Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2011

< 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.

List of current Indian pretenders edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just looking for some feedback regarding where and how other editors feel I can make further improvements to the list.

There are also some issues with it that I can identify myself. Any ideas on how best to handle these would be appreciated:

  • There are a lot of redlinks in the state column. A lot of the monarchies listed weren't very prominent or were quite tiny, so they haven't had articles created for them.
  • Sortability is a problem. It's there, but it doesn't work, since the table includes rowspans for 2 entries. I have a few ideas about how to get around this, maybe <hr> rows?
  • Information isn't very forthcoming on this topic. The list is almost certainly incomplete, and many fields (most in the dates column) are blank from lack of data.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Nightw 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This list includes an impressive lot of information, but I agree with you that it has plenty of room for improvement. Here are my suggestions:

  • The sorts will work best if the sortable terms are exactly parallel in meaning to one another. The sort works on the first term encountered in each row of each column; those are the terms that should be parallel in meaning.
  • The sort of the "Pretender" column can be made to work as a surname sort if you list the surnames first; i.e., Singh, Ajayraj rather than Ajayraj Singh. However, I can't help with the complications of names in India and what you might do in the case of someone who does not use a surname or who has a family name that differs from a public name. You'll have to decide what kind of name sort would be most useful to readers and how to list outliers that are hard to make parallel. In no case, should the "Pretender" column be filled with something like "1 December 2004" instead of a name. It would be better to say "unknown" if the name is not known.
  • The sort of the "Since" column does not produce much of interest because it is sorting on the month rather than the year. To make a better sort, put the year first in each row of this column.
  • Each row should have the same number of column boxes as every other row. Jamaluddin Khan, for example, only has three boxes but needs seven. All entries in this particular list need exactly seven.
  • All of the dates in the Abolition column link redundantly to the same article. I would instead remove all of these links and use a single note to explain the entire column. The inline link to this note could appear right after the word "Abolition" at the head of the column.
  • Two solutions are possible for the redlinks problem. You can either create articles, or you can remove the links from any items that are not likely to have articles written about them.
  • Finding the missing data and making sure that the list is comprehensive is more difficult than fixing the sorts. A related problem is that much of the data seems to come from sources of questionable reliability. For example, what makes Genealogical Gleanings a source that meets the WP:RS guidelines? Do any editors check the work of Henry Soszynski for accuracy? Is Genealogical Gleanings a personal web site rather than a vetted publication? To answer these questions and to find the missing data, you might need to track down the published sources acknowledged by Soszynski and to find others (if any exist) as well.
  • I often find it helpful to look at featured articles or lists to see how other editors have done things. You can find the complete list of featured lists at WP:FL. Many of them include sortable lists.
  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one link, "list of monarchs", that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target. Finetooth (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've addressed the majority of those issues: sortability, repeat links, etc. Most Indians don't have surnames, and "Singh" is just the second part of the name. You'll notice that half of them combine the romanised words, while the other half separate them; so that "Ajayraj Singh" can also be written "Ajayrajsingh". Sorting the names just as they are written is best. Nightw 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Academy edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 cleaned up the article substantially and added references, and I believe it should be now classified as at least a C-Class School Article. Thanks, Qazwsx999 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chew (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've spent a lot of my spare time updating this page and making it look as good as possible. I would like any comments or suggestions that anyone would like to give and also I would love it if someone would upgrade the article's standing by the criteria shown on the discussion page!

Thanks, Rich

  • The lead needs to be expanded. It must be a summary of the entire article.
  • Expressions such as "Eisner Award-winning" are avoided. Use "The comic won the Eisner Award" instead.

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting comic - thanks for your work on this (and sorry to be so slow in reviewing this). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are about 22 Featured Articles (FAs) in WikiProject:Comics, but only four of them are about actual comic books (all longer than this story, and in most cases originally published as several issues, later collected in one volume). The four best model FAs for this article are: Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards, Fun Home, The Halo Graphic Novel, and Watchmen. Note that this does not mean this article has to ever become FA or a Good Article (GA) or slavishly follow any of these, but they may be helpful models.
  • Looking at each of the four FAs, while each article is differently structured, they all seem to try and follow chronological order for background and composition of the comic book, plot, and critical reception and susbsequent history (reprints, etc.). I think it would help this article to add some on the composition and perhaps organize it more along these lines.
  • Another thing I noticed is that the majority of the material in the article is about the book itself (plot, characters, locations, powers), which is fine, but it is also useful to expand the article with more material about what others have said about it. How did it come to be written? What have critics said about the style / artwork? Again the models will be helpful for ideas.
  • I also noticed that much of the article is written from an in-universe perspective, when the Manual of Style says to write about works of fiction from an out-of-universe perspective. As one example, "The Gardner-Kvashennaya International Telescope is one of the three most powerful telescopes in the world." makes it sounds like this is a real telescope, when it does not exist except as a plot device in this comic. Same holds true for all the Food Related Powers. Please see WP:IN-U
  • I think the locations and powers as sections could be cut back and combined with Plot or CCharatcers or perhaps put into some sort of Background section.
  • The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections - this interrupts the narrative flow. These should be combined with others wherever possible or perhaps expanded.
  • The current lead is too short. A lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As a summary, 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, so that is one way to expand the lead - Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references in palces. 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
  • Section headers have to follow WP:HEAD (capitalization)
  • Avoid contractions like "It's" as they are unencylcopedic
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I relly liked what you did, I tried to change the discussion page, but it didnt work. Sorry -Chuck

Abraham Lincoln edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 help honor the 16th President an bring his article back to FA status.

Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just kind of skimmed thru but I do feel it's a fairly solid article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good article about a truly famous person. I read carefully to the end of the "Assuming command for the Union in the war" section and made line-by-line suggestions. However, I don't want to devote any more hours to this particular article, and I would suggest a close copyedit of the remaining sections. Most of the errors that I spotted were small things, and the prose is generally clear and error-free. On the other hand, I'm not a historian, and I can't say whether the article is comprehensive or not or whether the research behind the article is complete or not. Does it perhaps rely a little bit too heavily on the Donald books? I don't really know, but it is something to consider.

Lead

Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "which had high moral standards" - I'd leave this out since it's a judgment that somehow suggests that this particular church had higher standards than other churches. You could just say, "which opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery" and let the reader make the judgment.
  • "though Lincoln, as an adult, never joined a church" - Does "Lincoln" in this sentence mean "Thomas" or does it mean "Abraham"?
It was Thomas Lincoln. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

  • "While preparing for the nuptials and having cold feet again" - It's not clear from the preceding sentences that Lincoln had "cold feet" in the earlier instances. Also, since "cold feet" is slang, something like "feeling reluctance" or "having doubts" would be more accessible to non-U.S. readers.
Changed to "feeling reluctance". Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edward Lincoln died on February 1, 1850, in Springfield, likely of tuberculosis." - Link tuberculosis?
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early career and military service

  • "In the 1835–1836 legislative session, he voted to continue the restriction on suffrage to white males only while removing the condition of land ownership." - I think suffrage and "condition of land ownership" need to be briefly explained for readers unfamiliar with U.S. history. Perhaps "In the 1835–1836 legislative session, he voted to expand voting rights to white males who were not landowners... " if that was the case.
Changed to "he voted to expand suffrage, or voting rights, to white males who were not landowners only." Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He closely followed Henry Clay... " - Link Henry Clay on first use.
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early national politics

  • Unlink Henry Clay on second use in the quotation. Nothing should be linked inside a direct quote.
  • "in order to challenge an eyewitness' credibility" - I think this should be "eyewitness's" credibility. However, maybe recasting as "in order to challenge the credibility of an eyewitness" would be better.
Changed to latter suggestion. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie lawyer

  • "From 1853 to 1860 Lincoln was a lawyer and lobbyist for the Illinois Central Railroad... " - Link Illinois Central Railroad?
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republican politics 1854–1860

  • " 'A house divided against itself cannot stand'.(Mark 3:25) I believe this government... - "Mark" should not be linked directly from within the quote. You might explain the connection in a footnote or a parenthetical remark after the quote.
  • "In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its controversial pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford; Chief Justice Taney" - Link Roger B. Taney here? I believe it's the first use in the article?
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech

  • "Donald described the speech as a "superb political move for an unannounced candidate, to appear in one rival's (William H. Seward) own state at an event sponsored by the second rival's (Salmon P. Chase) loyalists, while not mentioning either by name during its delivery." - Remove links from inside this direct quote. Use a footnote instead or link on second use slightly later in the article.

1860 Presidential nomination and election

Linked the three that you suggested. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1860 election and secession

  • "Douglas won Missouri, and split New Jersey with Lincoln." - Several states are linked in this section, while others, such as New Jersey, are not linked. I think you need to be consistent by linking each state once on first use. In some cases in this section, a state is linked on something other than first use. "Missouri" is an example.

War begins

  • "Donald concluded Lincoln fairly estimated the events leading to the initiation of war." - Identify "Donald" in some way, as "historian David Donald" perhaps.
  • "Maryland politicians were arrested and imprisoned as Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus" - Link and italicize habeas corpus. Unlink the term in the next section, "Assuming command for the Union in the war", where it is linked on second use.
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Merryman, a leader in the secessionist group" - Link John Merryman?
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming command for the Union in the war

  • Unlink but italicize habeus corpus.
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The war effort was the source of continued disparagement of Lincoln from every direction... " - I'd remove "from every direction" since it is likely an overstatement; it implies that nobody supported him.
Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This decision, in part, prevented the secession of Kentucky while incurring the violence in the North." - If Fremont was in Missouri, what did this have to do with Kentucky? What exactly was the decision? Where was Fremont's new command? Was it a demotion or a promotion or neither?
  • "The war assumed foreign policy implications in 1861 when James Mason and John Slidell, ministers of the Confederacy to Great Britain and France... " - Link "James Mason" to James Murray Mason? Link John Slidell?
Linked both. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Britain protested vehemently while the American public cheered." - "American" is probably not the right word in this context. Maybe "northern Americans" or "Union supporters"?
Changed to "northern Americans." Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one dab, "Weaver".
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Prohibido (song) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be an "A" status rather then a "B" status

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think, this is a B class. It has already a GA-status; maybe you want it featured?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not very knowledgeable with Wikipedia's Standards so that's why I came here to see if this article is or can be a "A" status. AJona1992 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I am currently having internet connection problems, and there may be a dalay befoe I can start this review. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its alright thanks for letting me know, hope that your connection gets better soon. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back in business from today. The review will be done in the next couple of days; thanks for your patience. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Obviously some good work has been done here, but I have to say that overall, the prose is weak, and I am surprised that some of the issues that I raise here were not brought up and addressed during the GA review, which seems as though it was carried out rather superficially. I would not at present class this as of GA standard. Here are some specific prose problems, mainly from the lead and first section:-

Lead
  • First para, final sentence: "The song describes a relationship, the story of love between a man and a women who are tested with their love, poverty, differences, and are even dealt with their parents who disapprove of their relationship." The sentence reads clumsily, and the last part is ungrammatical. I think the meaning is "The song describes a erlationship between a man and a woman in which their love is tested by poverty, differences and parental disapproval". If so I suggest you reword accordingly.
  • In the second paragraph, the first "her" should be replaced by the singer's name
  • You say the song "won both the Premio Lo Nuestro Awards for 'Pop Ballad of the Year'". Does this mean two awards for "pop Ballad of the Year"? In what year were these awards made? I don't see any reference to this song on the Premio Lo Nuestro Awards article.
  • "While at the Tejano Music Awards, the single led Selena to win all nominated work for the album Amor Prohibido" Again, the wording is clumsy and hard to interpret. What does "all nominated work" mean? Why say "the single led Selena to win" instead of "the single won"? Also, the opening "While" is unnecessary.
  • In what year was the Grammy Award nomination for "Best Mexican-American Performance"?
Background and composition
  • The song was "written and produced by Jorge Alberto Pino..." and several other names. We then read that "The single was arranged by Joe Ojeda, and Chris Pérez". What does "arranged" mean in this context?
  • Too many sentences in this paragraph begin "The song..."
  • What does "The song leaked into airplay..." mean, and "a couple weeks" sounds vague and informal.
  • Referring to Quintanilla as "A.B." is likewise too informal.
  • Having earlier said that the song was "written and produced" by a whole list of people, you now seem to be saying that the song was written by Quintanilla with a bit of help from Selena. This seems inconsistent.
  • In the short second paragraph, all three sentences begin "Selena"
  • Other prose glitches in this section include "an Tejano Pop mix" and "Its lyrics describes..."

I have not studied the remaining sections in such close detail, but I'm afraid I found the Critical reception section almost impossible to understand. Sample sentences:-

  • "A.B. Quintanilla III wrote most of Selena's biggest hits and songs and usually writes the songs out of the boundaries of Tejano music,[12] which led Selena to become the "Queen of Tejano music" due to her being the first and only Tejano artist to have achieved this feat."
  • "About.com added Selena's single "Dreaming of You" to the top 12 Spanish language songs that have been played on English language radio, while doing so, About.com stated that "the album of the same name includes "Amor Prohibido" and "Como La Flor," both of which enjoyed popularity in Latin America" during their scoring".

I also note that the Covers section is written in bullet points, which should be converted to standard prose. I believe that the article should be given a thorough copyedit by a knowlegeable and preferably uninvolved editor. One issue unrelated to prose is that the toolbox on the right reveals four links to disambiguation pages.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been taken care of. Are there any more to be addressed? AJona1992 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of macroeconomic thought edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get this article listed as a good or featured article. Work still needs to be done on it, but I would like to get feedback on the general approach before I do more fine tuning.

Thanks, Bkwillwm (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this important article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I am not sure the first sentence of the lead follows WP:LEAD, which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The current first sentence is only about Keynes and his 1936 book.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - not sure if that is the case here or not. For example Heterodox is mentioned, but neither Post Keynesian or Austrian theories are mentioned specifically in the lead.
  • As a summary, 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 part in the first lead paragraph about Before Keynes, economists used microeconomic methods to explain aspects of economics like employment, price level, and interest rates.[2] seems to only be in the lead, and the phrase "Keynesian Revolution" is also only in the lead as far as I can tell. I owuld also mention MONIAC somewhere in the article besides the caption (great picture)
  • Abbreviations like RBC should be given in parentheses directly after the first use
  • The section headers in Wikipedia articles tend to be more concise (telegraphic) than these are and avoid the use of articles where possible - see WP:HEAD
  • I would start the article body (after the lead) with a brief definition of macro vs micro-economics for the totally uninformed.
  • I would add years to the Keynes and the beginning of macroeconomics section to increase understanding. I would also add the year to photo caption of Keynes (1946)
  • File:ACEGESGUI.png is very likely a copyright violation - the copyright belongs to the creators of the software, not the person who made the screen shot
  • I have had some Economics, but found this pretty rough going. I think it would help to make it as accessible as possible, without dumbing it down. The lead is fairly accessible, but I think if some basic terms were briefly explained (in addition to being wikilinked) that might help. So, for example, explaining breifly what clearing a market (or failing to do so) is, might help.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Where two or more refs are to the same page(s) or a source, they should be combined (the ref name = tag works here) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. It is very helpful. I have a few responses.
  • I omitted any discussion of MONIAC because it is not very significant. It's mainly a curiosity. I don't know how I'd tie it into the text unless it was an aside about Philips.
  • The uploader of File:ACEGESGUI.png claims to be the author of the software program. He exclusively edits the article on ACEGES and his user name is the same as one of the ACEGUS researcher's names. I think it's more likely that there's a COI issue than a copyright one.
  • I'll try to make the article more accessible. Let me know if there were particular sections that were unclear.
  • I'm not a fan of the ref name template form of citations. I'd rather keep them out of the article unless someone can convince me they're worthwhile.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Beecham edit

Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

The current crop of commemorative CDs and BBC features marking the 50th anniversary of Beecham's death has prompted me to give the article a thorough overhaul and expansion from its existing GA state. I think it is now ready for FAC, or rather it will be if kind Wiki-colleagues pitch in with suggestions for further improvement. Beecham was, in my opinion, one of the finest conductors Britain has ever produced, and he deserves the best possible article. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

  • Lead
    • "Together with his younger colleague Malcolm Sargent, Beecham founded the London Philharmonic and conducted its first performance at the Queen's Hall in 1932." This is saying that Beecham and Sargent conducted the London Philharmonic's first performance together. Is that what's meant?
  • German music
    • "Beecham's attitude to 19th-century German repertoire was equivocal." Shouldn't there be a "the" before "repertoire"?
      • I don't think so, but am biddable. I'll see what other reviewers think. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • recordings
    • "From 1926 to 1932, Beecham made nearly 150 78-rpm sides". That really needs to be rewritten in some way to get rid of the two numbers colliding into each other rather awkwardly. The same with "... recording more than 300 78-rpm sides for Columbia".
      • Fixed.
  • Honours and commemorations
    • There's something wrong with the punctuation of the first paragraph.
    • "Beecham by Caryl Brahms and Ned Sherrin is a play celebrating the conductor. Written in 1979, it starred Timothy West in the title role ...". That doesn't seem quite right. The play didn't star Timothy West, but a performance of it did.

Thank you very much for these, and for your eagle-eyed proof reading and amendments. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've given this another proofread, and I have no further comments. It seems ready for FAC, I think [after others have finished their peer reviews and Tim riley is ready to nominate]. Another super article, Tim riley! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria

  • File:Beecham-Strauss-Pitt-Walter.jpg - maybe reword caption as "Clockwise from top left"?
    • I wondered about that, but decided on the present wording as shorter, which is perhaps desirable in a caption. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later – I find myself outvoted on this and have adopted the "clockwise" form. Tim riley (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RPOLogo.png - "The image is used to identify the organization Thomas Beecham"? FUR needs some tweaking
    • I can't work out how to tweak, and will ask an image expert for help. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether notes are cited parenthetically or with footnotes
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give me an example of what needs tweaking? Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note 2 begins "Lucas (p. 17)...". It is the only note to have that type of parenthetical reference - the others use footnotes. I was curious as to why the difference existed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Warning: reference formatting nitpicking):
    • be consistent in how you notate page ranges (for example, 62-63 vs 214-15);
      • My mistake – I thought that was the approved style: double digits left intact but triple ones trimmed. I've untrimmed the latter. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • why is "quoted" in italics but not "in"?;
      • As above, I thought that was the approved style. ("Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance", as Dr. Johnson once admitted). I've amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gramophone or The Gramophone?;
      • This is tricky. The magazine dropped the definite article from its title in the 1970s, restored it briefly in the 2000s and has now dropped it again. I have followed the form current at each mention. I sometimes wonder whether to link both versions at the first mention of each, but I have concluded that it would be more confusing than helpful to the reader. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • link Blyth on first occurrence instead of second
  • Haltrecht is in References but not Sources
    • Gracious me! I've hastily amended. Most grateful for your spotting that. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 131: page(s)?
    • And indeed header, too – I can't imagine how I missed this, and I have remedied the dereliction. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 153: formatting doesn't seem to match other journal references
    • Ought I to remove the name of the publisher? Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably. It also has a number and the date in parentheses, which none of the others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Rochester? You might consider state or country names for ambiguous or lesser-known publisher locations
    • I didn't add this citation, and I see from the WorldCat that the book was published in London, not Rochester, and have amended accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second World War or World War II? Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 or Third Brandenburg Concerto?
  • Some overlinking: Royal Philharmonic Society, Reginald Kell, Brandenburg Concertos and others are linked in fairly close succession
    • Pruned as suggested, except for the Brandenburgs, which I think are in such different contexts (albeit in close proximity) that the links are helpful. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a palm court? "the provinces"? Beethovensaal? Make sure your text is clear to non-specialists (and non-Brits)
    • Linked "palm court"; "provinces" redrawn; I struggle with "Beethovensaal", which hasn't got an article to which to link; it is a major hall in Berlin, and I don't think one can explain it any more than one could explain "Queen's Hall" or "Carnegie Hall". Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1899 to 1909 he was estranged from his father, and his access to the Beecham family fortune was strictly limited" - since you've already mentioned the estrangement, this could be reordered: his access to the money was limited because of his estrangement
  • Maybe provide some modern conversions for monetary figures?
    • People have strong views on this, pro and con. I am biddable, but would like to see what other reviewers think. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where, asked Die Signale, the principal Berlin musical weekly, did London find such magnificent young instrumentalists?" - this might be better received as a direct quote
  • Is there a more descriptive heading than "Beecham and others"?
    • Nothing comes to mind: this section rather bundles together his relationships with professional colleagues and anecdotes about his remarks to colleagues and others. Neither is long enough to warrant a section of its own, and I cannot think of another header that covers both aspects of this section. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of 1950s is a little hard to follow - maybe reorganize slightly?
  • "Sixty-six years after his first visit to America" - when was this? Is it worth discussing briefly earlier?
    • His father took him with him on a business trip. I don't think it would add anything to refer to it in the article. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beecham was not known for his Bach[120] but nonetheless chose Bach (arranged by Beecham) for his debut at the Metropolitan Opera" - rephrase?
    • I am trying to make the point that Beecham wasn't presenting unadulterated Bach – anything but! I think a pronoun instead of the second "Beecham" would be ambiguous, and I generally prefer a slightly lumpy phrasing to an ambiguous one. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described by The Times as "a travesty, albeit an invigorating one"" - is this referring to the piece, the performance, or the person they're memorializing?
    • And right on cue, an ambiguity of my own! Now amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fauré did not feature often, although the Pavane was an exception" - a non-musician is going to be very lost here. Either link Pavane or write out the full title, and probably link the composer too.
    • I should most certainly have linked "Fauré", and have now done so – thank you! His Op. 50 is called just Pavane. I don't want to use opus numbers, which I think are offputting for casual readers, so Pavane is all I can call it. I've linked. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this. Lots of food for thought here, and I'll work through it carefully. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Later: Now done. These were exceptionally helpful suggestions, and I am most grateful for your eagle eye. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A fascinating article on this great conductor. I reviewed this for GA nearly three years ago; I'm a bit embarrassed by some of my heavy-handed comments of the time, but we all grow up a little. I have long felt the article to be FA-worthy, and I hope that is its destination now. I have a few nitpicks and suggestions, as follows:-

  • Quotations, even in the lead, need to be cited
    • I'm not sure whether to leave it in quotes and cite it or simply knock out the quotes. I think the latter is perhaps easier on the reader's eye. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "range of repertoire" is tautologous; surely, the concept of "range" is within "repertoire".
    • So do I. I hope this wasn't my drafting, but I can't swear to it. I've amended. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to go beyond Richard Strauss, in illustrating the operas that Beecham introduced to England?
    • It would, though most of Beecham's other novelties sank without trace. As impresario he was responsible for the first UK performances of Boris Godunov and Prince Igor, but he didn't conduct them, and I think it might be misleading to put them in the list in the lead along with the Strauss works, which he did conduct. He conducted the premieres of three Delius operas – but (as you will see from the excellent Wikipedia article on that composer) Delius's operas aren't standard repertory. I 've added "and three of Delius's operas" without naming them. I must remember to justify that by adding details in the main text at the appropriate point. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder at the positioning of the information about Beecham's parental estrangement in the middle of a section entitled "First orchestras".
    • Me too, but it has to go in at that chronological point, and is too important to be relegated to a footnote. I could rename the section 1899 – 1910, if that would be better. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a long list of barely-known composers such as Étienne Méhul." Hmmm, maybe if the list was long we could have more than one name?
  • Should "Sir Joseph Beecham's Grand Season of Russian Opera and Ballet" be in inverted commas?
  • "...to keep music alive in London and Manchester, where he formed grandiose plans for a new opera house." Clarify whether these plans related to London and Manchester or (as I suspect) just Manchester.
    • You are right in your suspicion. On reflection I think the mention of the chimerical opera house is unnecessary, and I've zapped it. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence needs splitting/clarification: "Originally Sargent and Beecham envisaged a reshuffled version of the London Symphony Orchestra, but the LSO, a self-governing co-operative, balked at their weeding out and replacement of underperforming players, and in 1932 Beecham lost patience and agreed with Sargent to set up a new orchestra from scratch." Three "ands"; clarify "their"
  • Repetition: "...106 players including a few young players, straight from music college, many established players..." (And next sentence starts "The players..."
  • "...a substantial control"? Surely the indefinite article isn't necessary?
    • Not certain. I've removed it, without prejudice as the lawyers say. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little tantalising to have Boult's "beastly manner" comment, but to be given no clue about what Beecham actually did. Kick Toye downstairs? Could anything worthwhile be added here?
    • Beecham got the board of directors to gang up on Toye and secure his resignation. Toye got a hefty £5,000 pay-off. Toye put out a statement admitting that there had been "differences of opinion between the directors and myself with regard to questions of policy, management and financial control". (Lucas, p. 227). I'm not convinced this is interesting enough to put in, though I am biddable, as always. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads as though the Magic Flute recording for EMI extended over two years. Is that so?
    • It is. So did the post-war Carmen. Beecham seemed quite unfazed by such things, and was able to pick up seamlessly where he left off. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say: "...to postpone his plans for several months", to make it clear that he was still going.
  • "In addition to these posts..." Intervening material vitiates the use of "these"
  • Perhaps slightly golly-gosh wording such as "no fewer than" should be avoided as non-neutral?
  • Odd to read the description of Wilhelm Furtwängler as Beecham's "younger colleague" - it diminishes him somehow. Is there another way of phrasing it?
    • Beecham used to call Furtwängler, "my boy", but I take your point. I was, I suppose, alluding in passing to the relatively young age at which Furtwängler died. I've removed the adjective none the less. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the use of the English forms "The Impresario and Abduction from the Seraglio". In any event the latter would be "The Abduction...", but I'd prefer to see the more familiar German title here.
    • You're getting off lightly. At some point (I don't swear it was a Beecham production) the Flute was done at Covent Garden in Italian as Il flauto magico. I've Germanised the titles. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He accompanied the Fourth Piano Concerto with pleasure..." What does this mean - that he played the solo piano part? Surely not, and I'm not sure about adding "with pleasure".
    • That's pretty standard phrasing, I'm certain, for conducting the orchestral part of a concerto. As to the "with pleasure", the G major concerto was one of the Beethoven works Beecham thoroughly enjoyed, and the sources confirm it. (As, aurally, does the recording, which I've got.) – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general point: Were any of Beecham's compositions ever published or performed publicly? If so, it might be worth mentioning what these were.
    • I have not seen any mention of it in any of the biographies. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I look forward to seeing the article advance as a worthy addition to the growing WP classical music canon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for these points. I shall work carefully through them – an enjoyable task. Tim riley (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now done. Some queries, above, on which I'd be grateful for your thoughts in due course. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your comments – very much to the point, as always. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I'm generally very happy with these responses. I don't think it's necessary to change the "First orchestras" section title unless other reviewers insist. And now you have satisfied my curiosity and confirmed that Beecham didn't physically abuse Toye, I don't think anything needs to be added here. I have not previously seen "accompanied" used in the way you do here. I accept that it is technically correct, but feel that this usage could confuse; is there anything against just saying that he "conducted"? Please let me know when this gets to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this looks pretty good and made nit-picky comments as I read through. Please let me know when this goes (back) to FAC.

  • Lead - would "and three operas by Frederick Delius." by simpler than "and three of the operas of Frederick Delius."?
  • Early years - would it help to somehow indicate that Beecham's pills were (are?) a laxative? They are linked...
  • Did he study music / composition at Oxford?
    • No – Classics (which I've added). Oxford was pretty much a musical desert in those days, and didn't even have a music faculty. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First orchestras - the transition between estranged from his father and his father secretkly commiting his mother to a mental hospital is a bit abrupt - could there be some sort of linking phrase or smoother transition? Or even something like Soon afterwards Joseph Beecham secretly committed his wife to a mental hospital.[n 2] Thomas and his elder sister Emily helped to secure their mother's release and to force their father to pay annual alimony of £4,500,[9] for which Joseph disinherited them.[10] Beecham was estranged from his father and remained so for ten years. (refs are probably messed up - just moved the phrases around)
    • This information, and how and where to put it, has been a bugbear. I think your suggestion is a good one, and I have adopted it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say that Bechstein Hall is in London? (moving to the big city!)
  • The program certain to deter the public was surely just one of several (many?) during .. two years starting in October 1907, Beecham and the enlarged New Symphony Orchestra gave concerts at the Queen's Hall Could this be made clearer - perhaps give the date of the deterent program?? Otherwise it sounds as if they put on the same crowd pleaser for two years
  • Could more be said on the reconciliation between father and son (is more known as to why they reconciled?)
    • Not much is on record about this. Seemingly, Joseph – a shy man – put out tentative feelers and Thomas did not reject them. But why then, rather than earlier, later or never, is not clear. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this caption "Beecham (top l.) and Richard Strauss; Percy Pitt (lower l.) and Bruno Walter in 1910" be better as something like "Clockwise from top left: Beecham, Richard Strauss, Percy Pitt, and Bruno Walter, all in 1910"
    • Well, I don't think so, as it is longer, but I'm outvoted – Nikkimaria has also suggested this (above), and I've now adopted it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LSO is used as an abbreviation without defining it first, Ditto for LPO.
  • Could the header "Beecham and others" be renamed - perhaps "Relations with others"? WP:HEAD says not to re-use the article name in a header if possible
    • I've struggled with this header. I'm not quite sure that "Relations with others" quite covers the "Beecham stories" paras of the section, but, again, you are the second reviewer to mention this point and I'll go with your suggestion. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph (postage stamp and society) needs a ref or two
    • Right. (Once upon a time it had a picture of the stamp, but it was judged not to qualify under fair use rules, for reasons that I confess I did not understand) – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seal of the RPO File:RPOLogo.png may be challenged as a fair use image at FAC - can anything more be said about it to tie the seal itself to Beecham (did he design it or suggest elements of the design or the motto)? Just trying to strengthen the rationale.
    • I didn't add this image, though I am very pleased to have it there. It is clearly an official grant of arms by the College of Arms rather than a commercial logo by a commercial designer. I have added a footnote that is wholly true and cited but may or may not help, and I have altered the caption. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 needs a terminal period (full stop)
  • I love the story about "he's still the king"
  • Any chance to include a sound clip or two - perhaps as fair use?
    • This is very definitely not my area of expertise. Some of his early recordings must be out of copyright (in the UK at least) but I know nothing about the rules or the technicalities of uploading recordings. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
    • To the best of my knowledge and belief. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful for the above comments. All suggestions adopted, with thanks, (except for the one about the reconciliation of father and son, on which I can find nothing more in the sources that I can add). I shall most gladly let you know when this article is up for FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the first half of my review:

Lede

  • "finance opera in England from the 1910s until the start of the Second World War," This sounds a bit grander than it was, like he was financing all of opera in England (though it may have felt that way). I would tone it down a bit.
  • "Beecham's repertoire was eclectic, sometimes favouring lesser-known composers over famous ones. His specialities included composers whose works were neglected in Britain before Beecham became their advocate, such as Delius and Berlioz." Aren't these two sentences basically saying the same thing?
    • I don't think so. The second illustrates the first. Rolling the two together would make rather a long sentence. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • Did his father approve of his actions after leaving Oxford?
    • He doesn't seem to have objected, though none of the biographical sources (Reid, Jefferson, Lucas and Beecham himself) has much to say on the point. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hallé Somewhere in the early use of this name, I'd throw in a "Manchester" so the unfamiliar reader doesn't think we are referring to the German city (yes, no accent, but still could confuse).

First orchestras

  • "he loved deeply" Perhaps "came to love deeply".
    • I've never been quite happy with my drafting here. He fell for Delius's music then and there like a ton of bricks, but it's not easy to convey this in suitably encylopaedic tones. I have added "at once". – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beecham wasn't competing with those orchestras, the groups he led were. Suggest slight rephrasing.
    • Not sure I agree, but have rephrased. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He made no concessions to the box office*" Unless a pun is intended here, I should mention that "concessions" can mean discount tickets for a group, and suggest avoiding the word.

1910s

  • Is the fact that Beecham gave a series of concerts in Birmingham in 1915 I think, at the invitation of the Lord Mayor, some guy named Neville Chamberlain (didn't he go on to play football?), worthy of discussion? From what I recall, Beecham had differences with the local management, but the concerts did lead to the postwar founding of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. Waiting to see if there's some mention of Beecham's er, difficult temperament. Never mind, I see there is.
    • Not much in the sources about this. Beecham did a lot in WWI for music all over the country. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over the weekend, I will drag out my sources on Chamberlain and see what is said. It's mentioned in Rise of Neville Chamberlain, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wl impresario
  • Why is the title of Hoffman in English and Fledermaus not?
    • This is what the WP articles call them, and is, by happy coincidence, how Beecham billed them. I earlier, with a sleeve across my windpipe, changed some of the Mozart operas to their German forms (as in WP) despite their being given by Beecham under their English titles. No such conflict here, though. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beecham later acknowledged that in his early years he chose to present operas that were too obscure to attract the public." This sentence leaves the reader in doubt as to whether Beecham wanted the operas to be obscure. And the next sentence needs rephrasing, it tries to do too much and is confusing.
  • "when Monteux was unavailable." I'd like to see a more active verb here, perhaps "became".
    • I was being a bit cryptic here. In fact Monteux took French leave to rush home to Paris to be with his wife after the birth of their first child (Canarina p. 38) leaving Diaghilev in a spot from which Beecham rescued him. I'd have liked to put this in, but it is too much of a by-way. "Became" will do very well. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the first performances in Britain" Use the word premiere here or elsewhere in the sentence to avoid first / first.
  • "his father" I'm a bit confused. Was his father the impresario (his name's on the opera company) or Tommy? Perhaps the father's role, other than cheque writer, can be cleared up.
    • Again, an interesting sidelight here. All the opera and ballet seasons from 1910 to Joseph's death were subsidised by Joseph, but yes, he basically just signed the cheques. The Drury Lane season of 1913 could not be billed as Thomas Beecham's season because Beecham was temporarily contractually bound to the syndicate that ran Covent Garden. (Lucas, p. 97). Probably that is also why TB did not conduct during that season, but I can't find a citation to that effect. This, plainly, is too much of a detour from the main narrative. I could just lose the reference to the billing as "Sir Joseph's" if you think that would be better. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Philharmonic

  • "The main work was Richard Strauss's Ein Heldenleben." Of the evening?
  • "poached from the LSO." This seems a little POV.
    • Redrawn – now a bit more informative, too. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beecham had again secured substantial control of the Covent Garden opera seasons" Looking back, it isn't made clear he had this control before, just that some shows took place at Covent Garden.
    • Again, I'm chary of diversions, but the London operatic scene before WWI was a battle between the old guard who were accustomed to running the ROH, and two rival upstarts, Beecham and Oscar Hammerstein senior. They saw Hammerstein off (he lost his shirt), but Beecham gained effective control of the ROH for much – but not all – of the time. (Lucas pp. 90–91). I've expunged "again" from the 1930s section. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just smooth out the text, no need for diversions. Just strike "again".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to italicise "cycle" following Ring.
  • "Sir Adrian Boult" I don't know who this guy is nor why I should care what he thinks. Since the reader, like me, may be too lazy to click, I suggest a brief characterisation of him.
  • Were the musicians and Beecham asked to give the Nazi salute, like the football team famously did? Just asking. The paragraph seems a little bit "well, he only went to Nazi Germany caus he had to". Are his visits there at all controversial, either during the war, postwar, or today? Or his leaving Britain when the skies were darkest? Seems to me just the sort of thing that can be held against a bloke.
    • Salute – I don't think I've seen any suggestion that the LPO or TB were asked to give the Nazi salute.
    • Controversy over the tour? The British government declined to give its official support to the tour. The Nazis evidently thought Beecham and the LPO a big enough catch to modify their usual dogma. There was a faked press photo of Beecham meeting Hitler, Goebbels et al in their box. The players of the Berlin PO and the LPO held a joint party and got on famously. The Berlin PO made a reciprocal visit to Britain the following year.
    • Opprobrium for leaving the UK during the war* there doesn't seem to have been any great disapproval. Perhaps his age and the memory of what he had done for British music in the previous war may have had something to do with it. Certainly he attracted nothing like the boo-hissing that e.g. the young Benjamin Britten got for being in the US during the war. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1940s

  • I doubt if that image's fair use rationale is going to be sufficient.
    • So do I. I didn't put it in, though I'm glad to have it. I have a plan B if it has to go. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection I have put Plan B into effect – a Commons image of the old Met. Tim riley (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to the article on cooperatives.
  • "As in 1909 and in 1932, Beecham's assistants went to work in the freelance pool and elsewhere." Clearly to recruit musicians. I would say so.

