architect".

General question

  • It appears that the Canterbury-York compromise gave Canterbury more power than York. I wondered, though, if the dispute ever ended, even centuries later, in a formal declaration that Canterbury had primacy. If so, it might be worth adding the date of any such conclusion. Maybe this could appear in the main text, or maybe it would be better in a footnote. Or maybe it never happened. If so, does a rivalry still exist? Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, it's been quite a few months since this article passed FAC and I would like to keep it as good as possible. In this peer review I would like advise on prose, grammar, punctuation, MoS and citation formatting only. Any other issues can be dealt with on the regular article talk page. The 2008-present section should definitely be checked since it did not exist at the time of the original review.

Thanks, — R2 22:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ambassador of Russia to Austria edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this thru the WP:FL process, and want outside input.

Cheers, Russavia Dialogue 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Imho the first paragraph of the article should be split into short intro and larger 'Historical overview' per WP:LEAD. Besides, there is a small inconsistency in the article regarding the first Soviet ambassador in Austria - in the intro it's said that Yan Berzin was the first while in the list it's one Voldemar Aussem. Alæxis¿question? 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alaexis, I will try to do something with the WP:LEAD here, although I am thinking that as this is technically a list, wouldn't that entail the lead, so to speak? I'm honestly not too sure here, so would need clarification from an editor on that? In regards to Berzin, I too noticed this and have come to the conclusion that Aussem and Ioffe are not regarded as the first "Ambassador" as they were "Plenipotentiary Representatives"; note the short time frame that they were based in Vienna. Perhaps Berzin is regarded the first permanent. I have changed the prose from "Soviet Ambassador" to "Soviet Plenipotentiary". Do you think that would fix this problem? Of course am open to suggestions. --Russavia Dialogue 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very nice article and it could be taken to WP:FLC soon. Compared to other quality FLs, the lenth of the lead is just fine, and it has excellent information. The only thing I'm concerned about is the references. First, are there any that are in English? It's okay that they are limited, but the refs for the list should not be exclusively in Russian. Also, it's fine to have general references; they do not need to be repeated for each section, though what you have is not bad. I have removed t the unnecessary template at the very bottom of the article and I made minor copyedits to the lead. Good luck! Reywas92Talk 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I tried finding non-Russian refs before I placed this into mainspace, but couldn't find anything which would be suitable for this particular list. There are, however, plenty of references for individual ambassadors in numerous books, detailing parts of their careers in relation to events such as the Crimean War, and they would definitely be suitable for referencing on their individual articles, but nothing I could find gave any of the details which are featured in the article as it is. The search is kept going though in the hope that something will turn up. I guess because of the nature of the topic, and the details contained therein, that sources will likely be in Russian, or perhaps something in German. I'll keep searching. --Russavia Dialogue 11:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Ilyichev edit

The table lists Ambassador Ilyichev's tenure as 1953-1956 but then we also know that Austria emerged as independent state in 1955. This discrepancy should be explained, I suggest a footnote from Ilyichev's entry (it's too far from the text in the lead). What was his official title before the Austrian State Treaty? NVO (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ru-wiki [3] says he was a verkhovny commissar. Here's a tidbit (pp.28-29) of a commentary to Khrushev's memoirs explaining it in English. NVO (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for picking that up NVO, and for the source too, I will add it to the footnotes now. --Russavia Dialogue 18:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added it, and have adjusted the dates also. Does it look ok now? --Russavia Dialogue 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine to me. BTW, I checked the Western press of the period... he appears to be quite a mean character (similar to the Soviet blokes from The Third Man but well into Khruschev period). NVO (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street (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 a lot of work has gone into it and I think with a little more guidance and some suggestions, it will be ready for a GA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thoughts:

  • Needs a larger lead section to summarize the article body better
Will work on this.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short paragraphs in "Plot" could be stitched together for fuller paragraphs
Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar stitching could be done for other short paragraphs throughout the article
Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider collapsing subsections in "Reaction" to one large section (since a paragraph per subsection isn't ideal)
Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox clean-up: Shorter list of names (perhaps just Douglas and Sheen), link to Cinema of the United States, remove "Followed by" field since nothing is being made actively
  • Move "Themes" up above "Reaction" since it's a sub-topic that's more transcendental than contemporary reviews
Done.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the extent of sourcing in the article? Feel like there's anything more to dig up? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've dug up most of the resources I could find. The only thing really left is Stone's commentary for the DVD. I also need to flesh out the sources from Riordan's book as there are multiple page numbers, etc. Other than that, there isn't too much else out there for an older film like this that I could find that didn't already repeat what was found.--J.D. (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, and great job with the stitching. Can this be done for the paragraphs in "Themes", too? Also, it may be worth revising the wording of the "Sequel" section to sound less like, "It's happening." (For example, is it really "currently" in pre-production? Seems more like it was in that stage once upon a time.) Any further suggestions I have will be for smaller items. I'll try to evaluate the article for these when I have time... if the PR remains quiet, feel free to nudge me on my user talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I condensed the paragraphs in the Themes section and tweaked some of the sentences in the Sequel section. So far, there is no word if the film is official in limbo so I think it's safe to say that it is still being developed.--J.D. (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film cannot have been in pre-production since 2007; it's defined as the stage right before production. From the looks of the citation, it was in the development stage and was being fast-tracked, but the latter action did not work out. So my best guess is that it's in mere development or placed on the backburner. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sulbutiamine edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 no more available resources on sulbutiamine. I used every available journal article that I could find. Sulbutiamine is not very well-studied, and I don't see how the article can get much longer. There is no available data on the pharmacokinetics of sulbutiamine. If necessary, I need to know how I can continue to develop the article because I'm out of ideas. I don't want to stray too far from the topic into lengthy secondary discussions. I would also value any criticism of the style and format (article structure, sentence structure, grammar, etc).

Thanks, Firewall62 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have truly exhausted the available reliable references then it is very important not to add additional material just to make the article longer. One thing the article should have is what you explained above about the lack of information about it. That seems rather important along with why it hasn't gotten much attention and whether or not it is in mainstream use, if references exist to document that. I see some bits about the lack of information, but that seems important enough to make it to the lead section. It's also a little hard to tell from the article how often it is prescribed, is it a drug that needs prescribing or is it available over the counter. Of course that should be in more general terms about its regulatory status around the world, not just the US. The therapeutic uses section doesn't mention the dosing required for those uses, but that should be there if possible especially given the conflicting dosing information reported later. Finally, expand the lead section to at least two full paragraphs that properly summarize the most important information in the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD for more. - Taxman Talk 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Gate edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and I would welcome any suggestions or comments to improve it so that it will be ready for a GA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Seegoon
  • When you mention The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows in the opening paragraph, could you clarify that it is fictional? I know it is sorta obvious, but it's equally conceivable that a film be made about a real book and author.
  • The first sentence of the lead's second paragraph snakes a bit.
  • "The Ninth Gate managed to turn a profit" — how about a 'however' or 'nevertheless' in there somewhere, to indicate this being the case in spite of its poor reception?
  • I don't know what the manual of style says, but should there be a hyphen between 17th and century?
  • 'the Ceniza brothers (Jose Lopez Rodero)' — are they both played by the same actor? It seems so. If that's the case, maybe you could briefly explain this within the parentheses.
    • I can see that this is explained further on in the Cast and characters section. Whether you mention it in the Plot section is up to you; the line on this actor in Cast and characters needs a cleanup regardless.
  • The first sentence in Production is ugly and a bit unclear, as is the second.
  • "Pérez-Reverte's book featured several intertwined plots and so Polanski decided to write his own draft with long-time screenwriting partner, John Brownjohn" — I don't understand the cause and effect here; it is implied that the intertwined plots necessitated Polanski going to this particular colleague. It could do with some clarification.
  • "He wanted to have fun with the genre" — you can make this flow more nicely I imagine.
  • "While reading the book, Polanski thought of Johnny Depp as Corso." — first, this could be more elegantly worded (I've done this in the simplest way possible, but it can definitely be prettier). Secondly, it could do with citation. In fact, on closer reading of that entire paragraph, it could do with a significant redraft. Not only is it a touch stilted, it seems contradictory. Did Polanski want Depp from the offset or not?
  • With regards to Production's last paragraph: is all of this contained within that one inline reference? If so, it's not clear.
  • In Soundtrack, I have no idea what "a vocalize" is. Also, be consistent with 'vocalise' and 'vocalize'.
  • The last track needs a track length.
  • The metacritic score needs citing.
  • Could you dig up any more information on Polanski pocketing some of the proceeds? It seems like a pretty important story. Moreover, I don't think it belongs in Reaction.

All in all, a decent and interesting article on a film that I couldn't say the same for. Nor the book, incidentally. Seegoon (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian May edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this to GA, or failing that, at least improve it. I know that it lacks refs, but want to identify its other weaknesses. I will work on the lead, refs and general style of the article.

Thanks, Queenie 14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

  • The most obvious shortcoming of the article at present is the lack of citations. Virtually nothing is cited after the first two short sections, and there are numerous "fact" tags in place.
  • Many of the references that you do have are not properly formatted: title, publisher and last access date are in each case the minimum information required.
  • The featured quote at the beginning of the "As a musician" section should be cited in the same way as other inline citations
  • The lead is a hotchpotch of odd facts, rather than a concise summary of the whole article.
  • Likewise, the Biography section lacks coherence - bits and pieces of information about school, smoking and depression do not constitute a reasonable biography. Also, you don't "graduate" from school in England – the term is reserved for colleges and universities.
  • Prose: generally not bad, but the tendency to write in very short paragraphs gives it a disjointed feel. At times the writing has an informal, non-encyclopedic tone, such as when Mercury becomes "Freddie". When the major issues relating to sourcing and citation have been dealt with it might be a good idea to let another editor take a general look at the prose.

The subject is interesting and of significance, and the article is definitely worth working on. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 (eventually) get it up to FA as part of my wider get-articles-about-lawyers-up-to-a-higher-standard project (see Lord Denning and Norman Birkett, say). Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
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.) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Err, thanks. I was pretty sure about the referencing anyway, but third-party confirmation is nice at least. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and illuminating, and it is generally well-written. Its greatest weakness may be its heavy dependence on the Heward book as the main reliable source. I know little about British legal history, so I'm unable to say whether other reliable sources exist. If they do, you should consult them too and perhaps revise accordingly, here and there. Here are my specific suggestions, mostly dealing with prose issues.

Lead

  • "Perth" in the second sentence links to a disambiguation page and should link to Perth, Scotland. A handy dab checker lives here. After noticing the Perth dab, I ran the dab checker on the whole article, and it found two more, Jacobite and Lloyd Kenyon. It's the second instance of Jacobite, in the "Early life and education" section that's the problem and also the third instance, in the "Junius" section. The Lloyd Kenyon instance appears in the "Resignation" section.
  • "23 November, 1730" - WP:MOSNUM#Dates suggests that full dates in this format look like this: 23 November 1730. The comma should be removed from these dates throughout the article.