1950s

  • I would start with the exile from Covent Garden and then go to the 1950 tour.
    • I think that would make the chronology harder to follow. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I try to bring suggestions to people's attention, but editorial judgment should rule the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the austerity of Covent Garden postwar had as much to do with the postwar austerity in the UK generally; obvously it would not do to be seen as overly posh under the circumstances.
    • It was chiefly a matter of money. CG was state-funded (minimally) for the first time, rather than run as the private pleasure-ground of the rich. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was Beecham still the landlord, or had it been nationalised by then?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The owner was now Covent Garden Properties Company Limited, to which the Beecham family's private company had sold it in the wake of the Bedford/Beecham brouhaha. It was a public company, dealing exclusively in real estate. (Survey of London) It seems (same source) that the freehold of the ROH is still in commercial ownership, with a lease to the Government and from them a sub-lease to the Covent Garden trustees. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Though in his seventies, Beecham did not stick uncompromisingly to his familiar repertoire." Perhaps a rephrase is in order. Some people in their seventies do surprising things. And I question whether the sentence really adds anything in content.
    • Pruned the ageism. I think the point about occasional off-piste programming is worth making. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thereafter never left England" Perhaps inelegant. Can't you mention it was his last trip to America, and then say, "and as it proved, his last trip abroad".

Personal life

  • "He was involved ... " I would reverse the order of this. First mention his separation from his wife, then the co-respondent issue. Bet the papers had fun with that.
    • Done. And yes, they did. He got away with it, though. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have my doubt that the image was taken in 1922, as the style of clothing looks like suited for a younger person than 18 years old. All we really know is that it was printed in that year.
    • The Illustrated London News would not, I think, have used old photographs. Its raison d'etre was up-to-date photography. But the year is not important, and I've blitzed it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the kid is wearing knickerbocker pants, which were generally dispensed with (I almost said dropped) by mid-teens.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious to know how Beecham divorced her, when he was not in the UK at the time. Did he go to Reno?
    • He went to a place called Boise, where the divorce was granted with the proviso that he could not legally remarry in Idaho, which didn't bother Beecham or Betty as their place of residence was New York, where recently divorced residents could remarry at such time as suited them. (Lucas, p. 291) – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the second and third paragraphs of the section should be made more chronological.

Repertoire

  • "Beecham's versions of Handel ignored the "professors, pedants, pedagogues"." It's very catchy, and difficult to understand. Who said it?

More to follow, hopefully by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is splendid stuff – all grist to the mill. I shall work through the points carefully. Please don't rush with the second batch: my conscience already pricks me for importuning you and other Wikicolleagues. Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Later: all addressed. Some marvellously helpful stuff in there – thank you very much. I look forward to more, at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the stamp. Perhaps stamps, since they are published by the government, are public domain in the UK? If there is no copyright, it would not need to qualify under fair use. Perhaps you could check on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect crown copyright, which would not put it into the public domain until the January 1 next following the 50th anniversary of issuance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Beecham in addition to being a "Sir" through his baronetcy, is a "Sir" through knighthood, should the postnominal letters for his order of knighthood be added?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will read over the first half of the article and work on the second Unlikely to happen before Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stamp. I remain puzzled by the earlier deletion of the stamp, but it happened ages ago and I can't remember the exact events. The WP template for non-free stamps says this: "This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) … qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Putting the image next to a statement (which is already there) that the Royal Mail issued a stamp with TB's picture on it surely meets that criterion?
  • Post-nominal letters: If he'd had been given the Garter or the Thistle or the Bath (etc), post nominal letters would be appropriate, but Knights Bachelor (the vanilla flavour of knighthood), which he was, don't get post-nominals. He was credited on programmes and record sleeves as "Sir Thomas Beecham, Bart" and later "Sir Thomas Beecham, Bart, C.H.", although some people who take these things seriously aver that the correct contraction of Baronet is "Bt." rather than "Bart.". All clear, I hope? – Tim riley (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. An excellent article, IMO close to FA. In an article of this length, there are bound to be trifles to consider. Here's what I found, some of which may be helpful:

  • In the third para of the lead, would it be better to add "Orchestra" after "London Philharmonic", and after "Royal Philharmonic"?
    • Not sure. They have both already been given in full in the first para; on balance I think the elided form is neater here, but I am happy to go with any consensus. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years: first sentence. St Helens is now in Merseyside, not Lancashire. Do we need to cover that?
    • I wondered about that, but it was impeccably Lancastrian at all times during Beecham's life, and I think the blue link will suffice for anyone wanting more recent geographical information. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First orchestras: first sentence. Delete comma after St Helens? "in Manchester" follows awkwardly after "in St Helens" earlier; but not sure how to improve it.
    • Comma blitzed. The "Manchester" in this sentence is there in response to an earlier suggestion on this peer review page. I agree with you about the phrasing and if I can think of a better way of putting it I shall do so. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent use of non-breaking spaces after numbers. For example, in 1910–1920, used after 190 and 273, but not thereafter. Further instances elsewhere.
  • London Philharmonic: end of fifth para. "fiefdom"?
    • I wondered if I'd get away with that. I've redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1940s: last sentence. Should "The Royal Family" be in quotes?
    • Arguable. I don't feel strongly and have added quotes. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1950s and later years: first para. "forty-nine" ->49 for consistency: later 80. "in English translations": "using" rather than "in"? Fourth para, missing word after "last" (or something — does not read quite right).
    • 49 - excellent! thank you
    • in/using - I think "in" is the work (sung in English rather than sung using English)
    • I don't want to repeat the word visit within the sentence, and this construction is a familiar one. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally a quibble from a Northerner. In the second sentence of the lead you say that he was "closely associated with the Liverpool Philharmonic and Hallé orchestras". Yet the only mention in the body of the article of the Liverpool Philharmonic, is that some of its players featured in his first public performance. You do mention the Hallé a bit more, but do not say that he was its principal conductor from 1915 (it's only in the navbox). So what you contend in the lead is not really supported or cited in the body.
    • Excellent point. As a Scouser myself I should have banged the drum for the Phil a bit more, and will add something to the main text. He was always given first choice of guest slots for Phil seasons. He wasn't strictly principal conductor of the Hallé, though he did much to help them and was Elgar's successor as honorary president of the Hallé Concerts Society. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes at FA. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all these suggestions, and particularly the last one, which I shall enjoy acting on. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On quick review, this is a strong article and could be put through FAC. One point - the recordings section starts off with text (recording v. live performance) that could perhaps be better moved to the end of the section. Eusebeus (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see what you mean and will ponder whether to move it. It would certainly make a nice flourish to finish the section with. Thanks for the suggestion and for your encouraging comment. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the remainder.

Repertoire
  • "to meet contemporary requirements". Uncertain what this means. Does it mean he adapted the parts to fit modern instruments? I'd be a bit less vague in any case.
  • "were scarcely known, Beecham knew them so well ... " It's my personal opinion that the double use of "knew" (and forms) is more annoying than clever, but I understand you may have other views.
    • I hadn't spotted the jingle; I see what you mean, but every alternative wording I can think of is woollier ("few people were familiar… or Beecham was so knowledgable about..."). I'll ponder further and redraw if I can. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the laundry list of Handel works really needed? Can't you just leave it at three or four examples, perhaps the best known?
    • Now footnoted for those who are intested; skippable by those who aren't. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "using unscholarly 19th-century texts," I imagine for scores, but others may find it puzzling as well.
  • London. You may be getting overspecific here. How about "He recorded all twelve "London" symphonies, but only five of them were in his customary repertoire at concerts."
  • "1910 until his last year;" I assume you mean Beecham's.
  • "Bizet was often in his programmes" You've been using very similar phrases to introduce composers, suggest mixing it up a bit with "Beecham often selected Bizet's music for his programmes".
    • Redrawn. That's the sort of thing it's difficult to spot in one's own prose, and another pair of eyes is very valuable. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C'est un dieu." No one speaks Icelandic these days. suggest a parenthetical translation.
    • I think it might seem a touch patronising to translate so short and simple a phrase. I think even the most sedulous monoglot will get the message. (The writer of the liner note where I first saw it (it is also recorded elsewhere) didn't think the CD-buying public needed a crib, I notice.) Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giuseppe Illica" Are you perhaps referring to one or more of the dynamic duo, Giuseppe Giacosa and Luigi Illica?
    • The latter only; I'm so glad you spotted that conflation. The source (Jefferson) refers to "Giuseppe Illica" throughout three separate mentions plus an index entry, but it is certainly the librettist Illica who is referred to. The other sources get the first name right. Now amended. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings
  • I imagine you say "American Columbia" to differentiate it from the other Columbia. I would say "American Columbia Records.
  • I would somewhere in there mention the introduction of the long-playing record, so that the reader will have a gauge of what was recorded for what.
    • Good. Added a sentence near the top of the section explaining TB's practice of re-recording his favourites to take advantage of improvements in technology. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • EMI releases. Had these fallen out of print? Never released? What was the commonality? Or was it completely random?
    • All are reissues, and (I assume) meant to be a representative selection – though not, IMO, a complete success if so: no opera, for instance. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to seeing it at FAC once these are taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Splendid! I'll go through these thoroughly and report back here. Many thanks, meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Later: now gone through and actioned as outlined above. I am most grateful for this concluding batch of comments. I think I am now ready to close the PR and go to FAC. Warmest thanks to all who contributed above. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War 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 wanted to see if any area of this needs attention before I nominate it for FA Status/ I feel and I think most editors of it feel that it's a pretty solid article.

Thanks, Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest - I see that you have not yet edited this article (though you have commented on the talk page). I am glad that there are plans to work on this important article and get it to FA quality, but do not think it is anywhere near ready for WP:FAC yet. This is not a full review, but here are some suggestions for improvement based on a quick scan of the article.

  • The lead is five paragraphs long but WP:LEAD says the lead should be no more than four paragraphs long.
  • Biggest problem I see is that there are many places in the article which lack references and need them. For example there are no references at all in the sections on The Confederacy and Reconstruction.
  • There are also lots of places where a paragraph will have some references, followed by one or more sentences with no references - for example in the Anaconda plan section, see Their battle ended in a draw. The Confederacy lost the Virginia when the ship was scuttled to prevent capture, and the Union built many copies of Monitor. Lacking the technology to build effective warships, the Confederacy attempted to obtain warships from Britain. The Union victory at the Second Battle of Fort Fisher in January 1865 closed the last useful Southern port and virtually ended blockade running. These all need refs too.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Many of the the references used have incomplete information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Two examples:
  • Many of the sources used do not seem to necessarily meet WP:RS - what makes Spartacus Educational a reliable source? Looking at the External link checker, there are some Blogspot blogs listed, but blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Since so many books and journal articles have been written about the Civil War, I think that they should be used as sources wherever possible (the Spartacus Educational page even provides book links).
  • The prose is choppy in places - there are a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the narrative flow and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. A professional level of English is a FA criterion
  • Looking at one section - Results - again shows odd organization, which is a prose issue too. The section has three paragraphs. The first discusses emancipation of the slaves, Reconstruction, and total war casulaties. One problem is that the preceding section was on Reconstruction, so it seems a bit odd to define it here (and why isn't the Reconstruction section a subsection of Results or Aftermath)? The second paragraph is about how contentious the war remains today (causes, name, etc still disputed), then goes into more on casualties and the development of trench warfare in WWI. Organizationally it makes little sense to have casualties discussed in two different paragraphs, why not combine the disussions and have one paragraph on casulaties? The third paragraph is about the use of personal armor by soldiers in the war. It is completely unreferenced and seems not to belong in this paragraph at all (how is it a result of the war?). It seems like this belongs earlier in the article, if it should be included at all. Such a hodge podge is not clear, well-organized professional writing, but instead reads like something written by many different people over a long time with little coordination. This article needs someone to go through it and organize it properly.
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. Again looking at one section as an example: "Memory and historiography" mentions only two things - the 1963 parade in Gettysburg and the 150th anniversary of the start of the war in 2011. How is this a comprehenisve look at these topics? Every county east of the Mississippi I have ever been in has at least one Civil War memorial. What about the Grand Army of the Republic or similar organizations? What about all the US Presidents who were Civil War veterans (for decades it was essentially a requirement to run for the office). There were several reunions at Gettysburg when veterans were still alive (1913 had a 50th anniversary). This is also a WP:WEIGHT issue.
  • Images also need to be clearly sourced and clearly free - for example File:American Civil War Chaplain.JPG does not list a source - is it from a book or website or what? This owuld be an issue at FAC.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonfaloniere comments: Though I only gave the article a cursory glance, I wanted to weigh in on a few things:

  • The sections on Free Soil and The Slave Power should probably be merged. Aside from the individual sections being short, the topics are intimately related (particularly given there's a separate section about slavery per se).
  • File:Andersonvillesurvivor.jpg is unnecessary and certainly has nothing to do with emancipation of slaves.
  • The Charleston photo in the Confederacy surrenders section creates unappealing whitespace.
  • As mentioned above, the memory and historiography section needs a rewrite and substantial expansion. There should probably be an American Civil War historiography article to complement or replace the American Civil War bibliography one; the cultural effects (Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic isn't a scholarly work but is fairly popular, an easy read, and indicative of what I mean) could fill another article or ten. I can't fault you for these articles not existing yet and understand there's always the question of weight, but the main article is supposed to be a grand synthesis of the various facets of a topic. Not mentioning the words Lost Cause seems like a crime.

I applaud your courage in trying to make a coherent article about this difficult subject in any case. If you don't get it featured in the near future, just remember, you have four years of sesquicentennial anniversaries to commemorate it! Gonfaloniere (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Machine Tool Company edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just be accepted as a GA and the reviewer in that process advises that it is "well close" to being a FAC in their opinion. The reviewer further advised that I seek other opinions via the peer review process.

Thanks, Sitush (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Sitush, seeing that I was starting to review, kindly informed me that the article had become temporarily unstable. I'm posting a few thoughts that I had recorded in a sandbox, but this is not a complete review. In fact, I have not yet read the whole article. I'd be happy to continue the review when the article again becomes stable.

  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
Comment - fixed. Handy tool, not used it before. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

Charles Churchill

  • "which was so locally prominent that the area of town in which it was situated" - Would it be possible to add the name of the town?
Comment - clarified. I thought it was clear, but it is now clearer! - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done
  • "According to historian Rolt," - I would add his initials, "L.T.C."
Comment - done. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done
  • "This is a moot point... " - It seems odd to add this editorial aside. Who says it is moot? Also, how is the Gatling Gun relevant? If the point is moot, and the Gatling Gun is unrelated to Churchill's business, would it be best simply to delete the "moot point" sentence? The next sentence might start with "Rolf says that Charles Churchill & Co. began trading in 1865... ".
Comment - as becomes clear later in the article, Churchill fitted out the Gatling factory. The reason for using the word "moot" is because, frankly, Rolt was wrong but I have not found a direct source to cite yet (well, not one that meets the RS etc guidelines). You will now say that this is OR, probably - I'd rather find a way to deal with the issue that doesn't involve removing the point because it is a significant error in the history. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs of this section lack inline citations to reliable sources. My rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for each paragraph as well as sources for any unusual claims, statistics, or direct quotations.
Comment - added a cite for one sentence but this is awkward. The information in these paragraphs comes from the citations in the intervening table.
  Done - reviewer amended wording to resolve the issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Comment - have always been aware of these issues & have done as best I can. I think it is ok. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comment from nominator - forgive me for the occasions when I use the word I in my comments here. The term is just a simple way of putting things - it is not intended to assert or claim ownership. You may notice that I am by far the major contributor and, I think, every fact in the thing has arisen because of my contribution. I've acknowledged on several occasions the work and assistance of other editors, including at GA nomination. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: I'm not done, but here are a few more:

Lead

  • "The Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd began its existence as the manufacturing subsidiary[1] of the machine tool importers Charles Churchill & Co Ltd; and was founded in the early 1900s by US-born Charles Churchill (1837–1916)." - I see two things to comment on in this first sentence. (1) The semicolon after "Ltd" isn't the right punctuation; I don't think you need even a comma here, though some editors might disagree. (2) I also wonder if the "Ltd" in the company name needs a period, since it is an abbreviation of "Limited". The "Co" is an abbreviation for "Company" and also normally takes a period. I would suggest using whatever the company officially called itself, if that can be determined, and using that formulation throughout the article.
    • Comment - standardised on no periods, as per next point. MOS merely insists on consistency & usage varies. Easy enough to flip the other way if any sort of consensus emerges or MOS changes. Punctuation about to be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done
  • The company name appears as "The Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd" in the first sentence but then as "The Churchill Machine Tool Co Ltd" further along and then "The Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd" even further along, all in the lead. I'd try to make them all the same to keep readers from getting confused.
    • Comment - I've had all sorts of problems with this & the WP:MOS. Not sure where to go with it as the sources also vary. But, yes, it does need standardising for the purposes of WP. I'll have a think & let you know. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have standardised on Co and Ltd, without periods. Exceptions are where those terms appear as part of a quote or a citation title. Also, both companies are introduced in the lead initially with their full name, per MOS. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

Charles Churchill

  • "According to historian L. T. C. Rolt, the original installation was of machines for the wire-braiding of crinoline frames; and Charles simultaneously imported some metal cutting machine tools in order to aid his friend Hiram Maxim in the development of Maxim's machine gun. This is a moot point: the Maxim gun was not developed for a further 20 years and it is unlikely that Maxim himself was in England during the 1860s;[7] however, the Gatling Gun was patented in 1862." - Maybe it would be better to add an inline citation for the Rolt claim, and then say, "However, the Maxim gun was not developed..." with its own inline citation. The final part, about the Gatling Gun being patented in 1862, could be turned into a separate sentence with its own inline citation. Otherwise it appears that citation 7 is only supporting the "not developed for 20 years" claim and the claim that it was unlikely that he was not in England during the 1860s. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself, and I know you responded to a similar note above. I'm trying to think of a way to maybe source this piece by piece to various reliable sources.)
    • Comment - your point is more clear to me now and, yes, it is valid. I'll work on it. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the assertion by Jeremy that J W W Gabriel" - Should "Jeremy" be further identified? Should J. W. W. have periods since L. T. C. has them?
    • Comment - again, we're back at the MOS issue! Academic convention would be to use the surname only, especially since these authors are named in the citations/bibliography. What the Wikipedia convention may be is beyond me but I'm happy to accept the wisdom of others on these points and will learn from them. Basically, I'm throwing the ball back into your court here <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid you might. I'm not always sure at first whether I'm mentioning something that an author has already considered or whether it's just something that escaped his or her attention. Clearly you have considered this one (and much else besides). I've learned a lot of MOS things by osmosis as well as looking them up again and again, but the MOS is not entirely stable, is flexible on some points, and doesn't cover every situation clearly. Finally, even when I think I remember what the MOS says, I sometimes can't find the section I think I'm remembering. With the given names, I'd just aim for consistency within the article. You are right about the academic convention, but I'm thinking of ordinary readers who won't know the convention and might be flummoxed by the surname standing alone. To help them, I think I'd add a brief identifying description like "economic historian A B C Jeremy" on first use. Then plain Jeremy would be OK after that. (I just made up the "economic historian A B C" part. I don't actually see Jeremy in the citations or bibliography, and I have no idea who he is. Or am I missing something? Sometimes the answer is right in front of me, and I don't see it.) Finetooth (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See cite #9. Let me know when you have finished for the day & I'll nip in and sort this out, and for other authors noted also. Oddly, I do mention his name in full elsewhere but not on the first occurrence - my mistake. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

Early years as a limited company

  • "It is either a quaint example of the niceties of late nineteenth century trade journals, or of their complaisance towards Charles, or simply of his influence in the US by this time, that in January 1901 it was reported in American Machinist that he (and his wife and daughter) had just returned home to London after a visit to the US which was not for business but rather to see his ageing mother." - The cited source seems to support only a part of this set of claims. The first part, "It is either a quaint example of the niceties of late nineteenth century trade journals, or of their complaisance towards Charles, or simply of his influence in the US by this time... " makes judgments and draws conclusions that come from where? Finetooth (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - spot on, the comment is WP:OR. Not beyond the bounds, I suspect, but the entire paragraph is arguably trivia and I'm surprised that it has survived as long as it has. I'll work something out but the easiest route is probably just to delete the para: it would be a shame as it is a curiosity (I think), but sometimes that's the way thing go. Thanks for your continued work on this article. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more Finetooth comments:

Early years as a limited company

  • "In 1907 the company was seeking to wind up the Aston Cantlow Mill Ball and Bearing Company Ltd." - I'm not sure what "wind up" means in this context. Is might be slang for "start", but it appears to be slang for "shut down" or "sell". How was its "winding up" connected to Leitner Electrical Company Ltd.?
Comment - Not slang - it is a legal term. However, I've wikilinked it now. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

Expansion

  • "The Glasgow office address changed some time between February 1905 and March 1906, with the outlet relocating to 9 Wellington Street." - This seems disconnected from the preceding material in this section. Try as I might, I can't seem to keep clear in my mind which Churchill company is which and whether a reference to Churchill means one company or the other or Churchill himself. I don't know how I would handle this problem if I were the main contributor, but I'd think about using a kind of shorthand. Abbreviations would work, but there are probably no standard abbreviations for these companies. I would be tempted to call one "the machine tool company" and the other "the Charles Churchill company" early in the lead and thereafter to help the reader differentiate them, but I'm not sure this would work. Something to think about.
Comment - This issue has been a nightmare right through. Your suggestion - "machine tool company" etc - might in fact work but I'm open to all offers of advice as it is a complete pain. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remained in service at least until the 1990s and was used primarily to grind the journals of large crankshafts" - I'm unfamiliar with "journal" used in this way. What does it refer to? Should it be linked or briefly explained?
Comment - I'll explain/link it - Sitush (talk)
  Done
  • "Slater's Manchester, Salford & Suburban Directory of 1911 listed Charles Churchill & Co. Ltd. (manager Sydney H March) at 6 Oxford Street and 7 Lower Mosley Street... " - Here and there, the article discusses the exact addresses of these companies and their subsidiaries. Are the addresses always important enough to include in a general encyclopedia article, or would it improve the flow of the article to compress or trim these in some way?
Comment - if I could find the "some way" then I would address it (excuse the pun). I do think that they are relevant and there have been quite a few readers and contributors to this page who have not raised it as an issue. However, there is no doubt that it is detailed. I wonder if these could be referenced in some way as a note, thus taking them out of the body of the article but still allowing those who have an interest to see the detail? - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fallow years

  • "A summary-box to the article says that:" - I think the quote following this intro is long enough for a blockquote.
Comment - yep. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

Subsequent history

  • Generally, it's a good idea to merge extremely short paragraphs or, in some cases, to expand them so that they are not stand-alone orphans. Here and there, a single-sentence orphan appears in the article, and I only mention it now because I see several consecutive short ones in this section.
  • "No further information regarding this company appears to be available, not even its name." - This claim seems to be based on original research. Appears to whom?
    • Comment - this is awkward. If the mention of the company is left without some sort of comment then it is "hanging" and will make the article appear incomplete on the point. If I remove the mention totally then there is also incompleteness, and this is quite a curiosity in the history of the business which may at some point be resolved by a contributor. Unsure what to do here. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Action - Removed OR statement. Not entirely sure that this is beneficial to the article but I appreciate the point is in line with policy.
  Done - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It would appear that Ralph Gabriel may have had a personal interest in sailing... " - Appear to whom? The source confirms that he loaned his sloop to the OYT, but it does not confirm the inference.
  Done - fixes to the previous OR point have assisted in resolving this one. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Companies House has archived its information... " - I was not sure what "Companies House" referred to. Was it explained or linked earlier in the article? I might well have missed it.
    • Comment - it wasn't; it now is (first mention, table heading). - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done
  • "The reason for this is not known but in all likelihood relates to the capital restructuring program which started in 1955." - Is not known to whom? Who says what the likely reason is?
  Done

Recognition

  • "Among more obviously serious matters, Roberts points to the Herbert board's imposition of a rule that shop-floor employees, mostly if not all male, must wear pink uniforms as being typical of their distance from reality, their fad-ism and tendency to make mountains of molehills." - This is pretty strong stuff. To whom is it "obviously serious"? It would be interesting to know what other things the Herbert board did that upset Roberts.

Other

  • I want to add here that this is the most detailed history of a company that I've ever attempted to review, and I feel not quite adequate to the task. I have no special background in economics or engineering. The article seems comprehensive to me in the sense that I know of nothing that is missing. In fact, I find the details a little overwhelming in places; the plethora of specific addresses would be an example and the plethora of interlocking companies another. The bottom line is that while I hope I've made some helpful suggestions, I'm pretty sure I've missed things, maybe even some big things. It would be a good idea to have an historian, an economist, and an engineer look this over as well. Where you might find them, I do not know. Best of luck. Finetooth (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dr. Blofeld has spent considerable time over the last few years in expanding this article from a limited coverage of Eastwood's career into a comprehensive look at the various aspects of his career and life. The article makes use of multiple free images and numerous citations from a variety of fields. We'd like to see what areas need to be improved to bring the article up from GA to FA. All comments are welcomed. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well and looks comprehensive. It's an interesting account of a quite famous actor and director. My suggestions are mainly about small things and should not take a lot of time to address.

  • The Manual of Style advises against linking terms inside of direct quotations. This would apply to the many linked terms inside the quote boxes throughout the article.
    I've removed the links in the quotes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest running through the article to look for overlinking. Since the links grab a reader's attention, it's good to aim for not-too-few and not-too-many, if you can figure out just what that is. I think it would be helpful to cut back on at least some of the duplicative links. For example, Rawhide is linked in the lead, then again in "Early career struggles", again in the "Rawhide" section (as well as the quote box) here and another quote box later, and again in "Filmography". I might have missed some other "Rawhides", not sure. Generally, one link in the lead and one in the main text is enough, I think. I'm sure I could find other examples like "Rawhide".
    For an article of this length, I usually prefer to have some articles linked to several times. Readers may skip over the lead or not read the entire article. This only occurs for a few links throughout the article. I've removed one of the occurrences of Rawhide though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Eastwood established his own production company, Malpaso, in 1967 with Irving Leonard, which has since produced the vast majority of films Eastwood has been involved in, producing with Warner Bros. since the mid 1970s." - I would modify this sentence slightly to avoid the repetition of "produce" three times. Maybe something like this: "Eastwood established his own company, Malpaso, in 1967 with Irving Leonard. It has produced the vast majority of films involving Eastwood and has worked in tandem with Warner Bros. since the mid-1970s."
    That was worded well so I used that. Nicely put. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have all received commercial success and/or critical acclaim" - I don't think commercial success can be "received", and the front slash is ambiguous. Could this be modified slightly? I'd make a more specific suggestion, but I'm not sure what the front slash means. Does it mean that all that were not commercially successful won critical acclaim? Perhaps something like "all achieved commercial or critical success"?
    The slash indicates that the films may have had both or only commercial and critical success. Many films do really well with critics and bomb at the box office or vice versa. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • raised in a "middle class Protestant home" with his younger sister, Jean. - The Manual of Style advises against linking anything inside a direct quote. In this case, I'm not sure you need the quotation marks since the quoted material is short and unspectacular, and you have sourced the phrase so clearly. If you remove the quotation marks, the links are fine.
    Agree that no quotation marks are necessary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including a lifeguard, paper carrier, grocery clerk, forest firefighter, and golf caddy" - Would it be useful to link caddy?
    It seems straightforward, but if others think it's not that common we can add it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worked at a Signal Oil gas station by night" - Would it be useful to link "Signal Oil" to AlliedSignal?
    I just removed the link as it's not really that relevant to his article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early career struggles

  • "as a sailor in Francis in the Navy, and appeared uncredited in another Jack Arnold film, Tarantula, where he played a squadron pilot." - Maybe "in which" rather than "where"?
    Replaced. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1955, Eastwood put four hours' work into the film Never Say Goodbye, during which he shares a scene with Rock Hudson." - I'm not quite sure what "four hours' work" refers to. Is this the amount of time he spent with the filming crew? Does it include the time he spent learning his lines?
    The text was there likely to improve the flow and add some variety to his initial roles, but I condensed it to "an appearance" to avoid any hidden meanings/confusion for readers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a film which Eastwood viewed disastrously and professes to be the lowest point of his career." - Maybe "viewed as disastrous"?
    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rawhide

  • "The Rawhide years (1959–65) were some of the most grueling of Eastwood's career, often filming six days a week for an average of twelve hours a day, yet he still received criticism by some directors for not working hard enough." - Not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "The Rawhide years (1959–65) were some of the most grueling of Eastwood's career. He often filmed six days a week for an average of twelve hours a day, yet some directors still criticized him for not working hard enough."
    Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1960s

  • "Despite Eastwood being a non-smoker, Leone insisted" - Slightly smoother might be "Although Eastwood was a non-smoker... ".
    Reworded, but went with "is" to stay consistent. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "challenging the stereotypical American notions of a western hero with a morally ambiguous antihero." - I think some readers might misinterpret this to mean that the stereotypical western hero was a morally ambiguous antihero. Perhaps "challenging the stereotypical American notions of a western hero by replacing him with a morally ambiguous antihero"?
    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of using "today" in the caption, "Set of The Good, Bad and the Ugly in Almeria today", I'd use "2009" (plucked from the license page).
    Fixed the caption. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One day, during the filming of the scene in which the bridge is blown up with dynamite," - Maybe "a bridge" rather than "the bridge" since no bridge has been mentioned up to this point?
    Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1970s

  • ...according to Eastwood and Lang, flopped because it was poorly publicized and Eastwood being "emasculated in the film". - Somewhat smoother might be: ...according to Eastwood and Lang, flopped because it was poorly publicized and because Eastwood was "emasculated in the film".
    I reworded it a little differently, take a look and see if it works. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1971 proved to be a turning point in Eastwood's career." - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits. Something like "Eastwood's career reached a turning point in 1971" might be better.
    I've been watching that for a while, and I've reworded it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he and Eastwood had discussed that Malpaso should produce" - Maybe "had decided" rather than "had discussed" or perhaps "had discussed the idea of having Malpaso produce... "?
    Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kay Lenz was awarded the part of Breezy, due to Locke being too old at 26." - Maybe "Kay Lenz was awarded the part of Breezy, because Locke, at 26, was too old"?
    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1980s

  • "In 1982, Eastwood directed and starred in Honkytonk Man alongside his son Kyle, based on Clancy Carlile's novel set during the Great Depression. about an aspiring country music singer named Red Stovall." - Something's wrong here with the punctuation, and perhaps half a sentence is missing?
Removed the incomplete sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1990s

  • "1991 was only the third year in Eastwood's career" - Rearrange to avoid starting the sentence with digits?
    Incorporated it into the next sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only the third year in Eastwood's career where he did not have a film" - Maybe "during which" rather than "where"?
    I reworded the two sentences to break it up and help address the above point, please take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote box and the image create a text sandwich between them. To avoid that, it would be good to move the quote box down a few lines.
    Rearranged it a bit. I also removed a line from the prior quote to cut down on its length. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships

  • "She sued him a second time for fraud regarding a phony directing deal he gave her... " - Should that be "alleged phony directing deal"? Since they settled out of court, how can we be sure?
    That would probably help with any NPOV concerns. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and honors

  • "He is also, at age 74, the oldest recipient of the Academy Award for Best Director." - Probably needs a citation.
    It's already sourced above in the 2000s section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds five links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
    Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
    I've already looked over Internet searches and revisiting book sources while searching additional sources for this article to ensure content is original or quoted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and making other fixes. I'll work on addressing these later this week. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Headley edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I'm hoping to take it to FAC. As usual, looking to see if it is comprehensible to the non-cricketer and that it does not get too bogged down in terms of prose and turgid cricket facts.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I am currently having internet connection problems, and there may be a delay before I can begin this review. Sorry Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in business from today. The review will be done in the next couple of days; thanks for your patience. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I'll have to do this in stages; here are my comments on the lead and first two sections. I have also been doing a little copyediting as I have been going through.

Lead
  • "West Indies had a weak cricket team at the time" "At the time is vague; suggest "through most of Headley's playing career".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase to avoid the "heavy/heavily" repetition in "...heavy responsibility and the side relied heavily..."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Headley was born in Panama but raised in Jamaica and quickly established himself as a batsman." I'd alter the later part of the sentence to: "...Jamaica where he quickly established himself in cricket as a batsman".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix close repetition "selected/selection". I would divide this overlong sentence along the lines: "He was chosen for the Jamaican cricket team, and narrowly missed selection for the West Indies tour of England in 1928. He made his Test debut in 1930, against England in Barbados, and was instantly successful.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "After a brief period of difficulty against Australian spinners..." are confusing, because they imply that his difficulties preceded the Australian series. I suggest the sentence begins at "Headly continued his success..."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He never failed in a Test series..." is not quite the case; he didn't shine against England in 1948 or 1954 (though he only played in one Test in each of these these series). I think you are referring to his prewar career, so I would say "He maintained his form through these series..."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until the war" - presumably you mean until the outbreak of war in 1939.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Headley's career was interrupted by the war and although he returned to Tests afterwards, he did not enjoy the same level of success, hampered by injuries." Needs a bit of attention and repunctuation. I suggest "The war interrupted Headley's career; although he returned to Tests in 1948 he was hampered by injuries and did not achieve his previous levels of success".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an awkwardness in that, having mentioned Headley's single appearance as a Test captain, you jump to the end of his career which was actually six years later.
Done, I think. Added something about his league cricket. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't make sense of the sentence: "His Test career ended in 1955 after he had returned to Jamaica following a public subscription paid for his trip from England, where he was playing cricket in the Birmingham League". First, his Test career ended in January 1954. Do you mean "His playing career ended in 1955 on his return to Jamaica, after a public subscription paid his fare from England, where he had been playing cricket in the Birmingham League."?
Done. And, no, I meant 1954 so I'm not sure what happened there!--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • General point: avaoid overdetailing. For example, I'm not sure it's relevant for us to know about the wages levels for Panama Canal workers, or which church denomiations Headley belonged to as a child. Some cautious trimming recommended.
Removed these details and keeping an eye out for more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aged ten, Headley and his mother went to Jamaica." I assume you mean "When Headley was aged ten, his mother took him to Jamaica".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: the word "Meanwhile" is wrong, since the sentence deals with his education after Calabar Elementary School.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he scored his first century in an organised match in a friendly match..." Very clumsy: I'd delete the "friendly match" detail
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While watching these matches, Headley was impressed by the batting technique of Ernest Tyldesley." Is this snippet followed up anywhere, e.g. did he try to emulate Tyldesley' style? Otherwise I wonder why it's included.
I had a vague idea this was the case, but I must have imagined it as I can't find it anywhere. Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was he applying for an American work permit? This doesn't seem to be related to any of the other information you've given about Headley's working life.
Oops, missed out a detail here! Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early career
  • You must not sound like a sports journalist, so phrases like "a fluent 71" should be avoided.
Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify in which match Headley scored his first first-cless century. The section describing this innings begins "After a minor match..." So, who was he playing for when he scored the century? Oughtn't we to have date and location for this match?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Alan Hilder" really worth a redlink? He wasn't a regular first-class player - he played the odd game for Kent and went on tours with the likes of Tennyson, Cahn etc. What's the chance that he will ever get a WP article?
Slim! Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence: "He also took part in a tour to America to play against the Jamaican Athletic Club in New York, which enabled him to see his parents for the first time in ten years." Do we have a date for this? What was the touring team he was playing for? And the last we heard of his parents, they were in Cuba.
Very few details in the source. I've fixed what I can, including his parents, and I'll have a check elsewhere. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not much else that I can find. Very sketchy, but I've added a little more. My guess is he visited his parents and played some cricket on the side. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debut
  • The subsection title should be extended, since the text covers a lot more than Headley's first Test match. Perhaps "Debut and first Test series".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "MCC" is preferable to "M.C.C." throughout
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give date and venue of the Barbados Test (Headley's Test debut)
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine the crowd dissaproved of his selection rather than his dismissal, so I'd rearrange the text: "Headley was in the West Indies XI for the first of these Tests, played in Barbados, to the disapproval of Barbadians who thought his place should have gone to a more deserving local player".
Reworded slightly to include previous point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...becoming the first West Indian to score a century on his Test debut and only their second centurion overall." Well, yes, but this was only the Windies' fourth Test ever, so I'm not sure of the real significance of these achievements.
More of a landmark than an achievement; rather like W.G. Grace would be notable as the first English centurion. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was the third Test played?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is hitting a bowler for three successive fours a feat worthy of specific mention? Even I may have done that, in my now dormant cricket career (two legside flukes and a swipe over the bowler's head, I dimly recall). There is a danger in overdetailing.
Hmm, point taken! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the third highest individual score in Tests" Clarify: "what was at the time the third highest individual score in all Test cricket" (assuming this is so).
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Australian tour
  • Link "off side"
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...whom the tourists played for a second time after the third Test" - does this refer to both Victoris and South Australia, or just SA? If the latter, adjust the punctuation.
Played them both for a second time. Does it need more rephrasing? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meeting a member of the Australian Board of Control for cricket..." Delete "for cricket". What were the circumstances of this meeting? Was it formal, or by way of a chat? Probably the latter, I'd guess, so I'd rephrase: "In conversation with a member..." etc. As a releatively junior member of the side, I'd be surprised if Headley had the credentials to "[ask] the authorities to produce faster pitches to enable the public to see more attacking cricket."
Clarified; Headley wasn't the only one there who suggested it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the teams is West Indies not "West Indians"
No, one of those weird period cricket things (which was in operation till recently and may still hold): the Test team was West Indies, but the touring side was West Indians. The same applied to all the Test teams (except England who were MCC, then "England XI"). --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth Test: who says the Australian bowling on the first day was "good"?
Attributed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Headley, playing Grimmett comfortably by now, achieved the rare feat in Australia of reaching 1,000 first-class runs on the tour, batting for 146 minutes and hitting thirteen fours." Reorganise; the last phrase refers to his innings, not to the 1,000 runs feat.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some link or explanation (via a footnote) for "declared/declaration"
Linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tour by Lord Tennyson's team
  • "Headley had regular practices and also began a programme of running and swimming". I'd say: "In addition to his regular practice, Headley began a programme of running and swimming to improve his overall fitness."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The former records of Tarilton and Sandham need further explanation. I'd say: "During his innings, Headley passed the previous highest score by any West Indian batsman, 304 not out Percy Tarilton in 1920, and the highest score in the West Indies by any batsman, Andy Sandham's 325 in 1930."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still more to come. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done so far. Thanks for the comments to date, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More:-

1933 tour of England
  • "The English press expected Headley to perform to a high standard, speculating how he would cope with English conditions,[55] but Wisden believed he justified the expectations and increased his reputation." The "but" is wrong here, and there is a mismatch in the sentence between the expectation and the judgement. Suggest rephrase: "The English press speculated on how Headley would cope with English conditions, while expecting him to perform to a high standard. In the event, Wisden believed he justified the expectations and increased his reputation."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ungrammatical: "Although scoring just 13 in the first innings, Headley's 50 was the highest score when West Indies followed-on..." There is no "although" connecting these two events. Suggest: "Headly scored 13 in the West Indies first innings, and his 50 was the highest score when West Indies followed-on." Full stop at this point. The prose in the next sentence is a bit muddled and needs some rephrasing, e.g: "Critics were impressed by Headley's second innings performance in which he scored his 50 out of the 64 runs added while he was batting."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...One of the few to resist". Too cryptic; more required, e.g. "one of the few to offer resistence to this form of bowling attack."
Reworded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around this time" is too vague - when are we talking about?
Don't have an exact date, but he missed some cricket shortly after the Tests, and the source places it around here. I've said "after the Tests". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Identify Sidney Southerton (Wisden editor?)
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final words of the section ("in the event") are redundant.
Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lancashire league
  • Give a date for his contract with Haslington
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "run out" if this hasn't been done previously
Previously linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the "Worsley Cup"? Were these 189 runs not in his league aggregate?
Clarified? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Series against England in 1934–35
  • I would move or delete the sentence "However, the Test series revealed weaknesses in the English side", since at present this is an awkward jump forward that preempts the text of the section.
Reworded, to make it mean (hopefully) that the team was not amazing but was strong enough (in theory) to beat the home side. (This was the original intention but it came out very clumsy!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Martin Hawke, 7th Baron Hawke" is too cumbersome. Use the pipe and call him "!Lord Hawke" - as he was universally known
Silly mistake, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading of this section is "Series against England in 1934–35". So a tour by Yorkshire in 1935-36 doesn't belong in this section. Either create s subsection for it, or reduce it to one or two brief sentences that can be tagged to the end of this section. Personally I'd do the latter, as this s eries adds very little of importance to the Headley story, but it's your call.
I'd prefer to keep it for now as I believe it illustrates Headley was not infallible but also was held in high regard (given the attention given to him pre-tour). However, it could be my (ahem) pro-Yorkshire leanings at work, so I'll chew it over. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be concluded (soon) Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion:-

Second tour of England
  • Begin section "In 1936..."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who on earth was "Crab Nethersole"? Surely not worth a redlink?
Yes, actually! As well as a cricketer, he was quite a significant politician in Jamaica. I may even get around to him myself one day... However, I think for this article, he is best left as just Jamaica's captain. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph, three successive sentences begin "Headley..."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became the first player to score two hundreds at Lord's,..." I assume you mean "in a Lord's Test".
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Preston" - have we identified him?
Yes, but I've added Wisden editor and linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why [sticky wicket] thus?
Oops. Silly. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the start of the Second World War." Redundant phrase
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early 1940s
  • Change the title. Except for the first couple of lines, we are in 1945-46 and later thereafter.
Tried "After the war" but not sure yet, will ponder. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not use professional cricketers" is a bit clumsy. Suggest "cancelled professionals' contracts"
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remaining in Jamaica..." He was in England when we last heard of him, so I'd say "Having returned to Jamaica, ..."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Headley also captained Jamaica in the final two matches..." The final two matches of what? You need to be a bit more precise about giving dates - it's easy to get a little lost. This applies particuarly in the second paragraph. When did he go the New York> When was thetour by the Barbadian team? When did Headley lead the team to British Guiana?
Cleared up dates except American trip. I have no precise date for that except vaguely around then, so I've cut it as it isn't vital. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resumption of Test career
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology problems: why do we jump back to 1947 at the start of the third paragraph?
Cleared up by shifting info about Lucas to previous section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort out and split this sentence and tidy up the ending (he didn't retire "in the Senior Cup"): "In 1947, Headley left Lucas CC and joined the Kensington Club, for whom he played until 1950, when he returned to league cricket in England, and again for a final season in 1955 when he retired from cricket in the Senior Cup."
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers might be confused as to why he couldn't get time off to play for the West Indies in England, yet could get time off to play for Bacup.
I would assume it was because he played professionally for Bacup so no longer was an insurance agent. But, I'm guessing as the sources don't say. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ron Headley was born in June 1939, so he was 13 not 14 in 1952.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More chronological confusion at the section's end - why jump over his final Test appearance?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
End of Test career
  • Write £1,000, not "one thousand pounds"
  • "Headley was the oldest man, as of March 2011, to play a Test match for West Indies." This needs to be "is" or "remains", not "was"
  • "Batting at number six, it appeared that England, under the captaincy of Len Hutton, let Headley score an easy run to begin his innings, and Hutton later claimed this was the case." Not grammatical, need to be something like: "Headley batted at number six, and it appeared that England, under the captaincy of Len Hutton, let Headley score an easy run to begin his innings, which Hutton later confirmed to be the case." You might wish, somewhere, to indicate that this was intended as a gesture of respect.
All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Style and technique
  • Most of this section is not about "style and technique", and I suggest you employ a more representative title.
Added "legacy". Is this enough? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the genesis of the "Black Bradman" nickname?
Not sure as the sources are a little vague. I'll keep digging. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His role was made harder by the weakness of his colleagues, as few outstanding players find it easy to play in teams which lose frequently." This, and similar opinion statements, needs attribution as well as citation.
Done this one. Not done any others yet. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the punctuation requires "teams'" rather than "team's", as Headley played for more than on eteam. Do these figures cover his league cricket as well as his first-class matches?
Only Tests, actually. Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the opening batsmen were not effective..." Too absolute, needs qualifying.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Frank Birbalsingh, when Headley met the king of England, wrote:..." Doesn't work. Try: "Of Headley's meeting with the king of England in [year], Frank Birbalsingh wrote:" etc. By the way, Birbalsingh is not a historian so he needs a different description (e.g "Caribbean writer")
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He hit the ball hard was very difficult to get out." Something missing here.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Family and retirement
  • I can't help wondering (and so will your readers) how he came to have 4 children before his marriage at the age of 30. Were these with a single regular partner, or did he put it about rather a lot? The question also arises as to how he couls maintain all these kids, on the basis of evidently modest wages.
I've absolutely no idea! The biography does not really cover this and only a newspaper article mentions it. However, it gives no more details. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "1964 Olympics" and perhaps some other associated terms
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Normal" Manley founsation??
Oops! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information needs to be given about the last decades of Headley's life. He lived for more than 20 years after his coaching job finished; what work did he do, or otherwise, how did he make a living? Concerning his death, what was the cause? Had he been ill for long? I assume these details are in Lawrences's biography which I haven't read.
There's surprisingly little here. The book mainly talks about awards he presented or received. And it does not mention his death. In fact, it is a little too "wasn't he great!" at the end. It's a slightly odd book overall. So, no details, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That finishes my review. When you have worked through my points, please let me know. I would like the opportunity of reading the finished article; I've only really gone through it piecemeal up to now. Looks very promising. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two final suggestions

  • In the Style, technique and legacy section, I think the last two paragraphs should be promoted, to become the second and third in the section. In that way the section's organisation improves; style and technique issues are together, followed by legacy.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the story of the four pre-wedlock children is based only on a newspaper article, and is not mentioned in the biography or elsewhere, then I'd drop it. It may not be good information, and members of Headley's family might be offended by it. (Dean Headley is coach at Stamford School - I live at Stamford!) Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's may well be true, assuming Headley was married in 1939. However, I agree it may be dubious and the source isn't ideal. The biography glosses over it slightly. I've made the article a little ambiguous; I've kept the newspaper info about his wife's full name and the year of marriage but used "nine children" from the biography rather than the four children before marriage. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "This injury meant that he played no further part in the five-match Test series. " - please be explicit that the tests were back in India.
  • "he had made what was at the time the third highest individual score in all Test cricket" - Foster, Hammond, Sandham before Headley. Tintin 00:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KMFDM edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 brought it up to good article status about a year ago, and recently nominated it as a Featured Article Candidate. The article was not promoted, and it was recommended to bring it here for additional feedback.

Thanks, —Torchiest talkedits 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, but I agre that it has a ways to go before it would be ready to pass at FAC. With that goal in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on bands which may be useful models. Radiohead was just featured on the Main Page a few days ago, and more hopefully useful band FAs are listed at Category:FA-Class Alternative music articles
  • The tool box on this PR page has an external link checker which finds three dead links, all to ReGen Magazine. These will need to be fixed before the article goes back to FAC.
  •   Done I also note that the three dead links are all apparently by the same author, but list his name two different ways (is Ilker his first name or last?). One of the things that needs to be done for an article to pass at FAC is to make sure that all the little details like this are taken care of consistently.
  •   Done Ref 16 is missing the publisher and needs it - "Xtort Credits". http://www.kmfdm.net/discography/albums/xtort.htm. Retrieved February 28, 2010." Make sure that all refs have all the required information. Refs 47 and 82 needs more info like publisher too.
  •   Done A broader potential issue at FAC would be the sourcing of the article. As was mentioned in the FAC, there are a few places that have no references but seem to need them. One example of something that needs references is The album Opium was re-released in 2004 to celebrate KMFDM's 20th anniversary. Tohuvabohu, featuring the first consistent band line-up in years, was released in 2007. or this needs a ref Adios was released three months later, with the title originally intended to symbolize the band's departure from the Wax Trax! label, but later signaling the break-up of the band itself.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, and if there are sentence(s) after a ref that do not have a ref, the they need a ref too.
  •   Done Please also make sure that all of the sources used are reliable and meet WP:RS. I am not sure what makes blogcritic.org a RS, for example (blogs are generally not seen as reliable, but I could be wrong).
  •   Done I also notice that the article relies pretty heavily on kmfdm.net and the band's official web site - again I am not sure what makes kmfdm.net reliable as it looks like a fan site. As far as the band's own website, it is OK to use it, but wherever possible it is better to use independent third-party reliable sources.
  • Comparing the article to some FAs on bands, there does not seem to be as much critical response to their work in this article as I expected
  •   Done The language is OK, but one of the hardest FA criteria for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. For example is KMFDM singular (first sentence in the lead "KMFDM (originally Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid) is an industrial band...") or is it plural (third paragraph in the lead starts "KMFDM are considered one of the first bands to bring industrial music to mainstream audiences...")
  •   Done There are all sorts of WP:MOS issues. Once someone is named, the MOS says to refer to them by just the last name from then on (unless there is someone else with the same last name, or it is in a direct quote). This should use "Sascha Konietzko" the first time and then just Konietzko from then on (unless he is known better as just Sascha, then use that).
  •   Done Article is seriously WP:OVERLINKED - Konietzko is linked 9 times in the article. Rule of thumb is once in the lead, once in the body of the article (both on first appearance) and that's it (plus infobox, perhaps the tables at the bottom)
  •   Done Avoid words like "current" as they can become outdated. Use "As of 2011..." or even "As of March 2011" instead
  •   Done There are five sections in the article which are single paragraphs - I would try to combine or perhaps expand some of these for better flow (as it is, the effect is to make the article a biut choppy)
  • I am not sure why fair use album covers ares used in the article - does their use meet WP:NFCC? Or are they just illustrations? The symbols seem OK as they are discussed in some detail.
  • I was surprised that there are no samples of the band's music in the article - that would be an acceptable fair use, provided there are sources discussing the song or sytyle illustrated by the song.
  •   Done What happened to Esch's half of the album? During this time, Konietzko and Esch began working on their halves of what would have been their sixth album, Apart, but became two separate albums.
  • After the other fixes are made, I would get a copyedit of this to polish the prose.
  •   Done Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle bridges edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 FL. I am not very familiar with the best formatting for lists and based it on some of the better bridge lists. I know there are a couple gaps (the length of the West Seattle Bridge is blanked and a couple other lengths do not have RS) and am attempting to address those. Is the format alright? Wikilinks? Headings? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's one thing: "Comments" should be changed to "Notes". CrowzRSA 02:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: An interesting list with nice images. Here are some suggestions:

  • I would move the "Notes" column to the far right or, as explained below, move the notes to a Notes section below the table.
  • I'd make the "Length" and "Coordinates" columns sortable.
    • I actually tried and could not get it to work. The software was sorting it by the first number and not the whole number. ANy idea how I can fix that?Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I tried the Coordinates sort but did not see any problem with it. It sorts on the North half only, but that's OK. For the length sort, try the {{nts}} template for any numbers big enough to include a comma separator. I learned how to do this by using the tables in List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, a featured list, as my model. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be useful to include a "Width" or "Span" column as well as a "Length" column?
    • "Width" is something I did not see in any other articles. I assume that is because the sourcing is not available. I considered other columns (like height above the waterway or total of any towers) but again did not see it anywhere else and don;t think the sourcing is available. What do you mean by "span"?Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was using "span" as a synonym for "width", but since you are using "span" for something else, "width" would be better. I found a "span" column in List of longest bridges in the world, but it has a lot of blank boxes, and it's not a featured list. The only featured bridge list that I found was List of bridges to the Island of Montreal, and it doesn't include a "width" column. What you use depends on what information is available and how useful you think it would be to readers. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be useful to include a column listing what kind of traffic the bridge carries; i.e., highway, street, rail, light-rail, pedestrian, bicycle? In the case of streets and highways, would it be useful to include their names and numbers?
  • To make room for new columns, it would be possible to put the notes in a "Notes" section below the table rather than in the table itself. You might be interested in a "Notes and References" system like the one used in Voyage of the Karluk. The notes system you are using in the existing article doesn't make a truly clear visual distinction between a note and a citation. One has brackets, and the other does not, but at first glance they look quite similar. If you switch from a column of notes to a "Notes" section, you'll have a lot more notes, and it would be nice to instantly see which link led to a note and which to a reference entry.
  • I would think about using degrees, minutes, seconds instead of decimal coordinates because I think readers are more familiar with the former. However, coordinates appear in both forms in Wikipedia articles, so it may be a matter of editor's preference.
  • Is the list complete? The title indicates that this is a list of all kinds of bridges in Seattle. Are there any pedestrian-only bridges in the city? Bicycle-only? In big cities, there are often bridges for foot- and bicycle traffic that span highways that are otherwise difficult to cross except in a motor vehicle. Sometimes similar bridges span railways.
  • The West Seattle Bridge is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear in the table.
    • It is but it is under its "official" name. Should I add common names to the first column (like "Jeanette Williams Memorial Bridge/West Seattle Bridge)? Currently, common names are in the "Notes" column.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should bridges that have been demolished or replaced be included in the table? The article title does not suggest that this is a list of contemporary bridges only.
    • See my comment above about notability.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The structure was crippled after being struck by a freighter." - When did this happen?
  • Images like File:Alaskanviaduct.jpg that are on the English Wikipedia but not on the Commons should be moved to the Commons to make them more widely available. I didn't check all of the images, and this one was the only one I noticed on a spot check. The others I checked were already on the Commons.
  • I used to regard linking something like Lake Washington or Bascule more than once in a table column was overlinking until another editor pointed out to me that in a sortable column it was not always convenient for readers to hunt for the box with the linked term. Since then I have been linking terms multiple times in sortable columns. So, I would probably link Viaduct and Duwamish River and so on in every box in which they appear in the table.
    • I questioned that myself. I will make the change.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Based on the comments above, I have restructured the table. I am also in the process of adding more bridges that appear to be notable eve though they do not have articles yet.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Imzadi1979

For your explanatory footnotes, I have a suggestion to make. If you use <ref name="Whatever" group="lower-alpha">...</ref>, then the superscript will use a lowercase letter instead of a number. Then you can use {{reflist|group="lower-alpha"}} to generate the list. I've used this system on articles like U.S. Route 131, and I find that it helps to separate the explanatory and citation footnotes both visually in the text of the article as well as into the two lists. You can even insert a reference into an explanatory footnote using the workaround {{#tag:ref|refcontent<ref>citation</ref>|name=name|group="lower-alpha"}}. If you don't like latin alphabet letters, there are default groups, "lower-greek" for lowercase greek alphabet letters or "lower-roman" for lowercase roman numerals (i ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii...). Otherwise, the system you're using now is confusing. (Is that superscript a note or a reference?) Imzadi 1979 → 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of cool. I get what you are saying since the only way to differentiate right now is to notice the slight variation of brackets v no brackets. Thanks!Cptnono (talk)

RAF Northolt edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've expanded this article quite significantly and am keen to see where improvements can be made.

Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about an interesting airport. What follows is not a complete line-by-line review but rather a short list of suggestions for further improvement.

  • It can be helpful to look at other articles that have reached Good Article or Featured Article status to see how other editors have handled similar materials. Quite a few GAs about airports are listed at WP:GA#Transport.
  • The lead, per WP:LEAD, should be a summary of the whole article and should include nothing that is undeveloped in the main sections of the article. The lead is rather skimpy for an article of this size, and it includes information about the location and the railway station, for example, that do not seem to be part of the main article.
  • It's usually best to expand or merge short paragraphs to make somewhat longer paragraphs. The existing article includes a lot of short paragraphs, including many one-sentence orphans. This makes the article look and feel choppy, but the problem is relatively easy to fix.
  • Every paragraph needs at least one citation to a reliable source. Although most of the claims in the article are sourced, some of the shorter paragraphs are unsourced even though they contain claims that are not common knowledge.
  • The images should be arranged in such a way that they do not overlap sections or displace edit buttons. In this article, I think you can simply move two images down from the "Battle of Britain" section into the "Later and civil and military use" section.
  • Per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists, I would change the list in "Units Based At RAF Northolt" to straight prose paragraphs. The individual entries in the list are somewhat mysterious. For example, many readers will have no idea what "The Service Prosecuting Authority" does. What is its function?
  • "It was also where Martin Clunes apparently got diverted to in the BBC mockumentary Come Fly with Me." - Needs a source.
  • "No. 303 Polish Squadron had the highest allied scores during the Battle of Britain." - The idea of "scores" needs further explanation. What is a "score" in this context?
  • "British, Polish and ANZAC aircrew: - ANZAC should be linked and spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.
  • The quotation from Jules Stilwell is too short for a blockquote. It would be better as an ordinary quote embedded in the text.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Harrison49, I've just quickly taken a second look. I don't know if you're planning to nominate the article at GAN or FAC, but in my opinion, although the existing article is interesting and valuable, it would not pass either because of small proofing and Manual of Style issues. Here are some examples:

  • Royal Air Force is linked twice in the lead.
  • Something, probably the word "the" is missing from this sentence in the lead: "The station saw a key role in the Battle of Britain with fighters from several squadrons including No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron engaging enemy aircraft as part of defence of London."
  • The next to last paragraph of the "Formation" section need a source, and the direct quotation within that paragraph needs a source.
  • The Manual of Style suggests using double quotation marks rather than single for things like this: A proposal was made in 1912 for the area around where RAF Northolt now stands to be developed as 'Harrow Aerodrome'. This is in the first paragraph of the "Formation" section. I see other instances of single quotation marks elsewhere in the article.
  • Sentences in Wikipedia articles do not normally begin with digits, per the Manual of Style. See "30 Allied airmen including servicemen" in the "Battle of Britain" section, for example.
  • Citation 1 lacks an access date and publisher information.
  • Uxbridge Gazette in citation 21 should appear in italics.

These are just examples of small errors I can spot without carefully reading the article from top to bottom again. I realize that it takes a long time to learn the ins and outs of the Manual of Style (MoS) and that not everybody has trained to be a professional proofreader or copyeditor. However, there are two groups of Wikipedia copyeditors that might be able to assist you in polishing the prose and assuring MoS compliance. You might try WP:GOCE/REQ, and a short list of copyeditors appears at the bottom of WP:PRV. I would suggest seeking assistance at either place. My best. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon in China (opera) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Nixon in China is an important 20th century opera, celebrating an event which (briefly) galvanised the world and raised Nixon to an unprecedented level of international regard – just four months before the Watergate break-in. The opera is more about the personalities, American and Chinese, than the event itself. The rather odd score, not to everyone's taste, is a blend of minimalism and Western classicism, spiced by frequent pop references. The opera has been well received in Europe as well as in North America, but so far the Chinese have resisted putting it on. Comments, please, on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (This expansion is a joint project of myself and User:Wehwalt)[reply]

RHM22 comments: This article is very well written, and I don't have much to comment on, but here a few things that I noticed:

Historical Background:
Maybe you should reference or reword the first sentence, where it says that Nixon was a militant anti-communist. While I know that Nixon was a big opponent of Communism, I've never heard of him being militant.
Productions:
The piece opened in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Music Critics Association, guaranteeing what the Houston Chronicle described as a "very discriminating audience". I think this should have a reference, since it's a direct quote.
Adams conducted the original cast in the French premiere, at the Maison de la Culture di Bobigny, Paris, on 14 December 1991. I believe that this should use the American date format, seeing as how the opera was written by an American on an American subject. I know the sentence itself is referring to an event that took place in France, but I still think it should use the American date style.
Music:
The internal opera is followed by a monologue, "I am the wife of Mao Tse-tung" in which Chiang Ch'ing, Mao's wife, rails against counterrevolutionary elements in full coloratura soprano mode which culminates in a high D, appropriate for a character who in real life was a former actress given to self-dramatization. I would change the section where it says that it was appropriate as she was an actress. This strikes me as a little POV or interperetatory. Just my opinion, though, so just leave it as is you like it.
The music of the final, surreal act is sentimental and contemplative This is another section that seems slightly POV, but that may be opera terminology, so disregard if I'm wrong on that.

That's it. Like I said, the article is already very well written. I think FA will be easy on this.-RHM22 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I have Americanised the date, and rewritten the "sentimental and contemplative" phrasing, as this was too loose a paraphrase of the source. You are probably right re the interpretive nature of the comment about Madame Mao's career as an actress; I don't remember writing this, so I think it's Wehwalt's. The other points are his, too, so I'll let him respond. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mrs. Mao comment is effectively straight from the source. I will change "militant" to "leading", though I really don't see the problem. I will add the ref.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it is not an online quote, I have added the source material as a quote to the reference re Madame Mao in order to show that I am accurately reproducing the source. I am becoming increasingly confused about the way WP:NPOV is being interpreted these days. People are not robots; they have personalities, and it is not POV to say so in a dispassionate way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the language personally objectionable, but I have no doubt that others probably would. While it's true that she was an actress, who's to say that it was appropriate? Even if it is appropriate, it's not really relevant. Either way, if that's what the reference says, why not just quote from that instead of asserting it yourself? That way, the point gets across without the editor having to interpret it. As for the other stuff, it may not be POV since you're discussing an opera, a subject that I know little about. If those are simply opera terms, then of course it's fine to leave them as is. The reason for my mentioning the Nixon thing was that "militant anti-communist" implies violence towards communists, at least to me.-RHM22 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain that "militant" implies "military", but I've changed the word. If you go into the footnote now on the Mrs. Mao thing, I've typed in the quote from the source. Your suggestion about quoting directly is a good one, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 4meter4

Overall this is an excellent article, and I only have a few suggestions.
Historical background
  • I would suggest giving the exact dates of Richard Nixon's seven days in China, Feb. 21-27, 1972.
Inception
  • It might be good to briefly mention the events from Nixon's visit to China which the creative team chose to dramatize. This would be a good segway into the synopsis.
Reception
  • Of possible interest among the original reviewers would be Joseph McLellan's review in The Washington Post, part of which is available for free here. He actually predicted the opera would become a classic and heralded the work for ushering in a new era of opera.
Performances
  • You may wish to mention the UK premiere at the Edinburgh Festival in 1988 (this briefly mentions it).
  • Also, their was a concert performance of NIC in London in 1998 at the Barbican Centre (see here), so the 2000 ENO production was really just the first staged production in London.
  • This may be OR, but it seems to me that the 2000 ENO production set off a flurry of revivals held during the last decade. The opera wasn't staged for most of the 1990s, although there were a few concert performances. After ENO, the opera was staged by many companies.
  • It might be of interest that the Portland Opera production was actually put together in conjunction with the Opera Theatre of Saint Louis (where it premiered in 2004 [1]), and in conjunction with the Houston Grand Opera and Minnesota Opera (2005)(see here) and by Opera Colorado which performed it at the National Performing Arts Convention and recorded the opera (2008, see here).
  • Other recent US productions include Opera Boston (2004, see here), Chicago Opera Theatre (2006, see here), Long Beach Opera (2010, see here)
  • This article gives a very interesting perspective on the opera during a time when it hadn't been performed in several years following the LA production, with the exception of a mounting by the Jacobs School of Music. It might be good to note that the opera was not staged in the 1990s in the U.S. after the 1990 LA production except at IU. I'm pretty sure no professional stagings were given in the US from 1991-2003, although there were a few concert performances.
  • A few international performances that could be mentioned would be the German premiere at the Frankfurt Opera (1992), the Australian premiere at the Adelaide Festival (1992), and the Canadian premiere by the Vancouver Opera (2010, see here).
Recordings
  • The original recording won a Grammy Award (see here).
  • I know that the Met did a live broadcast of their production earlier this year. Would this count as a recording? Usuallly a DVD release follows these.

Well that's all I can think of for now. I realize not all of the performance stuff will be used, I just thought it important to recognize the dead span of the 1990s, the importance of the 2000 ENO production, and the flurry of activity over the last decade. Great work as usual you two.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. On Productions, I have slipped in a reference to the 1988 Edinburgh Festival performance, and have drawn attention to the hiatus of the 1990s. I realise that we could bring in more details on productions, but the section has to be kept within limits and it's looking pretty long now. On Recordings, the Grammy award is already mentioned. If/when the Met performance is issued as a DVD, we can add the details. I'll let Wehwalt have first look at your other points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the exact dates of the visit really doesn't help the reader, who is there for information on the opera; this isn't that article. Yes, we could say that they had a banquet, and Pat Nixon toured the city, and they went to see a performance at the Great Hall of the People, but I think the images we have included better illustrate that point. I concur with BB on the question of the productions, we need to be choosy with an eye to the future. Fortunately, unlike my recent R&H efforts, there is much to choose from. Yes, the Met did a Saturday afternoon broadcast, but frankly, that's almost expected, the Met does one every Saturday during the season. It isn't worth noting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim riley – First comments. More to come

  • In the lead, "any work about Nixon would be a satire on the former president, whom he did not like" is puzzling – it is not obvious that disliking someone would put you off satirising him. I infer from the main text that he felt mere satire was not strong enough, but this is not clear from the lead.
  • President as a job title – i.e. "the president" as opposed to President Nixon: consistency needed in u.l.c. – I'd lower case it, myself, but one or t'other, please. And, later Chairman, too, ditto.
  • Chairman Mao and Chou En-lai – at first mentions a brief job description would help the reader
  • Inception
    • By now the explanation that Nixon was the US president is superfluous
    • "thus the expectant chorus which begins the work" – I believe "that" rather than "which" is the prevalent US form here (and Fowler agrees over here too)
  • Synopsis
    • Well done on handling the Peking/Beijing business so smoothly.
    • Pat Nixon needs a link
    • "She is enchanted by a model elephant—the symbol of the party her husband leads" – this is rather cryptic to anyone not familiar with US party politics. I wonder if a footnote rather than the parenthesis might be better, explaining the elephant and donkey symbols in a sentence or two rather than trying to cram the explanation into a few words within the narrative.
    • "This depiction of the downfall of a cruel and unscrupulous landlord's agent (played by Kissinger)" – eh? Henry Kissinger is depicted as acting in the cast of the Peking Opera? (I haven't seen the show, and I am struggling to keep up.)
    • "as they lie in their respective beds" – I see what you mean, and no better wording leaps to mind, but this is an odd-looking phrase. Perhaps the adjective could just be jettisoned?
    • I've dealt with the synopsis issues. In the synopsis, "Pat Nixon" is a character, not the real person, so I don't think a link is appropriate. I have reworded the elephant sentence, hopefully avoiding the need for a footnote. I have clarified re Kissinger's role in "The Red Detachment of Women". I prefer to keep "respective" beds if that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think referring to Mao and Chou as "Chinese Chairman" and "Chinese Premier" is all that is needed for purposes of this article. I'll play with the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Productions
    • "Prior to" - as opposed to before?
    • "copy of the libretto, however Nixon's staff" – stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
    • "originating Pat Nixon" – looks odd (a US/UK thing?) – I wondered if just "singing" or "playing" would possibly read more smoothly here
    • "the Los Angeles Times" – weird italicisation
    • "Sellars implemented supertitles" – authorised? approved? – or did he actually implement them?
    • Metropolitan Opera – link at first mention
    • "The ENO production, based on the original Houston designs…" you have "Metropolitan" five times in 70 words. A bit of creative variation would be desirable here, I think
    • Canadian production: consistency wanted between past and present tenses
    • "The opera has not yet been presented in China" – I have no constructive suggestion, but this important sentence should not be tacked on as an irrelevant afterthought to the Canadian production.
    • I am only partly responsible for the prose here, but I've endeavoured to address the issues you raise. I think I've covered everything. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception
    • "Davis' forecast of the opera's likely fate was not generally realized" – Do you need the adverb? It either was or wasn't
    • "Although the work was not performed in London until 13 years after its premiere, Tempo's critic Robert Stein responded to ENO's 2000 production enthusiastically" – the logic of this is not clear – why is it important to Stein's view that there was a 13 year gap?
    • Not a comment on your prose, but Erica Jeal's prose is ludicrous – how can anything be all-too-welcome? Pray ignore this bullet point – I'm just expostulating before getting back to the point at issue
    • "unusual settings for the operas he has staged" – neutral can go too far, chaps! "Unorthodox" perhaps, if you wish to be kind to Sellars. ( I can think of other adjectives.)
    • As above, I'm the coauthor of this section, but I've done the fixes. I've removed the "Davis' forecast..." sentence, as it reads like editorial comment. I've otherwise followed your lead, though I can't do much about Jeal's prose. I've left my colleague Wehwalt to pick up on the lead and Inception points. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch to follow. Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a single officeholder who is head of state or government, and the person mentioned is the incumbent at the time, I have no problem with capitalizing "President" or "Prime Minister" and do it routinely in my political articles. (in other words, Nixon is "the President" when the events of 1972 are being talked about, but when he is invited to the premiere, he is "the former president". Same goes with Mao. Should I change all the Elizabeth II refs to "the queen"? I'll look at the others more closely.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian would answer yes to your question about the queen. It also uses the form " the lord chancellor" which looks odd to me. The WP MoS is singularly ambiguous on what to do in such cases, and I think as long as one is internally consistent either "the Chairman" or "the chairman" will wash. Your logic is unimpeachable as to serving and former presidents. Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is more American practice to refer to the incumbent Prez as "the President", signifying that he is the Head Honcho, the Big Cheese, the Buck Stopper, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One note, I personally changed the instances of "Met" to "Metropolitan" or "Metropolitan Operea" to avoid what seemed to be an informal abbreviation. If either the other reviewers or authors prefer the abbreviated form, I'm sure that it would be fine.-RHM22 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert, but I think "Met" has wide enough currency to be acceptable. Live from the Met, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promised second batch of comments: on resuming my read-through I find I have little to raise in the music and refs sections.

  • I was going to ask why you didn't give the Gramophone reviewer's name as usual, but I see it is impossible to read the online page that lists the reviewers in the relevant issue, and I admit "J. M." rings no bells.
  • A couple of instances of "which-v-that" in the music section; some people (not me) get exercised about such things
  • At note 45 should it be "liner" rather than "line"?
  • With references to periodicals, you sometimes add the publisher's name and sometimes don't.
  • Note 51 doesn't, I think, comply with WP:Say where you got it.

A very fine article, plainly ripe for FAC. I hope you will let me know when you nominate it. Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the liner notes change (odd we are still using that term!) and will leave the others for my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what further comments Brian my have before commenting further. Of course, we speak as one, but there are certain areas in which he has greater expertise and I would not want to make a hasty comment without hearing from him.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed "which" to "that", as appropriate, in the Music section. Publishers were shown for Opera News and Tempo; I don't know why, since these are mainstream journals and it is not usual as such to show publishers' names, which I have now deleted for consistency. I have also deleted the former citation [51], since I can't be sure that the site hosting the quotation was doing so accurately or within context. There is a little more work to be done around the citations, e.g. fixing repetitive linking of journal names and a few template issues; I will sort these out over the weekend. Thanks again, Tim, for the time spent on this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments on the lead/lede (comments on the rest of the article to follow this evening):

  • It's a good idea to give the composer's nationality and the language in which the libretto is written. I don't really like "with a libretto by", which sounds as if the librettist is a subsidiary person rather than a collaborator. You could say "composed to a libretto by", but I'd rephrase the first two sentences along the lines of:

    Nixon in China is the first opera by the American composer John Adams. The three-act English language libretto is by Alice Goodman.

  • Choreography: poor old Mark Morris doesn't get another mention in the whole article. What did the critics say about his work? Was "The Chairman dances" the only choreographed piece? And has it been permanently deleted? If so, why?
  • --GuillaumeTell 17:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Chairman Dances" was not a deletion from the opera, that is a common misconception which is not in our article. It's the only separate piece I am aware of. If you mean, is there more choreography in the opera, there most certainly is, the ballet in Act 2 for beginners. On Morris, I looked through the reviews from 1987 and he is barely mentioned, I am afraid. The reviewers spent their time discussing why it was, or was not a great idea to convert the visit into an opera, and how well/badly Adams and Goodman did in adapting it. With a few nods in the direction of Maddalena. I will keep looking though, and perhaps Brian has materials at his fingertips which I lack. As regards the lede, I'd like to hear more discussion of that. Whatever one may think of the practice, we do not celebrate all those great Da Ponte operas for which Mozart supplied the music, if you see what I mean.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if what you say above about "The Chairman Dances" is correct, which I'm sure it is, why does the "Music" section of the article say: "Missing from the act is the deleted orchestral suite The Chairman Dances, an extended foxtrot that Adams wrote as "a kind of warmup for embarking on the creation of the full opera."? Or am I being dense? --GuillaumeTell 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is where we address the tension from different people writing from different sources. That's why peer review is so helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt is right; "The Chairman Dances" is not a deleted scene, it was a separate composition which, as Adams says, he used as a preliminary warming-up exercise. I will alter the text to make this clear. There is a brief choreographed foxtrot in Act 3, as Pat reminisces about the 1930s. I too have struggled to find much critical reference to Morris's work, but am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Stoke-on-Trent edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 an article that's got to GA status but even though I've read the instructions for WP:FAC I'm unsure what needs to add to this article to get it to that standard.

Thanks, NtheP (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial

Good to see editors aiming for FAC, but this article has a fair way to go. I can't really comment on the subject matter, but otherwise I reviewed as I would at FAC. Be aware that a lot of these points are only examples of multiple instances of those problems.

Lead

  • The first sentence should introduce the subject first; I don't think it should put emphasis on how unusual it was. What was the Federation of Stoke-on-Trent? When did it happen?
  • "The six towns of ... all have their own histories." This is self evident, or they wouldn't be separate towns. The sentence appears to be there to introduce the towns, in which case this could be done in the first paragraph.
  • Are those six towns "the Potteries towns"? If so, they should be defined as such at first mention.
  • "The plan arose after an Act of Parliament brought a restructure in the county system that would see the creation of the county of Staffordshire." Anthropomorphism; the plan didn't see anything. Perhaps "... that created the county of Staffordshire."
  • "Instead only the town of Hanley gained County Borough status due to it being the only town that met the criteria, principally population, for being a county borough." Perhaps even drop "principally population" from the lead.
  • In that same example "County Borough" is capitalised the first time and is not the second.
  • "lying dead" is another anthropomorphism.
  • "Again disagreement arose on the complex financial issues of rates, assets and loans." Better to introduce these specific concerns the first time they became an issue.