Early life and education

  • "The distance from Perth to London was around 400 miles... " - WP:MOSNUM says to express quantities in both imperial and metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for this, thus: 400 miles (640 km). The template does the math and uses the correct abbreviations. It can convert almost any kind of unit imaginable.
  • "After an examination in May 1723, Murray was accepted into Christ Church, Oxford, having scored higher in the examination than any other King's Scholar.[6][3]" - Generally, it's a good idea to arrange adjacent citations like these in ascending order; i.e, [3][6].
  • "became a member of Lincoln's Inn in 23 April 1724" - "on" rather than "in"?
  • "This was seen as Murray showing his support for the House of Hanover" - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "His actions were seen as a show of support for the House of Hanover... ".
  • "it is known that he studied both ancient and modern history" - Delete "both"?

At the English Bar

  • "At this time, there was no formal legal education, and the only requirement for a person to be called to the Bar was for them to have eaten five "dinners" a term at Lincoln's Inn, and to have read the first sentence of a paper prepared for them by the steward... ". - "him" rather than "them"? In two places.
  • "To deal with these cases, a barrister would have to be familiar with both Scottish and English law" - "had" rather than "would have"?
  • "established Murray as a brilliant young barrister, with Lords Cowper and Parker both complimenting him on his performance" - The "with plus -ing" construction is deprecated. Suggestion: "established Murray as a brilliant young barrister praised for his performance by Lords Cowper and Parker".

Member of Parliament

  • "Although many barristers were not good politicians, Murray became a successful Member of Parliament, and one noted for his oratorical skills and logical arguments.[13][1]" - Here's another set of reverse-order citations.
  • "In an attempt to reach a compromise the government introduced a Bill to Parliament declaring that Augusta" - "bill" rather than "Bill"?
  • "finally attempted to blackmail him by saying that if he accepted the office of Lord Chief Justice, they would refuse to grant him a peerage" - It's not clear from this who "they" refers to.

Mercantile law changes

  • "In Carter v Boehm [1766] 3 Burr 1905 Murray got a chance to reform the law... " - I'm not sure what the sequence of numbers and "Burr" refer to. I think at least the "Burr" part and other constructions like this need to be spelled out on first use and perhaps briefly explained.
  • "He took out an insurance policy against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy with Boehm." - Suggestion: "He took out an insurance policy with Boehm against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy."
  • "Murray decided in favour of Boehm, saying that he had failed his duty of uberrima fides." - Wasn't it Carter who failed rather than Boehm?
  • "Although the doctrine of Consideration is not a valid element of commercial contracts... " - This seems to contradict the statement a few sentences above that "In English law, Consideration is a vital part of the contract; without valid consideration, any contract is void."

Junius

  • "was published by the Public Advertiser and the London Evening Post, a newspaper run by John Miller" - Newspaper names should appear in italics. I fixed a couple of these, but here are a couple more.

Abolition of slavery

  • "Murray is best known for his judgement on the legality of keeping slaves in Somersett's Case." - Suggestion: "Murray is best known for his judgement in Somersett's Case on the legality of keeping slaves."

House of Lords

  • "The failure of the Bill caused the government to be immediately dismissed" - "bill" rather than "Bill"?
  • "As such, he regularly attended the House of Lords, with the last record of his attendance being on 23 March, 1784." - Another "with plus - ing".

Images

  • The images look good. I don't suppose the National Gallery's copyright claim is valid, though fact checkers may ask about this. It would be good to add some dates and the painter's name, if known, to the license and description page for the Elizabeth Finch portrait. This will make it easier for fact checkers unfamiliar with the subject to be able to quickly verify the license tag's validity.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks; sorry about the dates. I always make sure there are no commas, but evidently some copyeditors feel differently. I'll try and find alternative sources as well. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, all points corrected. Thanks for your help :). Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Ruby Legs all-time roster edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I need the prose of the list reviewed by others, before I move this up to FL review.

Thanks, Neonblak talk - 00:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

Who better than an FL reviewer to look it over before it goes to FL, right?

  • I would use the {{city-state}} template for Worcester, Massachusetts.
  • "for a period of three seasons" is redundant, from 1880-1882 is sufficient.
  • "did respectfully well" - what does this mean? Could be POV, but needs clarification otherwise.
  • "voted in by the NL" - by who? The players? The league? The owners?
  • "including pitchers Lee Richmond and Tricky Nichols, position players Arthur Irwin, Doc Bushong, Charlie Bennett, and Chub Sullivan." - there's a conjunction missing somewhere here; I think it should be "and position players"
  • "40 wins, 43 losses, and two ties" - 2 per WP:MOSNUM
  • "which was good for fifth place" - WP:JARGON, there are better ways of expressing that they finished fifth instead of saying "good for"
  • "The team had a couple of notable achievements that first season." - this can be trimmed, you go on to explain the achievements in depth
  • "Team play had declined significantly from the year before, popular player Sullivan was sick with tuberculosis, and shortstop Irwin broke his leg on August 19, which presented a problem due the fact that the team's back-up, Buttercup Dickerson, was also injured at the time.[11]"
  • Change comma after before to semicolon
  • "popular player Sullivan" - the popular Sullivan
  • "due the fact" - "due to the fact"
  • "back-up" - backup
  • "Things did not get better, the following month," - remove comma after better, change comma after month to semicolon, and change "get better" to improve
  • "Chub Sullivan died from his disease" - what disease? I assume you mean TB; also, you can remove his first name
  • Why spell "crepe" but link to "crape"? Just use the article title.
  • "32 wins, 50 losses, and one tie" - 1 per MOSNUM
  • "12–season" - I don't think this is a correct usage of the en-dash, I believe a hyphen suffices here.
  • "Sliding into last place for the second straight year" - reword to "A second consecutive last-place finish". An early writing guideline on Wikipedia for sports-related articles (one that may be outdated but is still practiced under the auspices of the MOS) is to avoid writing like a sportswriter.
  • As a Phillies fan, this article has significance for me because the Phillies replaced the Worcesters. I think that a similar statement to the ones made in various Phillies articles and lists clarifying that the Worcesters did not become the Phillies would help to clarify this point. I see that you said they were replaced, but an additional clarification might be nice.

This was a prose-only review. Hope these comments help. Look forward to seeing this at FL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, as you can see, writing is not my forte. These corrections seem easy to fix, and will get to them this weekend. A couple things, I used the crape/crepe due to the references always using crepe, but WP uses crape, so I don't actually know who is correct. As far as the definite seperation from the Phillies, I will look for more refences that make it clearer to the reader.Neonblak talk - 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked dictionary.com, and it gave me the following definitions: crepe, nounm, 1. paper with a crinkled texture; usually colored and used for decorations, 2. small very thin pancake [syn: crape], 3. a soft thin light fabric with a crinkled surface. So it appears that the references are correct, but WP users have it backwards. Crape seems to be a synonym for the small pancakes, while crepe's first definition is for the fabric, second is the pancake.Neonblak talk - 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The food was likely named after the fabric, so that makes sense. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of references for the Worcester/Philadelphia division of ownership, hopefully it is clearer than it was before.Neonblak talk - 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy 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 feel that I have made significant improvements to the article, and would like some imput as to how I can improve it further. It is my goal to improve the article to featured list status. Thanks, Dt128 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Not bad, but there are numerous prose problems in the lead. I recommend a third-party copy-edit before FLC.

  • "Duffy uses a range musical genres, including soul, pop and rock'n'roll. She is known for her Motown-influenced sound." Missing word in the first sentence, and where is/are the source(s) for these statements?
  • "Her debut Extended play, Aimée Duffy "-->Aimée Duffy, her debut extended play,
  • "2004, following her success on welsh talent show WawFfactor in 2003."-->2004, following her success on the Welsh talent show WawFfactor in 2003.
  • "welsh " should always be capitalized.
  • "The EP became popular within the Welsh-speaking community, securing a place at number-one on the "Siart C2" chart."" The "Welsh-speaking" phrase isn't necessary, let the sources speak for themselves.
  • "Following on from this release, she was discovered singing Richard J. Parfitt's "Oh Boy"." The tone is wrong. Why "discovered"? Did she hide or something?
  • "The song brought her to the attention of her now manager, Jeanette Lee"-->Her performance brought her to the attention of her current manager, Jeanette Lee
  • "Her debut single, "Rockferry" was"-->Her debut single, "Rockferry", was
  • "The song was the third biggest selling of 2008" Not sure what you mean here.
  • "the 3rd March 2008"-->3 March 2008
  • "was the biggest selling of the year" Once again, ungrammatical.
  • "Follow-up singles "Warwick Avenue" and "Stepping Stone", although not replicating early success, proved successful hits around the world"-->Her follow-up singles, "Warwick Avenue" and "Stepping Stone", did not replicate early success, but still sold well.
  • Spell out abbreviations in the publishers in the sources.
  • Don't abbreviate IFPI.
  • Be prepared to prove source reliability for sites such as http://www.partizan.com/partizan/musicvideos/?daniel_wolfe/videography. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Doing... I have changed some of the minor points suggested, and am currently trying to source some reference to back up the "musical genres" sentence. Dt128 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Working

Comments from Alex Douglas (talk · contribs) Not bad, seeing as Dabomb87 concentrated on reviewed the lead, I'll focus on the tables and the formatting of them. I have not reviewed a discography through WP:FLC before, but I've passed two discographies through there before, so hopefully my comments follow the criteria, discography style guidelines and follow the standards of FLs of the same subject.