Background

  • "It was against these failing regimes, e.g. Tunstall manorial court lapsed in 1813, that the first stages in the long road to federation began." "e.g." is clumsy in professional prose. Perhaps use "for example" and separate from text using dashes or brackets.
  • Also: "that the first stages in the long road to federation began." Having said that, "long road" is a bit journalistic (for lack of a better word). Do you have any alternative wording for the sentence?
  • Is 1825 less than a decade after 1813?

Early proposals at co-operation

  • "The first tentative step towards co-operation was taken in 1817 when a meeting in Hanley called for future joint public meetings called by the head constables of the various settlements to be held in Hanley." Is this a quote? If so, quotation marks, rather than italics, should be used.
  • Parliamentary borough should be linked at first mention.
  • Dashes rather than hyphens should be used to separate clauses.
  • If "Reform Act" is italicised, all subsequent uses (provided they mention the same Reform Act) should be as well.
  • "Shortly after the introduction of the Reform Act a Municipal Corporations Bill was introduced". Repetition of "introduced".
  • "The same meeting in Burslem did however resurrect a theme from the meeting before 1820 and that was the promotion of law and order in the Potteries, the meeting calling for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate." Perhaps "The same meeting in Burslem revisited a theme from the meeting before 1820—the promotion of law and order in the Potteries—and called for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate."
  • There's no cite for the last two sentences of this section.

The County plan of 1888

  • Per MOS:HEAD, headings should not start with "The".
  • borough should be linked at first mention, if at all.
  • Cite for the second paragraph?
  • Woodall should face the text, per MOS:IMAGE.
  • That big block of italic text should instead be in quotation marks.
  • "... they opted for Hanley to take its county borough status, effectively killing the county proposal or even the county borough proposal." Presumably the county borough proposal in question refers to that of the Potteries, not Hanley's own proposal.

First federation proposal 1900–1903

  • "In December 1900 Stoke town council proposed a meeting with 'a view to federal action'." Quotation marks, rather than apostrophes.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is missing a full stop.
  • "that the it".
  • "Geen's report appeared in July 1903 and increased opposition to the whole idea of federation."

Second federation proposal 1905–1910

  • "The events surrounding this last poll were in the words of the Staffordshire Advertiser "unprecedented" with both sides making every effort to ensure their supporters voted." Problem here is that "unprecedented" is one word (also, "with" is an awkward joining word and is worth avoiding). Perhaps "The Staffordshire Advertiser described the events surrounding this last poll as "unprecedented"; both sides made every effort to ensure their supporters voted."
  • "For procedural reasons, only the submission made by Longton was valid". How so?
  • "The inquiry opened on 8 January 1908 and lasted for three days, it was chaired by Major Norton, an officer of the Local Government Board." The first comma should either be a semi-colon or period. There's also a double period after the next sentence.

Other points

  • I've never seen that particular citation style in use on Wikipedia. I suppose my problem with it is that you have to go to the Notes section to see the source, and then back to the body of the text to check the page number. It also seems to take up a lot of room in the article; perhaps better to have a sprawling Notes section.
  • There seems to be an aversion to commas in the article, and as a result a lot of sentences seem to ramble. Some existing commas should also be semi-colons. A thorough check of the article is advised.
  • The article needs a serious copyedit for prose. The FA criterion 1a is interpreted very strongly at FAC, and it is very common to see nominations archived simply on prose concerns. The specific concerns I have raised here I should stress are only examples, and there are many more.

I don't mean to put you off; it's clear that a lot of work has gone into the article and it is largely a good read. However, FAC deservedly has a reputation for rigour and you should only take this article there when you are absolutely confident it is ready. Apterygial talk 07:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the constructive feedback. I think I have addressed the points raised and have raised a request with the Guild of Copy Editors for a review of that side of things. NtheP (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Houston Women's Invitation edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it has potential to be a FA. I've sent this for a copy edit so I don't really want comments on phrasing spelling grammer. But anything else which sees the standard of the article improve would be great, e.g. order/placement of things. And additionally to improve the lead and the first paragraph. Look on the WTA page if needs.

Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: An interesting article about an important event in professional tennis history. But the article needs a lot of attention if it is to brought up to a good standard. Here are some general issues that need fixing:-

  • We have "women's only" and "women only" in the first paragraph
  • You should not simply state that the distribution of prize money at tennis events was unfair. That reads as opinion. You need to qualify thus: "The tournament was held to protest against what was perceived by women players as the unfair distribution of prize money at tennis events."
  • Amplify "a 12:1 ratio split in prize money" a little. It's explained later, but we need to know what this mwans from the beginning.
  • Sponsorship was from Philip Morris, not "Virginia Slims" which was a brand name, not an organisation.
  • Being pedantic, a £2,500 to £750 ratio is 2.67:1, not 2.5:1
  • Give the year in which Heldman underwrote the National Indoor Championships
  • The article begins with the statement that the 1970 Houston Women's Invitation was the first women only tournament. But apparently Heldman staged three women's only tournaments in winter 1969.
  • "Kramer", not "Krammer"
  • "Fed Cup" was known as "Federation Cup" before 1995

However, the main problem is with the prose which is often carelessly written, with frequent bad grammar and repetitive phrasing. I have also corrected several typos. The following are examples that need attention, but a complete copyedit of the prose should be undertaken, if you are interested in taking the article further.

  • "The tournament was the first women only tournament and was created by Gladys Heldman." → "The tournament, the first for women only, was created by Gladys Heldman."
  • By the 1970s, the pay which had been 2.5:1 ratio between men and women increased." Do you mean the ratio had increased? And is "pay" the right term for prize money?
  • Don't add "as well" to sentences
  • "She contacted the Houston Racquet Club and the Texas Lawn Tennis Association about her idea and within days had created as $5,000 tournament for eight women." Something wrong ("had created as"), but more explanation is needed. For example, where did the $5,000 come from?
  • "When Heldman first told Kramer of her tournament, he stated that he would not oppose the tournament." Unnecessary repetition, rephrase. And again in the next sentence ("take place/taking place").

The above points give you stuff to work on. If you need to discuss this review, please contact my talkpage as I am not watching individual peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alkali metal edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on the article, it's got more pictures now, and it's definitely much better cited than it was before. I nominated it for WP:GA earlier, but it failed, so I'd like to get some comments on the article so that more can be done on it.

Thanks, Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R8R Gtrs's comments

I don't tend to cover all, and you'll need a better editor (and my words aren't very worthy now, so be free to argue). But here's what I can say after a short look:

  • Use from now one "one ref per para" rule - no less than one reference should appear in every paragraph, the best is linking the most controversial. You've got a lot to do here...
  • "The alkali metals are a group of chemical elements in the periodic table." Wait, the group is Group 1, which is alkali metals plus hydrogen. Maybe, "a chemical series" would go better? The second sentence is wrong, you can see IUPAC Periodic Table, search their webcite, you'll see H in Group 1.
    • Something akin to "chemical elements" is needed because you can't assume the reader will be familiar with "periodic table" or even chemistry in general. WP:TECHNICAL This is the type of thing that gets focused upon during an FAC.—RJH (talk)
      • "A series of chemical elements in the periodic table" would surely do. Just something doesn't mention group word
  • "The alkali metals contain lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium or cesium (Cs) and francium (Fr).[1]" better would look with a single "caesium" name, with a footnote about controversy and a link to Caesium, section Spelling
  • "This group lies in the s-block of the periodic table, which also includes alkaline earth metals, plus hydrogen and helium." Cut all after the first comma and merge the remaining with any previous sentence.
    • If you are going to do that, then I think you need to explain "s-block". WP:TECHNICAL—RJH (talk)
      • Saying what other elements are in doesn't either. Maybe, "This group lies in the s-block of the periodic table, because all elements in the series have in their outermost electronic shell only one s-electron"?
  • There are well characterized and Francium, which should be well-characterized and francium.
  • "Ununennium (element 119) is likely to continue this trend, with electrons 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 1, or [Uuo]8s1, but this is unconfirmed.[3] Similarly, unhexennium (element 169) is also likely to continue this trend, with electrons 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, 32, 18, 8, 1, or [Uho]9s1, but this is unconfirmed.[4]" point anywhere this is only a theory led from Aufbau principle and not experimental data, and that there're calculations saying so not, I'm sure you know about extended periodic table, get the data from there, and say about unhexpentium as a possible, eighth alkali metal (and some thing about ununpentium as the seventh).
  • There are two paras in the middle of the Chemical about hydrogen. Section Hydrogen is for that, since the elements isn't an alkali metal. Pass the mentioned text there.
  • "The properties, history, production, occurence, applications, biological occurences of hydrogen are all significantly different from those of the alkali metals, which is another reason why hydrogen is usually not included into the alkali metals."

I'd argue about the third one, but this should become a full-length text.

  • History is to be rewritten.
  • The discoveries of the alkali metals were made in very similar fashion, as shown below, except for the heaviest one, francium.

Wait, is this necessary? You've got the whole section, so maybe better remove this

  • "Johan August Arfwedson discovered the alkali metal lithium in petalite.[9]"

Expand to 4-5 sentences. First para in lithium aricle, section History may be useful. The same also applies to Na, K, Rb and Cs.

  • The future expansion takes too much place. But a subsection for future expansion only would probably do without cutting (but reorganizing).

I'll write more later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now beginning to work on this. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production. Too much francium and way too little rubidium and caesium. I think I don't need to explain my words.
Occurrence. Too much francium (in fact, only one sentence isn't OK, "Francium can also be synthesized in the nuclear reaction 197Au + 18O → 210Fr + 5 n.[36]" that's cool, but unless you say it happens in nature with a proof, this isn't for occurrence section) and way too little rubidium and caesium. Also, lithium and sodium need expansion.
Applications. Way too little all of them (even francium)
Biological occurrences. Would "biological roles" suit better? Anyway, too little again about all (even francium). I'd write it like that:

Sodium and potassium are essential elements for life, as they... so on
Lithium is... so on.
Rubidium is...so on. Caesium, similar to rubidium,... so on.
Francium is...so on.

Also, I'd like you to mention how would francium behave in humans' bodies if it weren't radioactive.

And the last section would also be better if expanded.

also, I've just found... Their chemical reactions with water are as follows: Alkali metal + water → Alkali metal hydroxide + hydrogen gas. For a typical example (M represents an alkali metal): 2 M (s) + 2 H2O (l) → 2 MOH (aq) + H2 (g)

Why "for a typical example" if it's already generalized? If there were K, Na, Li, Rb, Cs or Fr, it'd be OK. Or without "For a typical example" it'd also do. (also, doesn't it sound stupid? shouldn't it be either "for example" or "An illustrative example would be (or, if you want so much, typical)") Fix it :)

As some finishing words I'd like to see rubidium and caesium (lithium, sodium and potassium, sure, too) having at least twice more info than Fr on anything.

Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

  • The Production section needs a little shake-up. Even the first sentence (the alkali metals are usually produced using similar processes) is really bad: derivatives of the word "use" are used twice when they should be used once, and the "usually" indicates ambiguity when it is not supposed to be there.
  • Anything related to hydrogen can and must be ousted; it is not an alkali metal.
    • Most of the text related to hydrogen is a discussion about why hydrogen isn't usually considered an alkali metal. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency! That Applications section needs the "uses" next to rubidium out!
  • ...OK, enough humor. Finished. FREYWA 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stone's comments
  • The fact that potassium, rubidium, (francium not discovered at that point) are radioactive and the believe that caesium is also radioactive made the group strange compared to the others. This is a nice point for the history section.

Goldschmidt classification andIncompatible element are two points which might be good for occurrence section --Stone (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Museum edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article looks to be in good shape but before it is nominated for GA status, I wanted to see what improvements could be made. Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis edit

Long article, with some very interesting formatting. Generally well written too, although there is some WP:PEACOCK here and there (but quite understandable, it is the British Museum after all). My thoughts, take them as you will:

  • In the lead there should be no new information, and there shouldn't need to be references. Make sure that everything cited in the lead is included somewhere within the main article text. Currently some information exists only in the lead.
History
  • I took one look at the table of contents and was shocked at the apparent length of the history section. Is it necessary to have this huge number of subsections? In my opinion they need to be combined somehow. Perhaps the Sloan and Founding sections could be combined, and perhaps 1753-1859 combined, 1850-1900, 1900-2000. These were just grouping I thought of on the fly, but I do think the number of subsections is overwhelming.
  • Images in this section are all right-aligned. More variety would be more attractive.
  • "he bequeathed it to King George II, for the nation, for the princely sum of £20,000." This is unclear. Did Sloane ask for £20,000 in return for the collection? Also, "princely" seems to be not very encyclopaedic.
  • "including those by Albrecht Dürer" Is Albrecht Dürer important enough to warrant the only actual naming of any artist in that paragraph? Seems odd and out of place.
  • Okay, first word on the notes. Is there are reason that these are not included within the text? At any rate, wikilinking things such as "Jacobite rebellion" would be very helpful.
  • "including the Lindisfarne Gospels and the sole surviving copy of Beowulf." This statement and the note following appear to be unsourced.
  • "which it bought from the Montagu family for £20,000." Was it funded from parliament? Does this have a relation to the money mentioned earlier?
  • " In 1757 King George II gave the Old Royal Library and with" Reword somehow, to say that King George II donated the contents of the library or something similar.
  • Citation needed tag here, this needs to be dealt with.
  • Second paragraph of Indolence and energy (1778-1800) is unsourced.
  • "for the extensive collection of sculpture began to be laid" Should "sculpture" be plural? If not, ignore me.
  • "King George III presented the Rosetta Stone" Instead of "presented", maybe "donated" or something similar. "presented to the museum".
  • "Many Greek sculptures followed, notably the first purpose-built exhibition space, the Charles Towneley collection, much of it Roman Sculpture, in 1805" Needs to be rewritten or split or something. Meaning is unclear to me.
  • "masterpieces of western art, were" Errant comma?
  • Big citation needed in the The largest building site in Europe (1825-50) section.
  • "assembled a fine library" Adjectives like "fine" would best be avoided.
  • Archaeological excavations section may be better suited under the Collecting from the wider world (1850-75) banner.
  • First paragraph of Collecting from the wider world (1850-75) needs to be sourced.
  • "became a well-organised institution worthy of being called a national library" Very opinionated statement, is this a direct quote from somewhere?
  • First paragraph of New century, new building (1900-25) needs to be sourced.
  • "the collections kept growing" may be better written as "the collections continued to grow"
  • "In 1923 the British Museum welcomed over one million visitors" is a statistic, definitely needs a source.
  • The Disruption and reconstruction (1925-50) section needs sourcing.
  • "organization" American spelling?
  • Many parts of A new public face (1950-75) need sources.
  • The The Great Court emerges (1975-2000) has two short paragraphs which should be combined, and then sourced.
  • "The original 1753 collection has grown to over thirteen million objects at the British Museum, 70 million at the Natural History Museum and 150 million at the British Library." needs to be sourced.
  • I've skipped some footnotes, but make sure they too are sourced.
Governance
  • The name of the current director and maybe other important admin staff could be included here.
  • "For a list of current trustees, see here." This needs to be reworded somehow. This is the kind of sentence which would make a good footnote, with the reference showing as an external link.
  • Make sure it's all sourced, I believe the second half of the second paragraph currently isn't.
Building
  • The section as a whole needs a lot of sourcing. Combine shorter paragraphs and leave no paragraph without a source, no dates names or numbers without sources. As a whole this section would be improved by some sort of overview or guide to the overall shape and a description of how all the areas interconnect.
Departments
  • This section could use an overview briefly describing what the departments are, how they are formed and arranged, and other general information.
  • Maybe the sections could be rearranged into a different order? Current order seems random. Maybe keeping geographical departments together, historical departments together, etc. would be better.
  • Large white spaces are scattered throughout, if possible they should be eliminated.
  • How were the items listed chosen? Is there a central list? If possible, have a link to a list of items in the museum somewhere easy to find (another good footnote usage) so that all items listed throughout the section can be double-checked. In addition, some sections have lists of items, some don't. Why?
  • "most comprehensive collection" What does it mean to have a comprehensive collection of artefacts? "virtually every site of importance" What defines an important site? Wording here could be vastly improved, and should be sourced anyway.
  • The second paragraph may need more sources, unless the source at the end covers everything. Lots of figures names etc.
  • Third paragraph perhaps needs the citation moved backwards, if not the second half needs to be sourced.
  • Fourth paragraph needs to be sourced.
  • "Wendorf Collection of Egyptian and Sudanese Prehistory" wikilinks included here seem randomly chosen and don't really add.
  • The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities section lacks sources.
  • The Department of the Middle East has a when? which needs to be addressed, and should be reformatted with short paragraphs combined and long paragraphs split.
  • Similar peacock issues to Egypt section. Words like "comprehensive" should be avoided, and claims like "has the greatest collection of Mesopotamian antiquities outside Iraq" definitely need a source.
  • General lack of sources again, make sure every paragraph has at least one source and every fact etc.
  • "with near complete holdings of most of the great names before the 19th century" is subjective and needs a source.
  • Third paragraph of Department of Prints and Drawings has a citation needed that needs addressing.
  • The Department of Asia is the only one with a gallery, maybe the gallery should be moved to the galleries section below?
  • The Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas has a citation needed, and frankly the part has been added two is simple puffery anyway.
  • Other paragraphs of this section need combining and sourcing.
  • Department of Prehistory and Europe, Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, and Libraries and Archives all need sourcing.
  • External link in Department of Conservation and Scientific Research should be removed.
Controversy
  • The prose in this section needs sourcing. I'd actually recommend expanding, with maybe a paragraph detailing each separate dispute that the museum has been in or is in. Theres a source for each item, so hopefully no new ones need to be found to do this.
  • Explain what the Tasmanian Ashes are, and why they were disputed.
Floor directory
  • What's the difference between a floor and a level?
  • If every level has the wheelchair symbol, it loses its meaning.
  • The red triangles, do they mean limited time?
  • Add a key to address these issues.

I enjoyed reading the article, and it has some very good information there. Hope you take this all into account, sorry if I was too critical at some points. Any questions, I've watchlisted this page, reply under the bullets or just below here. Good luck with the article, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, See Also should not contain links already in the article. The British Museum Friends is linked to in History. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. I will get to work on the improvements you have suggested. It really is a very interesting article to read with plenty of fascinating facts and certainly should be a Good Article at the very least. Harrison49 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of the Ebionites edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it ready for GAC. Please review the entire article for completeness, consistency, verifiability, NPOV, and adherence to the Manual of Style. Thanks for all your hard work in helping to improve the article! Ovadyah (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llywrch
  • First item that stood out is that after the lead section there are several one-paragraph sections. A series of short sections like these make the article appear professional, suggesting that either someone who contributed to this article couldn't prioritize her/his material coherently or that there is a lot more that could be said in these topics & more work needs to be done here. I'd try to combine these sections into one larger overview section.
  • I'd move the paragraphs which address the name, providence, & date up to a position immediately after the lead. These are the facts that we can expect a reader will want to find, in preference to discussing the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or "'Gospel of the Ebionites' as quoted by Epiphanius", & even explaining who the Ebionites are. Maybe combine the four elements of name, origins, date of composition, & who the Ebionites were into one section.
  • I notice that there is a reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica in this article (note 7 in the revision I'm looking at). Don't cite or reference other Encyclopedias in Wikipedia articles -- unless you are using a signed article by an acknowledged authority in the field, & in that case be certain to reference that specific article. Citing an encyclopedia implies that (1) Wikipedia is not as reliable as that Encyclopedia, &/or (2) the person who added the reference was lazy, & couldn't be bothered to research the matter for her/himself. (Every time I see a reference like this I wish I had a Browning so I could release the safety. Even though that urge is something unsaid in polite society, & wouldn't accomplish anything -- unless the gun were loaded & I had something I could legally shoot at.)
  • I'm uncomfortable with the categorical statement "The standard critical edition is found in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha", even if it is true. From what I know of Schneemelcher, he is an accepted authority, but there is something about the tone of this assertion which I can see will lead to unnecessary disputes, most likely because it appears in the lead section. Were any other critical editions published before or since its publication date? If you could compile a list of these editions, this material would best fit at the end. Especially if you could compile a list of scholarly reviews of each critical edition.
  • Something that I missed in this article was an explanation of why this lost work is important. In the lead section there is a brief mention that this is "one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels" -- why is this significant? You need to explain the context for this lost work: what the ancient authorities thought of it, & how they reacted to its contents.
  • Another omission in the version I read is that it defines the Gospel as "the description by Epiphanius of Salamis of a Gospel used by the Ebionites". Why don't the experts use the title Epiphanius uses? He calls it the Gospel of the Hebrews, as this article notes. (And as an aside, instead of writing "No Gospel by that name was mentioned as being in circulation during the time of the Early Church", I would express that idea "No surviving document of the Early Church mentions that gospel" -- only a fraction of the works written by or about Christians before AD 500 has survived, & nowhere near most of them until the invention of print.
  • A last omission I'll mention is a discussion of this text's relationship with other gospels -- such as the Gospel of the Nazoraeans & the Gospel of the Hebrews. Some authorities believe these to be the same work under different names; others argue that they are different works. And until copies of all of these lost works are recovered, no one will be certain about which opinion is correct. (Then there is the disagreement/conversation over the relationship between the Gospel of the Ebionites & the Gospel of Matthew -- is the GoE a "defective Matthew", the "original Matthew", or both adaptations from a lost document?)
  • You have a section concerning vegetarianism in this document, yet you fail to mention this in the lead section. Think of the lead section as a summary of the larger article: the point of every section needs to be mentioned in the lead, so not to surprise the reader.

I hope I don't sound too critical in this review. This is an important subject & worth the effort. And I felt this article does an acceptable job in many of the sections. But if you want to know where to start to improve this article, & make it better than what the Encyclopedia Britannica has on it, these are the places where I would start. -- llywrch (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is great feedback, and not over-critical at all. Ovadyah (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by John Carter

A few general ideas. First, I think it might make sense to combine some of the short sections. Perhaps a first section on "Epiphanius and the Ebionites" might work, which could discuss the relevant information about Ebionites and Epiphanius together. It might also include some of the other material from Epiphanius about the Ebionites, particularly if that information can be seen to be linked, even indirectly, to one or more of the quotations. This might be followed by a section on the quotes themselves, perhaps with subsections ("defined" subsections or as separate paragraphs) which would include the original quote(s) and any hypotheses or speculations which might be related to them. The question regarding the identity with other gospels seems to me, at least, right now, to be fairly clearly that the various gospels which had previously been potentially identified as the same maybe/probably are not identical. If that is the case, then that information could be a separate section to follow, as it is less clearly related to the text per se but rather to later ideas about it. Other more recent speculations about the work could be included in the same section. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Ovadyah (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosendale Village, New York edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've expanded this article significantly since its GA review, and I was hoping to find out if there is anything that remains missing or unexplained, and to get feedback on the article in general; there are currently 31KB of prose.

Thanks, Gyrobo (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and well-done, and I enjoyed reading it. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • I added nbsps to combinations in the lead like "19th century" and "Route 32" that would be awkward if separated by line-break on computer screens. The rest of the article should be checked for other instances. WP:NBSP has details.
  • "After disincorporating, the commercial center of the former village... " - The center didn't disincorporate. Suggestion: "After the disincorporation, the commercial center... ".
  • "The former village has had a number of notable buildings, including four churches." - Verb tense? Maybe "The former village has a number of notable buildings, including four churches." Also, would "several" or "many" be slightly better than "a number of"?
  • I'm hesitant to change the tense here, because only one of those buildings is still a church, and one no longer exists at all. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two bridges span the Rondout Creek in the village: a road bridge the carries Route 32, and the Rosendale trestle, a former railroad bridge currently being renovated as a pedestrian walkway." - This doesn't quite make sense as written. I think the "the" between "bridge" and "carries" should be "that". Also, I wonder if you need "the" to modify "Rondout Creek". I see that you have consistently referred to it as "the Rondout Creek", and I wonder if there's a reason. If so, maybe an explanatory note would be helpful.
  • Fixed, and the "the" modifier was really an unconscious move on my part. I'm going to leave it, for the sake of variety. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and disasters

  • "In October 1956, a dinner reception was held to honor the government leaders and flood control officers who had coordinated rescue efforts during the previous year's floods." - Generally, the level of detail seems appropriate, but I thought this particular detail might be too much. Do readers in Australia need to know about a dinner reception in a village in New York?
  • Public reaction to the floods is kind of important, I think, and it's definitely more important to mention than that sentence about the church's bake sale. Does it mesh well with the firemen's parade, or is it too inrelated? --Gyrobo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The caves were also used to acquire naturally filtered water... " - I'm not sure "caves" is the right word. Do you mean "mines"? It's quite possible that there are both natural limestone caves and artificial mines in the area, but if that's the case, I think you need to use "mines" for the artificial tunnels and "caves" for the natural ones.
  • There are ice caves throughout the town, but the sources don't differentiate between the artificial and natural caves. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Rosendale

  • While some of the blue quote boxes look OK, the short one that begins this section looks odd to me. For one thing, it's awfully short. For another, it bumps into the subhead in an unattractive way. Finally, it's not clearly tied to anything in the main text but seems to be an editorial comment or surmise by one person.

Geography

  • To be comprehensive, the article should include something about the geology of the region. This is especially true in light of the mines and caves so important to the history and economy of the village. You mention the dolomite and the Rondout formation in the Joppenburg Mountain section, and that's fine, but a more complete account should, I think, appear in this section. Where did the Rondout formation come from? What other formations are important to the area? What are the important minerals?

Climate

  • Climate sections in featured articles about towns generally include some text about temperature and precipitation records, major storms, and local peculiarities of various sorts.

Joppenburg Mountain

  • "and it may have been used as the basis of a sermon by a local preacher on the dangers of violence." - "May have been" is a bit odd, and the whole concept is a bit odd. What could the preacher have meant by "the dangers of violence"?
  • Removed, it was really just a guess on the author's part and did seem kind of odd. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two old images of the mountain create a four-line text sandwich on my computer screen. That could be remedied by moving them a bit further apart vertically, and there's plenty of room.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • No problems there, I worked from my notes for almost all of this, and made sure to use only the best quotes. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review 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 brand new, it's my first time writing a Wikipedia entry and because I'd really like someone knowledgeable to look it over and give me some advice. I appreciate all the help you can provide. My subpage is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhsprecher Thanks, Mary Helen Mhsprecher (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is usually for well-developed articles rather than new ones, but I'm happy to give advice. I've left some feedback at your talk page. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is especially fascinating to me because I do so many peer reviews for Wikipedia. Before I looked over the article, I was already aware of at least some of the ways that peer review here is less formal and more open than academic peer review. Your article goes well beyond what I already knew, and I appreciate it. In addition, the writing is professional and clear.

The main problems with the existing article, in my opinion, are pretty well laid out by the tags that other editors have added to the page. They mention problems with jargon and organization and the lead, and while I don't disagree, I would not have flagged those first. I would say that the most important issue is that so much of the article violates WP:V. Much of the material seems to be coming from a single mind that has a broad and deep understanding of the subject; unfortunately, because its claims are not supported by inline citations to reliable sources, it does not meet the basic Wikipedia guidelines explained by WP:V and WP:RS. Large sections of the article, the entire "Justification" subsection, for example, are unsourced. The claims made in these sections are therefore not verifiable. Claims generally need to be supported by citations to external publications that are vetted by editors and often peer-reviewed as well. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim is unusual or that is likely to be doubted, every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every paragraph.

I think this is an important article that can be improved by finding and citing published sources for its claims. After that is done, other things may fall into place.

One other thought: Since other editors seem to have strong opinions about this article, it would be good to settle the questions about mergers with other articles before going too much further.

  • I see that some of the inline citations in the existing article use the "cite" family of templates to help organize the footnotes. You can find the complete family at WP:CIT. You don't have to use templates or this family of templates, but you should choose one kind of citation formatting and stick with it throughout. Don't mix the "cite" templates with the "citation" family of templates that are also found at WP:CIT.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page can be quite handy for checking any article for certain kinds of problems. The link checker, for example, sees four dead URLs in the reference section of this article.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need feedback on what else is missing/need to be changed to pass FA nomination. I believe it has reached the point where it may qualify for it.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi-Robo! edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been meaning to improve this article for some time now. After spending the past week sprucing it up, I'd like some feedback from other editors (inside WikiProject Video games and out) as to how to improve it further. Please note that the Cubed3 interview (ref #17) is broken, I could not find an archive of the url, and I was thus forced to use a transcript of the article from a forum post.

Thanks, ~ Hibana (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 phenomenon edit

Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed its previous FAC and I would like to ensure that all issues that could derail its next FAC have been resolved.

Thanks, Serendipodous 09:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article was not promoted at its previous FAC nom in October 2010, primarily because of (a) sources/citation issues and (b) shortage of significant comments on content. It would be good to have a summary of how the sources and citation questions have been addressed. Personally I found the article interesting and (at least in the parts I could follow) well written. However, my first thought is that much of it is very hard for the general reader to understand. The following are the notes that I made during my readthrough; some of these are very minor points which can easily be resolved, but the general readability issue is my overriding concern.

  • "In 1966, Michael D. Coe more ambitiously asserted in The Maya that "there is a suggestion ... " Two points here. First "more ambitiously" seems like an editorial intervention. Secondly, there is disjunction between "asserted" and "there is a suggestion". Assertions are hard, suggestions are soft. Rephrasing advised.
  • In the next section, Coe's "there is a suggestion" becomes an "apocalyptic interpretation". Again, I think the language needs to be changed.
  • "We know the Maya thought there was one before this..." I thought it was established that there were three before it.
  • The concepts of "distance dates" and "Distance Numbers" is not in my view adequately explained
  • "Either way, this date is 3 quintillion times the age of the universe, demonstrating that not all Mayans considered the 5,125-year cycle as the most important." Whose viewpoint is this?
  • Why capitalise "Solar System"?
  • I also think that further explanation is required, in the Galactic alignment section, relative to the relationship between "one degree every 72 years", "approximately every 2,160 years", and "26,000 years". I also found the information in the penultimate paragraph of this section hard to grasp.
  • General prose presentation point: avoid single-sentence paragraphs ("Other New Age ideas" and "Other alignments")
  • "An apocalyptic reading of Jenkins's hypothesis has that,..." is awkward-sounding
  • I don't understand the relevance of the Alien invasion section to the rest of the article.

I hope these comments will be of some help in the reshaping of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to take it to FA soonest possible. This is hopefully the second PR the article will be getting. I promise i will do my best to better this article. I really want Beyonce to be one of the artist having the best articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Do you still remember me? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do - good to see your work again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good - thanks for your work on it. I have made a few copyedits, and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The external links checker in the tool box (upper right corner here) finds three dead links that need to be fixed.

Lead and infobox

  • The infobox says there were three producers "Thaddis Harrell, Christopher Stewart, The-Dream" but the article only mentions two (Nash and Stewart). By the way I copyedited it from ...and utilized production from Nash and Stewart. to ...and was produced by Nash and Stewart. Later in the article only two producers are referred to, so is the infobox wrong?
Harrell did not produce it. Fixed infobox Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also seems odd in the Infobox to refer to Nash by his given name as an author of the song, but as The-Dream in the producers.
  • The article refers to Nash as "Terius Nash" in the lead, "Terius Nash" and "The-Dream" in the infobox, then in the body the article as "Terius "The-Dream" Nash", then "Terius Nash", then as "The-Dream" for the rest of the article. I would probably use "Terius "The-Dream" Nash" in the lead, then pick one name and stick to it (assume "The-Dream").
Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conception and release

  • Who wears a wedding ring before the wedding? In the months leading up to their secret wedding in April 2008,[6] and immediately afterwards, Knowles refused to wear her wedding ring because she wanted to hide their marriage from the public. Does she have both an engagement ring (worn before the wedding and after) and a wedding ring?
Removed and added info reflecting source Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help to say Power 105.1 is in New York City?
Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broken quote or stray quotation mark that needs to be removed? Additionally, "Single Ladies was not originally lined up as a single in the United Kingdom.
Fixed Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

At WP:RSN it was decided that About.com is not reliable as a whole, but several individual authors' work are reliable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run on sentence, probably needs to be split up. the song Knowles offers support to women having recently put a stop to a bad relationship,[43] and stands up strongly for women who are still single and putting men on notice how to treat them best,[44] as well as deliver them to "a destiny, to infinity and beyond..."[32] and, according to the Daily Mail, "urges women to dump their boyfriends if they don't propose".[45] FAC also has some editors that do not like verb+ing constructions, which this has too.

Critical reception

  • The quote on the song's usage of "blurry pronouns" such as "it"... appears in two sections, and should probably only appear in one section
Trimmed Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of quotations in this section I wonder if this meets WP:NFCC? Some people might call this a quote farm, though the quotes are nicely chosen. Not sure.
Pruned a little bit Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy seems an odd section header, but I am not sure what else to call it
Retitled as "Accolades", and merged with "Awards and nominations" Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Awards and nominations is done in chronological order, but would it make sense to rank it in importance of awards? The Grammy for Song of the Year seems pretty important to me, but is buried in the paragraph as it now stands.
OK done Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • If someone is named in full once (Jake Nava) then they should be referred to by last name only the rest of the article unless there is someone else with the same name last name OR their name is used in a direct quote (or reference or caption).
  • I noticed some overlinking as I went through. Does it really increase the reader's understanding to link New York City? Also the rule of thumb seems to be to link at most once in the lead and once in the body of the text (at first occurrence for each), plus links in the infobox and captions / references. For example in Synopsis Beyonce's mother Tina is linked twice in one section.
  • I also tried to some light copyediting as I read (please revert me if I introduced any errors or made things worse) but think this would benefit from a copyedit before FAC to make sure as many issues are dealt with ahead of time as possible.

Commercial reception

  • As an example of hwere a copyedit could help, I think things like these sentences could be tightened (and it is usually percent and not %): Its fourth week at the summit of the chart was facilitated by a 157% increase in downloads. The song sold 382,000 downloads that week, representing its best week of digital sales.[81] so tightening might be something like Its fourth week at number one was thanks to 382,000 downloads, a 157 percent increase, which represented its best week of digital sales.[81] Cuts out one extra "week" and one extra "downloads".
Done, thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the abbreviations necessary if they are not used again in the body of the text (just tables)? I am not sure (RIANZ, BPI, ARIA, etc.)
The organisations are more known by their abbreviations. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

  • Since much of the video is compared to that for "If I were a Boy", could the phrase "both videos" (or something similar) be used sometimes? Both videos were shot in black and white.. The two videos premiered on MTV's TRL...
Done
Done
  • Should the date of the roboglove appearance on Saturday Night Live be given? Her appearance on SNL is mentioned three times - here and in Live performances and in parodies - does the SNL appearance need to be described thrice in this article?

Live performances

  • This section seems a bit fluffy - do we need to know whatshe wore in Monaco? Is every live performance notable (worthy of incluson here)?
  • POV language? (graciously?): By the end of the song, all of Radio City Music Hall was standing and Knowles thanked the crowd graciously.

Cultural impact

  • Watch out for needless repetition. Surely the Prancing J-Settes of Jackson State only need to mentioned once in this article? W
  • This whole section seemed a bit long to me - also not sure why some of the items were placed where they are. How is Tom Hanks liking the song a parody (and is that really worth including here)? Why is the Alvin and the Chipmunks Chipettes cover not in the Covers section? Why is the song being "parodied" for a Doner kebab commercial in the UK not in parodies? It might just be that I am tired, but it seemed to me that a lot of the detail here is not needed - why not just say the song has been used three times on Glee and move on - does it really help to know the football team used it in a trick play? I don't watch Glee, so this means nothing to me. If someone does watch Glee, I assume they remember this episode already. Maybe I am just bing cranky, but this section feels a little bloated.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this soonest possible. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very busy with school. I will try my best. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Pets edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 gone to the point where I can't think of how to contribute to this article since my last edit. I believe that the article has potential for GA status since Pillow Pets are selling millions of units now (I just couldn't find a reliable source for this for inclusion in the article). Anything you'd like to suggest will be fine, but I want to find ways to make sure that the prose is readable, the sources are reliable, and the sections are expanded more. I believe that the awards section specifically needs more attention, though.

Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 01:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

I can see that a lot of work has been put into this article so far, but it will need a bit more before a Good Article nomination, I think. I will go through by section and make some more specific comments but one of the biggest problems I can see is that you could really do with some more independent secondary sources. At the moment, the content is quite reliant on primary sources (ie. the official website). When I read it, I couldn't help thinking that it would make quite a good press release. That's not meant to be a criticism of the writer, but more a reflection on the dominant source material. This may be a problem with the topic: I notice that WikiProject Toys has no featured articles at present, and only a few good articles. One that I think is quite comparable to this, is Flavas. They were only released in 2003, and it's a very short article with not too many references. Sindy has many more. Since Pillow Pets also date from 2003, you may struggle to find enough secondary sources to get to GA, although, it may be possible to get a good, short article like Flavas.