  • Many reviews will not like your first sentence, I personally don't mind though. Try "Duffy is an Welsh, pop rock and soul singer-songwriter. She has released one studio album, four extended plays (EP) and five singles, in addition to six music videos on Recordiau Awen Records, A&M/Polydor and Mercury."
  • You have data entered under the "B-Sides" field of the discography's Infobox Artist Discography template, however the list does not mention it. I'd suggest removing "B-Sides" from the template and not adding a B-Sides section to the discography as per past consensus on the matter.
  • The image used in the infobox does not satisfy 5)b) -- please add "succinct captions or "alt" text" to it.. for example "Duffy performing at theSouth by Southwest music festival in Austin, Texas on 15 March 2008."
  • An section should generally be named "Albums" when it has two or more albums, it is a plural after all. Also, the section heading is generally only used when it's split into subsections like "Studio albums", "Live albums", "Cover albums", etc. I'd suggest changing "==Albums== ===Studio albums===" to "==Studio album==", because she has only release one type of album, one studio album.
  • Your chart references needs a lot of work, see Eminem discography and use that format for your references.
  • Your certification references.. UK: The bpi.co.uk link says "content not found". The ChartsPlus PDF file only sources that the album was certified five times platinum, not six times as the list currently reads. Your CAN, EU, US certification references need formatting. Your IRE source also needs formatting, but the sources that that it certified three times platinum, not two times as the list currently reads.
  • To continue with the certifications. Why is its certification by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) mentioned.. it is in almost all FLs of the same subject. I suggest adding "* ARIA: Gold[1]" to the certifications field.
  • Now onto the "Extended plays" section.. Change "EP details" to "Album details".. this is used in most, if not all FLs of the same subject.
  • "Aimée Duffy" -- Change "2004 (Wales)" under the Released heading to "2004[2]". Remove all the references, except for the one I suggested. Also, change "Recordiau Awen Records" to "Recordiau Awen Records (AWENCD #212)".
  • "Live from London" -- prove its release with a reliable source. Put a full stop (.) at the end of it's note.
  • "FNMTV Live" -- the reference might have some trouble with FLC reviews.
  • "Deluxe EP" -- the Rhapsody reference might have some trouble with FLC reviews.
  • Now onto singles.. it would fail 5)a) as it does not "make suitable use of [...] formatting, tables". Remove "width="260px" and "width="#" from the section. You show the single's peak chart positions on twelve record charts; please delete two as per past consensus on the matter.
  • Place "<br>" between all of the record charts and their references; not just some of them. Why are "AUS" and "USA" linked again, remove the links. Remove the italics from "did not chart". Make sure that you have noting all of the single's certifications, accurately.
  • Other appearances.. consider changing "These appearances have not appeared on a studio album or single by Duffy." to "The following have been officially released, but do not feature on an album by Duffy."
  • Remove "/Record Appearance" because a compilation or soundtrack are considered albums.
  • Change ''[[The Boat That Rocked]]'' (soundtrack) to ''[[The Boat That Rocked (soundtrack)|The Boat That Rocked (OST)]]''.
  • Change the two occurences of "(as Aimée Duffy)" to "(with Mint Royale)".
  • Disambiguate the "Stay with Me" link.
  • Change the year for "Live and Let Die to "|rowspan="2"|2009" and remove the "2009" under year for Stay With Me.
  • Make note that "Mercy" is a live version, through the use of a footnote or with <small>(live)</small>
  • Fix the director's rowspan's for the music videos. Under "Mercy" change it to |rowspan="2"|Daniel Wolfe<ref name="danielwolfe">{{cite web| url=http://www.partizan.com/partizan/musicvideos/?daniel_wolfe/videography| title=Daniel Wolfe Music Video Videography| publisher=partizan.com| accessdate=28 March 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.promonews.tv/2008/01/22/duffys-mercy-by-daniel-wolfe/| accessdate=10 April 2009| author=Knight, David| date=22 January 2008| title=Duffy's Mercy by Daniel Wolfe| work=PromoNews| publisher=promonews.tv| date=28 March 2009}}</ref> and remove the director field for the "Warwish Avenue" music video.
  • Under "Stepping Stone" change the director field to |rowspan="2"|[[Sophie Muller]]<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.mtv.com/videos/duffy/288763/stepping-stone.jhtml#artist=2998905| title="Stepping Stone" Music video| publisher=[[MTV]]| accessdate=8 April 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.promonews.tv/2008/08/20/duffy%E2%80%99s-stepping-stone-by-sophie-muller/| accessdate=28 March 2009| author=Knight, David| date=20 August 2008| title=Duffy's "Stepping Stone" by Sophie Muller| work=PromoNews| publisher=promonews.tv}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.promonews.tv/2008/11/03/duffy%e2%80%99s-rain-on-your-parade-by-sophie-muller/| accessdate=28 March 2009| author=Knight, David| date=3 November 2008| title=Duffy's Rain On Your Parade by Sophie Muller| work=PromoNews| publisher=promonews.tv| accessdate=28 March 2009}}</ref> .. I'm still unsure as to why you need three references here, two should satisfy? Also, remove the director field for the "Rain on Your Parade" music video.
  • References.. change "{{reflist}}" to ;General *{{cite web | title = Duffy | work=[[Allmusic]] | publisher=[[Macrovision]] | url = http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:apfwxz95ld0e | accessdate = 12-04-2009}} ;Specific {{reflist|2}}
  • Remove Discogs external link and all uses of it as an inline reference, it is an unreliable source. Remove the Allmusic external link as it should now be in the References section.

That's most of the problems. There's quite a lot of errors with the list itself. Good luck on fixing them, I'd like to see this achieve featured list status, because I share her nationality. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state mottos 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 made a few changes since the last PR, so I want to know what you think of it. My main concern is about my dates. Many have different years for appearing on the seal and when it became an official motto. Currently I have the earliest date in the table and notes for many of them, but I want to get your input on my system, as well as anything else. I'll be happy to review your article in return.

Thanks, Reywas92Talk 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect much of this comes down to the definition of "adopted". Many of these were mottoes or on seals of colonies before they became states. The edit I just made to change the date of Hawaiʻi's motto was to conform with those. KarlM (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

A very well-presented and informative list. The only thing I'd say about the dates issue is that where there is any confusion about the adoption date of a motto, this should be noted in the text or by footnote. The date column might be better headed "Date of adoption" rather than just "Date". A few other points:-

    • Too long
  • Article title: the list includes 50 states and five territories, yet the territories are not recognised in the present title. Shouldn't it be "List of U.S. state and territory mottos"?
    • Also too long. I'd prefer keeping it simple.
      • You'd prefer to keep it simple, but inaccurate? Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine.
  • Similarly, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are referred to in the lead as though they were states.
    • Fixed
  • Shearer's book is a cited source and should not be listed among External links
    • Fixed
  • The exclamation mark in the translation of Excelsior looks gratuitous
    • Fixed
  • The following reference links were not working: [2], [22], [50]
    • 22 (Illinois) is fine. I've fixed 2 and 50.
  • Ref [5] is in Spanish. There must be English-language sources which cover this information. Shearer's book is the obvious one; can you consult a library copy, since the relevant pages are not part of the online sample of the book?
    • It is the official site of Puerto Rico. No, I can't consult a library copy. I added another link.
      • See WP:NONENG. Also, you should be using the best sources, not just the most convenient. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said I've added another reference to it.
  • Ref [11] has 345 pages. You need to identify these citations by page references.
    • Which state is that? It's a one-page PDF for Arkansas.
      • Sorry, its ref [8] (Samoa) that links to 345 pages and for which a page ref should be added. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Page 57.
  • Ref [18} does not give a wording for Georgia's state motto, and I am not clear where the wording came from.
    • I've added another link to that.

Overall, though, congratulations on what looks like a fine piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Reywas92Talk 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with this, but assuming that you wish to see it featured, it is worth your doing the little extras I've suggested, to ensure that this is indeed representative of Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Clarke edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to take this article to GA, so please review with an eye to those requirements. This is also the first WP:BLP I've written, so I would aslo appreciate feedback regarding how well it adheres to that policy. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

  • First, I have no doubts that the article is OK with regard to BLP. I can't see anything that could be interpreted as a breach of that policy.
  • In fact, I could find very little with which to quibble. The single area in which I felt that a bit more elaboration was due was the short fourth paragraph of the Strange and Norrell section. At the start of this, Clarke is in despair and giving up. In the middle she gets a £1 million advance, and at the end she has a world best seller, all in about 100 words. I found myself wanting a bit more information: was Giles Gordon her first agent? Two publishers rejected the manuscript – who were they? She was "offered" £1 million – wouldn't it be better to say she "accepted" this sum? Also, could brief mention of the book's publication history in England be made?
  • Otherwise this looks like a gem of a shortish article. I'd say GA is a given; why not FAC? Is it because Clarke, although 50, is thought to be still at an early stage in her writing career, and her professional life might develop in new directions? That might be a reason for holding back, I suppose, but personally I'd be tempted. Great work.

Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've listed Gordon as her first literary agent and added the release dates for Jonathan Strange. I don't know who the other two publishers were. When it comes to the 1 million, I really it is extraordinary that Bloomsbury offered it, so that is why I phrased it that way - Clarke was first-time novelist, after all. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to take it to FAC because Clarke is a living person - the sources are thin and the article massively unbalanced (most of this is taken from the articles on her works, after all). Don't tempt me. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2004 World Series 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 first found this article in this form, and just thought it was very poor. So I've been working on it on and off over the last few mounths to give it a total re-write, remove piontless large amount of piontless trivia and added in refs where needed. After some feedback in the first PR I nominated it for GA status which it passed two days ago. I'm now hoping I can get it to FA status. So please piont out anything that is wrong, I know how much the FA people love to nitpick at every little thing.

Thanks, BUC (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
    • Don't think any are in all caps but I'll check again. BUC (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems to tell the whole story in a clear way. I did a bit of minor copyediting as I went, and here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "The Cardinals never led in any of the four games in the series." - Suggestion for tighter prose: "The Cardinals never led in any of the games."
  • "Manny Ramírez was named the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the series." - Similar suggestion: "Manny Ramírez was named the Most Valuable Player (MVP)."
  • "Both teams returned to the World Series in the following three years, the Cardinals in 2006 and the Red Sox in 2007, with both of them winning their respective series." - "With plus -ing" constructions are deprecated as ungrammatical. Also, the sentence seems to use more words than necessary. Suggestion: "When these teams returned to the World Series, the Cardinals in 2006 and the Red Sox in 2007, they both won their respective series.

Route to the World Series

  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads. Perhaps "Regular season" or "Advancing through the season" or something of the sort would work.

Cardinals

  • "They also allowed the least runs of any team in the league, with four starters each recording at least 15 wins and closer Jason Isringhausen recorded a league-best 47 saves." - Another "with plus -ing". Suggestion: "They also allowed the least runs of any team in the league. Four of their starters each recorded at least 15 wins, and closer Jason Isringhausen recorded a league-best 47 saves."

Series

  • "The two teams had previously played each other in the 1946 and 1967 World Series, with the Cardinals winning both in seven games." - Another "with plus -ing". Suggestion: "Earlier, when the two teams played each other in the 1946 and 1967 World Series, the Cardinals won both in seven games."
  • "The AL had been awarded home-field advantage having won the All-Star Game, giving the Red Sox the advantage at Fenway Park." - Maybe the would be better flipped to read: "Having won the All-Star Game, the AL had been awarded home-field advantage, which meant the series would start at Boston's Fenway Park."

Game 1

  • "Tim Wakefield made his first start of the 2004 post-season for the Red Sox and Woody Williams, who had won both his previous two starts in the post-season, was the Cardinals' starting pitcher." - Since the Manual of Style generally deprecates orphan paragraphs of only one sentence, I'd recommend merging this orphan with the paragraph below it.
  • "In the ninth inning, Foulke struck out Cedeño to win the game for the Red Sox 11–9.[27][25]" - It's nitpicky, but it's considered good form to arrange the citations that bump up against one another so that they appear in ascending order, thus [25][27]. If you see any more of these in the article, just flip them to the correct order by moving the in-line refs.

Game 3

  • "During the game, a sign for fast food restaurant Taco Bell reading "Free Taco Here", was hung over the bullpen with the promise that, if hit, Taco Bell would give everyone in the United States a free "Crunchy Beef Taco". - It might help here to clarify that Taco Bell meant "if hit by a batted ball" if that's what was meant and to include the distance from home plate and the size of the sign and to say whether anyone hit the sign or not. (I assume not.)
    • I don't know if it was hitor not. BUC (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edmonds then hit a fly ball towards Ramírez in left field, who caught it on the run and then threw to home plate where catcher Jason Varitek tagged out Walker, who was attempting to score from third, and ended the inning as a result." - This has too many clauses. Suggestion: "Edmonds then hit a fly ball towards Ramírez in left field, who caught it on the run and threw to home plate. Catcher Jason Varitek tagged out Walker, who was attempting to score from third. This ended the inning."

Series statistics

  • Just "Statistics" would be better because it avoids repeating "series", a word in the article title.