Infobox

  • I see you've requested an image on the talkpage. I think it's unlikely you'll manage to get a free image in a case like this, but you could use a non-free image under fair use, either of the brand logo, or the toys. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more on this.

Lead

  • One point looked for at a GA review is that the article complies with WP:LEAD. You need to make sure that the lead isn't just acting as an introdution, but summarises the main points of the rest of the article. At the moment, there is quite a lot that is not mentioned in the lead. You also need to be careful not to mention things in the lead that aren't mentioned (and expanded on) later. Because of the way the lead works, it is often not necessary to include citations in the lead since the information there should be cited later, and removing cites from the lead can make a slightly easier read for our many readers who won't even get past the table of contents.
  • "Pillow Pets are a brand..." - "are a brand"? "is a brand"?
  • "Made of high-quality chenille..." - high quality? This is not mentioned again, and not cited, and to be honest, I don't know much about chenille... does it have different grades? Is there low-quality chenille? It sound a little bit promotional to include "high quality", unless there's a good, encyclopedic reason for doing so.
  • Be careful of overlinking (this applies throughout). Don't link common words that a reader is unlikely to need or want to click onto. For example, there's no need to link United States (especially not three times), or children, Christmas, donation, website, puppy, warehouse, game, hat, etc. Also check that links go to relevant articles. For example, does the article at kiosk tell us a great deal about where these products were sold?
  • The article would benefit from a copyedit throughout to eliminate awkward phrasing. It's quite common when an article is mostly written by one person as it can be hard sometimes to see exactly how to improve the prose when you've spent a long time on it. Consider asking another editor you know writes well to have a look at it, or perhaps ask the guild of copyeditors? I'll try to highlight a few examples.
  • "Originally devised by Jennifer Telfer in 2003, she decided..." - she wasn't originally devised by Jennifer Telfer was she? (grammar)
  • "Their continuing popularity has spawned other companies to manufacture fraudulent Pillow Pets" - use of spawned here is not right

Idea

  • "Pillow Pets were thought up one day in 2003..." - not very encyclopedic language
  • "The Telfers were on their way to developing the products" - again, doesn't sound very encyclopedic, nor very accurate, since they were already developing the products weren't they? Not on there way to doing so.

Success

  • This heading isn't very neutral. I'm also wondering if perhaps this section could be merged with the previous one which only has one paragraph.
  • "She then discovered that if she kept selling the pets past Christmas, Pillow Pets would become a successful product." - this is slightly strange, I'm not even sure what it means really. That if you keep selling a product, you will be successful? Isn't that how business works?
  • "US$300,000" - you don't need to state "US" here. It's an article on a US topic, so that's implied unless stated otherwise (as well as being the most commonly used dollar currency internationally).

Updates

  • The bit abotu online communities is veering on promotional, and I'm not sure how notable it is these days that a company has a facebook page & twitter acocunt.
  • The bit about "partnering" with the American Red Cross makes it sound a bit more significant than maybe it is. All I can gather from the website is that they are donating some money to the Amrican Red Cross, and I can't find anything in independent secondary sources about this.

Donating

  • Again, this section seems to be perhaps making things seem a bit more ntable than they are. What would probably better than isolated stories would be secondary sources that show the company is known for its involvent in charity work, or something about the collectability of the products.

Awards

  • This would probably better as prose than a list. Awards are sometimes formatted as lists, but with only four, it would probably work better as prose, and with the years that the awards were won included.

See also

  • This is not necessary; you have already linked stuffed toy in the article. "See also" is for other article that may be relevant but haven't been appropriate to link to in the main text of the article.

References

  • The references could do with more information included. It's good not to see bare URLs here, but we really need a bit more than just title and retrieval date. Include, where possible, the names of authors, the title of the work (eg. newspaper or website), the date that the work was published.

Good work with what you've done so far. I don't envy you - it's always harder to write decent articles when sources are in short supply! I don't usually watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at my talkpage.--BelovedFreak 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda 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 had a peer review four months ago here. I've addressed all the points that were raised in that, including a rewrite of the article lead and part of "History", and I'm now relisting it to get feedback on the latest version. As before, I hope to push for WP:FA (or, if that fails, for WP:GA) once it is felt to be up to scratch.

I have also requested a copyedit at WP:GOCE, as I'm sure my prose will need a bit of glamming up!

Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, thanks for the time and effort that you have clearly poured into this article. I like to pretend that I make a difference by writing articles that are of interest to small handful of people, but an article like this is clearly the real deal. Here are some ways that you can improve the article:

Resolved comments
  • While the first sentence of the lead is well-chosen, it should not exist as a standalone paragraph. In general, try to avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs, though I don't see any other instances of this issue in the article.
      Fixed — I have merged the opening spiel with the next paragraph.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwanda is located a few degrees south of the Equator, and borders Uganda to the north, Tanzania to the east, Burundi to the south, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the west." I think that "borders" should be replaced by "is bordered by" to keep the relative geography consistent.
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINKING. I notice that Kigali is linked twice in the first main paragraph of the lead.
  • "Drums were of great importance in the King's court, while the most famous traditional dance is the highly-choreographed Intore." The word "while" suggests a contrast between these two elements, but there really isn't any reason to set up a contrast here. I suggest replacing "while" with "and".
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwanda ... has recently joined the East African Community and the Commonwealth of Nations... the government has increased the health budget in recent years." Avoid phrasing that includes "recent" per WP:As of. The problem is that the statement may not be accurate a few years from now, but no one will have thought to update the sentence accordingly.
      Not sure — Odd, but true. The population is spread evenly across the country with few gaps (you might almost say the whole country is an enormous "urban" area, but of course the lifestyle is rural not urban). The citation for this point is [2] which reiterates this point. Do you think I need to phrase it any differently?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I don't think it needs to be phrased any differently, I just wanted to check with you to make we've got all the facts straight. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      No action  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The population is young and predominantly rural, with a density amongst the highest in Africa." This strikes me as odd. Urban areas tend to be more densely populated than rural areas, so if the population is predominantly rural, then how is it possible that the country is among the most densely populated in Africa?
  • Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I've noticed that there is a footnote at the bottom of the infobox, but I don't see a corresponding "1" to indicate what statistic(s) the note refers to. Perhaps it was accidentally deleted in a previous edit?
      Not sure — The footnote applies to the population figure, and is directly lifted from the CIA source [3]. This raises two questions: (1) is the text copyrighted, and (2) do we need to include it in the infobox? I am not sure of the answer to either at the moment, but could maybe do more research.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While it may be possible that material from the CIA world factbook is public domain, I honestly don't think that the infobox really benefits from the inclusion of this note. I would think that explanatory notes for the infobox should only be used when there is a significant risk of the reader misinterpreting a statistic, but I don't see that as being the case here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germany colonised Rwanda from 1884, followed by Belgium from 1916" Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but I think these dates should either be given as ranges (such as "Germany colonised Rwanda from 1884 to 1912") or the "from"s should be changed to "in"s.
      Fixed — changed "from" to "in" and restructured sentence slightly  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The country is relatively corruption-free" What does this even mean? Relative to other African nations? Or relative to previous points in Rwandan history?
    Primarily relative to other Sub-Saharan African nations. I have altered the lead sentence to:
    "The country has low corruption levels relative to other Sub-Saharan African countries"
    and the corresponding entry in the "Politics and government" section to:
    "Rwanda has low corruption levels; in 2010, Transparency International ranked Rwanda as the 66th cleanest out of 178 countries in the world, and 8th out of 47 in Sub-Saharan Africa"
    Let me know if you think that's better.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's one possibility: Take the most recently joined organization (I don't know which that is) and place it at the end of a list like this: "Rwanda is a member of the United Nations, La Francophonie, the East African Community and, since 2003, the Commonwealth of Nations". You dig?
       Y Dug  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The quality of healthcare is generally low, but the government has increased the health budget in recent years." Another instance of "recent" that we missed.
      Fixed — I have hopefully now removed all such incidences from the whole article.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An alternative theory is that the migration was slow and steady, with incoming groups integrating into rather than assimilating the existing society" What is the difference between integrating and assimilating? I had thought that the two terms were interchangeable.
      Fixed — I think I had intended the two phrases to have an opposite direction, i.e. the incoming groups *assimilated* the existing population (active), versus the incoming groups *integrated into* the existing population. It is obviously unclear, however, so I have changed the "assimilated" to "conquered" which is less ambiguous.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwanda, ruled by the Tutsi Nyiginya dynasty" It's not clear if this refers to the Kingdom of Rwanda or modern-day Rwanda. I suspect the former.
      Fixed — you suspect correctly. Clarified it.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...expanded the kingdom to the shores of Lake Kivu and north into what is now Uganda." It would be helpful and more consistent to give the direction to the lake: "...expanded the kingdom [east/west/bacon] to the shores of Lake Kivu and north into what is now Uganda.
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions that are left unanswered by the lead: What kind of government does Rwanda have / what is the distribution of power within the Rwandan government? Is the nation a member of United Nations?
      Not sure —
    • What government/distribution of power: Is this not dealt with in the last paragraph of the lead? Power lies firmly in the hands of the President. What other information would you like to see in this paragraph (bearing in mind that it can't get too long...)?
    • One could make the claim that power lies firmly in the hands of the President of the United States as well. Clearly this statement is open for interpretation, as the term "President" may have very different meanings in different systems of government. Just some indication of the structure of the government or the nature of its checks and balances (if any) would be helpful here.
      Mmm... I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more, because although there are a lot of notional checks and balances, sources don't agree on whether they're actually effective. I will try to put some balanced NPOV spiel about it later.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Done ?? — I've added a couple of sentences to the beginning of the paragraph describing the presidential system. See if that does the job for you... it's difficult to express the full situation without going on far too long for a lead.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Definitely better, though now the "power lies firmly in the hands of the President" sentence seems a bit redundant. Perhaps that sentence could be replaced by "The current president is Paul Kagame of the RPF party." or something similar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I've done that. I guess the point I was trying to convey is that although the constitution does provide for a powerful President (as in the US), in this case the incumbent is especially powerful as he effectively controls all the different organs of the state, not just his own office. But it's difficult to summarise that in a lead, so probably the current arrangement is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the discussion of clans in the History section, it would be helpful to include a rough estimate of the size of these clans. Some readers might assume each clan was comprised of a handful of families, some might assume each clan had several thousand members.
      Done ?? — I'm not sure of the actual numbers of people in each clan, although my main source says there were twenty in Rwanda, so I've included that. This at least gives the idea that they are a largish unit. Is that OK?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While I definitely agree that specifying the number of clans would be helpful, I think the phrase "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty in present-day Rwanda." wrongly implies that there are 20 clans that currently exist. Better would be "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty that existed in the area that is now Rwanda" or something similar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gustav Adolf von Götzen became the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894" von Götzen was the governor of East German Africa, was he not? It seems odd to introduce his name here without mentioning this fact. Incorporating this into the sentence in question would help to diminish the feeling of "who the heck is this umlauted weirdo?"
      Done - Heh heh. Actually he was not Governor at the time of the exploration, he was merely an explorer on one of those expeditions to travel from the east coast down the Congo to the west coast, or whatever the vogue was at the time. He became Governor later on, but I've added a couiple of sentences to clarify these points.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the League of Nations declared Rwanda a mandate territory and asked Belgium to govern" The verb "asked" seems weird in this context. How exactly does an organization "ask" something from a country? Questions are asked and answered by people. This phrasing also leaves out the implied intermediate step in which Belgium accepts control of Rwanda. Proposed phrasing: "the League of Nations declared Rwanda a mandate territory under the control of Belgium."
      Done — I'm happy with that wording. The source actually says Belgium was "entrusted" with the territory. Interesting wording all round... (which reminds me, I was supposed to be re-citing a few more of those Briggs & Booth references with more academic refs as an earlier reviewer was uncomfortable with it as a reliable source; I will get on to that when time permits)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germany appointed a Resident for Rwanda; German missionaries and military personnel began to arrive in the country." When was this?
      Done — that would be 1907 according to the august source.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, but now the temporal relationship between the second clause and the first is not clear. Perhaps the highlighted phrase should be appended with "shortly thereafter"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hutu activists killed hundreds of Tutsis and caused more than 100,000 to become refugees in neighbouring countries." These numbers simply do not match up. Assuming that "hundreds" means "between 100 and 1000", how is it even possible that 100,000 Tutsis would even be aware of the fact that "hundreds" had been killed? Even with today's standards of communication through traditional news services and social media, there's no way that the death of a few hundred people would cause 100,000 to flee.
      Not sure — a lot of the sources I have refuse to actually give a figure for the death toll from the revolution, although the figure of 100,000-150,000 exiled seems much more certain. The one source that does attempt it is this page: [4] from the Mahmood Mamdani book. However, I am not sure what the figures it talks about are. My best interpretation is that only 200 were killed between 1959 and 1961 (that's what it seems to be saying), but anything from 700 to 20,000 were killed in the years from 1963 onwards (i.e. after the bulk of the refugees left). So perhaps the current sentence is not wrong after all, but probably needs quite a lot of rephrasing to make some sense of the situation. Any thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be able to sidestep the issue and simplify the phrasing at the same time: "Tension between the two groups escalated through the 1950s, culminating in the 1959 wind of destruction: Hutu activists began killing Tutsis, forcing more than 100,000 to seek refuge in neighbouring countries." Government suppression insures that we'll never know how many Tutsis were actually killed, so in this case it may actually make sense to let the phrasing be somewhat ambiguous. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - seems a reasonable phrasing to me. Am I accepting your wording too readily, or is it just that it's very good wording?!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the latter. Writing skillz: I has them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tension between the two groups escalated through the 1950s, culminating in the 1959 wind of destruction:" While the wikilink makes it apparent that the term "wind of destruction" has a particular meaning in this context, people using screen readers or plaintext copies of the article might not understand why such an informal-sounding phrase is being used here. I suggest either putting it in quotations or replacing it with Rwandan revolution.
      Done - replaced with Rwandan Revolution (capitalisation as per French Revolution). I've also moved the article similarly as the name was queried during the previous peer review too. I think "wind of destruction" is a translation from the Kinyarwanda word "muyaga" which is the common name for it in vernacular.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973 Juvenal Habyarimana staged a military coup and became President. Several top-ranking officials were killed, including Kayibanda and his wife. Habyarimana claimed the government had become too corrupt, ineffective, and violent." It seems odd to mention the coup but not give reasons for it until a few sentences later. How about this: "In 1973 Juvenal Habyarimana, who claimed that the government had become too corrupt, ineffective, and violent, staged a military coup and became President. Several top-ranking officials were killed, including Kayibanda and his wife."
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what made me think of this just now, but the lead should definitely have a pronunciation guide for "Rwanda". There may be some ambiguity in the correct pronunciation of "Rw", particularly for readers who have never heard the name spoken aloud. "Ruh-won-duh", "Urr-won-duh", and "Roo-on-duh" are all plausible pronunciations for a first-time reader.
  • "Rwanda's population had increased from 1,595,000 people in 1934 to 7.1 million in 1989" It is somewhat confusing (both as a reader and as an editor) to have one figure written out completely and the other shortened to just two significant digits. I suggest replacing the first with "1.6 million", as it's probably just an estimate anyway.
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwabugiri's changes caused a rift to grow between the Hutu and Tutsi populations" I suspect there may not be a simple answer to this question, but how do the Twas fit into all of this? So far I've learned that, at this point in history, the Tutsis ruled, the Hutus were essentially slaves, and the Twas... ate bagels? Here's another example from later on: "Two rival groups emerged, the Tutsi elite who favoured early independence under the existing system, and the Hutu emancipation movement led by Grégoire Kayibanda, which sought an end to "Tutsi feudalism""
    The general answer to this is that the Twas (who were limited by this time to fringe areas of the country anway) were largely forgotten about and had, if anything, an even lower status than the Hutus. I will attempt to provide more context on this shortly, however. Thanks for the tip  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done (maybe) - the following new sentences about the Twa have been inserted:
    • The forest-dwelling Twa lost much of their habitat and were forced to move on to the slopes of mountains. (paragraph 1)
    • The Twa were better off than in pre-Kingdom days, with some becoming dancers in the royal court,[11] but their numbers continued to decline (paragraph 2)
    • The Twa remained marginalised, and by 1990 were almost entirely forced out of the forests by the government; many became beggars. (paragraph 6)
    • Many Twa were also killed, despite not being directly targeted. (paragraph 7)
    It's hard to do any more than this as their story is not really woven in with the Hutu/Tutsi story - they were always on the fringes, always marginalised, and not active politically at all. Let me know how this looks.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This classification was often based arbitrarily on physical characteristics or wealth." I had heard of these arbitrary distinctions prior to reading this article, but I do have one question now that I have a bit more background information: If the individuals of Rwanda already identified themselves as Tutsis, Hutus, and Twas, why would there be the need to divide people up based on arbitrary characteristics? Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, perhaps the following phrase would help to clarify the issue: "Although many Rwandans had already identified themselves as members of one particular group, the official classifications were often based on arbitrary physical characteristics or wealth."
      Removed — I've decided to remove this line altogether actually. This issue was flagged up by BanyanTree in the previous peer review. At that time the line said "those owning ten or more cattle labelled Tutsi and others as Hutu", with a citation from the Briggs and Booth guidebook. This is actually an often bandied about headline fact, but the figures had ultimately has no factual certainty. Rereading the two sources at hand (Pottier 117-119 and Gourevitch 55-56), it is not even clear that the ID card determination was based on such factors at all. Pottier puts the story down to the politics of the modern government, while Gourevitch treats it as a "scientific study" carried out by the Belgians, rather than having any effect on the census.
    The only other thing Gourevitch does mention is that the ID cards crystallised individuals' own identities, so where previously some limited crossing of the Hutu/Tutsi line was possible, after ID cards it was not. I haven't mentioned such crossings at all so far in the article. They were very limited, as I understand it, and usually only involved one or two Hutus gaining positions of exceptional power and being considered as honorary Tutsis, so I don't know if you think I need to? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if Gourevitch took the time to mention it, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to include it here. I think the simplest thing to do would be to add a sentence after the identity card sentence. My first attempt would be "While it had previously been possible for particularly affluential Hutus to become honorary Tutsis, the identification cards prevented any further movement between classes." Not perfect, but I'm sure you'll make it work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - pretty much with your wording above, with a couple of tweaks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the RPF grew in strength and by 1992 a stalemate had developed." Two problems with the use of the word "stalemate". First, I've never heard it used outside the context of chess other than as a metaphor. Second, it's not clear what the word actually means here. My first guess is that a sort of equilibrium was reached in terms of the amount of territory controlled by each group, and neither side wanted to attack the other. Perhaps the two sides expended the majority of their military resources, after which neither side was able to effectively attack the other.
      Not sure - what do you think of it now? This part of the History is incredibly complex and trying to sum it up in a few sentences is doing my head in a bit! To summarise what I understand from the sources:
    • The RPF invaded in 1990 and gained some territory through the surprise factor, but the death of their leader, French assistance to the government and possible disagreement over tactics led to their defeat.
    • They regrouped under Paul Kagame and laid low in the mountains until 1991.
    • Then they launched a surprise attack on Ruhengeri, held it for about a day and retreated again
    • 1991 was a year of guerrilla war with the RPF gradually gaining territory until they had a 32km strip of land on the northern border. They could not, however, land any sort of decisive blow. Also, the areas they captured were almost empty of civilians - the Hutu majority fled south.
    • In 1992 the Rwandan government introduced multipartyism and a coalition government. This appears to have been due to (a) street demonstrations, (b) pressures due to the aforementioned Hutu displacement, (c) pressure from France
    • The opposition parties in the coalition government then began peace talks with the RPF, leading to an RPF ceasefire.
    • The talks stalled in early 1993, so the RPF began fighting again, doubling the amount of land controlled.
    • Finally, by August 1993, the two sides settled their diffefrences and agreement was signed.
    • However, in the midst of all this an extremist Hutu element had emerged which was excluded from the settlement. This eventually became the core of the genocide organisers.
    Apologies for listing all this here, but maybe when you get back from your break you can have a look at the above and help me get a handle on which are the important elements we should keep (and if the current lines in the article do a good enough job of that). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely looking better! I think "neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage." should be accompanied with some sort of time frame, such as "for several months" or whatever. I've made some minor tweaks myself, but other than that I think it looks good. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - for the next year and a half, neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Tutsi RPF restarted their offensive, and took control of the country methodically by cutting off government supply routes and taking advantage of the deteriorating social order." How exactly did they take advantage of the deteriorating social order? This could mean any number of things, from hiding in abandoned houses to stealing bagels.
      Not sure I'm not aware that they stole any bagels, although in 1997 a new company popped up in Kigali selling them in the country for the first time (cinammon, sesame seed etc) so perhaps a bagel mountain was formed at some point in the past.
    On a more serious note I have modified the sentence to:
    The Tutsi RPF restarted their offensive, and took control of the country methodically by cutting off government supply routes and encircling Kigali, taking advantage of the army's preoccupation with killing civilians.
    I am not sure if this is any clearer than before, or whether it just introduces new ambiguity!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The bit about supply routes is definitely helpful, but the last clause has the same problem as the original sentence. While the army's genocidal preoccupations would have certainly been advantageous to the RPF, I don't see what they could have done to actively take advantage of this fact. Considering how long the sentence is already, it may be better to simple chop off the last clause. If the reader is hungry for more history, they can just read the daughter article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I guess the point I was trying to get across is that the RPF met very little resistance in their taking of territory. I'm not sure if I could include that fact with no further context. I've removed it altogether for now anyway, as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It replaced a transitional set of documents known as the Fundamental Law and provides a coalition government which had been in place since the RPF military victory in 1994." How is it possible that the constitution, which was installed in 2003, provided a coalition government which had been in place since 1994? Does the constitution time travel?
      Fixed - He he, not really. I have tightened the wording around this (it was too verbose on the subject of the now defunct transitional constitution anyway), and attempted to link it through choice of words with the corresponding sentence in the history.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption, and public officials (including the President) are required to declare their wealth." It is not clear to me how these two sentences are related. Are public officials required to declare their wealth to the Ombudsman?
      Fixed - both to the Ombudsman and to the public. Have tried to clarify as such.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an inconsistency between the lead "Kagame and the RPF receive electoral support from across the community, although human rights organisations allege suppression of the opposition." and the body "The government has been criticised by some opposition figures and human rights groups for suppressing dissent in the country, particularly leading up to elections." Is the suppression a known fact or an allegation?
    There is also a redundancy within the Politics section, which later mentions that "Human rights organisations allege that the government suppresses the freedoms of opposition groups by restricting candidacies in elections to government-friendly parties, suppressing demonstrations, and arresting opposition leaders and journalists." Do the allegations/criticisms need to be mentioned twice in the same section? Or am I mistaken in thinking that these sentences refer to the same thing?
      Fixed - I have removed the first sentence so now the matter is concentrated solely in the paragraph about the RPF, which has a wording more closely matching the lead (including "alleged"). I have also removed a sentence about economic prosperity, tourism etc. as that is all convered in "Economy and infrastructure". This is replaced with a two word addition to the peace and stability mote.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Parliament, which consists of two chambers, makes legislation and has limited powers of oversight over the executive." What does "the executive" refer to? Perhaps it should be replaced with "the executive branch".
      Done - I have replaced this with "the President and the Cabinet". No doubt then what you're talking about.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the courts sometimes face pressure from the government" Pressure to do what? This is not a rhetorical question—as someone who has lived his entire live under a political rock, it really isn't clear to me what exactly this refers to.
      Fixed (possibly) - I am not really an expert on "separation of powers" either, but I have heard the term bandied about here and there.... anyway, I've read a bit further into the source from HRW and attempted to expand the sentence concerned (while being careful to balance out HRW's negative points with some of their positive ones. So let me know if it makes any more sense now.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses both "Tutsi" and "Tutsis" as plural forms, and the same is true for Hutu and Twa. Unless there's some reason to switch between the two (and perhaps there is, I wouldn't know the convention for tribal names), I suggest picking one form and making it consistent throughout the article.
      Fixed - Tutsis / Hutus / Twas seems to be the most usual English form.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has been the dominant political party in the country since 1994." This may mislead some readers to believe that Kagame has lead the party since 1994. Some may even misconstrue this as saying that Kagame founded the party in 1994. I think it would be safe to replace "President Kagame's" with "The", especially since the very next sentence mentions the presidency.
      Not sure - I actually borrowed this phrasing from a similar paragraph in the Cameroon article, and actually the sense is the same. While Kagame (and, in the Cameroon case, President Biya) did not found the RPF, he is in almost complete control of the party now and actually has been since shortly after Fred Rwigema's death in 1990. While Kagame was not the de jure leader of the party until 2000, he was certainly the de facto leader of the party since 1990 and the country since 1994. I will give some more thought about how this might be phrased unambiguously, or if you have any ideas please let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that it's necessary to go into all that detail about the relationship between Kagame and the RPF, at least not in this article. If someone wants to sort out this mess in Paul Kagame or Rwandan Patriotic Front, then they're welcome to it. My !vote is still to sidestep the issue with "The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has been the dominant..." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The districts, each run by a directly-elected council and executive committee, are responsible for coordinating public service delivery and economic development. The sectors, with a directly-elected council, are responsible for the delivery of public services as mandated by the districts and for coordinating community participatory development." These two sentences are too similar in their phrasing, which can detract from reading comprehension.
      Fixed (maybe) - I have grouped the functions together as after an hour poring through numerous government PDFs it's still hard to sum up what these things do in one sentence; basically they just seem to be rungs in a ladder, each with a similar structure. Let me know if this is any good now or if I need to go away and think again.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carry out the delivery of community participatory development and prioritise people's needs" What in the wide world of sports does "the delivery of community participatory development" mean?
      Fixed - hmm... your guess is as good as mine. I got that terminology from the source. Probably jargon borrowed by the civil servants from development workers, who themselves borrowed it from management consultants, with the true meaning becoming more obscure at each level. Anyway, this phrasing has gone with the above rewrite.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mountains dominate central and western Rwanda; the Albertine branch of the Great Rift Valley runs from north to south along the country's western border." These two clauses appear to have nothing to do with each other. The first one is about mountains, while the second is about a valley...? Or perhaps "branch" has a specific meaning in this context that I'm not aware of?
      Fixed Actually they are connected; I have rephrased this to:

    Mountains dominate central and western Rwanda; these mountains are part of a series of mountain chains which flank the Albertine branch of the Great Rift Valley; this branch runs from north to south along Rwanda's western border.

    Any better?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its source in Nyungwe Forest is a contender for the overall source of the Nile" What does this mean? Is it not yet known what is the overall source of the Nile? Or does "contender" have some specific meaning here?
      Not sure - strangely enough, it is even today not known precisely where the source is, despite the hulaboo surrounding the issue in the 19th century. Speke and co were content to declare Lake Victoria and Owen Falls as the "true source" but neglected to consider that Lake Victoria itself has tributaries. The longest of these is clearly the Kagera River, but even this has two separate branches and here lies the unknown factor - is the Burundian branch or the Rwandan branch longer? They're pretty similar and (surprisingly, given satellite technlogy etc) I don't think anyone's measured it in enough detail to determine which is longer. Hence we have "contenders". If you can think of a better way of phrasing this, or think I should go into more detail on the origin of the debate within this article, then let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that simply inserting the phrase "as-yet undetermined" would work. However, what you've written here seems to conflict with Nile, which lists the White Nile and the Blue Nile as the sources. This apparent inconsistency would be very confusing for readers... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I've inserted your suggested wording. Regarding the Nile article, it's a while since I looked at that; basically the source in question is that of the White Nile, which is the longer of the two major branches (Blue and White). The section on White Nile formerly indicated something about the debate, but has since been changed to only show the Burundian source. I have now changed it again so it shows details of the debate, with relevant sources. From the New Vision source, it seems that there may even be no debate; the idea that it is Burundi stemmed from a statement someone made in 1955 referring to the *southern-most* source, but which was interpreted as referring to the *longest* source. Anyway, it's clearly best to mention both claims until the issue is decisively resolved. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwanda has a temperate tropical highland climate, with lower temperatures than is typical for equatorial countries due to the high altitude." This statement (and one later on in the article) seems to be written as though the reader has already been made aware of the high altitude, but as far as I can tell, this is the first mention. It leaves the reader wondering: How high above sea level is Rwanda?
      Fixed - the last paragraph of Geography did already give some altitude figures for the mountainous west of the country, but you're correct that the overall high altitude had not been mentioned. I have attempted to rectify that with the following sentence in the opening Geography paragraph:

    The entire country is at high altitude: the lowest point is the Ruzizi River at 950 metres (3,117 ft) above sea level.

    I've not mentioned the highest point (Karisimbi at 4,507m), as it is already mentioned in the third paragraph. Incidentally, (and I never realised this before today), the figure of 950m for the lowest point is actually the second highest such figure for countries in the world according to List of countries by lowest point. I toyed with including that fact in the article, but thought perhaps it might be difficult to phrase it concisely; plus there is no direct reputable source that states the fact, you either have to use an illegal blog source such as [5] or rely on inferring the data by hand from a list source such as [6]. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is normal for country articles, but shouldn't the article mention something about the wildlife in Rwanda? I imagine it would fit in quite nicely with Geography and climate.
      Done - Mmm, looks like some do and some don't. Anyway, I've written a few paragraphs on the matter and put it at the end of "Geography" as a "Biodiversity" subsection (this seems to be the accepted way to do it). I've also put the "Climate" part into a corresponding subsection too and renamed the whole to just "Geography".
    The Biodiversity certainly needs a picture, so I will scout around for something suitable. In order to get the Hollywood factor (not permitted in the prose, I know, but perhaps we have some licence in image choice?) choices appear to be either a black and white Colobus monkey, a bird of some sort, or perhaps to move the Mountain gorilla image up from the "Tourism" area of Economy and think of something else to go there.
    Anyway, let me know if you dig or any recommendations for change in the new prose. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is certainly much joyousness and digging to be had. The only problem I see is the phrase "Nyungwe Forest boasts thirteen primate species including chimpanzees and Ruwenzori colobus arboreal monkeys, which move in troops of up to 400 individuals." It's not clear if the size bit deals only with Ruwenzori colobus or with both animals. As for images, how about this one? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed - "Nyungwe Forest boasts thirteen primate species including chimpanzees and Ruwenzori colobus arboreal monkeys; the Ruwenzori colobus move in groups of up to 400 individuals, the largest troop size of any primate in Africa."
    I've also put in your suggested photo.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The currency is the Rwandan franc and the economy is managed by the central National Bank of Rwanda" While I don't want to unnecessarily inflate the Economy section, I do think it would be helpful to mention the relative strength of the Rwandan franc compared to either the USD or the Euro. I would assume that the relevant statistics for March 2011 are already available.
      Not sure Are you referring to the value at a single point in time, e.g. As of March 2010, the value of the franc is xxx USD, or do you mean you want to see historical values as well? The latter would probably normally be put in a table, which would probably be overkill for this section, but let me know what you think anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was referring only to the present day value (or as recent as you can find). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - "The economy is managed by the central National Bank of Rwanda and the currency is the Rwandan franc; in June 2010, the exchange rate was 588 francs to the United States dollar." Good?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The industrial sector is small and uncompetitive." It isn't clear what "uncompetitive" means in this context. One might assume that if businesses in the same industry are not competitive, then surely they must either cease to exist or resort to socialism. Perhaps competitiveness would be a helpful wikilink, though I don't know enough about economics to decide if that's what you're referring to here.
      Fixed - Yeah, I'm not entirely sure either. Maybe it just means it doesn't compete well with other economic sectors, i.e. just another way of saying it's small. I don't suppose it's necessary anyway so I've removed it, and replaced it with a GDP percentage (which will also help with your other point below).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The country has no railways at present," As of when?
      Fixed - as of 2011  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one million people are estimated to have visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" This is a bizarre comparison. How could there possibly exist such detailed statistics for 2007 but such a gross generalization for 2008?
      Fixed - it seems the source for the 2008 figure was written at a time when the precise figure was not yet in. I have now updated it to show the precise number: 980,577, from another source. I guess the level of precision is there because it is some kind of officially measured quantity. I can't find any corresponding figures for 2009 or 2010 though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most Rwandans have access to radio, whereas television is restricted mostly to urban areas." Is it possible to concisely explain why this restriction exists? I can think of no reason why the government would only allow televisions in urban areas.
      Fixed - this is obviously a poor or ambiguous use of words on my part... I was using "restricted" as a synonym for "confined" (the word used in the source), and did not intend to imply that the lack of TV access is an active policy. I have reworded it using the word "limited" instead, and folded the radio part into the previous sentence, so it now reads "Most Rwandans have access to radio and Radio Rwanda is the main source of news throughout the country. Television access is limited mostly to urban areas." How's that?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they monitor governance and performance" Performance of what?
      Fixed (maybe) - I have changed it to "they also monitor and evaluate the districts to ensure good governance"; this is the kind of woolly language present in the source so I'm not sure if there is much more that can be said on the matter...?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Garr, wishy washy sources are such a pain. I would hope that the sources might elaborate on what "good" means. Active? Fair? Balanced? Open? If it's not possible to narrow it down any further, perhaps the best course of action would be to employ a direct quotation. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done quotations used; how this?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The five provinces act as intermediaries between the national government and their constituent districts to ensure that national policies are implemented at the district level; the Ministry of Local Government's Rwanda Decentralization Strategic Framework also assigns to provinces responsibility for "coordinating governance issues in the Province," and "monitoring and evaluation."

  • The Economy section mentions that roughly 40% of the GDP is attributed to agriculture and 9% is attributed to animal husbandry. This leaves me wondering: what about the other 50%? I don't think it would be necessary to break down the GDP completely, but it does seem a bit fishy that more than half of the GDP is unaccounted for. On the other, it wouldn't be too hard to whip up a pie chart for something like this; I'd be happy to do it in Excel if you think it would help.
    The addition of the industrial GDP contribution brings the total mystery GDP to 35%. This is definitely an improvement, though if there's an easy way to sneak a few other numbers to minimize this further, I think that would be solid. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a work in progress. The true breakdown (according to the CIA world factbook) is: agriculture 42.1%, industry 14.3%, services 43.6%. So in fact the animal husbandry figure is a part of the wider agriculture figure, and the unmentioned part of the GDP is this "services" sector. I will have to do a bit more research to determine exactly what this consists of...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have now introduuced a new mini paragraph concerning services, along with its GDP percentage. And I've removed the specific figure for animal husbandry, which means the three GDP percentage figures shown throughout the section now add up to 100%. The only slight question mark is over what constitutes a "sector". The article now talks of the "services sector" but then in the next paragraph refers to the "tourism sector". The latter is a subset of the former so don't know if it's correct to call them both sectors. Do you think this is a problem?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried my hand at merging the two paragraphs and rephrasing to avoid ambiguity. Happy clams? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Y Happy - yeah, that seems fine. The paragraph is a little on the long side (particularly as I have added a new sentence to give slightly more detail on services), but probably OK really.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwanda is linked by road to other countries in East Africa, notably to the port of Mombasa via Kampala and Nairobi, which provides Rwanda's most important trade route." It's not clear what "which" refers to here. The current phrasing also implies that Mombasa is a country. Possible rephrasing: "Rwanda is linked by road to other countries in East Africa, such as Blah, Snargits, and Tingwalladoobop; Rwanda's most important trade route is the road (highway? roadway?) to the port of Mombasa via Kampala and Nairobi."
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rwanda is linked by road to other countries in East Africa, such as Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and Kenya, as well as to the eastern Congolese cities of Goma and Bukavu; the country's most important trade route is the road to the port of Mombasa via Kampala and Nairobi

  • "the ballet, performed by women; the dance of heroes, performed by men; and the drums." Who plays the drums? The aliens?
      Fixed - I think the drums were actually played by the hermaphroditic bagel eaters. Or perhaps just by the men (traditionally speaking anyway, given that the source I've found for this speaks of women breaking the trend in recent years). I've actually rewritten this part as on researching it again I found that the "intore" refers only to the dance of heroes component and not to the whole. See what you think now...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drummers usually play together in groups of seven or nine" Any idea why these numbers in particular are popular?
      Fixed These appear to be optimal number for the range of pitches required by an ensemble. However, reading the source again, although it states "seven or nine" as if it's precisely one or the other, it later implies that any or all of the named pitches may be present in varying numbers. I have therefore modified it to:

    Drummers play together in groups of varying sizes, usually between seven and nine in number; the soprano drum leads, with others of various pitches providing back up.

    How does that look?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea what percentage of Rwandans attend higher education?
      Not sure - what sort of percentage is the most interesting here? I have figures for the total annual enrolment, but not sure what proportion of the population that should be considered against, for example as a proportion of all 18 year olds in a particular year? Or do you mean the total proportion of today's population who possess a tertiary education? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one that comes to mind is the percentage of the adult population that have college degrees. I think the CIA World Factbook may have something like this; I know the statistics are definitely available for the US. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done Unfortunately I can't find that particular statistic anywhere, having looked for half an hour. I've found a document indicating that "2.7% of the workforce has a college degree"[1] but presumably the workforce in this context does not mean the whole population (I can't believe the figure would be that high otherwise). There's also this blog in the New York Times which gives the figure of 1 in 200 possessing a college degree, but no other source is given for this figure. I'm wondering therefore whether that is reliable enough for our purposes. For now I have inserted a figure for the gross enrolment ratio at tertiary level which, if I understand it correctly, is the ratio of total current university students of any age divided by the the population of tertiary education age. Not such an interesting figure, but it does seem to be one that's used quite a lot by the UN and others as an educational indicator. Let me know what you think anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a shortage of staff, and some medicines are in short supply or unavailable" Staff where? Perhaps "qualified medical professionals" would be better.
      Done - "There is a shortage of qualified medical professionals in the country"  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIV/AIDS seroprevalence is declining due to government policies; the rate is estimated at 3%" This smelled like propaganda, so I checked the source myself, which actually uses the word "epidemic". Where do you see anything about the the prevalence decreasing due to government policies? The only thing I'm seeing is that there has been an increase in the availability of resources like counseling and retroviral treatment, but that's not the same as decreasing prevalence.
      Fixed - "HIV/AIDS seroprevalence in the country is classified by the World Health Organization as a generalized epidemic; an estimated 7.3% of urban dwellers and 2.2% of rural dwellers, aged between 15 and 49, are HIV positive."

 — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unlike many countries in Africa, Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, and a shared language and cultural heritage" It's not clear which of these facts is unlike the other countries in Africa. Is Rwanda unusual because it has been a unified state since pre-colonial times? Is it unusual in that it has only one ethnic group? Or perhaps it is one of the few countries for which both statements are true?
      Fixed (in a radical kind of way) - I started by expanding this paragraph to clarify the point you make, but then it occurred to me that stuff about ethnic groups and nation states belongs better in demographics than in culture. So I have now expanded paragraph 3 of demographics so it starts off "Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda; this contrasts with the majority of modern African states, whose borders were drawn by colonial powers and did not correspond to ethnic boundaries or pre-colonial kingdoms. Within the Banyarwanda people, there are three separate groups....."
    I have then modified the opening of culture so it reiterates this point briefly but only as far as it is relevant to culture: "The people of Rwanda form one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, who have a shared language and cultural heritage dating back to the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda."
    Let me know whether you dig that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one critical aspect of infrastructure that seems to be absent from the Economy and infrastructure section: Running water. Do they has?
      Done - with knobs on :) - I have just added three new paragraphs relating to the economy/media/infrastructure section - telecommuncations, water supply/sanitation and electricity. So sorry - a bit more reading for you to do! We may also have to scan through to see if these are too hefty relative to the rest of the article (in particular the preceding paragraph on TV/radio/press now looks rather sparse). Let me know what you think about it all anyway!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increasing its share of the national budget." I feel like this needs either a percentage or an adverb to be a worthwhile phrase: "increasing its share of the national budget by #%" or "greatly increasing its share of the national budget."
      Done - the source does not mention a percentage, but does use the word "significantly" so I've inserted that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite favourable rainfall," What is favourable rainfall? Is this meant to distinguish the regular rain from acid rain?
      Fixed "Despite rainfall exceeding 100 centimetres (39 in)* annually in many areas, little use is made of rainwater harvesting"  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Access to sanitation remains low, and the government has fewer policy measures in place to tackle this." First, fewer than what? Second, avoid the use of "tackle" unless the article in question is about football.
      Fixed (maybe) "Access to sanitation remains low; the United Nations estimates that in 2006 34% of urban and 20% of rural dwellers had access to improved sanitation. Government policy measures to improve sanitation are limited, focussing only on urban areas." - I have restructured it slightly and replaced "fewer" with "limited" (the word actually used in the source). Let me know if acceptable.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A sharp drop in output from these stations" Very mysterious! Any idea what caused the drop in output?
      Fixed - I have added clarification: "A combination of below average rainfall and human activity, including the draining of the Rugezi wetlands for cultivation and grazing, caused the two lakes' water levels to fall from 1990 onwards; by 2004 levels were reduced by 50%, leading to a sharp drop in output from the power stations. This, coupled with increased demand as the economy grew, precipitated a shortfall in 2004 and widespread loadshedding."  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both of whom have won awards." This is a wee bit mysterious. What kinds of awards were these?
      Fixed Well. Here's an interesting story... the awards were actually the Salax awards, some kind of Rwandan equivalent of the Grammy Awards perhaps. But since I wrote that line, The Ben and Meddy have apparently gone AWOL during a visit to the United States last summer and have not been seen since! Funny that despite being a celebrity in Rwanda, and presumably wealthy as a result, the lure of the underground life of an illegal immigrant in the US is still greater.
    Anyway, I have now removed that line and replaced it with the top 10 artists as judged by a panel in an ongoing competition. I have checked with some contacts in Rwanda and it seems that this list is fairly representative of the musicians currently in fashion over there. I'm a little unsure if this is the best way to represent the information - it is rather redlink overload at present, but reducing it to a smaller number (at least until the competition is complete) would be rather arbitrary. Let me know if you're happy with it as is, or if you can suggest any improvement. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objections to the extensive use of redlinks. I am generally a fan of redlinks because they point the ways in which Wikipedia is incomplete and, to some extent, biased in its coverage. I do have a slight objection to list itself, as I don't think it really conveys anything useful about the culture of Rwanda. Imagine if the Kinyarwanda article on the United States used the top 10 finalists of the most recent American Idol or America's Got Talent competitions to determine who should be mentioned in the culture section. That would just be silly! I think it might be best to just leave out any list of musicians until/unless you can find some sources that clearly indicate which musicians are actually prominent there.
    In any case, this is an issue that would probably benefit from the insight of multiple editors. Seeing as all of my points have been addressed, might I suggest we venture onwards to WP:FAC? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've removed the list for now. I can always revisit that point later on. And yes, I'm ready to get going on a FAC if you are. I'll get some bagels in and a bucket and spade, and prepare for the barrage of comments! Thanks again for all your assistance with this.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bring the clams and the pepper spray. Let's get 'er dun! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may want to make this peer review a pet project of mine, so I'll be checking back and leaving more comments if you find them helpful. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and thanks for your useful advice so far.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be bopping around the world for the week of March 4, and I probably won't have time to edit during my adventure. I'll try to leave some juicy comments for you to sink your teeth into before I leave. If that doesn't happen, just imagine what I would say, imagine how you would respond, and then edit the article accordingly. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, have fun on your bopping then. And if you find yourself in Rwanda, see if you can dig up any facets of the country that I have omitted. Looking forward to the juicy comments... just hoping one of them won't be "you mention that Hutus started killing Tutsis in 1959, but you fail to give a figure for the number of deaths".  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of 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 want to know if there is anything wrong with the article that needs to be fixed.

Thanks, Wustenfuchs 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley comments: I have read through the article once, and corrected a few minor typos. I shall read through it again concentrating on the content. Meanwhile, a general observation: you need to go through and regularise your use of quotation marks, (i) converting any curly quotation marks to straight ones, (ii) putting quotations in double quotes instead of the mixture of single and double quotes that you have at the moment. More after I have re-read the article. Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. The article is extraordinarily thorough and well researched. The following few comments are of minor importance, for the most part, but may be of help in getting the presentation up to FA standard.

  • General
    • English or American spelling? You mostly use the latter, but I noticed a "centre" (not in a quotation) in the text. There may be other English spellings; I did not notice any others, but you may want to check.
  • Background
    • The WP Manual of Style (MoS) says, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other".   Done --Wustenfuchs 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the treaty-set borders" – a strange, un-English construction; perhaps simply "the borders set by the treaty"?   Done --Wustenfuchs 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a Customs dispute" – why the capital letter?   Done --Wustenfuchs 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminaries
    • "Black Hand" – the use of quotes at each mention is perhaps superfluous. Would not it suffice to use them at first mention only?   Done --Wustenfuchs 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 30 – MoS requires the citation to come after the closing bracket. - (Can you explain more?) --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "gendarmes" – such a French term was a surprise to see here; I assume it is the correct terminology, but you may wish to check   Done, it's correct, police in Austria-Hungary was called žandarmerija from this French word, so no other word can replace this.--Wustenfuchs 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my (wide-ish) screen there is about an inch of white space between the first and second paras of sub-section "The Tunnel"   Done --Wustenfuchs 01:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trials and punishment
    • "grand charge" – a technical term? Certainly not a familiar one   Done - I erased the "grand" --Wustenfuchs 01:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The court did not buy the defendant's stories" – much too slangy a phrase for a featured article; something like "believe" or "accept" is wanted here   Done - fixed. --Wustenfuchs 01:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "this part of the verdict is accused of being politically influenced" – accused by whom?
    • Salonika trial – the inclusion of the court fees along with the death sentences strikes a mildly comic note of bathos, and could, I suggest be dispensed with - Well, that was their punishment... maybe the fammily payed, who knows. --Wustenfuchs 01:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversy about responsibility
    • Black Hand" or Serbian military intelligence: Your contentions in your last para of this sub-section require citation or are apt to be seen as your own interpretation.
    • The newspaper clipping: the same applies here
    • Box quote at end of section: the italics should be removed – see MoS
  • Consequences
    • "preamble and enumerated demands #1–7 and #9" – I found the word "enumerated" superfluous and slightly distracting
    • Russia's mobilization set-off – why the hyphen?
  • Notes
    • I have never seen authors' names italicised in any list of references, as far as I can recall. You have, moreover, not been consistent in this regard; some of the authors' names are not italicised. I strongly recommend removing all the italics round the authors's names
    • You have no consistent style for the web citations. There is a good template you can use to achieve this, if in doubt (WP:cite web).
  • References
    • You have got your italics mixed up in the Dedijer entry.
    • Again, you have no consistency of style for your refs (e.g. some ISBNs linked, some not). You can use WP:cite book to achieve consistency.
    • Books published too early to have ISBNs should have an OCLC number cited instead. You can obtain them here: [7].

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Please let me know when you nominate it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boden Fortress edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 could be a candidate for a featured article (soon or perhaps after some work) and it would be nice to know what further work needs to be done.

Thanks, Hst20 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now this should probably be listed under Geography and Places. Not sure how to move it, but maybe it doesn't matter for the review. --Hst20 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot edit

I just realized that I wrote a ridiculously long review, but better to be too thorough than not enough. I was mainly concerned with the details of the prose, because I can't check the reliability of Swedish-language sources.

The first overall issue is that there need to be more inline citations. At minimum, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, every quotation, and every potentially controversial statement. The citations at the moment are scattered, sometimes only covering parts of a paragraph.

The second is more subjective. It seems that there's a lot of detail on the decision-making process that led to the fortress' construction, but relatively little on the design and armament. That might make more sense if there were subarticles on the individual forts that would contain that information, but there aren't right now. If articles on the forts are viable, consider creating them; if not, consider adding information on the design, and perhaps trimming the background.

Infobox and lead section

  • In "Garrison" entry, perhaps say the main forts had "2,000 men each"?
  • The latter two sentences in the first paragraph, describing why the fort was constructed, might make more sense before the sentences on when it was constructed.
  • Maybe mention that the fortress is now a historic building and a tourist attraction.

Central and peripheral defense

  • The quotation by Clausewitz isn't very necessary to the background; you might just say that he mentioned that Sweden was a good place for a war of attrition and then put the quotation in a note.

Fortification of Sweden

  • "Reasons why Norrland was considered of very limited military interest…" could be shortened to "Reasons for this opinion…"
  • "colonel—and much later Swedish Minister for War—Gustaf Oscar Peyron" could be shortened to "Colonel Gustaf Oscar Peyron". It's not relevant here that he later became minister for war, and there's no need to link a common word like colonel.

Railroads speed up planning

  • "All the other major roads exclusively had a southeast–northwest stretch—that followed the run of the large rivers—before they ended up in nowhere" might sound better as: "All the other major roads exclusively ran southeast–northwest—following the run of the large rivers—before ending in wilderness" or something similar.
  • Consider spelling out, not just linking, the abbreviations USD and especially SEK when they first appear. SEK is not a familiar abbreviation to most English speakers. Example: "1.3 million Swedish kronor (SEK)".

Final decision

  • "The plan gained support from the first chamber but not from the second chamber, and thus the joint vote decided, which was in favor of the proposition." This is rather unclear; did the two chambers have a joint vote, as they did a year later? If so, perhaps say something like "The plan gained support from the first chamber but not from the second chamber, but when put to a joint vote of both chambers, the proposition passed."
  • The statement that Rappe was later referred to as "the spiritual father of Boden Fortress" is probably better placed after Rappe's first mention rather than here, after his last mention.

Initial work

  • The phrase "blasted into the mountains" seems a little odd; "dug into" might work better.

Finishing touch

  • Perhaps title it "Finishing touches", because a lot of different things were still going on at this stage.

Two World Wars

  • Saying that events "questioned the usability of Boden Fortress" sounds odd, and I don't think it conveys your intended meaning. Perhaps say "put the usefulness of Boden Fortress into question"?
  • "Lars Tingsten—later Minister for War and also the first commander of Boden Fortress" Again, his later position as Minister for War isn't important here, although you might want to state what position he held when he made his statement.
  • "when the fortress was tested against a coup de main in April 1913" You might want to state that this was a military exercise, not a real coup de main; even with the word "tested" there, I was confused for a moment.

Espionage

  • You should probably state Colonel Assanovitch's first name, if you can find it in a source.

Cold War and myths

  • "Weapons such as cruise missiles and smart bombs dealt the death blow to Boden Fortress" — You probably want to rephrase this, as it might give the impression that they literally dealt it the death blow (BOOM!). I assume that they demonstrated that the fort was obsolete, but you should state that clearly, and probably give some details on how they did that.
  • The first two paragraphs are about the fort's Cold War history and decommissioning, while the latter two are about modern perceptions about the fort. Those subjects might work better if treated in separate sections.
  • In the fourth paragraph, "the total cost of the project" is vague; do you mean the fort's construction?
  • The "some people say/other people say" pattern in that paragraph is also vague. It's better to include some names (preferably of people with credentials) just to give an idea of who is saying what.

In media and Legacy: The Carl Gustav

  • The mentions of the fort in the "In media" section seem rather trivial, and Wikipedians increasingly want to avoid trivial mentions like this in articles. More significant appearances of the fort, demonstrating how it's perceived in Sweden, would work better; if you can't find more significant appearances, you may want to reconsider including this section. For more information on how to write this kind of section, I recommend this page; I want to emphasize that that page is not a Wikipedia rule, just one person's advice, but still I think it's good advice.
  • "Thank you, my lad, for sparing us of Boden Fortress!" — This sentence doesn't quite make sense in English. Does it mean "sparing Boden Fortress for us"?
  • I question the relevance of the Carl Gustav rifle, too, but it might be integrated into some other part of the article. It's odd to have it in its own little section.

A. Parrot (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2011

Thanks! edit

I would definitely agree with pretty much all of what you've said. This article isn't my baby, just a subject I'm really interested in and have contributed some to. Most of the article is probably written by people with English as a second language (that would include myself), so I really appreciate the input and the changes you've made. Personally I don't have access to the printed sources and I really don't have the time to look through them at the moment to try and improve the article that way. I'll be bold and start digging through the article soon, thanks a lot for the input. --Hst20 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Cork edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review so it can be checked through, verified and pretty much gone through with a fine tooth comb! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nev1
  • The lead could be significantly expanded.
  • Is there anything on his early life, a bit of background on where he went to school for example? - Done
  • "His maiden international wicket was that of Inzamam-ul-Haq, who was his only wicket in the match": a bit repetitious perhaps, I think saying something along the lines of "He took one wicket in the match, that of Inzamam-ul-Haq" would convey the same information as it would be implicit that Cork hadn't taken a wicket in full internationals before. - Done
  • "ODI's" should be "ODIs" as it's not possessive or an abbreviation. There's a similar issue with Tests. - Done
  • "Cork played infrequently for England over the coming seasons, playing just two ODI's each in 1993 and 1994, against Australia and South Africa respectively.": I like the approach taken here; when I'm putting together articles on crickets I feel like I can sometimes get too bogged down on statistics and this conveys the relevant information without unnecessary numbers which would make it less interesting to read. Could you find anything on why Cork played infrequently?
  • "His first Test wicket came in the West Indies when he dismissed Ian Bishop": I think there's something miss
  • "This performance highlighted that at the time, Cork was the best all-rounder in England": This bit's going to be tricky as it sounds like a point of view. I think a better approach would be to say who thought he was the best all-rounder.
  • "Cork was once more England's leading wicket-taker, with 19 Test wickets at an average of 25.52 and best innings figures of 5/84": This is the first time it's been mentioned that Cork was England's leading wicket-taker in a series, so something is missing here.
  • When it says "Cricket World Cup" you may want to drop "Cricket" as it should be obvious. - Done
  • "In a tournament in which none of the England bowlers shone": This again is a point of view that needs a citation. The current reference just gives figures, and while I'd agree with the conclusion it could be argued that maybe the bowlers were unlucky or bowling on flat pitches.
  • Wisden do pieces on their Cricketers' of the Year, if you could track that down I think it would be a useful addition to the article.
  • The "more style than substance" quote needs a source, and so far the article doesn't really put into context why people may have thought this.
  • "his mind was not correct for playing" is an odd turn of phrase, and it might be more idiomatic to say something like "he was not in the right frame of mind to play". Done
  • It seems odd to mention the breakdown of his marriage affecting Cork before mentioning that he was married at all. Maybe the personal life section should come immediately after the lead? However then you're talking about Dancing on Ice before Test cricket. One option might be to integrate this section into the rest of the article as his personal life clearly affecting his cricketing career.
  • "The internal divisions between Cork and the county management had came to the fold publicly": I'm not sure what this bit means. - Reworded
  • "He was awarded a benefit year in 2001, which was boycotted by certain figures at Derbyshire": Which certain figures? - Done
  • "Cork's international career came to an end in 2002, allowing him to dedicate himself to playing season long for Derbyshire": Was it guaranteed that Cork would never play for England again? Otherwise, I'm not sure this statement stands up.
  • "they fined him £1,000 and banned him for three matches, suspended for a year": This could be read as Cork being suspended for a year rather than the three-match ban, so probably needs clarifying. Done
  • A couple of general points: quotes don't need to be italicised, there's a tendency to overuse "however" a bit (I have the same problem), and I'd recommend taking a look at MOS:DASH to see when to use dashes in prose instead of hyphens (just a cosmetic thing). Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AssociateAffiliate
  • It's just how to get the personal life part in the correct parts. His schooling comes before his career, but his appearance on Dancing on Ice and his commentating career are near the end of his career. A split personal life spread over his career. Would seem odd to mention DOI in the beginning, but likewise seems weird putting his schooling at the end. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace dollar edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 planning to take it to FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to Burdette says 2005 and 2008, but in the Bibliography it says 2007 and 2008. Iusethis (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I used the data from one of his other books, and neglected to switch over completely.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some brief searching, I found an interview with Roger Burdette online (which I just now realized was in the external links). Anyway, the article contains a picture of the "broken sword" design, and other information worth including (e.g. the 1926 re-engraving of the word "God" for emphasis). I believe images of US currency are public domain, so shouldn't be a problem including that picture at least. Hope this helps, good luck!
Jds7813 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm not involved in this article, but I just wanted to add a little something here. Failed coin designs aren't in the public domain unless the person who created it designed it while in the employment of the federal government. Since de Francisci was not a government employee, his design itself isn't in the public domain. Now, if we could prove that the photo of the broken sword design was published before 1923, we could use it anyway since the copyright had expired. That said, I doubt it was published before 1923, because the photos in that online article are the only ones I've seen of that design, so my feeling is that they are photos of the plaster model or galvano that were taken later. Wehwalt might know something else though.-RHM22 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Man, I think it'd be really cool to include the failed design. I don't really know much about image copyright regs, so I'll look into those and keep looking for another image. Jds7813 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen print reproductions of them, but that's about it. I think if we could prove that any photograph of the broken sword model had been taken before 1923, we could then use any image of the models which had been properly licensed. If no image was published before 1923, then it is life plus seventy years, i believe, and de Francisci lived until 1964. Likely longer than 2034, with all those laws they've put in to ensure Mickey Mouse won't go out of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Since the photo appears to be of a plaster model, which is a three dimensional object, I believe that any photos taken would generate a new copyright, same as with coins.-RHM22 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there would be no copyright in the model. And I said we could use any "properly licensed" image, that is, public domain, creative commons, that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood.-RHM22 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Chipmunkdavis

I want this coin...

  • Was the Pittman Act passed before or after the end of the First World War?
  • "The sculptor based the design for the obverse design of the bust of Liberty on the features of his wife, Teresa de Francisci.[23] Due to the short length of the competition, de Francisci lacked the time to hire a model with the features he envisioned for Liberty, and instead used his wife as model." Some redundancy here, could be reworded.
  • "Except in the West" A better description of what west was would be better if possible. Was it per state?

I'd say more, but, you know, if I can't find a fault... I can't comment on it. If I can say one thing, consider shifting the pictures around, evenly distributing them throughout the article. Consider moving the highest picture to the left, to balance the infobox. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done those things. Many thinks for the work and praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brabourne 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 its been improved and expanded since its last assesment in 2008. A PR would help with insight on how to take the article further.

Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: An interesting article, needing some extra work to bring it to B standard or better. Here are some pointers:-

Lead
  • The purpose of the lead is to provide a broad overview of the main text. It is not the place for details such as "...along Marine Drive near Churchgate railway station in South Mumbai" or the clubhouse arrangements for CCI members, or the precise length of the interval between the 1972 and 2009 Tests. These are matters for the text proper, rather than the lead.
  • Matters which are cited in the main text should not be cited in the lead.
Prose issues
  • The tone is often non-encyclopedic. Too many instances to list them all, but here are a few examples:-
    • "The eight years at Brabourne were perhaps the most glorious in the history of the tournament" POV
Removed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jonty later recollected..." Too informal
Already changed to "Rhodes ..." Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The match is remembered for Sachin Tendulkar announcing his resignation from the post of Captain of the Indian team at the press box". Remembered by whom?
    • "Virender Sehwag scored a belligerent double century (293)..." This is sports reporting, not encyclopedic language
Removed belligerent. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many short, sometimes single-sentence paragraphs.
  • There are a few problematic sentences, e.g:-
    • "Anthony de Mello, then the Secretary of BCCI, also served the secretary of CCI from 1933 to 1937." (Word missing?)
  • de Mello was the secretary of BCCI from 1928 to 1938 as well. Should it be rewritten ? Tintin 12:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Chris Cairns allegedly drunk jumped into the CCI swimming pool a day before the deciding sixth ODI between India and New Zealand in 1995." Lacks punctuation
    • "Board Presidents" → "Board President's"
    • "In the end the second season was moved out of India and held in South Africa due to securing concerns." Odd wording ("securing concerns"?). "In the end" is very vague. And what has this to do with the stadium?
Since the tournament was moved out of India there was no question of any matches at the stadium. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few general points
Corrected. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation is uneven. There are several uncited paragraphs (see third & fifth paras in the "Cricket Matches" section), and other instances of uncited material.
  • Reference formatting is inconsistent, e.g: "page" and "p.", ISBNs missing in some cases, print sources should be italicised, etc

ISBN added where possible, some books cited dont have an isbn. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is a gallery justified? The images in the gallery are not generally useful as illustrations of the text. I recommend promoting perhaps a couple of them into the main text, and ditching the rest.
The gallery shows different parts and uses of the stadium. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the article, and I'll be pleased to look at it again when you've addressed these issues. Call my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Please look around for the "75000" in the lead. I am pretty sure that I saw 90,000 in much better sources. Tintin 13:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be 75000 for the ground and the rest for other amenities? Not sure. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked around a bit more. The NZ paper is dated April 27, 1935. At that time, the construction hadn't even started - "the GCC (General Construction Company) drove the first pile of foundation on 26 October, 1936" (Boria Majumdar, 22 yards to freedom, p.222). So they could not have known any breakup on what was to be allocated for what. The Indian sources are explicit on 90,000. Raiji/Dossa is one. Times of Brabourne by Raghavendra Kannan is another - "A piece of land measuring 90,000 square yards was finally given to CCI ...(p.15)". So we don't need to use a NZ report that predates the construction and guess, when we have Indian sources which are recent and unambiguous. Tintin 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well explained, expelled my doubts, Iv changed it in the lede. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 14:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it meets the FA criteria but not still sure about that

Thanks, Taro James (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments from Cryptic C62
  • "They have sold over 200 million albums worldwide, including 74.5 million certified units in the United States." What is a "certified unit"?
The certified sale of album —Taro James (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guitarist and vocalist David Gilmour joined Pink Floyd several months prior to Barrett's departure from the group due to the latter's deteriorating mental health in 1968." It's not clear what "in 1968" refers to. Is that when Gilmour joined? Or when Barrett left? Or when Barrett's mental health began deteriorating?
Done —Taro James (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wright left the group in 1979, and Waters in 1985, but Gilmour and Mason (joined by Wright) continued to record and tour." Confusing. How could Wright have left the group but continued to record and tour? Did he leave and then rejoin?
Wright left and then rejoined. What is confusing? —Taro James (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be watching this page, so leave a note on my talk if you need clarification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to take a lot of pleasure in arguing the toss about this, but the article has some rather questionable use of non-free content. The number of sound files is currently quite low, but it has a tendency to creep up- I have not double checked the current files. However, the use of the lead image is unwarranted- we have free images that show Pink Floyd, even if there is one member shown on the current lead image for which we have no free image- at the end of the day, what he looked like is not so important as to warrant the use of a non-free image. Pink Floyd existed without him; we have free images of Pink Floyd. The lead image exists to show Pink Floyd, and we cannot use non-free content when we have free content. The article should not/will not pass FAC while that lead image is in use in that way. The use of File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg is also suspect- it's not really clear what it's adding- the poster is not even mentioned in the text, so why people are convinced it's so important is not clear. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I notieced the peer review was closed without much in the way of comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. I think in its current state it would have a fair amount of trouble passing at FAC. I agree with the above comments, here are a few more.

  • One of the biggest potential problems (pun intended) is the article's size. The page size tool finds the article has: Prose size (text only): 67 kB (11549 words) "readable prose size". Anything with a readable prose size about 50 kB is a problem for many readers per WP:SIZE. Perhaps there could be a History of Pink Floyd article with the current version of the history, and a shorter summary could be here - see WP:Summary style.
  • The lead is not consistent in tense - the first sentence is past tense (Pink Floyd were...) and the next sentence is present (Pink Floyd are...). Pick a tense to describe the band and stick with it
  • The lead does not make it clear when the band broke up (the infobox says 1994).
  • There are several places that do not have references and need them. For example Waters issued a writ for copyright fees for the band's use of the flying pig, and Pink Floyd responded by attaching a huge set of male genitalia to its underside to distinguish it from his design. or this Pink Floyd were inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame in 2010.
  • I checked one reference - Current ref 266. It needs to indicate it is from the BBC. There is also at least one ref that is just the title (Marrillon.com) - needs publisher, access date, etc.
  • The further down the article you go, the more it needs work - more and more short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the narrative flow.
  • I looked at two FAs on bands - Radiohead and U2. Both would be good models for this article. I notice both have sections on Musical style, which this lacks (at least as an explicit section)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • External link checker finds one dead link (Toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scream characters edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 essentially rewritten it to meet the warning boxes on the page, tried to ensure that is not in-universe, source everything I possibly can and created, what I believe, to be a sufficient intro. I like to think it could be a featured List alongside List of Uncharted characters and would appreciate the review of my peers to see if they think likewise or if anything else is required. I have changed the entire page from top to bottom so the review cannot be isolated to a particular section.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FLC.

  • Lists no longer start with "This is a list of ..."
  • A model article is a great idea, as you can get ideas and examples to follow from a model article. In addition to List of characters in the Uncharted series there are three other FLs that may be useful mnodels: List of Naruto characters, List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (alhtough Castlevania is the oldest and has some things in it like starting with "This is a list..." that are not done now).
  • I noticed that all four FLs on characters have both a Conception (creation) section before the list of characters, and a Reception section after the list. I would add something like this here.
  • If there is merchandise associated with Scream, I would add that too - not sure what there would be (Ghostface masks?)
  • I also note that the FL models do more sorting of the characters than this article does. They are often sorted into Protagonists, Antagonists and other / minor characters. I realize the characters are now sorted by movie (kind of) and are in alphabetical order by first name (which is a bit unusual - if minor characters were separated out, my guess is all the major characters have last names (except Ghostface, who has only the one name)
  • One way to sort might be to have Major characters or characters who appear in all three (soon to be four) films. If all four films are included, there would only be four characters in this section (Ghostface, Dewey Gale, and Sydney). Then there could be a section with characters who were introduced in Scream, subdivided into major and minor, Scream 2 (major and minor) and Scream 3(major and minor).
  • WP:LEAD sayd not to make the lead longer than 4 paragraphs - this is five.
  • Also in the lead, I would identify the type of award (not just "Best Actress" - say it is a Saturn) The film series has been the recipient of several awards including a Best Actress and Best Female Performance for Neve Campbell and Best Horror Film for Scream.
  • I also wonder if it would be useful to have an introductory paragraph or two about each film before the characters or perhaps before each section. This would avoid some of the needless repetition in the current version of the article (for example this would avoid the mutiple repetitions explaining that "Stab" is a fictional film with the film in Scream 3
  • While it is fine to use italics for the titles of the films, WP:ITALIC sats not to use them for the names of characters, etc.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE says to use "double quotes" and not 'single quotes' for quotations and titles
  • For characters who have appeared in more than one of the films, I would make very clear which film the events being described occured in (this is done nicely for Sydney, not so well for Ghostface, for example).
  • Several of the refs are incomplete and do not provide enough infromation. 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 prose is OK to good - when the other issues have been dealt with, I would get a copyedit to polish the rough spots.
  • The sourcing on the lead image is problematic - I followed the link, but did not see the image there. I think I would also indicate that the images are ultimately not from a fan website, but from the move / studio.
  • Make sure that the sources used meet WP:RS - blogs are not usually reliable sources, for example (though since it is the blog of the person playing one of the characters, it may be).
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wario 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 on the bounty board and it was a FA. What can it take to make it back as one.

Thanks, Jhenderson 777 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the lead could use a rewrite and expansion. The last sentence in "Other media" is unsourced, trivial, speculation. Mainly just make sure that all that can/should be covered, is covered. One of the points of FA is being comprehensive. I am sure that there are more sources covering him. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok summarizing the lead, remove last sentence, and source checking will be on my to do list. Thanks for the advice. Any more advice is encouraged if need be. Jhenderson 777 20:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know I said to expand the lead, not summarize it, right? It needs to be rewritten to effectively summarize the whole article. Try using some Good article/FA video game characters as a guide. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know but to do that I need to sum up everything that's in the article per WP:Lead and as you said yourself. So basically "summing up the article" is what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :b Jhenderson 777 15:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I see this did not get many comments, so here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • This was demoted in an FAR in 2006 and looking at that may be useful for ideas for improvement - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wario. FA standards have only gotten more stringent since then.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs on fictional characters at Category:FA-Class fictional character articles - the two best models as video games character articles seems to be Master Chief (Halo) and Arbiter (Halo).
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Mario is linked twice just in the lead. Most people link at most once in the lead and once in the body of the article, both at first occurrence. Infobox and refs and captions can have more links.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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. However, the many characters voiced by Martinet seem to be only in the lead.
  • If you are looking to make sure the lead is a good summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • There is nothing in the article on Chikao Ōtsuka except the infobox mention - I would explain that
  • Needs more background / explanation - The creation of Wario allowed them a character of their own to "symbolize their situation".[1] See WP:PCR
  • Google Books is not the true publisher of two of the references (current numbers 35 and 36) - give the book's author, publisher, place and year of publication, page numbers, ISBN or OCLC, etc.
  • When I search in this book it says "Wario" is not found in the text...
  • Seems odd that neither of the images is from an actual game (screen image)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Buckles edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, the article, about the last surviving American World War I veteran (who passed away on February 27 and was buried March 15) was just passed as a Good Article and I would like to take it to FA. Per the rules there, I need a PR first and I figure there are somethings on the page that could use some tinkering to get to FA standards. Thanks, Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Responses marked "-NH" are from User:Neutralhomer.
Lede -   Done
I'd like to see, immediately after the first sentence some discussion of Buckles' WWI service, which surprisingly gets short shrift in the article. That should make the lede long enough to be worth splitting into paragraphs.
Split into paragraphs, added information about WWI service. - NH
20th century -   Done
  • "despite his youth" To save the reader the bother, you might want to mention his then-age (sixteen?) I see it later in the paragraph, I'd move it up.
Used your version. - NH
  • "falsely claimed" This phrase implies malice. If the Navy simply goofed, I'd say something like "incorrectly found".
Used your suggestion. - NH
  • What army regiment (or whatever) was Buckles attached to? I also don't like the word "sent". I'd say "embarked" and make it clear Carpathia was being used as a troop ship. Where did Buckles undergo basic training (or whatever it was called then).
Added an LA times source about the ship and where he went to Basic Training. His regiment is mentioned in the third paragraph. - NH
  • "the Carpathia" Uncertain the "the" is advisable, suggest contacting an editor more familiar with maritime stuff than me.
Got my answer, the ships are refered to as "the ship name". - NH
Actually, per WP:MOSSHIP, ships may be referred to as "ship name" or "the ship name", but one style should be adhered to throughout. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his fellow inmates" I think "prisoners" or "POW"s would be more dignified and appropriate.
Used your suggestion. - NH
  • Consider putting the data on Buckles' ancestors near the start of the article. Consider moving the information on the fire to a footnote.
Used your suggestion. - NH
21st century -   Done
  • Can you dig a little more and find when Buckles started becoming well known for his longevity and service?
What I can find is just "In his later years...", but it doesn't like a year. - NH
  • Buckles' fight. I'd like to see more discussion of this. I'd also like to know whether he did actual work for them or was just, so to speak, a frontman.
On this I have found just that he was an "advocate for veterans" and an "advocate for the expansion of" the DC WWI memorial to Federal status, but doesn't say much more than that. - NH
  • Shriners. Sentences seem out of order. First establish he was a Shriner and then move on from there with the award.
Moved this around, put the Sons of Confederate Veterans in that paragraph as well. - NH
  • Traveled the nation. If he did, this should be discussed, not just mentioned offhandedly.
Checked the sources and it just wasn't mentioned, so I took it out. - NH
  • and donations are accepted toward production of the film. This smells like advertising.
Agreed and removed. - NH

More coming.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honors and awards -   Done
  • "In 1941, he retroactively qualified for the the Army of Occupation of Germany Medal due to his post war service in Europe during the year 1919." I have no idea what this means.
Changed this to just "....he received the...medal for his post war service..." - NH
  • I suggest listing the awards he qualified for (or applied for) pre-2000 first, then talking about the ones (let's face it!) he got because of his longevity. Ordinarily, ambulance driving doesn't get you the legion d'honneur.
Since I really couldn't source it was for his longevity (though you are right), I just swapped these around. - NH
  • " prior to the 33°." This may puzzle readers. I would spell out thirty-third degree Mason and briefly explain that it is the highest level a Mason can attain (if that's what it is). I would cut out the remainder of the paragraph as peripheral to Buckles' story.
Another user found a source for this, Congressional Record even. So I have sourced it and readded it. - NH
Commemoration and funeral -   Done
  • All paragraphs in this section start with a date or else include a date within the first six or so words. Mix it up.
Changed it up a little bit. - NH
  • I would move the information on Perot's intervention to this section.
Done. - NH
  • "16 states" Should be non-breaking space.
Added. - NH
  • I think the info on Buckles' high school can be condensed into one sentence and moved into another paragraph. I'd delete the bit about him being photod in front of his school, just not germane to anything.
Knocked down to one sentence, still sourced and put in front of the local service, as it would create some weirdness if it were behind information from the 16th of March. - NH
  • "It was announced" by who?
Fixed this. - NH
  • I feel this section needs some tightening up. It reads too much like a chronology at present.
Took a better look, tinkered some, I think it looks good. - NH
  • Avoid the word "would" if you can when referring to the past.
Had to word a couple senteces with "would", just cause they didn't look like any other way, but most of the "would"s are gone. - NH

It's pretty good. I think you need to go over it very closely with an attention for what is important and what really isn't germane to Buckles' life. I think that the article could give a better image of Buckles as a person. This was an ordinary person who briefly symbolized a generation called lost then, and now truly lost to us. I have the impression he was a bit of a character, but perhaps you could tell more.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One point that should be made is that there is a scheduled biography (by DeJonge) and film (also by DeJonge, stated to be his official biographer) and plans for a statue. When/if these all happen, then the article would need to be checked and updated at that point. At the moment, the article is an aggregate of news sources plus the 'official'(?) website. If the level of sourcing moves on to the level of a published biography, then that would impact this article a fair amount. For comparison, Claude Choules (The Last of the Last), Henry Allingham (Kitchener's Last Volunteer) and Harry Patch (The Last Fighting Tommy) have all had biographies or autobiographies published. The proposed title for DeJonge's documentary film is Pershing's Last Patriot, and the article says the release is scheduled for "2011". I'm sure there are examples of biography articles being promoted to featured article without a published biography, but before such a biography is published here, this is something that needs to be kept in mind. I know there is a lot of enthusiasm for this article, but I suspect that if this article is improved as much as possible, and then worked on some more after the biography/film come out, then it will be better for having been held back from FAC until that point. On another note, it would be good to go through the talk page suggestions at some point and archive the ones dealt with, and deal with the ones that haven't been looked at yet. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response....On the last point, I try to keep an eye on talk page comments and respond eventually (e.g. Dole is now in the article, the status of the memorial legislation is now explained, and the presence of ordinary folks at the funeral to salute the whole WWI generation is now mentioned). That said, I'm not much of an archiving kind of guy; never archived before, afraid I might mess it up, reluctant to fill my head with unnecessary skills, reluctant to spend time pecking on my iPhone keyboard if I don't have to. No objection if someone else archives. Regarding FAC, it does seem like NeutralHomer is succeeding in getting this article perilously close to FAC quality. If it does soon cross that line, and is nominated, I hope the article won't be discriminated against merely because it will likely become even better in the future once books about Buckles begin to appear. Anyway, it's been an interesting article to work on (in my plodding way). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Materialscientist -   Done

  • When asked about the secret of his long life, Buckles replied: "Hope," adding, "[W]hen you start to die... don't." He also said the reason he had lived so long was that he "never got in a hurry."