Images

  • A general principle of layout is to place images left or right so that directional subjects of a photo look into the page rather than out. For this reason, Ramírez, Pujols, and Schilling would all be better if moved to the left side of the page. You might also have to move Pujols down slightly to avoid bumping into a third-level head on the left.
    • I tried but it's just too small if I do that. BUC (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Done BUC (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Labs Holmdel Complex edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 added everything I can find and am looking for advice on what to do next.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:TechOutsider

I see the article is of start-class. I will keep that in mind; one step at a time. I will also perform some minor fixes; however I will still bring up the issues for your future reference. Though I don't have a though knowledge of WP:MOS, the following suggestions should be of some value to the article. I suggest consulting WP:MOS for the proper style of hyphenation; I don't think "472-acre" is formatted correctly.

Some issues in the lead. You mention in the lead the complex has functioned as a research laboratory for 44 years. Is it still functioning? The current lead left readers, including me, hanging on whether the complex is retired or still in use. The lead also mentions the complex as the home of Nobel Prize winners. However, towards the end, it again mentions the complex as the site of several Nobel prize inventions. The sentences concerning the Nobel Prizes should be combined for a smoother flow when reading. You also may wish to wikilink words such as physics and modernist in the lead. I see the word "basic" is used, before physics. Attempt not to be vague; I suggest removing the word basic.

There are some issues in the body as well. You may want to rename the cryptic "Post Alcatel-Lucent" section; I have almost no clue what the section concerns based on the heading alone. I also a wikilink incorrectly formatted, "The Cultural Landscape Foundation's". The apostrophe should be inside the brackets. Insert a vertical slash to separate invisible and visible text. Here's how it should be formatted:

(two brackets)actual page name (invisible to readers)|what you want the wikilink to read; put apostrophe here(two brackets)

So, it would be correct as (two brackets)The Cultural Landscape Foundation|The Cultural Landscape Foundation's(two brackets).

Other minor issues include abbreviations. Generally, spell out the abb. the first time. Then, you may use the abb. For example, spell out R&D as research and development. Same thing in the references; spell out NYT as New York Times.

Well, in our parting words, it's a great start! I see a fact from the article was presented on the English Wikipedia's Main Page. This article has the potential to be FA-class. And it's a great topic; nothing too broad or narrow. I undertook a lot of pain by trying to get this one article to just GA-class; it was way too broad of an article. No one ever wanted to read it all the way through, including me, much less peer review it. TechOutsider (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I read this and wanted to know more, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The current lead is too short and is not really a summary of the article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, but the closure is not made clear in the lead, nor are the attempts to preserve it now mentioned.
  • 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 - the article should list who the Nobel prize recipients were, as well as the work done in the labs that led to Nobel prizes.
  • There should be a bit more on background and context - there could be a paragraph or two on the history of AT&T and the breakup of the Bell System, for example.
  • Use {{convert}} to make sure units are given in both English and metric values (squre footage, for example)
  • I would go back and look more carefully at your sources and see what else can be gleaned from them. I looked at three: the Roadside America website (may not be a WP:RS if you try and take this to FAC sometime) lists some quirky stuff (model train layout in the basement). The Wired article, while brief, makes it clear that basic physics research was done here (which the article does not now do - Nobel prizes are usually not awarded for "inventions").
  • I also am not sure if there is not some confusion between this facility and Bell Labs in general - the institution has ahd 6 Nobel prizes, but some of them seem to predate this structure.
  • There are books on the history of Bell Labs which would doubtless have more on this facility.

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 originally found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Singapore edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After three failed attempts, Flag of Singapore finally attained GA status in November 2008. Zscout370, Jacklee and I want the article to achieve FA status, so it can appear on the Main Page on 9 August, Singapore's National Day. Although the article failed FAC in January 2009, we still have time and we shall not give up. Please thoroughly review the article and give us useful, detailed feedback, especially on organisation (are some sections too long?) and prose, to help ensure the second FAC will be successful. Thank you. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Recognizance: On organisation, I think the Usage guidelines could be better organised. I suggest making it similar to the Use section, where you have National Day followed by other times, and eliminate the proper use and display header. The second paragraph of the main section could be merged into the National Day subsection since it covers the same topic and is currently rather short. Let me know what you think.

As for sections being too long, that doesn't seem to be an issue. The only length-related comment I have is the short National Day section, but that would be alleviated under the above suggestion. I plan to do a more detailed prose-related review in a few hours. Recognizance (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is well done. I can find very little to criticise:

  • Eww, you used Britannica as a reference! I thought the point of Wikipedia was to rival Britannica. ;)
  • "For the manufacturing of flags, the Government of Singapore recommends a few sizes..." - You explain the sizes and that any size is allowed as long as the proportions are correct, but briefly mentioning the purpose of each MICA recommendation would be helpful.
  • After reading the entire article, I'm unsure about my organisation suggestion: while I still think "in general" is a rather generic headline, I'd like to get your input.

The article reflects the amount of work that has gone into it. You should have no trouble getting it featured. Recognizance (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read through the article, and there are few issues to speak of. The prose seems to be at FA-quality; granted, I copyedited the article a while ago, so I have the disadvantage of being familiar with the text. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks pretty good overall to me.

  • Three naval flags are mentioned in the lead, but only two are shown at the bottom of the article - I would be consistent and wither show none or show all three.
  • I would add the dates used to the caption for File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg, so Flag for the Straits Settlements, used 1874-1942 (going by the dates in the image title)
  • In the quote, the MOS says it is OK to change captializations at the start of sentences, so "[A]lthough..." could just be "Although"
  • Any idea who actually designed the flag? A committee or eingle person? Who is Singapore's Betsy Ross?
  • Refs usually go at the end of a sentence (or at least after punctuation) so fix things like On 30 November 1959, the Singapore State Arms and Flag and National Anthem Ordinance 1959[7] was passed to regulate...
  • Watch overlinking - millimetres and inches probably do not need to be linked, and MICA is linked twice in two sections (Design, then Regulations and guidelines)- see WP:OVERLINK
  • Probably do not need to spell out MICA twice in two sections either
  • The photo File:Bush addresses U.S. embassy staff and families in Singapore.jpg is too small to really show the lions, and the caption could be clearer - did this defacing of the flag cause an uproar? Who added the lions? Perhaps the text should address this too.
  • I agree that using Encyclopedia Brittanica may be problematic at FAC

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 what it would require to improve the article to A-class standard. Thanks, Matthewafallen (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I found the article interesting, and would like to learn more. Here are my review comments:-

  • Lead
    • The lead needs to be expanded into a proper summary of the whole article.
    • First sentence of lead is lacking a verb in its main clause. Should be: "Saint Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows was a Passionist clerical student..."
  • Early life
    • "Sante Possenti was soon transferred..." Too vague. Do we have a year? If not, I would suggest "Shortly after this, Sante Possenti was transferred..."
    • Problematic sentence: "He was also known for the great care he took with regard to his appearance and could be occasion to bouts of anger." The two parts of the sentence are unconnected and shouldn't be joined by "and". And "...could be occasion to bouts of anger" is not grammatical. I assume the meaning is "was liable on occasion to bouts of anger".
    • The second paragraph is rather a mishmash of assorted facts, and needs some better organisation. It is also poorly referenced. It is not clear how much is covered by [4], but that is the last citation in the paragraph. Everything after that is uncited.
    • His "narrow escape from a stray bullet" is a bit laconic, and is probably worth a word or two more explanation.
  • Vocation: what is the source for the information in the final sentence of this section?
  • Passionist
    • Another poorly-cited section - no citations in the first, second or fourth paragraphs. The bare link in the fifth paragraph should be formatted as a reference.
    • "Morrovalle" should be wikilinked, as should "tuberculosis"
    • Wrong date format (February 27th)
    • The section is very light on information about Gabriel's religious life. For example, the religious writings that he ordered burnt. Do we know what these contained? What do they indicate about Gabriel? This is relevant information I would exect to find here. Shouldn't we also know something of his activity as a miracle worker? At present the section tells us very little about him.
  • Canonisation
    • The quote is too short for blockquote format - see MOS:QUOTE
    • "went deserted" is not correct. "lay deserted" would be OK. The thing that bothers me, though, is that the church where Gabriel was buried lay deserted, at a time when you say his fame was spreading through the local area. This seems odd.
    • The medical terms you use should be linked.
  • Patronage
    • No citations in first three paragraphs
    • "Many miracles have been attributed..." - but only one example?
  • Other points
    • The online reference should be properly formatted, with minimum information title, publisher, and last access date.
    • It would be helpful to have a bibliography. Books require ISBN details where appropriate - basically, for any book published after 1968.
    • File:Gabrad.jpg PD is claimed on the basis of date of author's death plus 70 years. Yet the author is given as Philippe Plet, who was clearly alive in 2007 when he uploaded the image. I think that the date refers to the painter, N. Diotallevi; do we know that Diotallevi died before 1939? The date of the painting is given as 1899, so it is quite conceivable he was still living in 1939, in which case the image might still be in copyright.
    • File:Gabriel7.jpg The source is given as "Bishop of Teremo" and the author as "Passionist Fathers". Neither of these is specific. Again PD is claimed on the basis of author's death plus 70 years, which is highly probable given the (alleged) date of the painting. But the source information should be clarified.

Overall, this is an interesting article, which needs a bit more work in several areas if it is to reach A-class or GA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Territory edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would like to work on bringing this article up to featured quality. I would like some outside input as to what the article might be lacking. Most importantly, is there anything in the article that is not well explained? I have used alot of summary style writing, and put many of the details on the sub article pages.

Thanks, Charles Edward (Talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hysteria18 (talk · contribs)

The article text looks generally in pretty good shape, so I'm going to make mainly formatting-related comments. Also, it's probably worth noting that this is the first time I've peer reviewed an article.