    - can't find that in the cited reference. Materialscientist (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourced via a Flint, MI newspaper. - NH
  • "honoring the life and service" is a quote, but is not in the source. Same for "famous Shriner".Materialscientist (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the first parapgraph of the story (emphasis mine): "The faculty and students at Northeast Vernon County R-I honored the life and service of World War I Veteran Frank W. Buckles. Frank Buckles was the last surviving U.S. veteran of World War I. Buckles died Feb. 28, at the age of 110. He attended Walker schools from 1911 to 1916, completing grade 9." I just changed "honored" to "honoring" but that can be fixed. - NH
Comments by Wehwalt. Not a lot but I've looked at this text a few times before.
  • Lede
I think the paragraphs are too long. I would split both, the first at "Honorably", the second at "At the time of his death". Don't stuff information into the reader, it doesn't work well.
I hate to say it, but you are giving too much information too. I don't think that listing all his fraternal affiliations, and his status as a church-going man is really necessary in a lede.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life
" His ancestors had first settled in 1732". First of all, "His" reads oddly, given the last sentence. "Their" would be accurate, but a bit odd. I'll let you figure it out. Second, I would either say where they came from or else add the words "in North America" or the equivalent.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WWI and following peace
" (worth many more 2011 dollars)" Omit. If you can't put a year on it and then use measuringworth or an inflation calculator, then say nothing and omit the parenthetical.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WWII
I would not be satisfied with this section title, although I know it is difficult. Compare the grandiloquent title of this section, against the paucity of its content. (boy, that was a lot of ten dollar words!)
Grandiloquence reduced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it ... but I'm not convinced that the personnel records fire should be in this section. It really had little to do with his life at the time.
Condensed this material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Active centenarian
"Sticking to his guns," Unhappily, you do not have a good enough excuse to make a pun. It's got to go.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" neither American" This carries a sense of "if they're not Americans, they are not worth considering". Simply say which nationalities they are.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honors and awards
Why is it relevant that he "may have" applied for something he wasn't entitled to anyway?
" added to the honors" I can't say exactly why I dislike this language, but I do. I would simply say that Chirac gave him the award.
Fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemoration and funeral
I would start with mentioning that he did not meet the criteria, then go on into Perot meeting him and going to the White House for him. Otherwise you're hanging Perot a long way out there with the reader wondering why he's in the article.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"three years later" I think it's OK to mention the date again. Not everyone reads every section.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Whether Buckles would lay in repose in the United States Capitol Rotunda, however, remained tied up in Congress." For one day? I would strike this sentence entirely.
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's like this. The long list of commemorations to Buckles in this section needs to be rearranged, as the events of significance are being lost. I would suggest this: Discuss the stuff that involves the presence of Buckles' body first, then deal with everything else. Right not, you are interrupting a tense description of something of major importance, what is happening to Buckles' body, with relative trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section overhauled, removing or condensing less significant stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick responses. I'll give it another look in a couple of days or if there are more comments, wait until after those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks fir all the excellent comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Asian Games medal table edit

</noinclude>

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to nominate for Featured List, before that i need substantial suggestions and feedback.

Thanks, Bill william comptonTalk 05:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from StrPby (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The medal table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and is consistent with IOC convention in its published medal tables." I'm pretty sure the IOC isn't in charge of the Asian Games. You mean the OCA.
       Y OCA is a continental association recognized by the IOC, so it also follows its rules. Refer this, its a constitution of OCA, where several times this thing is mentioned.
      That is not my point. The medal table is based on data provided by the OCA, not IOC, and you should not state otherwise. It is consistent with IOC convention in GSB but the information isn't provided by the IOC. Separate the two if necessary. StrPby (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Line has been removed
    • The second source gives a number of 3,411 participating athletes; the article has way more, following the first source. Why the discrepancy? Should both numbers be mentioned?
        Done 3,411 were athletes and 4,595 was a count of athletes and delegates. I think we don't need to mention officials, so including only athletes number.
    • Source for fencing and bowling's removal?
        Provided
    • General grammar ("these Asiad"?)
    • "IX Asiad"? The official OCA page calls it the "9th Asian Games", not the "IX Asiad"; the official logo has it as "IX Asian Games". Let's not make up names.
       Y May be you're not familiar with this but Asian Games also known as Asiad, please refer Constitution of OCA.
      I'm aware. That's not my point. The official name isn't "IX Asiad" and you should not state that it's also known as the "IX Asiad" as that's not what it's known as. Alternatively, please find a source for the exact term "IX Asiad" and I'll drop this point. StrPby (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I've made a note with references
    • "China made its presence felt in the sporting world by dethroning Japan as the top medalist." Seems pretty POV to me.
      China excelled Japan in gold medals and made its presence felt in the sporting world. Is it OK? China exceeded Japan in gold medals, is it okay?
      It is ridiculous to suggest that China "made its presence felt in the sporting world" through this, as this was after all an Asian Games. I see no reason to restate that China surpassed Japan in terms of gold medals; this is made amply clear earlier when it's stated that Chinese athletes won the most gold medals. Remove the whole line. StrPby (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Line has been removed
Comments from The Rambling Man
  • "time; Fencing and" no need for capital letter after a semi-colon.
  Removed
  • Lead image could be bigger and needs a full stop in the caption.
  Done
  • "China only joined the Games in 1974 " would prefer something like "China's first appearance..." or something.
  Done "China first competed at the Asian Games.."
  • "in the fifth spot" not sure you need "the" here.
  Removed
  • "athlete's oath and won two silver medals in Athletics." what's the athlete's oath? And no need to have a capital A for Athletics here.
Typographical error its "Athletes Oath", which is like Olympic Oath.
  • I can't see a yellow circle on that map. Choose an entirely different colour please.
  Done Changed the color to red.
  • Don't mix date formats in the references.
  Done I always use "middle endian forms" (starting with the month), but it's an India related article so I've to repeatedly change the format; missed out some times, but now all the date formats are same.
  • Use en-dashes in the reference titles please.
Please give example.
I've done it for you in this edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now i get it.
  • Ref 7 is a single page so shouldn't have pp.
  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll make a few comments that I see mostly related to writing rather than formatting.
  • This sentence, With a total of 153, athletes from both China and Japan won the most total medals. changes subjects half-way through. The number of athletes and the most total medals really don't belong in the same sentence. Also the comma should be after athletes not 153, but really it should be two sentences.
Athletes from both China and Japan won the most total medals, with 153. Is it OK?
  • Japan had won the greatest number of medals in previous editions of the Games. In every previous edition?
  Reference has been provided
  • China excelled Japan in gold medals and made its presence felt in the sporting world. "Excelled" is not the right word to use, perhaps, "China 'exceeded' Japan's gold medal total...." But really the first part of this sentence is redundant and unless you can quantify the second part of the sentence I would suggest removing. It's hard to support the idea that their results in the Asians Games of 1982 made their presence felt in the sporting world.
  Done I've provided a reference which describes how China succeeded in sporting world. Also 1982 Asian Games were the first multi-sport platform where China led the medal tally.
  • Through 2010, China would be top medalist in all succeeding Asiads. Wording is a bit awkward. I would reword thus, "China has secured the top medal spot in every Asiad since 1982."
  Done
  • The last couple of sentences in the lead are confusing, it says that both North Korea and India finished fifth. Can you clarify this?
  Done North Korea won more gold than India, but its total medal (G+S+B) count was less (so North Korea finished 5th in total medals and 4th in gold meal count). I've corrected the ambiguity.
  • You indicate that the information is from the IOC but I don't see any reference to the IOC in your References section. That should be addressed.
  Done Although I've provided a reference, which clears the priority of gold over silver and bronze in medal table, but this issue is more clearly described in Olympic medal table and nowhere this is referenced to IOC, check the whole list.

Comments from Casliber edit

Looks good so far. Questions:

  • What is "conducted the athletes oath"?
  Done Changed to "took the athlete's oath on behalf of all competitors at the Games ".
Pretty sure the correct grammar is athletes' oath. StrPby (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The apostrophe is a good catch...but what is hte athletes' oath? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's where one designated athlete from the host nation swears on the OCA flag (Olympic flag at the Olympics) on behalf of all athletes to compete fairly without cheating etc, like the Olympic oath. StrPby (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please decide what would be correct.
Ah ok. maybe a link then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it according to StrPby, but i still have some doubt over using athletes', as you can see here and here also, the attribute is Athlete's Oath, so please consider again about the most appropriate usage.

Giants2008 comments – Responding to a talk-page request for a review. Not bad, but some issues remain to be sorted out:

  • "The number of the participating countries was the greatest in Asian Games history." Removing the second "the" would make this a little tighter.
  Removed
  • A comma would be useful after the parenthetical bit in the last sentence of the lead.
  Done
  • Medal table: No need to link National Olympic Committee here, since it was linked in the lead. I wouldn't mind in a long article, but this is a list of moderate size and I don't think the repetition is helpful.
  Removed
  • The last sentence is a long run-on. How about "In gymnastics events many shared medals were awarded; three gymnasts in men's pommel horse and two in men's ring tied for first place. Three in men's parellel bars and two gymnasts each in men's floor, women's uneven bar, and women's floor tied for second place; also two gymnasts tied for third place in men's vault." Note a few grammatical improvements were put in the middle of that, though I'm sure what's there can be improved upon.
How about this In gymnastics events many shared medals were awarded; three-way tie in men's pommel horse and tie in men's ring for first place, meant that no silvers were awarded for those events. Three gymnasts in men's parallel bars and two each in men's floor, women's uneven bar and women's floor tied for second place, thus no bronzes were awarded in these events, also no silver was awarded for men's parallel bars; tie for third in men's vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded.
I've added more information in it, please modify the language if you want.
  • In the note, "the" should be added before Indian Government and Sports Authority of India.
  Added
  • En dashes needed for page ranges in refs 6, 17, and 18.
  Added
  • Refs 5, 10, and 11 should have the publisher in italics, since they're printed publications.
  Done
  • What makes Sports123.com a reliable source?
  Source Changed Although you would find Sports123.com, most widely used source on Asian Games related articles, but as you questioned its reliability (which I don't know how to prove), I changed the source with Doha Asian Games' official website's archives, which are completely reliable.
  • The Mercy Kuttan image is problematic since it is from a newspaper scan. The license given on the photo page could easily be incorrect, depending on what the regulations are for things published in India (it doesn't meet U.S. requirements, since it would have to have published before 1923, most likely). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Removed.

Comment of Bill william compton (original nominator of peer review) edit

First of all, I'd like to thank all the participants, who gave their precious time in this peer review, you people are awesome in your work and very generous in helping other, specially some naïve like me; no words can express my gratitude. I'm assuming that I've resolved all the comments and queries raised by each reviewer. So, I guess now is the time to nominate this article for Featured List status. Bill william comptonTalk 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostface (Scream) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 to be of good quality, not GA quality but on its way hopefully. I've rewritten the entire thing from top to bottom and taken great lengths to discover information to enhance it, in particular the section on design which didn't exist before and took many days of searching to discover any suitable information. I think it is well presented and organised but would appreciate some advice on where to go from here to raise its quality

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Since I just did List of Scream characters, there are some similar issues for improvement here I noticed on a quick look, so will make some comments. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN and eventually FAC.

  • A model article is a great idea, as you can get ideas and examples to follow from a model article. There are some FAs on fictional characters which may be useful models: Jabba the Hutt, Bart Simpson, Homer Simpson, Bernard Quatermass, Troy McClure, Martin Keamy, Khan Noonien Singh,Sideshow Bob and Pauline Fowler, but the most similar character is Jason Voorhees.
  • WP:LEAD sayd not to make the lead longer than 4 paragraphs - this is five. I would move the bit about the mask (5th paragraph) to the end of the current first paragraph, and make it clearer that the mask was designed and sold prior to the first movie.
  • Their is plural (so it should be "antagonists") in The character is used primarily as a disguise for the antagonist of each film to conceal their identity while conducting serial murders and as such has been portrayed by several actors.
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article, so each section should be in the lead somehow. I am not sure that the In popular culture and Impact sections are in the lead.
  • The MOS says once an article identifies someone with his full name, only the last name is used thereafter (unless there is another person with the same last name or the name is in a direct quote or caption). See Roger L. Jackson
  • While it is fine to use italics for the titles of the films, WP:ITALIC sats not to use them for the names of characters, etc.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE says to use "double quotes" and not 'single quotes' for quotations and titles
  • The article needs refs in a few places for example this Despite the character Stu Macher wearing the costume in the film, actor Lillard never actually wore the outfit. Scream 2 features a slightly redesigned version of the mask from the 'Fearsome Faces' line, possessing slightly-altered eyes and an indented chin.[12] Following Scream 2, the Ghostface mask became part of the 'Ghostface' line of masks featuring several variations of the design including glow-in-the-dark models. The plain, white version of the Ghostface line mask is used in Scream 3 by the character Roman Bridger. as well as the first paragraph of Characteristics each need at least one ref.
  • Several of the refs (like current 5 and 29) are incomplete and do not provide enough information. 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 that refs meet WP:RS
  • The article has four WP:Fair use images, and one of them is a composite of four separate images from the four movies, which means that some reviewers might consider this to have seven separate copyrighted images. Their fair use has to meet WP:NFCC
    • I am not sure how the image of the two actors meets NFCC as it seems basically decorative (how does this image enhance the reader's understanding in a way that just the text does not?).
    • Similarly, how do the four pretty similar images of the four masks meet NFCC, and why should there be two images of the first film's mask (infobox and composite of 4 masks)?
    • The toy might be OK as it shows the whole costume, which is not in the other images (though again does the text describe this well enough that an image is not needed?)
  • The prose is OK to good - when the other issues have been dealt with, I would get a copyedit to polish the rough spots.
  • There are six disambiguation links in the article that need to be fixed - see here
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Arrows 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 seems to be in a good state, and I was hoping to see what improvements can be made before it is nominated for GA status. Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Clearly, work and some care has gone into this article. However, it is too early for it to have a full-scale peer review, and I suggest that attention be given to the following before the article is brought back here.

  • The article is seriously under-referenced at present. There are no citations in the main text until half way through "The Red Arrows" section. After that, they are still few and far between. As a broad rule, every paragraph should have at least one citation, and every paragraph should end in a citation.
  • Prose needs better organisation. Very short paragraphs should be avoided, especially in the lead
  • Lead needs to be a broad summary of the whole article, reflecting the text below, rather than a collection of a few introductory facts. The £1.5 million ride is not appropriate for mention in the lead.
  • Avoid bullet-point format ("accidents and incidents"). All sections should be written in prose.
  • Bolding should not be used in the text for emphasis
  • Section headings should not mirror or repeat the article title ("The Red Arrows", "Red Arrows accidents and incidents")
  • The article is presently over-imaged, with 12 in the main space and another 16 in a gallery. The temptation to use images just because they are available needs to be resisted. Many of the images are quite similar; I would recommend choosing about 12 altogether, for inclusion in the main text, and dropping the gallery. Text should not be squeezed between images as in the Pilots section.
  • There are two links to disambiguation pages: Kastelli and Kemble
  • Ref 15 contains a dead link
  • Some references are unformatted

When work has been done on all these areas, I'd recommend another peer review. Alternatively, I'd be prepared to look at it again informally, if you notify me when the main work is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete the review. I'll be in touch soon hopefully. Harrison49 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've spent almost six months expanding this article into better shape than when I found it. I'm at the point now where there doesn't seem to be much else to add, but I've been looking at my own writing for so long, that I'm in need of some outside opinions. All sections could use a review, and I'm especially interested in suggestions that can help the article reach GA status.

Thanks, Astrocog (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for any comments and suggestions you can make!Astrocog (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks really good, here are some pretty nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on television shows which may be good models. I am not sure if Smallville (season 1) would be a good model (1st season of a sf tv-series), Firefly (TV series) is another possibility (a one season tv series with sf andwestern elements).
  • Make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Home media does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Fixed the Lead to cover all sections, as well as provide citations.Astrocog (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The toolbox on this PR page has a disambiguation links checker that shows several dabs that need to be fixed. See here
  • The WP:MOS says to introduce someone with their full name and then use just the last name in the article thereafter unless it is in a direct quote or caption. So the article should use Bruce Campbell the first time, then just Campbell thereafter.
  • Gone through and I think I've found most of the offenders in the article. A few were left for clarity, but that's just my judgement.Astrocog (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead (first occurrence) and then once in the body of the article (some editors limit to just one link per article). Links in captions and refs are also OK.
  • In the Casting section I would give a breif explanation / description of who Lord Bowler is on first mention (I know he is briefly decribed in the lead, but should be here too)
  • Done.
  • I also wonder if a different order might work better (so the Orb is described in Production Design but not really explained until later) - look at some model articles and see how they do it perhaps.
  • Following the example of Firefly (TV series), I moved the Plot and Cast sections up. I think this improves the clarity of the article, including giving context to later character discussion.Astrocog (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few places in the article that need references - the second paragraph of Home Media has no refs and needs one, or this sentence The show was later broadcast in syndication airing on the U.S. cable channel Turner Network Television (TNT) from January 1996 to January 2001.
  • Not sure if the Characters and Guest stars need refs or not
  • Plot-related information about characters do not need refs, according to MOS:TV, since the show itself establishes those facts. I would assume analysis of a character beyond obvious characterizations and plot would need citations.Astrocog (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEAD says to capitalize some headers differently
    • Not sure which headers you mean here, but they look fine to me at this point.Astrocog (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • Looked into this. I believe there are no copyright violations. Any quotes used seem to be within fair use. I've also made sure that the images are fair use, too.Astrocog (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macomb County Board of Commissioners edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 I am nearly done; but please add any constructive suggestions.

Thanks, Macomb13 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summation (neurophysiology) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think you can do a lot better with this article considering that there are a lot of information about it (it may have been difficult because you have too much information and you don't know what to add). On the history section, you can add more details to describe the historic findings so that the general public can read and understand the article as well. You may want to add links referring to another article on wikipedia (such as End Plate Potential and MEPP) or if there is not already an article about it, you can expand on that topic by creating a sub-heading (I don't think MEPP article is currently present so you can possibly expand on this (figures would help). The focus of the article should be summation. As such, I think more details and focus should be given to temporal and spatial summation section. All other sections are probably mentioned in other articles but it wouldn't hurt to add more relevant information for the flow of the article. More of mechanisms and biochemistry involved in summation would be helpful. If there are any current research related to summation, you can add that at the end of the article to conclude. Finally, I think more references should be found to better support and elucidate the article. Thanks, Young B. (talk)

  • I am unclear. Are you submitting a PR so that you can review the article? PR is usually for articles that are well developed and are getting close to FA quality. If you are aware of the issues with an article, you would normally resolve those first before bringing it here.—RJH (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's Peer review process "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy "2.Articles with major cleanup banners in place can not be submitted for peer review." This already has FIVE major cleanup banners, all citation needed. PR is a place to point out problems, but is not necessarily a place where such problems are fixed. I also see the nominator has made no edits to the article, so I am closing this PR in accordance with Peer review/Request removal policy. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confederados edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 receive a broader perspective on how this article may be improved before I submit for a GA review. Over all getting this article GA status is the ultimate goal but I would like to see if any problems will prevent it from doing so. Thanks, Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

  • The article is not ready for a full peer review which, as the WP:PR page makes clear, is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." The nominator has come to the article fairly recently, and has begun the task of improving it, but a great deal still needs to be done before a peer review is justified. Here are the main problem areas:-
  • Images: Sizing, location within article, captions length, licencing. The fair use rationale for the Carter image is inadequate, and seems to imagine that Jimmy Carter is dead. I don't think so. I can see no justification for the free use of this copyrighted image.
  • Article structure: at present the article's structure is very rudimentary. Compare this with the detailed structures of well-developed "peoples" articles such as Tamil people, Azerbaijani people and Taiwanese aborigines. These are the kinds of structures that need to be developed if the article is to aspire to GA or FA status.
  • Sources: very few sources appear to have been used, yet there are numerous texts listed under "Further reading". A range of high-quality sources should be used to construct the article, incorporating the best recent scholarship.
  • Lead does not conform to the requirements of WP:LEAD, in that it is a short introductory statement and not a summary of the main text of the article.
  • Referencing: as the cleanup banner indicates, referencing at present is rudimentary. The general rules-of-thumb to be followed are these: (a) every significant fact, and every direct quotation, needs to be cited, (b) every paragraph should have at least one citation, and (c) every paragraph should end with a citation.
  • The "See also" section is for links to other WP articles. Links to portals, navboxes etc should be at the end of the article.
  • MOS issues, e.g. reference formats - see Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style.

I hope that you have the patience and interest to continue to build up this article, since the subject is interesting and would, when developed, make a fine addition to the encyclopedia. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please use my talkpage if you have any questions arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has already passed GA, and is the anchor article for an ongoing GT nomination. I believe it is comprehensive and well sourced, and I'd like to bring it to FA. I was hoping the peer reviewer could not only give it a thorough copy edit, but also give me any thoughts on any areas that may still need work or refining before I bring it to WP:FAC. — Hunter Kahn 14:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks really good to me - thanks for your work on it. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • In the Lead, should it say Levinson also directed some episodes? This would make more sense when the fourth pararagraph of the lead says he won a DGA award for directing.
  • Episode 3 semmary has some typos A man (Larry E. Hull) who claims to have witnesses the shooting and claims he will testify. sounds like it should be something like A man (Larry E. Hull) who claims to have witnessed the shooting says he will testify. and the last sentence makes no sense: Meanwhile, Howard, Felton and Lewis uncover information that about several several outstanding cases...
  • Episode 4 first sentence - add "Officer" for clarity? remove last phrase to tighten? [Officer] Thormann has a miraculous recovery and will live, but doctors say he will be blind all his life.
  • Watch tense consistency - example from Episode 9 summary Meanwhile, Howard learns her sister's husband has been cheating on her, and Felton surprised Howard by offering her genuine words of comfort. (learns - present tense, surprised - past tense)
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says to have images direct the reader's eyes into the page. The image of David Simon looks off the page and should be left justified. The Belzer image should be right justified for the same reason.
  • In Conception, it might be help to give the name of the actor portraying the character. So Frank Pembleton (played by Andre Braugher) was based on Detective Harry Edgerton.. I did not watch the show, but I know who most of the actors are, so identifying the characters with the actors who portrayed them would help (especially since they are not identified thus in the lead). This goes for all the major characters in Conception.
  • tweak Tim Bayliss was based on the real-life Baltimore detective Tom Pellegrini, who was the primary detective in[vestigating] the 1988 Baltimore slaying of 11-year-old Latonya Kim Wallace.
  • Wouldn't he have advised Secor (Bayliss is a fictional character)? Pellegrini provided advice to Bayliss about how to play the role.[26][27]
  • In Crew, shouldn't the caption read "executive producer" Film director Barry Levinson was executive director of Homicide: Life on the Street.
  • Problem sentence The costumes for that episode were designed by Van Smith designed the costumes for "Gone for Goode", but he also did not return to work on subsequent episodes, where the costumes were handled by Rolande Berman.[35]
  • In Cast, should "not" be added here? Barry Levinson and Tom Fontana took the unusual step of [not?] choosing the ethnicity and gender of the characters on the actors they cast, even though the roles were based on real-life detectives.[50]
  • I think I would recast this sentence to focus on the race-neutral nature of the role: Thus, Andre Braugher auditioned and was accepted for the role of Frank Pembleton, which, although based on the African-American Detective Harry Edgerton, was not race-specific until Braugher was cast. could instead be something like The role of Frank Pembleton, although based on the African-American Detective Harry Edgerton, was not race-specific until Andre Braugher auditioned and was cast.
  • I think Brauer is meant here (not Pembleton, his character) This belief developed in part from Pembleton's poor experience playing Detective Winston Blake on the television series Kojak, ...
  • Parallel construction and clarity - would it be better to have this as character and not part? In casting Al "Gee" Giardello, Levinson decided not to make the character Italian-American like the real-life counterpart Gary D'Addario, but rather cast Yaphet Kotto and made the part [character?] a Sicilian-African American.
  • Missing word? The first season also introduced several minor characters that would make recurring [appearances?] throughout much of the rest of the series.
  • Is the antecedent of who clear in Lee Tergesen played Officer Chris Thormann, a patrolman and close friend to Crosetti who is shot in the head and blinded.
  • Reacst Film and theater actor Moses Gunn gave the final performance before his death as Risley Tucker, a murder suspect questioned for 12 hours by Pembleton and Bayliss in "Three Men and Adena".[5] as something like Film and theater actor Moses Gunn's final performance before his death was as Risley Tucker, a murder suspect questioned for 12 hours by Pembleton and Bayliss in "Three Men and Adena".[5]
  • Could it just be "leaves trhe officer blind" in Another multi-episode arc involved the near-fatal shooting of Patrolman Chris Thormann, which leaves the officer blinded.?
  • FIlming - missing word?? The Recreation Pier Building, a Fells Point [?] built in 1914 which once housed Baltimore's marine police, was used as the set of the police department station, which was the principal set for the show.
  • Missing d? The Washington Post television critic Tom Shales called Homicide "the least compromise[d] and the most intense" drama show on television...
  • If the word "and" has been inserted here, it needs square brackets [and], not parentheses (and) Eric Kohanik of The Hamilton Spectator called it "the best new series of the midseason", and praised it for not resorting to "silly car chases (and) blazing guns".[80]
  • Awkward - strong twice in one sentence 'Many commentators were especially impressed with the strong amount of strong, complex, well-developed and non-stereotypical African American characters like Pembleton, Lewis and Giardello.[75]
  • In Ratings should it be made clearer that is was at 9 PM Eastern time (8 PM Central)?
  • I made a few copyedits and caught some other typos / problems, but I would get a copyedit before this goes to FAC to make sure all the rough spots have been polished.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Jets edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... the article has been extensively renovated since it passed GA in August 2010. My aim is to take it to FAC and I would appreciate any feedback before I do so.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Looks to be in excellent shape. There may be issues as to what is expected in a NFL team article that I am not familiar with.

Lede
  • "In a unique arrangement" I would add "for the league". Ground sharing is not terribly unusual on a worldwide basis, for example the two Milan soccer teams at the San SIro.
  • " in the merger of 1970" The leagues actually merged earlier, they just played together after 1970 (well, you know that).
History
  • "1965 draftee" Again being pedantic, but Namath was drafted in December 1964. Finding this one tricky to rephrase though, perhaps you will have a better idea.
  • Several sentences require citation. I'm sure you can grab cites off of the History article.
  • " Rich Kotite was elected" Perhaps an s is missing, and so "selected"?
  • "straight" better as "consecutive"
  • "In spite of this period of instability," Cut. The stability of the team really had nothing to do with Johnson's purchase. I daresay the Hess estate did better than it would have had Hess died in spring 1996 though.
  • Can anything be done about all that whitespace? Perhaps insert an image, just to make it work for a living?
Rivalries
  • I merely note that no one particularly cared about the games against the Patriots at least until 1997 and the Parcells contretemps. They were always about equal as the rivalry with the Bills. The Dolphins game was what was huge. Of course what I think is not as important as what the sources say. I merely point out my personal views
  • I would mention the Giants games of the late 80s, especially the 1988 game. It may also be a good idea to mention that the teams opened the stadium together.
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that quirks in the schedule resulted in the Jets playing at the Raiders several successive years in 2000 to about 2004 (you find out) as well as the playoff meetings. The fact that all the games seemed to be in hostile Oakland (perhaps Oaksterdam should open a concession stand) contributed its share to the rivalry.
  • Is anything worth saying about Jets-Colts? If not, perhaps in the future.
  • It might not be a bad idea to write a paragraph or two about the Jets' 1st round picks, both the jackpots (Namath, perhaps Sanchez, we'll see) and the busts (the margin is too narrow to contain them all but Blair Thomas to start). The four picks the Jets had the one year when they drafted Pennington et all could be worth a mention.
That's all I have. It's short in terms of text, but I don't see any reason why that should stop it from being an FAs. If short articles on horses and hurricanes can make it, why not on the Jets?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – I was asked to come here by Wehwalt to offer some thoughts.

  • My first thought is that you picked quite a task. As far as I know, no NFL team articles are currently FAs, and there aren't many for the other major U.S. team sports. If you want a model, Seattle Sounders FC is probably the best one from recent times, but this is from a different sport. Two other good reads are the FARs for the Bears and Patriots, which may offer a clue as to what reviewers expect in such an article (full disclosure: I nommed the Bears article).
  • The lead is three paragraphs, but they're fairly short ones and don't have that much similarity to what's in the body. Before going to FAC it would be smart to revise the lead with those things in mind. I don't think the article demands a four-paragraph lead, but slightly longer paras more closely related to the rest of the article would be good.
  • Structure-wise, things seem reasonable for the most part. However, I see a couple areas that could be improved. First, I'd move the statistics section down several sections, perhaps around the players. It feels in the way of the writing to me. Also, the history section is a little short compared to a couple other sections. Another paragraph or so wouldn't hurt, especially considering the Sounders article has a longer section for what amounts to an expansion team.
  • The Rivalry section feels overly long to me, with too much detail. To offer one example, I'm not sure what relevance the Yankees – Red Sox rivalry has to the football teams. Looking at a sports team FA, Manchester United F.C., reveals two small paragraphs for rivalries, for a team that has much more famous rivalries than the Jets. This may be too little, but what's there now is too much. I also don't know how many of these "rivalries" are relevant. Were the Jets really ever rivals with the Colts other than one game, which was more of a league rivalry being played out?
  • The Logos and uniforms section will be a massive problem at FAC and could well prevent passage by itself. There are numerous non-free photos here, and I doubt they will all be considered to meet the criteria. Many of the soccer team FAs provide actual prose on the uniforms of the teams over time. There probably isn't as much for NFL teams, but it would be nice to have whatever is available. Either way, the photos need to go. The article won't pass with them in. The logos in the infobox will cause enough trouble as is.
  • Took a glance at the sourcing and it looks reliable, so that's good. Just make sure that your printed publications are italicized in the cites, and that your page ranges have en dashes.
  • If there's a thought that the article is short, like Wehwalt said, that could hurt its chances. The horses and hurricanes may not have that much published about them in reliable sources. The same certainly can't be said about the Jets. However, I didn't find it overly short myself, and if the lead and history are beefed up, then it's even less of an issue. Consider it a side benefit.

You may notice that I gave no prose review here. That's because I consider it secondary at this point. Because there's no similar FA, structure is the most important factor in whether an FAC will be successful at this point. The best thing to do would be to get one or two other regular reviewers in here who aren't NFL fans like myself, and ask them to have a look at the article. This is not the type of article where one or two reviewers is likely to be enough for a peer review. Still, I wish you the best of luck. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight and I would appreciate any and all help that is offered. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions were left on my talk page. I'll respond to them here, if that's all right.
  • The lead is better, but it's hard to tell without the infobox. Perhaps aim for another sentence or two in each paragraph, and make sure everything in the lead is represented in the body.
  • A lead-in paragraph on the draft picks would be a nice addition, but I think seven is overkill. I wouldn't even recommend that many for the lead of the list itself.
  • I'm not the foremost expert on images at FAC. For good advice on the logos, try asking User:Jappalang or User:Nikkimaria, as they know far more than I do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll keep this short, I haven't read anyone else's comments so I may be reiterating what they are saying. Overall the article is too short, the history section in particular has gone summary style crazy. I would double that in size at least. I know that there are some editors who support this style for an NFL or sports article but if you look at the Toronto Raptors FAC or the New England Patriots FAR you can see that view has been shot down in the past. Also after looking at 7-8 current sports FAs at random all of the ones I checked have significantly longer history sections; really that should be the heart of the article. An article about the Jets should tell you more about the Jets than about the stadiums they played in. Also, the Logos section should summarize the Logos article, not just include a gallery and a link to the main article. AaronY (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and I do plan to lengthen the history section but, I don't want to make it so long that there is essentially no need for the History of the New York Jets article either. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are inconsistencies between jets' and jets's. Quite a lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Also so we can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is certainly an important article - thanks for wanting to improve it. It currently has two major cleanup banners (citations needed, and factual accuracy questioned) which would normally disqualify it from peer review and would be quick fails at WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Article needs many more references, for example the whole Organizations section has no refs, and there are many places in the article that need refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If there are sentences after a ref in a paragraph that do not themselves have refs, they need refs too.
  • Make sure that all the sources cited have enough information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • References have to be to relaible sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source - so things like current ref 21 to the Mexican constitution need to be fixed.
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page which has a disambiguation links checker and an external links checker. It finds several dabs which need to be fixed and at least two dead external links.
  • The disputed accuracy has to be resolved - this would also be a quick fail at GAN
  • The article seems pretty short to me for such a broad and important topic. As one example, the section on secular ethics is all about Holyoake and 1896 - has nothing else or new been done in this area in the past 115 years?
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way Please see WP:LEAD
  • Please read WP:See also and prune the See alsos.
  • Many of the further reading entries seem like they should be made into references instead.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hardest Day edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be nearing the quality required for GA.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brockway Mountain Drive edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is headed to WP:FAC in the near future. I'm looking for a review to find any things that need updating or changing before I make the nomination. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 10:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Sounds like a place worth visiting. Here are some suggestions:-

Lead

"Since it opened, Brockway Mountain Drive has been recognized in several publications and other venues for its scenic nature, dating back to the mid-20th century." To what does "dating back to the mid-20th century" refer? The phrase seems redundant. And I'd say scenic "qualities" rather than "nature"

Map

Would it be possible to add a scale to the map?

Route description
  • I'm having some difficulty relating the first paragraph of this section to the map. For instance: "The western end starts at M-26 near Lake Bailey and Agate Harbor. Brockway Mountain Drive ascends along the ridgeline of the Keweenaw Fault. Immediately south of the road is Upson Creek running parallel to the cliff face, draining Lake Upson". I am unable to find Lake Bailey, Agate Harbor, Upson Creek or Lake Upson on the map.
  • Sentence should not begin and end with "the roadway". Thus: "The roadway is lined with low stone walls, built as part of its original construction".
  • Avoid touristy prose such as "gracing the top of the mountain". I imagine that the inn offers more than "books and collectibles"?
  • I'm not sure that all of the information in the third paragraph is correctly positioned in a "Route description" section, e.g. the migrating hawks, the ownership of surrounding land, the species of flowers etc.
  • Why capitalize "Hairpin"?
  • "This road is the one of, if not the, highest scenic roadway above sea level..." I think you mean "one of" rather than "the one of", and "roadways" rather than "roadway". Also, the "if not the" insertion reads very awkwardly, and anyway is implied in "one of", so it is n ot really necessary. Suggest rephrase: "This road is one of the highest scenic roadways above sea level..."
History
  • There is some confusion of dates in this section. Work on the Driveway began in early 1933, but it is not clear when the work was completed. To what year does "the following year" refer?
  • "All of the work to build the road was performed by hand with the assistance of a team of horses." Maybe more than one team of horses? "By manual labour" would be better than "by hand", and I think this kind of work is "carried out", rather than "performed". The words "All of" are redundant. Thus, I suggest: "The work required to build the road was carried out by manual labour, with the assistance of teams of horses".
Awards and recognition

The first setence is unnecessary fluff.