  • General points:
    • There are lots of linked dates, all of which should be delinked per WP:MOSNUM
  • Issues relating to the map in the infobox:
    • Firstly, it could be vectorised. Unless you're familiar with Inkscape yourself, you should probably make a request with the fine folks at the graphic lab's map workshop.
    • It could also do with a legend (use the {{legend}} template), the text on the map shows what's what pretty clearly, but it could be that bit clearer.
    • Two last points: are the rivers necessary? I can see they form parts of borders, but they don't add much to my personal understanding of the geography of the area. Also, modern-day state names might be of use to show which states fell within the boundaries of Indiana Territory at one time or another. Both just suggestions, it's entirely up to you whether you decide to act on them.
  • Lead:
    • President could be linked.
    • Indiana should probably be linked in its first occurence, at the end of the first paragraph.
    • "the territory's militia and regulars" should be explained or, if possible, linked.
    • I'm not sure about this, but "constitutional convention" could link to the (first) section of that name in Constitution of Indiana.
  • Original boundaries:
    • "83 deg 45 min W longitude" is unclear. There are probably conventions for these things, but this is unlikely to be understood completely by anyone very much. Should "deg" be "°"? If "W" means "West", that would benefit from being spelled out. Longitude could be linked.
    • "as well as the portions of Minnesota ." - unnecessary word and unnecessary space before the full stop.
  • Government:
    • Was William Henry Harrison actually apppointed by all three presidents listed, or was he appointed by one and served through the terms of the others? If the former, ignore me; if the latter, either remove Jefferson and Madison or rename the column.
    • John Gibson presumably wasn't appointed by "Acting-Governor", he was the Acting Governor. The best solution would be to create another column titled "notes" and put that note there.
    • John Gibson (Indiana) says that Mr. Gibson "served twice as acting governor of the territory." If this is correct, should it be reflected in the table?
    • "Legislature" section looks fine. Should either Indiana Senate and Indiana House of Representatives or just Indiana General Assembly be linked somewhere?
    • Delegate (United States Congress) should be linked in the "Congressional delegation" section.
    • Does the congressional delegation table need to be sortable? If so, use {{sort}} to make it sort by surnames and years rather than first names and months, and apply the same standards to the Governors table.
    • Quite a few issues with the tables under "Other high officials":
      • The tables really don't need to be sortable.
      • There's no need for empty notes sections.
      • Delink the dates in the Secretary table.
      • Knox County, Indiana, Vincennes, Indiana, Corydon, Indiana, and Davis Floyd all only need to be linked in their first occurence.
      • If most of these people are notable enough for articles, the others should be, and should be redlinks.
      • The Secretary table can use {{Party shading/Democratic-Republican}}
      • Finally, you could set widths for the columns so they have a uniform total width. That's just a minor presentation thing though.
  • History:
    • Native American could link to Native Americans in the United States.
    • "U.S. army" needs a capital "A".
    • "St. Clair's defeat is the worst defeat of the U.S. army by Native Americans in history." should be "St. Clair's defeat in the Battle of the Wabash is..."
    • The link to Anthony Wayne should probably just read "Anthony Wayne". Alternatively, link the whole phrase "General "Mad Anthony" Wayne".
    • File:Treaty of Greenville.jpg could be bigger; it's difficult to see the details.
    • I might just be getting lazy at this point, but the "Formation" and "District of Louisiana" sections look pretty much perfect.
  • Tecumseh's War:
  • War of 1812:
    • File:Indiana Territory 1812.jpg could be included. It should also be vectorised and the colours and "Fort Detriot" typo fixed, and you might want to check that the map is fully comprehensive.
  • Statehood
  • See also
    • Indiana is linked in the text and not needed in the see also section.
  • References / Sources
    • ...should be merged. You want something like:
{{refbegin}}
 *Everything under sources
 {{refend}}
 {{reflist}}

Hope this helps a little bit, I seem to have written an awful lot. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New World Order (conspiracy theory) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 to further improve this article. I also would like a consensus so that the article can retain a nuetral tone.

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:TechOutsider   Done

Hello. I'll be your peer reviewer. Interesting article; caught my eye when browsing the backlog. No, I am not too familiar with WP:MOS, however my comments should provide you with a basic idea on what needs to be improved on. I may correct some minor issues, however I will still mention them for your reference.

The lead has some issues. You should rearrange the first paragraph; first explain what the New World Order theory in conspiracy theory, then the other stuff. Some vagueness plagues the lead as well. You mention "at the core of most theories". As Wikipedians, you are not to publish original thought or research. Is there a reference you can use to backup the statement. Remember, after looking on the talk page, this is a controversial topic and needs to be dissected and examined from all points of views. You also use the phrase "in the past". It is as well vague. The phrase "Some warn" is a bit vague, however you back it up with several sources. Can you be more specific? Do government officials warn ...? Political leaders? Professors? Identify who claims the "development may have negative effects on American political life".

The body also has some issues. The section headings, according to WP:MOS, should not use the same word over and over. Drop the theory from each level three heading under the level two heading, "Conspiracy theories".

Anyways, that's all the issues I can find right now. Great article; keep up on the development! Has the potential to become FA-class. Mainly, you should work on the lead; first impressions last and the suggestions listed by the semi-automated review. TechOutsider (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Loremaster

TechOutsider, thank you for your useful review. As you can now see, all the minor issues with the lead have been resolved.

  1. The first paragraph has been changed by deleting the sentence about the definition of the term "new world order" in international relations theory.
  2. The phrase "at the core of most theories" has been replaced by "The common them in conspiracy theories". This statement is no longer original research because it is now backed up by Michael Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Barkun is a political scientist who has extensively studied conspiracism in American culture in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular.
  3. The phrase "in the past" was deleted.
  4. The phrase "some warn" has been replaced by "They warn".
  5. Political scientist Micheal Barkun has now been explicitly identified as being one of the skeptics who makes the claim that the "development may have negative effects on American political life".

--Loremaster (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Ludvikus

  • There's now an active, passionate debate on the article's Talk page - so I wish to hold-off until the debate stabilizes. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pollenia rudis edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 group effort and I would like additional opinions on the flow of the article. I would also appreciate any feedback concerning duplicate information or other areas that should be focused on in the article. Should some sections be deleted or incorporated in other sections? All comments are welcome.

Thanks, KathrynR (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor item: I took a moment to make some copy edits to this article, which included abbreviating Pollenia rudis to P. rudis. Does this follow general Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates? (Does anyone except a few regulars on those pages care?) Whether that is the case, do you mind? -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help is always appreciated! Thank you for making the changes you did. KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There are some problems with references. They generally come right after punctuation (no space before) and are followed by a space after the last ref. They should also be in numerical order. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, so there are some places that still need refs, like Vacuum cleaners and aerosol insecticides may be used to control visible, sluggish flies, but professional extermination is the most reliable method for eliminating an infestation.
    Hopefully I have corrected all punctuation and spacing.  Thanks for pointing that out!KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid direct external links in the text - these should all be converted to inline citations - for example the direct link for the first two words in Entomophthora muscae or Entomophthora schizophorae is a fungus that commonly infects adult flies.
  • 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

These should be fixed now. Again, thank you!KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drop the Conlcusion section - this is a Wikipedia article, not a term paper (even if it is written for a college assignment, it should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style

Done, thank you!KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that impede the flow - these shoiuld either be combined with others or perhaps expanded. For example the Predators section is only two sentences, or Life cycle has one sentence before the subsections.
    Also completed.KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice image - do you know there are several more on Commons? I will add {{commonscat}}
    Again, thank you. I found one on the site you listed and it shows how beautiful this species looks with the golden hairs in its thorax.KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about an idea of their size? Use {{convert}} to give both metric and English units.
This has been fixed.  Thank you.KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
    The intro has been expanded. Hopefully we have covered what you requested.KathrynR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful with WP:JARGON
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - "Control Methods" should just be "Control methods"
   Fixed, thank you.KathrynR (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours,

Thank you very much for your help. We will work on implementing the changes you have suggested. KathrynR (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acantopsis octoactinotos edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 new article

Thanks, Drew R. Smith (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euclidean algorithm edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've requested a peer review for Euclidean algorithm because I intend to bring it to FAC soon. Suggestions for meeting any FA criterion would be welcome, but I'd particularly like to catch issues with the writing (criterion 1a) before nominating it. I'd also like to eliminate unnecessary obscurities for lay-readers. The algorithm has many complex aspects, but ten-year-old children often learn the most basic version. The article may attract readers with very different backgrounds, and I'd like to accommodate them as far as possible without sacrificing content or correctness.

Thanks! Proteins (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a quick look over the article (I need to get back to my dissertation, I'm afraid!) and made one minor correction (you were missing an "other than 1"). Generally the article seems very good. It's never easy to write a technical article like this and keep it interesting and understandable to the layman, but you've done as well as can be expected. One small issue in that regard - you mention that GCD can be considered as the product of the common prime factors without mentioning the uniqueness of those prime factors, which might cause confusion to those unfamiliar with the idea of prime factorisation. The big issue with the article, though, is its length. The lede probably needs shortening (perhaps removing some of the history stuff), and the article as a whole almost certainly does. You could probably remove a lot of the stuff about GCDs in general - that should all be covered by our article on GCDs (you may want to move some of it over to that article - at least some of it is better than what is there already). Just keep a brief definition in this article. The rest of it isn't so easy to split out, though, so it may be impossible to avoid having a rather long article. Good luck! --Tango (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anole (comics) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article considered for FA (or GA first, if that's how these procedures have to work, and later FA). I've incorporated the advice given from a class-grading review. The citations are all standardized compared to many WikiComics articles and the information has been trimmed to avoid trivial subjects and emphasize character history and real-world analysis and importance. Recent improvements are noted in the Talk page.

This is my first time taking an article through FA review. Any feedback or advice to further improve it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Luminum (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing forums and "Elf Girl" is probably not goin to cut it. You might try searches like this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the forums that were cited were actually discussions and feedback by the authors of the title with fans, hence I believed that their conversations carry notable weight as sources, especially since they've been linked and archived. "Elf Girl" is the pen name of a staff writer of the review website PinkKryptonite.com. Given this information, do these issues still apply and if so, how else can these sources be legitimized? Even the cited Comicbook Resources article draws its source material from the forum posts. Thanks for responding and for any additional feedback you can offer!Luminum (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the forums will probably be OK for GA and not for FA. Spoo had three FA reviews and an AfD before it was demoted from FA and settled on being a GA. Read a small amount of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo/archive2 if you want to feel the massive drama caused by forum refs. I don't see anything on pinkkryptonite.com to indicate that its reliable. Finding an about page would be the first place to look (hopefully it has editors (who double check the writer's work) and an editorial policy that the public can see), and seeing if normal reliable sources use it for info would be the second if you want to keep it. Here is a good search for RSs. Google news's and wikipedia's rules on reliable sources aren't exactly the same, but they're mildly close. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I couldn't find an about page, I did a quick news search for pkrypt.com here. Two of the hits seem to indicate that it has at least one editor, and comicbookresources trusts it, at least a little bit. I would say it's borderline GA, no go for FA. Basically, not to be a downer, and this isn't what I think is right, but I think GA is as far as this character is likely to go. LGBT stuff has a lot better chance than normal comic characters, but google books doesn't have anyone really analyzing it, which probably would have been what you needed without better newspaper/news sites articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: GA is way easier than FA to pass, so you might want to aim for that. Also, see our GA drive to see what else is going on, on that front. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, LGBT themes in comics recently became a GA, so you might want to use that as some kind of inspiration? Maybe some sources in there that might prove useful? BOZ (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the feedback from the both of you. I'm new to navigating an attempt at FA, so it's good to know that it's difficult and have an understanding of the odds. Thanks for the referral to LGBT themes in comics and the advice about editorial systems for sources.Luminum (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you chose anole, but if you're looking to get an LGBT comics character up to FA, Northstar is probably the one with the best chance. (Only counting US comics, I don't know foreign comics very well). For instance, google books returns some nice refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, Anole is an easier character to write an article on, since his material is limited and current compared to Northstar's years of material and involvement in the Marvel Universe and I just don't have the resources and the time I would need to gather and sift through that material. I would like to work on Northstar, especially in tandem with people who know him better than I do (I'm most familiar with his X-Men+ years, not his extensive Alpha Flight years), but for now, I wanted to put my energy into a relatively new LGBT character who's currently being utilized in the franchise and has some buzz and impact. Northstar, though my favorite, has to sit on the shelf.Luminum (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing things in the right order: small to big. Northstar would probably require several very dedicated editors. If you ever decide to tackle it, drop me a note on my talk page, and if I'm feeling frisky I might help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of B-17 Flying Fortress survivors edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a fresh perspective on the survivors series articles may improve them all. Note: This is a list, and not an article, per se.

Thanks, Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechOutsider:

  • Per WP:MOS, rename the titles of the section. Don't use Boeing over and over again in the headings of each section. And don't use B-17 over and over.
  • The sections are a little short. You should only use external links if the information is copyrighted (main reason). Integrate the information found in external links into your article, per Wikipedia:External links
  • The B-17 survivors is mostly comprised of embedded lists. Such lists disrupt the flow of the article. Try prose. Looking on the discussion page, I see it is a list. Sorry.
  • Something minor: Since you have over 100 refs, use {{reflist|3}}
  • Don't use external links at references. Use a template such as cite web.

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a very good idea for a list, and I think it has the potential to be a WP:FL, but needs a lot of work to get there. I agree with the points given above and will expand on some of them. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I was confused by the title - I thought it referred to human survivors, perhaps people who survived B-17 crashes or perhaps notable living pilots and crewmemebers. Could the title be "List of surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses" or ""List of extant B-17 Flying Fortresses" instead?
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded from its current two sentences. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I agree that the article needs fewer sections / headers too. I think this is because it is currently poorly organized - if there were one or two sortable tables then most of the information in the headers could be in the tables instead.
  • Article really needs a copyedit for grammar, spelling etc. Two examples: A list is also provided of other Flying Fortress' on display around the world the proper plural is Flying Fortresses, OR need plural and missing verb in Altogether 44 B-17[s] have survived and, as of January 2007, 14 airframes [are] currently in flying condition.
  • Article contradicts itself as to numbers of surviving and flyable aircraft: Altogether 44 B-17 have survived and, as of January 2007, 14 airframes currently in flying condition. or is it As of January 2007, 58 B-17s are known to have survived, with 12 currently in flying condition.? I did not bother to count what is in the tables.
  • Needless duplication - why does there need to be two separate listings for "Individual histories" and "B-17 survivors"?
  • I would make a sortable table with columns for the type (C, D, E, F, G), the manufacturer (Boeing, Douglas-Long Beach, Lockheed Vega), and the rest of the information in the yellow and black B-17 survivors table head. It might be that the table could split into flyable and not flyable (although that would be fine under condition). I would separate the current "Unknown" section and call it something like "Nose art panels" or if there are others where only parts survive, perhaps "Parts only".
  • Background has no refs and needs them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others (or perhaps expanded) to improve flow.
  • Provide context for the reader - explain briefly what the variant letters (B17C vs B17G) mean, or why there were three manufacturers.

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 ><>°° 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Top Latin Albums edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it and on the list included for quite a while. All the lists (with the exception of the current one for 2009) are Featured Lists, and now I want a second opinion for the main article.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I did a bit of proofreading and minor fixing as I went, and here are a few more suggestions.

Lead

  • "The sample includes not only music stores and the music departments at electronics and department stores, but also direct-to-consumer transactions and Internet sales (both physical albums via Internet, and ones bought via digital downloads)." - Suggestion: "The sample includes sales at music stores, the music departments of electronics and department stores, direct-to-consumer transactions, and Internet sales of physical albums or digital downloads." Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Latin Pop Albums chart features music only from the pop genre, while the Regional Mexican Albums chart includes information from different genres like Duranguense, Norteño, Banda and Mariachi." - I think all of these genres should be lower-cased with the possible exception of Duranguense, since it derives from a place name. In other words, "banda" rather than "Banda". Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fellow Mexican performers Los Temerarios are the group with more chart toppers (8)." - "Most' rather than "more"? Also, for consistency, "eight" should be written as a word. Maybe this sentence should end thus: "... the group with the most chart-toppers, eight". Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The late Tejano superstar Selena is the female with more albums peaking at the top of the chart, with six." - "Woman" rather than "female"? "Most" rather than "more"? Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Manual of Style generally deprecates orphan paragraphs consisting of single sentences, I'd recommend merging the last sentence of the lead with the Selena paragraph. Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section heads

  • To avoid repeating the word "album" from the article title, perhaps "Artist with the most number-ones" and "Most weeks at number one would be better. Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "Year-end" in some places and "Year-End" in others. I recommend making them all say "Year-end". Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date ranges

  • Date ranges get en dashes rather than hyphens per WP:MOSNUM. The many date ranges, such as 1993-1994, in the tables should be 1993–1994, and it's good form to compress these to 1993–94, and so on. Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • "Year End" needs a hyphen for consistency. Fixed Jaespinoza (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My French Coach and My Spanish Coach edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing this article for peer review in lieu of a featured article candidacy. It recently became a good article and I am open to all possible improvements, including copy-editing. The development section is a bit sparse, but there's not a whole lot of information available as far as I can see. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • "In their releases in Europe and Australia, the games are known as My French Coach Level 1: Beginners and My Spanish Coach Level 1: Beginners respectively." Not sure what "their releases" means here.
  • "They were subsequently released for the Wii on November 23, 2007" Larger context renders struck work redundant.
  • "My Spanish Coach was also released for the PlayStation Portable"
  • "Developed with assistance from French and Spanish language teachers,[6] the gameplay of both games concentrates on teaching French or Spanish using lessons and a variety of minigames." MOS breach in the lack of hyphens (French- and Spanish-language teachers); it's unclear whether the teachers assisted with the gameplay or just the general game. Suggested rewording, with other fixes: "French- and Spanish-language teachers assisted in developing the gameplay of both games, which concentrates on teaching French or Spanish using lessons and minigames."
  • "As the player goes through the lessons, the gameplay uses increasingly complex words and phrases. " Besides the repetition of "gameplay" (not sure this is the correct word anyway), what does "goes through the lessons" mean? If there is no better way to explain, then perhaps "progresses"?
  • Gameplay is correct. Hard to find another way to summarize it in the lead. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay
  • "The gameplay of My French Coach and My Spanish Coach consists of" This entire phrase is redundant. Look at the section header right above it.
  • The general point is to indicate that the gameplay for both games is identical, but I'm open to a better wording. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. The readers already know by now which two games are being referred to; how about "In both games, the player completes lessons that..."
  • "As the player progresses through the game, the words increase in difficulty." What about the words (spelling, definition, etc.)?
  • "A player who scores highly will be able to skip many of the initial levels and more basic concepts."-->A player who scores highly can skip many of the initial levels and more basic concepts. So, the "more basic concepts" are not found in the initial levels themselves?
  • "most amount of moles"
  • "players will acquire more mastery points when successfully completing a minigame." "when"-->"on" or "upon"
  • "During the course of their development by Sensory Sweep Studios" or "While being developed by Sensory Sweep Studios"
  • What makes http://chartget.com/2009/01/media-create-sales-0112-0118-software.html a reliable source? I couldn't find it at WP:VG/RS. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Randomran edit

I have a few comments on just the lead:

  • In general, the lead shouldn't introduce new information, so there's no need to add references. The lead should just summarize what's already in the article, which is typically sourced.

Some suggested edits, to reduce redundancy and improve clarity and grammar:

  • TheyBoth games were released for the Wii on November 23, 2007;, and My Spanish Coach was later released for the PlayStation Portable on October 7, 2008.
    • (I hate semicolons, and think they make for awkward sentences that only appeal to academics)
  • In their releases in Europe and Australia, the games were renamed released under the titles My French Coach Level 1: Beginners and My Spanish Coach Level 1: Beginners respectively.
  • You repeat the sentence fragment "the gameplay of both games concentrates on teaching French or Spanish using lessons and a variety of minigames."
  • As the player progresses through the lessons, the gameplay uses challenges the player with increasingly complex words and phrases.
  • The games received praise and criticism from various video game publications; they praised the games' effectiveness in teaching the languages, but video game publications also lamented the games' repetitive nature.
  • Ubisoft also developed and published Tthe next installments in the series, which were titled My French Coach Level 2: Intermediate and My Spanish Coach Level 2: Intermediate and also developed and published by Ubisoft, were released in Europe on November 23, 2007 alongside their Level 1 counterparts.

Hopefully that will help a little. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protophormia terraenovae edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd appreciate any feedback, specifically related to content quality and stylistics--I'm new to the Wikipedia world. Thanks!

Aggie2011nerd (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's really quite good and it's clear you've done your research. A few suggestions: 1) The lead section should be expanded a bit to properly summarize the whole article in 3 paragraphs or so. 2) Include context for any jargon terms, myiasis comes to mind right away. The reader shouldn't have to read each linked article when a quick parenthetical explanation will do. 3) The Geographic distribution section is too North American focused. Try to expand it or refocus it to give the same level of detail around the globe. I realize that's hard depending on what your sources give you, but see what you can do. Also rewrite the second sentence of the second paragraph to make it's focus fit in better. For example In warm regions, appearance of this species is rare and mostly confined to the winter months. flows better with the paragraph than what is there. 4) Try to expand the medical importance section if it's importance justifies it. As it is, the paragraph and section barely stand on their own. 5) As Ruhrfisch helpfully pointed out, there is at least one insect featured article, Chrysiridia rhipheus, and while it has different important facets of the topic, consider what you can take from that article and use to improve this one. One thing that jumps out at me is that behavior is not covered in this article and if it is important at all, perhaps it should be included. That article isn't perfect, but see what else you can take from it. 6) Along with that idea, try to prioritize the most important subtopics and give the most important ones more space, the less important ones less so. Perhaps too much space is given to the Forensic subsection given it's relative importance to the topic. While it is very interesting, the article should be balanced. No need to lose the detail, you can create a subarticle and expand that or move it to another appropriate article if possible. Hope that helps. - Taxman Talk 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes 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've made a lot of (improved, I hope) changes and I'd like some feedback.

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

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice list, brings back a lot of memories - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of references - the article does not even have a "references" section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
    • Response: I'll definitely work on the references. Aatrek (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The color scheme for the seasons is nicely explained in the key and then not used in the main table / list, but only in the Production Order list. Why not in the main list too?
  • Is there any way this could be a sortable list? I think it would be fun to be able to sort by stardate, for example. More importantly, if it were sortable, the whole Production Order list could be made part of the main list and interested readers could just sort it that way.
    • Response: The only problem with a sortable list is that (as far as I know), the episode descriptions won't sort with each line of info, making the table a bit screwy. If somebody wants to work on that down the line, I'd be happy to see it, too. Aatrek (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include in the blurbs for the Menagerie I and II that this is a reworking of the material from the pilot episode.
  • I would also mention in SPace Seed's blurb that this episode was the basis for one of the later films.
  • I would explain more about what the remastered epsidoes and their airdates are in the lead / intro. See WP:PCR
    • Response: Yeah, I'll expand on that link. Aatrek (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance for some free images of any of the cast or writers or directors?
    • Response: Images for each episode are posted with each individual episode's page, so I don't think we need them for this list. Aatrek (talk) 17:43, 27 April 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 ><>°° 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aatrek followup: I've made a whole host of changes (nay, improvements!) to the page, as per the above suggestions. Thanks for the input! Aatrek (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Reports: The Homosexuals edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

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

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

Infobox

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

Lead

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

Production

Segments

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

Participants' response and personal fallout

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

Notes

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

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

  • Thanks for your feedback. As always, very helpful. Couple of things:
  • There does not appear to be a way to delete the episode chronology information from the infobox. The relevant fields are Prev and Next; when removed we're left with the blanks and arrows. I have been unable to find out what the surrounding episodes are or another television infobox (Infobox television special would be good but it doesn't exist). So either the fields remain blank pending somehow locating the ep information, something like "Unknown" goes in the fields or I switch to a different infobox, for example Infobox Film. No real good solutions.
I was afraid that might be the case. I played around with the infobox a bit and didn't find a solution either. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the segment list, the reasons I have it as a list are 1) I didn't realize I had the more detailed summary until stumbling across it a few days ago and 2) since I haven't seen the episode myself I don't know for sure what fell in each segment. I think it would look even more odd to put the list into prose form (along the lines of "The episode consisted of segments called..." or whatever) and then not really tie the segments to the description that follows. Do you think losing the list entirely would be the better way to go? Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of deleting it entirely, but that sounds like a good idea. The detailed description seems sufficient by itself. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I pulled the list and added a sentence at the end to encompass a couple of segments that weren't touched on in the overview. Thanks again for your input. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of State University of New York units edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 work it up to a WP:FL and need feedback on ways it can be improved.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice list overall. I'm an FLC reviewer, so doubtless you'll see me again soon. Because of this, I'll give general comments only:

  • Check for unnecessary wordiness and redundancy:
    • "administration is located in Albany, New York," done
    • "Further, SUNY should not be confused" done
  • At FLC, they like to see a summary of the list in addition to the background info (e.g., first / most recently built institution, which has the highest enrollment, etc.)
  • Put em dashes (—) in the empty cells. done
  • It's generally more appealing to center columns that contain figures. done
  • The easter egg links in the "[Year] Founded" column are alright, but you should provide a note explaining where these links go; see List of New Jersey Nets head coaches as an example. done
  • Per WP:LAYOUT, See also comes before References. done
  • Per MOS, only the first word in section headers should be capitalized. done
  • IMO, it's too much detail to put the websites in this list. Those should go in the main articles of the respective institutions. redid references
  • Some of the "Founded" columns don't have references. redid references
  • "New York State Education Department" Link? done

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey County Colleges edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 is almost ready for FL status and am looking for advice on any last areas I can fix.

Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "with the state of New Jersey." I think you mean "within"? In any case, "in" is simpler and gets the point across just as well. done
  • "As of 2009, there are 19 county colleges statewide, reflecting the fact that two of these colleges each serve students from two separate counties." Maybe I'm stupid, but how does the number of county colleges statewide affect the second statement? done
  • "makes recommendations as to the"-->makes recommendations on the done
  • "In 2003 the state further established the Community College Consortium for Workforce and Economic Development as a single point of contact for employers looking for skilled workers in New Jersey." There should probably be a comma after "2003" to ease readability. done
  • "male to female ratio"-->male-to-female ratio done
  • Check out my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of State University of New York units/archive1—some apply here too.
  • I think the entire table should be centered. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Mets seasons edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to nominate it for featured list status soon, and I want some feedback to ensure a smooth FLC. Prose comments are always the most helpful for me, but all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

I hate the Mets. Now that that is out of the way...

Some of us are Phillies fans, and some of us are Yankees fans who already got their favorite team's seasons list featured. :-)
  • "Founded in 1962, the Mets' 120 losses in their inaugural season, 1962," - redundant, remove second 1962
    • Can't believe I missed that while writing the lead. Done.
  • "based in Flushing, Queens, New York City" - why isn't NYC linked?
    • Does something as basic as New York City really need a link? I'd like to think that most people in the world know what New York City is by now. If not, they can just find a link through the Flushing article.
      • I'd like to think so too, but I'd consider this an essential link since they are the New York Mets, not the Queens Mets or the Flushing Mets. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a link.
  • "After previously playing at the Polo Grounds and Shea Stadium, the team's current home stadium is Citi Field.[1]" - I might consider a reword here; i.e., "The team's current home stadium is Citi Field, after playing xx years at the Polo Grounds and xx years at Shea Stadium."
    • Did it your way. It is better to have the number of seasons at each stadium.
  • "in what was called the 'Subway Series'."
    • Done
  • "As of 2009," can be removed.
    • Done too.
  • Needs a note that stats are only current through 2008.
    • Placed one at the top. See if you think it's better there or the bottom.
  • Per WP:BOLDFACE, bold shouldn't be used in the table as an indicator (I like it too, but it's against the rule. I have to go change Phillies seasons eventually too).
    • When did that become a rule? Or is it only now being enforced? In any case, it's gone now. The color and symbol will have to do.
  • I really think that the sort functions in the table detract from its visual appeal. It makes the columns really wide.
    • I'd really like to keep the sorting because it's so useful, especially in a list like this. If you wanted to see what their five best or worst seasons are, it's much easier to use the sort function than read the whole list. I think part of the problem before was that the columns weren't properly centered. I found a missing quotation mark and fixed it. That alone makes the presentation look much better.
      • Centering helps a lot. Looks good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No spaces between symbols and their entries.
  • "New York Mets regualr season record" - regular
    • I'm good for at least one typo per FLC attempt. Got it.
  • Sorting doesn't work right on GB column. You're going to need a hidden sortkey for every entry (em-dashes should sort as zero).
    • Took me some work, but I figured out how to get it to sort properly.
  • Same for Finish column.
    • This also sorts correctly now.

I will come back for further review later, but that should get you started. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Whenever you're ready, please come back for another look. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment

Nancy Drew edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on it a great deal; it just reached GA status and I would like to try for FA status. I would be very grateful for any suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008 Spanish Grand Prix edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure it's in GA shape. I hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoy answering. Cookies all round. Apterygial 11:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Darth Newdar (talk)

Won't catch everything, but here's a few things I spotted:

Lead

  • Why are you using references at the top of the infobox? Not that it is particulary wrong, just that it's not used on the other articles that the project is doing.
    • LeaveSleaves added that new parameter after a brief discussion at WT:F1 and the infobox talk. I think it's a lot better than having them throughout the infobox, and when I have time I'll go through the other articles I've worked on and put the refs there. Apterygial 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, the information about the World Championships' situation after the race is ordered with the Constructors' Championship first, and the Drivers' Championship second. On the rest of the articles, it is the other way round.
    • Really just about how it flowed into the paragraph. Don't think this is something we should be putting out consistency foot down on. Apterygial 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practice and Qualifying

  • "At one of the test sessions, Hamilton was subjected to racist taunting by some of the spectators." This could do with a ref.
  • "The Ferraris were fastest in the first session; Räikkönen was quickest with a time of 1:20.649, ahead of Massa, who recovered from a spin and a track excursion on his first two laps to take second." The bit I've put in bold I don't get; do you mean an off-track excursion?
  • "Räikkönen clinched the first pole position of his career with a time of 1:21.813." Was it really? Surely he had a pole before that in his career? Anyway, the current ref doesn't state this, so a ref saying would be good.
    • Aaargh. That's the result of me copying the structure from other articles (Kubica in Bahrain, I think). I've changed the wording to something more appropriate. Apterygial 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race

  • "The race restarted on lap four when the safety car peeled off, Räikkönen quickly increased his lead over Massa to more than a second." This doesn't make much sense as a sentence.
    • Really? What part doesn't make sense? Apterygial 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like, "The race restarted on lap four, when the safety car peeled off. Räikkönen quickly increased his lead over Massa to more than a second.", makes more sense (to me, anyway!).

Post-race

  • 'Although Ferrari had performed well, their speed was not significantly better than their opponents, so "we need to keep working like crazy in the factory to improve the car in every area."' In this sentence it's not obvious who said the quote.
    • Changed to "Although Ferrari had performed well, Massa said their speed was not significantly better than their opponents, so "we need to keep working like crazy in the factory to improve the car in every area."" Apterygial 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Darth Newdar (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abismo Negro edit

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


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

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

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

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

  • Thank you, every bit helps. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by NiciVampireHeart
  • The lead should be longer per WP:LEAD#Length.
    • In the works
  • Biography section
    • Change "cleaning the gymnasiums" to "cleaning gymnasiums"
  • Professional wrestling career section
    • "Japanese Samurai tradition. in 1991 Palomeque" - the "i" at the beginning of the sentence should be capitalised.
  • Winners section
    • Change "fan favorite (called "Tecnico" in Mexico)" to "fan favorite (called a "Tecnico" in Mexico)"
    • Wikilink "gimmick" or reword it to something like "in-ring persona"
      • Done, went with the less "in universe" term. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the seond paragraph of the section, the first letter of the first sentence (i.e. in) should be capitalised.
    • "the good looking Tecnicó became even more of a female favorite" - source? It's pov to say he's good looking without providing a source.
      • Done, I wrote with the source in hand but didn't cite it - d'oh. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change "Then a month later Winners" to "Then, a month later, Winners" - correct punctuation/grammar.
    • "Villano IV & May Flowers" - spell out the ampersand to "and"
  • Abismo Negro section
    • Change the comma (,) after "Palomeque was repackaged" to a semi-colon (;)
    • You say "a cheating bad guy (referred to as a heel)" in this section. I personally think it would make more sense to call him the Mexican version (rudo, I think), as you said technico, not face, earlier in the article.
    • Change "recent Vipers member" to "new Vipers member"
    • Change "caused problems (kayfabe) between LLL's leader" to something like "caused storyline problems between LLL's leader"
    • "Negro almost repeated as Rey de Reyes" - doesn't really make sense to me.
      • Fixed, he almost won it two years in a row. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total Nonstop Action Wrestling section
    • Again, "in the following weeks" should be capitalised as "In the following weeks".
  • Return to AAA section
    • You use "face" in this section, when you've been using "technico" above. I'd stick to just "technico", or else it gets confusing.
    • "but Negro eventually reconciled their differences" should probably be "but they eventually reconciled their differences"
    • "was sent to a tour with Pro Wrestling Noah" should either be "was sent on a tour with Pro Wrestling Noah" or "was sent to tour with Pro Wrestling Noah".
  • Black Abyss section
    • You need to cleanup this up --> "Martinete"([[tombstone piledriver)
    • "seemed to be building a Luchas de Apuestas fight" should have a "to" in there - i.e. "seemed to be building to a Luchas de Apuestas fight"
  • Outside the ring section
    • source for the info about "Gimnasio Abismo Negro"?
      • Done,as before I undersouced when I wrote it. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death section
    • No need to state his full name - just Palomeque will do.
    • Change "cause of death was drowning, no further investigation" to "cause of death was drowning, and no further investigation".
    • Change "without their masks on as to keep the" to "without their masks on, to keep the".
  • Championships and accomplishments section
    • Is there a source for his PWI 500 ranking?
      • I'm not sure, I will try to find as a reliable a source as possible. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Thank you for your input, very much apriciated. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Turkish Grand Prix 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 needs to be done to get this article to GA-standard. I am doing this as part of Apterygial's My Insane Idea project. Anything you can spot wrong in the article (and I'm sure there are lots of mistakes!) I want to know!

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Apterygial (talk · contribs)

If you don't mind, I'll add comments as they occur to me, and a 'full' review will probably take me about a week to complete.

  • The first big thing that jumps out at me is the size of the practice coverage. Three massive paragraphs dealing with the most inconsequential part of on-track activity at a GP weekend seems a little much, and should really be reduced to just who were quickest and who crashed or got penalties. It is worth bearing in mind we don't know what the teams are doing in practice, many run race simulations, carrying more fuel and are thus slower (as BMW generally do) than those who practice hot laps (Williams are notorious at doing this), all of which makes practice almost irrelevant.
  • I think, and this is a concern left over from 2008 German Grand Prix, that you rely far too much on block quotes to do the talking for you in the post race section. I'll use them, but with the exception of the box I'll introduce them and certainly won't use more than two in the section, certainly not as long as what we have here. An introduction of "Massa also said" is startlingly superficial, and doesn't really make me want to keep reading. More prose percentage, please.
    • How does it look now? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you can also make some of those sentences your own words, for example Raikkonen said that, "We chose to use the front wing as it takes too long to change it" could be worded your own way (and Raikkonen should be Räikkönen). Apterygial 06:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links section needs fixing. The ManipeF1 link shouldn't be there and the FIA link needs to be renamed, and doesn't link to the FIA anyway.
  • I'm quite surprised you didn't use the FIA race facts, a source I regard as invaluable, and claims superiority to the Autosport Live source you used extensively on two fronts: it is written retrospectively and is thus more reliable for real information, and it gets its laps right, which the Live source often fails to do. But you should use both, together, along with the BBC source which takes a little bit to find, they form a great collection of information with which you distil the race.
    • I think you could have gone a little over the top here. For any of those facts with two cites, are there any that you can cut down to one? If one source has the facts you are referencing, you don't need two. Apterygial 09:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have cut most of the double references, apart from three which are needed. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{reflist|2}}, please, you notice the difference with Firefox.
  • I'd avoid having single sentence paragraphs, as with Massa's in the Background section. Is there anything you can merge it into? Having said that, I think the fact would be better worked into Post-race, seeing managed to make it three consecutive victories.
  • Might be a good idea (though Bourdais may object) to mention why Toro Rosso didn't have enough spare parts.
  • You could probably cut the bit in Ron Dennis' quote about Hamilton's points, you talk about it later so the repetition isn't necessary.
  • "Bourdais failed to comment on the incident." Does this mean he failed to comment or that you failed to find him commenting? If the former, it needs a cite.
    • I found both Fisichella and Nakajima commenting on their collision, but Fisichella blamed Bourdais. Bourdais, however, said nothing about it - at least, not on GrandPrix.com, BBC Sport, or Autosport.com. I was trying to let readers know that Bourdais did not say anything, rather than them supposing that the article doesn't contain what Bourdais said. I suppose the best thing to do is to get rid of that sentence, right? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say so. We really don't have any idea whether he said anything at all, he could even have commented in French, which would make it a lot harder to find. Apterygial 01:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick non-binding question, why are you using the quotebox in P&Q for a Friday quote, wouldn't a Saturday quote be more pertinent?
I have used a post-qualifying quote from Massa. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon you should cut down the Post-race quotebox a little, it's almost entering the realm of copying to much from sources (there's a policy somewhere...)
    • I've deleted one sentence. I'm not sure whether anything else can be deleted without affecting other parts of the quote. Would you get rid of any of what's there?
      • I've deleted a bit. We don't really need the drivers congratulating his team if we can help it, all the drivers do it so it doesn't really add much to the article. Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quite liked the sentence from Hamilton saying that he was looking forward to the Monaco Grand Prix, is it possible to have this back in? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure. Add it in (with an introduction) next to Ron Dennis' quote. Apterygial 09:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "span off" correct English? I'm not really sure. Apterygial 09:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think (although I'm not sure either) that "spun off" is correct. Darth Newdar (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the FIA?
  • "Bourdais commented on his retirement: "Something broke at the back of the car, I don't know what it was yet."" Do we know now?
Umm... well, according to Franz Tost (found on GrandPrix.com) "...Bourdais had a problem at Turn 12, which the data reveals as a technical failure that we will now investigate." I don't think, however, that any Toro Rosso people told the public what they investiaged (as far as I know anyway). Darth Newdar (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best I could find (even Autocourse is lacking) is f1.com which says it was a rear suspension failure. Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now put that on both the classification table and the race. Does the classification table need a ref for it or not? Just thinking that most tables don't, but the rear suspension failure isn't mentioned anywhere else. Also, does it need to be put in the post-race section? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put the ref next to the other one down the bottom of the table. In Post-race, I think you can have "Something broke at the back of the car ... Going into turn 12, I braked at the usual point and the car went sideways, I felt the right rear corner of the car drop and it spun me round." Apterygial 09:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just looking at it now, and I'm thinking, wow, is that that a big lead! It looks like Diniz did a bit of expansion work on it, but now it looks a little long. Do we really need that much race detail in the lead? Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massa claimed pole and Räikkönen fourth, the two Ferrari cars sandwiching the McLarens of Heikki Kovalainen and Hamilton in second and third respectively. In fourth was Massa's teammate, Räikkönen. At the first corner Räikkönen clipped Kovalainen's rear tyre and gave him a puncture. This forced Kovalainen to make a pit stop, dropping him to the back of the field. Also on the first lap, Force India's Giancarlo Fisichella braked too late and slammed into the back of Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima with sufficent force to launch his car into an airborne flight over Nakjima. Both cars retired as a result of the collision. The safety car was deployed after a collision between Force India's Giancarlo Fisichella and Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima, but only remained out for one lap. During the course of the race, Hamilton, intending to make one more pit stop than both Ferrari drivers due to concerns over his rate of tyre wear, was faster than Massa due to carrying a lighter fuel load and overtook him on lap 24. However, after Hamilton had made his third pit stop, he rejoined in second behind Massa but in front of the Championship leader, Räikkönen. The top three would remain like this for the rest of the race. Massa crossed the line to win the race, with Hamilton 3.779 seconds behind, and Räikkönen a further half-second behind. Robert Kubica, Nick Heidfeld, Fernando Alonso, Mark Webber and Nico Rosberg filled the remaining points-scoring positions, whilst Kovalainen could only recover to twelfth place after his early delay.

  • OK. I'm just thinking that when it makes portal I'll have to cut it down the 200 words, and that looks pretty daunting at the moment. Apterygial 09:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does that look? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine. A longish lead shouldn't get you caught out at GAN, but I always like to err on the side of caution. Apterygial 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note my point way above about the use of double references.

'Snuff for now. Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is trying to get court-related articles in good shape, and we're hoping to learn what it takes to get an article on a district court "good" or even "featured". The one we picked (arbitrarily) was United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. After a week of improvements, we think it's ready for peer review. So what does it still need? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: You asked what the article needs; here are a few suggestions:-

  • Get a better focus: is it an article or a list? At present it is heavily weighted by the list of judges. If the article is intended to be primarily about the court, rather than a list, then the prose content of a modest 1100 words or so needs to be expanded.
    It's definitely intended to be an article. Do you think the detailed list should be removed to a separate page? I lean toward including it in the article itself, but I could see removing it if you think we should. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few suggestions for extending the content:-
    • Add a short section explaining the court's place within the structure of the US federal judiciary system, like where it stands in the hierarchy, what are its superior courts, what are its lower courts etc. Stuff like that would be most helpful to non-US readers.
    • The History section could be expanded by giving more details about the early court, where it met etc. The section is at present mainly an account of the district's various divisions and subdivisions; it would be interesting to have something about the general workload of the district courts - how many cases were being heard in the 1850s, how many now, etc., or any other enlivening facts about the district's growth and development. Some of this may be covered by the Notable cases subsection, but as noted below, I think this should be a separate section.
    • Facts are mentioned in the lead which are not mentioned in the article. Everything in the lead needs to be followed up in some way, in the main body of the article.
  • The lead itself needs to be reorganized. At the moment it is rather a jumble of facts in no particular logical order. The lead should act as a summary of the article as a whole.
  • The Notable cases section could be a section in its own right rather than a subsection of history. However, I wonder how "notable" the redlinked cases are, if they have not yet attracted wikipedia articles?
    Oh, they're notable. It's a shame they don't have articles yet, but they definitely should. I've separated the section. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is overlinking, especially of terms which might be considered everyday. Among there are abortion, newspaper, campaign contributions, defendent. There may be others.
    • I agree on newspaper and defendant, but are you sure about abortion and campaign contributions? They are the most import "topic" of each court case. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor points:
    • "...a students rights" Apostrophe missing
    • References to "Supreme Court" should be clarified. Is this US Supreme Court?
    • "Saint Louis" in the lead becomes St Louis later on
    • "at this time" needs to be replaced by a fixed time, e.g. "as of March 2009"
      All done. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points on the table
    • I think chronology would be a better default order than alphabetical by judge
    • The hyphens (indicating no information) would look much better replaced with dashes, and centered in their cells. I have done the first one to show you what I mean.
      Fixed (the hyphens). – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are of help to you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are. I'll look at the suggestions (that I haven't yet addressed) over the coming days. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source from which I was able to substantially increase the information about the early case load of the court. bd2412 T 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major updates edit

Okay, we have attempted to address all these concerns. The lead has been completely redone, and now summarizes the article (though it may still need work). There was some reorganization, and the history was greatly expanded. The court's place within the U.S. judicial system was expanded upon. Various formatting changes were also done. Still unsure whether a complete list of present and former judges belongs in the article itself. Further comments and criticisms would of course be eagerly welcomed. – Quadell (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • I have looked at the article again, following these major revisions. I think the balance is much better with the truncated list of judges, and the focus is now quite definitely on the court. During a fairly speedy run-through I did a few copyedits (which you are welcome to revert), and made a few notes which I give below:-
    • I altered "divided into divisions" to "organized into divisions", to avoid what to me is an ugly repetition. However, I have left "...divided the Eastern District into the Northern and Esatern divisions..." because the repetitions are at some distance.
    • The "largest courthouse" sentence in the lead looks misplaced. This is really a bit of trivia, totally unimportant to the article, and certainly not something to be mentioned in the lead. Either cut it altogether, or mention it in passing in the depths of the article, but don't showcase it.
    • I personally dislike the "such as" format that you use in the lead, when abortion and campaign finance were actual issues covered in the cases In my view a better wording would be "covering issues relating to abortion and campaign finance"
    • The opening of the new Mandate and Jurisdiction section reads like pure legalese: "empowered to conduct civil trials on and issue orders with respect to..." etc etc. This sounds like some formal statutory language, and you should cite the source. You should also convert it into something a little less artificial.
    • The long quotes in the Civil War section are not justified. They should be paraphrased in your own words.

That's really all I can say, I think. I hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I abbreviated the second Civil War era quote. I'd really like to keep the first, as it would be hard to reword it and yet keep the flavor of the many different subjects taxed, each under its own law. bd2412 T 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I think all your concerns have been addressed now. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "2008 ARIA albums certification". Australian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 11 April 2009.
  2. ^ "Aimée Duffy". Recordiau Awen Records. Retrieved 11 April 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/April_2009&oldid=292958980"