  • What is US 41? Don't make readers rely on the link.
  • "were selected as one of..." doesn't really work (were plural, one of singular)
  • Maybe the pic caption could be a bit more informative.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful. As I cannot watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues with me, or if you'd like me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion copy edits done in some form. The landmarks mentioned are all visible on the Google Maps link, if zoomed in. As for the scale on the map, I pinged the editor that originally created the map and did the initial expansion of the article, but he's basically retired now. I'm hoping he can come back to help co-nominate the article at FAC and maybe update the map, but that's out of my control. Imzadi 1979 → 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Dad! (season 4) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am wanting to bump it up to a Featured List candidate. It looks fine for the most part, but I am looking for other opinions and to see if I need to fix anything.

Thanks, DAP388 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011

I asked a couple of WP:DOH members to weigh in...the article is great, you might be ready now...I'll read it over tomorrow. CTJF83 00:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor edits and have the following suggestions:
  • "including incest, the coming out aspect of homosexuality, and appeal to fear propaganda." Perhaps describe what the fear propaganda refers to specifically
  Done Added more to it.
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead generally doesn't contain references, as they should all be in the body of the article
  Done I have placed all the references in the body. DAP388 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The character of Sidney—a persona of Roger", while I can't remember specifics on every episode, I don't remember any of Roger's personas being in more than 1 episode, so I don't see a reason to list this, especially cause he is voiced by MacFarlane
I think this is important because, while all of Roger's other personas don't really serve anything other than giving off pop culture references, this persona served as a major protagonist of the episode. DAP388 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total viewership for the episode significantly increased from the third season premiere, which was viewed by 6.07 million viewers upon its original airing." Is an increase of 820,000 viewers significant?
I think an increase of 500,000 viewers or more is viewed as a significant jump. DAP388 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parents Television Council part of the "reception" section contains no more info then the lead does. Can you expand it in the reception or cut some of the detail in the lead
  Done Added a little more to it. DAP388 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over all a great job! CTJF83 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. :) DAP388 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth David edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've quadrupled the size of the existing start class article, adding a lot of new info, refs and images, and tidying up existing lists of publications etc. I'd be glad of any comments, but in particular:

  • whether to set my sights on FAC or merely on GA (I hope the latter, at least, is a reasonable aspiration)
  • how to deal with the lady's name: the unadorned surname won't work in or around paras where her father or husband appear and are named by surname, but "Elizabeth" sounds a bit cosy
  • whether my rationales for the two fair use pics (lead and book jacket) are satisfactory and convincing
  • is the last section beefy enough?

I'm conscious that the sources rely heavily on one biographer (Cooper in book form and as ODNB contributor) but having read the only other biography I am not inspired to quote it in preference to Cooper. I have dug out press quotes where suitable, and quoted the lady herself here and there. The temptation to quote her more was hard to resist. Bon appétit! — Tim riley (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber edit

  • I think a good way to balance is to include more about the books themselves and reviews (succinctly - needn't be more than a sentence or two). We have some of them lying around here somewhere... which ones do you have.
    • That's a good point. I have all the ones mentioned in the Sources, but not the spices, bread or ice books. Perhaps a short para on each of the books in the legacy section? I'll give this some thought. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the flow is great. It is not as clipped prose as an FAC sometimes is but has a nice "English" tone which suits it well. Also the ending with the legacy is great
    • Thank you very much. Anything too discursive can easily be pruned. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't make clear why she split up with Gibson-Cowan - "She and Gibson-Cowan amicably went their separate ways" left me hanging a bit.
    • They had got bored with one another long before they got to Egypt, but stayed together from sheer necessity after losing the boat etc in Italy. I'll add a line to that effect. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More later.

Folkington/Wootton edit

I've been looking at the Cooper book and the other one, and wonder whether the article is currently correct in respect of Wootton Manor and Folkington Manor and who owned/lived in which and when. (NB: a photo of ED's grave in Folkington churchyard would be a good addition to the article - no sign of one on geograph - I could supply one, but not before mid-June.) It's late at night, but I can go into more detail tomorrow if required (Dr John Bodkin Adams suddenly appeared on the radar and I got distracted!). --GuillaumeTell 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The residential position left after David's paternal grandfather died was, unless I have seriously misread the book (and the other one), that bachelor uncle Roland had Folkington and papa Rupert had Wootton. After Rupert died, Roland could hardly wait to get Stella out of Wootton, and she obliged by remarrying (the old lush from the West Indies) thus losing her life-long right to live at Wootton. Her younger daughters felt the loss very strongly. Cooper pp. 22, 39 and 40. A pic of the grave would be most welcome - thank you! I can possess my soul in patience till mid-June. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early years - What's in a name? edit

I changed "Elizabeth" to David, adding a sort of definition at the beginning of "Early years". If you don't like it, feel free to go back to "Elizabeth/Gwynne". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This works very well. Thank you so much – an elegantly simple solution. Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments A thoroughly enjoyable, refreshing, feel-good read (much needed after the dark chasms of Driberg and Nixon). Just a few minor issues and suggestions for attention:

  • The commas are a bit undisciplined in places. For example, in the lead (first paragraph) and, in Early years, after "French civilisation" (oxymoron alert) and after "return to England". A mild cull s recommended
    • Done. Half a dozen or so commas humanely destroyed. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either Welsh or Irish descent" – is "either" necessary?
    • Probably not. An earlier editor went into considerable detail on the matter and I felt a pang of conscience when relegating it to a footnote. The "either" was the result of the pang. Now expunged. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify what "This" refers to, in the sixth line of Early life.
  • "she learnt to cook"? The participle feels wrong here. Isn't the normal past tense "she learned"? I'm not sure, though
  • "she employed Suleiman, a Sudanese suffragi, a cook-housekeeper." How many people is that? Should it be "as" cook-housekeeper, which would clarify somewhat? Can you explain "suffragi"?
  • Apart from other possible considerations, the Minton dust-jacket might be challenged on the grounds of size. As a point of interest, do we know how David and Minton got together as writer and illustrator?
    • We do. Minton was a protégé of Lehmann (there was some talk – probably incorrect – that the relationship was romantic as well as professional). I've already resized the original image, which I uploaded the first time with the settings on my scanner all over the shop, but will further reduce it if required. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David was able to afford to..." Clumsy construction; I'd just say "was able to..."
  • "Summer Cooking was put on hold for a while. David agreed with Lehmann that her next work should be about Italian food." I think it would read better if this was the last part of the previous section, and I would slightly reword: "This book was put on hold, as David had agreed with Lehmann that her next work should be about Italian food."
  • "escaped from Macdonald" is a bit journalistic, maybe. Neutral = "left Macdonald"
  • I don't like ascribing opinions to dictionaries. David's ODNB entry is by Artemis Cooper (as you later acknowledge), and I think the view stated should be attributed to her.
    • Done, but does the sentence now creak a bit? – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid repetition of "Chelsea house" in the last two lines of Later years
    • Done, but I'm not sure my redraft reads well. Thoughts welcome. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, mouth-watering. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these points, all very much to the point. Supplementary queries on the last two points, if you happen to read this. – Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Artemis Cooper should be linked at first mention. I don't think you need to spell out the ODNB twice in relation to Cooper, and on second mention she could just be "Cooper". Thus: "Cooper sums up David's legacy thus:" On the Chelsea house business, I would suggest: "who had lived in the top floor of the Chelsea house..." followed by: "She died at her home...", but your version reads OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All now accommodated, I think (and hope). Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romania in the Middle Ages 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 receive one or more constructive feedbacks on its present status, following the previous peer review process, before nominating it to FA. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis edit

Article looks very good, and from what I can see you've got plenty of information here. Couple of issues with text sandwiching and wording etc., will note it as I go.

Lead
  • First of all, per WP:LEAD the lead should just be a summary of information. As it is, there are 32 citations in the lead, most of which are only used for the lead. The lead should technically be able to stand without any references, merely summarising what is in the article. Due to this if any information is present in the lead but not in the article, move it into the article at the relevant points.
    • As there was no additional information in the lead, I tried to fix the problem by deleting the references. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "inflict themselves" seems to be quite a POV wording, something more neutral would be much better.
    • Maybe "invade the territory" is more neutral. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "historical regions of Romania to the west of the Carpathian Mountains" It is unclear why this would have to be stated. Due to the fact the article is about Romania saying that these are historical regions of Romania is confusing, there not being a historical Romania. Perhaps change it to something like "regions of curent Romania that lie to the west of the Carpathian Mountains."
    • The expression "now regions in Romania" may be a proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first independent Romanian state" This seems strange, as it's not clear what defines a Romanian state. "The first independent state in what is now Romania"?
    • The expression "Wallachia, the first independent medieval state between the Carpathians and the Lower Danube" may desribe the situation in a less strange way. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Romanian nobleman from Maramureş" Remove "Romanian", redundant and possibly inaccurate, and wikilink whatever "Maramureş" is.
    • Maramures is wikilinked in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But the two principalities were rarely secure in their independence..." Don't start a sentence with "But."
    • Fixed in throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "successful holding operations" What does this mean? Military? Political? An example would be useful if it's not too verbose.
    • Maybe the expression "successful military operations" is a proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two principalities' trade with Europe began to decrease" This needs to change, as Europe is a strange thing to say, as current Romania is considered part of Europe. "the rest of Europe" or something similar would be good.
  • "after the central territories of the kingdom" Clarify the Kingdom involved, presumably the Hungarian one?
  • "Thenceforth their princes were increasingly named by the sultans instead of being elected by the boyars." It has never been mentioned before how they were elected. Perhaps just replace this sentence and say the leadership choice came under the influence of the Ottoman Sultans or something similar.
  • The sentence is deleted, because it is not necessery at this point. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But in 1594 Michael the Brave of Wallachia..." Starting a sentence with "But" again.
  • "working for the unification of the lands inhabited by Romanians." If you're going to talk about the lands inhabited by Romanians, you have to clarify what they are somewhere. I assume that this means the ethnic group, but in the current text this is unclear. Was there a common Romanian identity at this point? From when was there this common identity? Did it play a role in determining the expansion of these early empires? Basically some information from the background section is needed here.
    • Maybe the expression "the lands that now form Romania" is the proper solution. I think the not easy question whether a common Romanian identity existed already in the 16th century cannot be answered in this article, but later generations of Romanian intellectuals (in the 19th-20th centuries) indeed referred to the unification of the three principalities under Michael the Brave as a historical precedent. Since the article describes a period of the history of the territory what is now Romania, I think in this context a slight reference to the intellectual significance of this "first unification" is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Shift the pictures in this section to make sure that no text is between two pictures. In addition, it may be better to replace pictures with current borders of Romania with basic geography pictures that don't include political borders. If that's not possible, remove the first picture of the Carpathians and just use the second picture, as it also shows the Carpathians.
  • Include some information about when the Romanian people arrived in the area.
  • Romania in the Early Middle Ages shouldn't be a main in this section. I'd assume it would be a main for a time period covered later.
    • I think tha Romania in the Early Middle Ages is the proper main in this section, since that article describes the history of the period spanning from the 3rd century until the Mongol invasion of 1241-42, and the latter is the starting point of the medieval history of Romania. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Mongol Invasion See also to the top of the section, or integrate it into the text.
  • I'm for now not going to comment on specifics within this section, as I feel that on the whole it is too long. As it is supposed to be just a simple background, it should probably not include details about the Hungarian Monarchy etc. Perhaps limit it to 5 or 6 decent sized paragraphs.
    • I think some background details about the Kingdom of Hungary cannot be ignored, since without information on the basic administrative structures, on the Székelys and Saxons, the next parts of the article can hardly be understood. Nevertheless, some less relevant sentences were deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High Middle Ages
  • I'd combine the first two subsections with a much shorter title.
  • Look into combining short paragraphs that are only one or two lines long with others.
    • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again spread pictures out to prevent text sandwiching.
    • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the see alsos at the bottom of ecah section to the top of their respective section.
    • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had become subject to frequent Polish and Hungarian military offensives.[91] In 1363 Grand Prince Olgierd of Lithuania won a major victory" It's strange to mention Polish/Hungarian attacks and then describe a victory by a Lithuanian.
    • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thenceforth planned settlement assumed considerable proportions." This sentence doesn't make sense.
    • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since castles and walled towns could only resist incursions from the steppes, the monarchs encouraged the building of stone fortifications." It's unclear what this sentence is trying to say.
    • Hopefully, I managed to fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Romanians' military role had exceeded their previous task" Exceeded is not the right word her. Perhaps change to "the Romanians' military role had expanded beyond their original purpose"
    • What about "beyond their original task"? Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For instance, the general assembly convoked in 1279 by Ladislaus IV for seven counties – among them Bihor, Crasna, Sătmar, and Zărand in the territory what is now Romania – ended with sentencing a despotic person to death." This example doesn't really add to the text, and raises more questions.
    • I tried to rewrite the sentence in order to explain its meaning. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For instance, in 1364 Queen Elisabeth prohibited the count of Bereg (now in Hungary and Ukraine) from employing his own officials to administer the affairs of the Romanians." This is another example that seems out of place. It doesn't describe the sentence before it, and introduces new people who haven't been mentioned before. Who is Queen Elisabeth?
  • "cneazes" Why is only part of it italicised?
    • The whole word (similarly to boyars) became italicised in the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'stopped paying tribute to the king.[151] But his army" Combine the sentences so it doesn't start with "But" again.
  • " crusade of Nicopolis" Wikilink to whatever crusade this is.
  • "controlled by the Golden Horde.[170][171] But the contemporary" Another sentence beginning with But.
  • "recognized Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland as his suzerain.[184] But Hungary did not" Another but.

That's about half of the text, I'll go through the rest of it tomorrow. It may be worth getting someone from the WP:Guild of Copy Editors to give the whole article a run-through in order to make the prose excellent (which is a FA requirement). Good to see all the pictures have alt text, just rearrange them to comply with WP:MOSIMAGES. This article definitely has a huge amount of detail, my head's spinning from just this half! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided not to mention sentences beginning with But here, just make sure there aren't any. I'm also not mentioning the See Also's, but they should always be under the title of the section.

    • Both problems fixed in the whole article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Towards Ottoman domination
  • Perhaps just keep one picture of a church.
    • Three churches? An Orthodox one, a fortified one and a Lutheran one. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to make sure no paragraph is less than 3 lines long.
  • "John I had to do homage" Pay homage would be better wording.
  • "the throne alternated" How did it alternate? War?
    • Maybe the new sentence add a proper explanation. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became an effective anti-Ottoman warrior" Effective probably isn't the right word here. "became a powerful force against the Ottomans" may be better.
  • "The first Ottoman attack on Moldavia was also repulsed, in 1420, by him" change to "The first Ottoman attack on Moldavia in 1420 was also repulsed by him"
  • "Yet Stephen the Great..." Don't start sentences with "Yet" either.
Ottoman suzerainty
  • Quite a few short paragraphs here, but besides that and minor grammar errors it's extremely well done.
  • "Even Michael the Brave ascended the throne..." Who is this? He hasn't been mentioned before, so it's worth giving a short explanation of his origin.
    • Since Michael the Brave was mentioned in the lead, here a reference to his future anti-Ottoman policies perhaps is a proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Michael the Brave
  • "attacked Ottoman strongholds along the Danube and recovered Giurgiu and Brăila" Change recovered to something else, as it probably shouldn't be used if these areas are not mentioned as lost earlier in the text.
    • Information on the former Ottoman occupation of the two fortresses is added to the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Aaron the Tyrant refused Sigismund Báthory's conditions, but he was replaced by the latter's protégé," Just thought I'd point this out, since you have "Although" you don't need "but", having both is redundant.
  • Who is Giorgio Basta and why is he jealous?
    • Perhaps the new text is clearer. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the first union
  • "Wallachia and Moldavia fell back in the clutches of the Ottoman Empire" "in the clutched" is rather emotive wording, perhaps "under the control" would be better.

I must say, this is an amazing piece of work, and I don't see why it can't easily reach FA. If I could suggest one thing, it is that perhaps more maps would be useful. A couple of times I wasn't sure where actions were happening, and how some areas related to others. One map from any time showing not only modern Romania but also the surrounding states, such as Poland, the Ottoman Empire, and Hungary, would be useful for context. So, well, very very well done. Good luck with FA,

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chipmunkdavis, I really appreciate your hard work. Thank you. For the time being, I am a little bit busy in real life, but in a couple of days (hopefully on Sunday) I can work on improving the article based on your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your hard work. See my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you've addressed basically everything I brought up. Just read through it again, short brief comments this time! Made my own copyedits, hope you don't mind.

  • Clarify what "centrifugal movements" are.
  • Clarify what "the Orthodox Romanian population of the territory received the sacraments from "some pseudo-bishops of the Greek rite" " means.
  • "The administrative centers of the province, such as Alba Iulia and Cetatea de Baltă, had been destroyed." Such as? How many were there?
  • Still no wikilink for "the disastrous crusade of Nicopolis"?
  • "Stefan Lazarević of Serbia received Satu Mare, Baia Mare and Baia Sprie in modern Romania" is the "in modern Romania" necessary?
  • "but on July 15 John Szapolyai, the voivode defeated them at Timişoara" Is writing "the voivode" important? The way it is written is sounds like a title.
  • "princes succeeded one another on the throne with devastating frequency" devastating frequency? Why was it devastating?
  • "only the Székelys remained more than the other "nations" Catholic." I don't understand. Does this just mean remained Catholic?
  • "The short and unworthy reigns" Unworthy reigns?

All I can find, excellent work! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I Got News for You edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 might be ready for another FA nomination, but needs feedback on improvement before nomination.

Thanks, RcsprinterGimme a message 20:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I'm not willing to give review time to this at present. The nominator is inexperienced, is currently blocked for inappropriate editing and is indefinitely banned from participation in the GA process. The article is many, many miles from featured standard and will require concentrated work from experienced editors to bring it within the FA criteria. Such editors would see immediately the main areas that need working on, and would not dream of nominating the article for peer review in its present state. I am closing the review as inappropriate at this time. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I had looked at this before Brian closed it, so here are a few comments and some suggestions for improvement. I agree it is completley unready for FAC and would be a very quick fail there, or at GAN, in its current state.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article may need fewer sections / headers too
  • Section header "Other shows based on the Have I Got News for You format" does not follow WP:HEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the Opening section has at least 8 direct quotes, none of which has a citation.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs that are there are woefull incompelte in some cases. 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
  • Toolbox EL checker on this PR page finds at least two dead External links.
  • Article has a huge number of bullet point lists - when it was demoted from FA in 2005 this was a major complaint - see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Have I Got News for You Convert lists to prose.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel-en-le-Frith High School edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 created it and want feedback on how it can be improved.

Thanks, RCSprinter123 (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been improved and copyedited for you by two experienced editors. To see the kind of changes that were made, please compare the diffs in the page history. Guidelines for school articles can be found at WP:WPSCH/AG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by MikeLynch:
  1. Not sure why this was listed here, article still has some way to go.
  2. References should be given to the History and Daily life sections.
  3. Article needs general expansion.
  4. Some images of the place could be added.

These are my comments; I suppose other editors are free to add theirs! Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above. It is clearly stated on the WP:PR page that peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." At present this article has only 250 words, spread over six very sketchy sections. It will not be ready for a peer review until a great deal more work has been done. I advise that you look at "school" articles that have been listed as Good Articles, here, to understand what kind of further development is necesary. British schools listed here include Stonyhurst College, Malvern College and Royal Grammar School, Guildford. These are much older schools, with much longer histories; I'm not suggesting this article can mirror those, but thry certainly provide plenty of ideas for its expansion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friday (Rebecca Black 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 on both the Songs and Internet Culture WikiProjects, the article is rated C-Class. I feel that this article looks a lot like a good article, though, despite the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria at this time. I want to make sure that all facts are cited, sections are expanded, and the prose is comprehensible, so please make suggestions.

Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by: I Help, When I Can. [12]

  • Note: Words in green are not sourced in the article or are not sourced the way that the article is presented. OMIT portions in red.
Lead
  • A lead should be a summary of the article. No new information or statements likely to be challenged should show up there. Therefore, all of the content in the lead should show up later in the article and should be sourced later in the article. There are more problems with the lead, but this needs to be solved before anything.
Background
  • What does the first paragraph have to do with the song and not Black. Remember, that's why there are two separate articles. Make sure the whole article stays on the song. The background section should also go in a more cohesive order: from the creation of the song, to Black's involvement with the track.
    • "In late 2010, a classmate of Black and music-video client of Ark Music Factory, a Los Angeles vanity record label, told her about the company."
      • "music video" is not hyphenated.
      • There may be citations that can give you the person's name.
    • "Black's mother, Georgina Kelly, paid Ark Music $4,000 for a song and accompanying video that included a choice of two pre-written songs; according to Kelly, the payment covered one half or less of the production costs of the music video, and Black's family could have paid nothing in exchange for giving up all rights to the song." — break the sentence at the semicolon. Unless it happened like that, I don't think that that fact is necessarily important.
    • "She subsequently stated that the other song was more specifically about being a boy's superhero." — irrelevant.
    • "Ark Music handled the song's recording and production, extensively using the pitch-correcting software Auto-Tune." — not only is the fact unsourced, but if you state that they wrote and produced the song, the part in red is implied.

Will continue reviewing later.

Friday the 13th (2009 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 am looking to eventually take it to the FAC process. I recently had it copy edited by one of the members of the League of Copy Editors. I am looking for people to check over the structure of the page, look at neutrality, ask questions about confusing items (e.g., this is the 12th film in this series and thus I may indirectly identify peple by name and not by status because I know who they are automatically and it didn't occur to me that someone else will not, or similar issues), etc. If you see glaring grammar issues, or choppy wording please point those out as well.

Thanks,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This link seems to be dead. Also is the website considered a reliable source? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to answer the last first, yes. Fangoria has been around since the late 70s covering horror related media. Unfortunately, I've noticed that their website often archives pages after only a couple of months. I'll see if I can find another version of it, otherwise.....I'll have to remove the info sadly. I found an archived version of the page and have replaced it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehrams2020

  • The article goes between using and not using the serial comma. Check all occurrences and pick one to remain consistent.
  • Should writing go before casting in the production section? That seems to be more sequential, especially since some of the cast members refer to the script.
  • "The actor/stuntman wore a chest plate..." If referring to two people, probably should go with "Both the actor and stuntman wore...". If just Mears, settle on just one of the titles.
  • Instead of the production image, consider uploading a video clip that better illustrates the visual effects being described.
  • For all of the current mentions in the box office section, instead indicate "as of April 2011".
  • Consider cropping the image of Aaron Yoo, it doesn't look that great with the autograph and pen in the corner.
  • If possible, archive the links using WebCite to prevent linkrot.

Didn't spot too many issues, and this article's in very good shape. It would benefit from a few copyedits before FAC though. Nice work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was copy edited by one of the League of Copy Editors not a month ago. :/ As for the serial commas, could you point to an example of where it is not being used? I just went through the article and checked and I couldn't find an instance where it wasn't being used. Maybe I'm overlooking it, but that's typically the style I use. I have seen people come to the article and remove them, but I usually put it back for consistency.
I have corrected the "actor/stuntman" issue. I left it just as "actor" as it was only referring to Mears. Which image are you referring to? The machete death, or Jason's torso? Both are just images that were found with the critical commentary on the work they illustrate. If you're referring to the machete, the only "video" would be the actual clip from the film (not sure how to get that since I cannot edit films on my computer) and I don't see how that will illustrate it any better since the scene in question happens to fast that you don't have time to register any computer generated imagery visually. Clips are also harder to justify than a single image.
I just removed all of the "currently" from the section. That was used in favor of saying "As of ...." because if you use the latter then you have to update the date regularly when the rankings won't change for at least a year. I just removed it entirely and we can update it once a year.
I'll check into cropping Yoo tomorrow after work Done. As for WebCite, I actually just got down with that earlier today. All webpages that can be archived through WebCite have been. I didn't include the archiveurl on the page, but I have put them in WebCite in case they do die.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the detailed and dense information provided thus far and would like to see this article featured one day.

Thanks, Dorothyzbornak (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While I agree this is an important article and that it should be improved, I notice you have not made any edits to it at all (so I am not sure who is going to improve it). That said, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • The first major issue I noticed was the extreme length of the article. After a certain point, many people will just not read an article this long. I used the page size tool and this is 85 kB (14,227 words) of readable text. For comparison, I picked two of the longer biography WP:FAs I know: Barack Obama is 42 kb (6909 words) or just under half the length of this, and Joseph Priestley is 53 kB (8259 words). One reason I picked Priestley was because it was once a much longer article, but was pared down considerably for WP:FAC.
  • Since there are a number of sub-articles on veraious aspects of Robeson's life, I would make greater use of WP:Summary style and move more material out of this article and into those. It seems to me that the article could be tightened in many places too, there are many places where extraneous details are included that do not really tell the story of Mr. Robeson. Is knowing that a tomato is named for him (without a reference) really worth including? Or is it just cruft?
  • The biggest issue that would prevent this from becoming a FA or even a WP:GA is a lack of references. For example, the first paragraph of Marriage and family has no refs and needs them, as do the last three sentences of the second paragraph Eslanda wrote the first biography of Paul Robeson, Paul Robeson: Negro. Told in the third person, she wrote part fiction, part memoir about the problems in their marriage and Robeson's early life and career. She incorrectly added "Bustill" as Robeson's middle name in this book. If the article is going to claim that his own wife did not know his middle name, it needs a ref or two to back that claim up.
  • The further down in the article I got, the fewer references I found (it seems). There are whole sections like The Broadway Othello and Civil RIghts activisim that have no refs at all. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Many of the refs that are there are incomplete and do not provide all the information required. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Some refs like current #240 are just links - not even the URL is shown. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There is a toolbox for checking disambiguation links and dead extrenal links on the PR page - it shows one circular redirect that needs to be fixed and several dead or problematice exteranl links.
  • There are a few direct external links in the article that need to be converted to references - one is in this "Rev. Benjamin C. Robeson, Pastor of Mother AME Zion Church in NY City, the oldest Black Church in NY State;"
  • Make sure that the references used meet WP:RS
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short sections (one paragraph) which interrupt the flow of the text - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in almost all cases.
  • Organization is odd in places - why is the Paul Robeson House mentioned in the Language scholarship section and not in the Posthumous honors section, for example?
  • The images of his parents need better sources - how do we know they were published (not taken) before 1923?
  • Despite the length, there are places where more information is need to provide context to the reader. When, for example, did he work in the law firm in New York city? See WP:PCR
  • Read this and keep the focus relentlessly on Robeson. For example in this paragraph, why is anything needed after the last sentence? In 2006 a Tribute to Paul Robeson was held at the School of Oriental and African Studies. Organised by Phil Jaggar, it was attended by Tony Benn and Willard White. A commemorative plaque was unveiled. In 2007 Phil Jaggar visited Paul Robeson, Jr. in New York, presenting him with a framed copy of his father's course registration documents; further copies were presented to Rutgers University.[78] I am sure Mr. Jaggar enjoyes reading this, but am not sure what it adds to the readers's understanding of Paul Robeson.
  • Quotations need to follow logical quotation style - see WP:LQ\
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wale 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 want to know if I wrote the lead section correctly. Also, I want to know if there is anything wrong with the article that needs to be fixed.

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I assume the eventual goal is Featured list, but this needs a fair amount of work before it would have a chance of passing. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The biggest problem with the article is a lack of references, which should not be a surprise since there is a banner at the top which says "This article needs additional citations for verification." Actually have a major cleanup banner like this in the article is grounds for its being removed from Peer review (under the notion that this should be fixed first, then peer reviewed).
  • While leads often do not have references, that is because in most cases they summarize the rest of the article, which is referenced. In a list article though, references are needed for everything in the lead which is not referenced in or in the lists part of the article itself. For example the last part of the first paragraph of the lead, as well as the whole second and third paragraphs of the lead have no references.
  • For one specific example, I looked at the only ref in the lead (allmusic biography) and it does not mention the Seinfled themes, or his 2010 sigining.
  • The references that are used are often incomplete. For example the Allmusic ref seems to be title "Wale Biography" (not "Wale Allmusic") and has an author listed (Cyril Cordor) who needs to be included in the reference.
  • Be consistent on refs - why are some cited to Billboard and one to Billboard.com?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Current ref 5 is just a URL. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure that all references are to reliable sources
  • The Music videos section has no references and needs them. Featured singles also needs refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Is Featured singles really the best section header? Would something like "Singles as featured artist" be better?
  • Has Wale had any successes in other countries? If so, this needs to be included
  • I would link mix tape
  • Why is the Roc Nation navbox included at the bottom of the article? There is no reference to Roc Nation elsewhere in this article, and I did not see Wale listed in the nav box (may have missed something)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

  • Ref 8 - an internet reference - still missing access dates.
  • First five mixtapes have no references
  • Collaboration section has no reference - if this is a new album, everything needs to be updated (tables, inforbox, numbers in the lead)
  • I would still move the third one-sentence paragraph in the lead and combine it with the second paragraph
    • I did a light copyedit of just the lead - moved this. If I made errors or made things worse, please reverse. `
  • For the single Nike Boots, I would just put "None" in the album column (assume that is what is meant)
  • Problem sentence: After going on tour with Jay-Z in 2009, Wale became a managed artist of Jay-Z's recording label, Roc Nation, to help with all management duties.[3] I would probably trim this to After going on tour with Jay-Z in 2009, Wale became a managed artist of Jay-Z's recording label, Roc Nation, to help with all management duties.[3] I think what I struck means the same thing as "managed artist"

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. in Europe edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a thorough copyedit before it can be considered for re-nomination at GA, as I have only just found the time to now address the issues that arose after the last review. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick drive-by comment: "Liverpool Football Club is (singular) an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, who currently play (plural)....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed NapHit (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given that Liverpool played up to 15 matches in Europe in a season, why is there only one team listed as "opposition"? I don't understand what that column is meant to represent...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ye granted that column was confusing, it's supposed to represent the last side they played in Europe that season, so I have amended the column to last opposition, which should end the confusion. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

General points
  • Somewhere in the article, the numerous European competitions which exist or have existed under various names need to be properly defined. Readers won't for example, have any idea of what the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was, unless you explain. Reference in the lead to the "European Cup", as in: "Liverpool have won the European Cup five times", is not helpful to readers unfamiliar with the structure of European club football competitions. You should not rely on links to provide basic information.
  • You also need to explain, early on, that qualification for European competitions is based on performance in domestic competitions. You needn't go into detail in the lead, just make the point generally, though the details need to be given later in the article. Something also needs to be said about the relative prestige of the European competitions, i.e. the Champions Lague has much more kudos then the Uefa Cup.
  • I make it 21, not 20, successive seasons in which Liverpool competed in Europe: 1964–65 to 1984–85 inclusive. They were banned after the 1984–85 season.
  • Is Carragher's record of 136 appearances a club record, or is it a record for all European competitions covering all clubs?
  • It is not appropriate to refer to Gerrard as the club's "record" goal-scorer. Also, as he is still playing, his 35 goals needs a date. Thus: "As of April 2011 Steve Gerrard, with 35 goals, is the club's most prolific scorer". Likewise, I think that by "Liverpool's record win" you mean "Liverpool's biggest win".
Points relating to the prose

I have not been able to do a thorough check on the prose, but here are a few points I have noticed:

  • Sometimes the text has a non-encyclopedic tone; this is evident in phrases such as "Success was short-lived", "the second leg at Anfield started well for Liverpool", "Before kick-off, disaster struck" etc. These and similar expressions of opinion give the prose a non-neutral feel; you need to go through and rephrase these and similar incidents
  • A recurrent fault is the misuse of the comma as a connector for two separate statements in a sentence. One example - of many - is: "As a result Liverpool were entered into the 2002–03 UEFA Cup, victories over Vitesse Arnhem and Auxerre ensured Liverpool would face Celtic in an all-British quarter-final." This is two separate sentences or, at least, a semicolon rather than a comma is required in place of the comma. There are lots of similar instances throughout, which need to be fixed.
  • The word "after" is much overused, 40+ times overall, sometimes occuring more than once in a single sentence, e.g. "Three days after the final UEFA banned English clubs from Europe for an indefinite period, with a proviso added that Liverpool would serve a further three year ban after the ban on other English clubs had been lifted" and "Liverpool manager Gérard Houllier was making his return to football after undergoing heart bypass surgery after collapsing during a match against Leeds United in October."
  • There are typos in the text (e.g. "Liverpool final position of fourth..." which indicate the need for a thorough copyediting run, preferably by a non-involved editor.
Table

I'm not sure that the "Last opposition" column is very helpful as it stands. It covers three things: the team that Liverpool defeated in the final of competitions they won; the team which knocked Liverpool out at some stage in competitions they didn't win; or the last team that Liverpool played in cases where they were eliminated during the group stages. I'm not sure how to resolve this, beyond adding explanatory footnotes.

I hope these points are helpful. As I am not able to watch individual peer review pages, please use my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues with me arising from the review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde bus station edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 created it and want feedback.

Thanks, RCSprinter123 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is the first bus station article I've looked at. I gather from your user page that this is a major interest for you, and that you have already created several bus articles and worked on others. Keep up the good work.

With regard to this article, here are a few isues for you to consider:

  • The appearance of the article is rather spoiled by the huge white space that occurs between the text and the table in the Services section. There are several things you can do about this:
    • Shorten the infobox; at present a lot of the information in there is unnecessary. We don't need coordinates or grid references for urban locations, and these should be removed. The "Travel centre: Yes" and "Annual usage: unknown" headings are useless and should also be removed.
    • Lengthen the text, particularly the History section which is rather thin at present. The sort of questions that come to mind are: How long has there been a bus station at Hyde? Apart from its "draughty shelters", what was the previous station like? Why was it thought necessary to replace it? A little more research could provide information on this sort of question.
    • Shift the 1999 image to after the main table. This may be unnecessary if you can extend the text enough, but if you can't, placing the image after the table gives a much neater appearance. I have tried out all these things and can assure you the article looks much better.
  • You need to give more attention to the prose. This is an encyclopedia, and must be factual and accurate. You have some vague statements, like "approximately 11 bus services and as a major stop for approximately 4 bus services", "Hyde bus station opened years ago...", "lots of services", "There are several services that use Hyde Bus Station..." None of these are acceptably encyclopedic, and need to be replaced by precise information. Also, re the caption in the second picture, I'm sure the M67 motorway was built long before 1999.
  • The article is not adequately referenced at present. For example, where do the facts in the second paragraph of the History section come from? You should also study WP:CITE/ES for information about how to format citations.
  • Minor point: the link on Marple leads to a disambiguation page.

This is a promising start. I see you have self-graded it as a B. I don't think, at the moment, it can be classed above Start, and have amended it accordingly. The classification can be reconsidered after the above issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As I an not able to watch individual PR pages, please use my talkpage if you want to raise any issues arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Rescue! edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 fairly new to editing pages and don't yet have a good grasp of what exactly is required for a good page. I'm not looking for anything specific, but any information on how I could improve this page beyond "stub" rating would help.

Thanks, Sesamehoneytart (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: I think I would proably rate this as Start class - seems a bit beyone Stub to me. Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement. *A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many Featured Articles that are on similar games listed at Category:FA-Class video game articles and some of them may be useful models for this article.

  • The current lead does not really follow WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded. 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.
  • As far as expansion goes, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there seems to be very little if anything about Gameplay, Later versions, Music or Receptions in the current lead.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing = the general rule is to link articles once in the lead and perhaps once in the body of the article, each at first occurrence. As it is, SPellbound! is linked twice in one section and The Learning Company and the series are linked at least twice in the article body.
  • Do add useful links - so Side-scrolling video game could be linked as a piped version [[Side-scrolling video game|side-scrolling]] in the first sentence of game play.
  • Awkward As the player completes the game more, his lifetime score will increase. Perhaps soimething like "Each time the player completes the game, his lifetime score increases."
  • Not clear what the notes are here - only time the word notes is used in the article (assume these are referred to in "reading the passages left around the school" - if so, I would say "reading notes left around the school" in the earlier paragraph. At higher ranks, more photographs are required of each robot, the robots will move faster, and some of the notes will not contain clues.
  • The Development section contains very little about the development of the game. Who were the programmers behind it? Why did they decide to make this game?
  • I would combine the first and third paragraphs of the current Super Solvers series section - as it is we are told about the series, then get a description of the passages that need to be read and the questions onthem, then go back to the relation of this game to the series. Always try to keep the focus of each paragraph on the subject of the article. WHy not start this section with something like Midnight Rescue! is the first game in the Super Solvers series..?
  • Article needs more references, for example there are no refs inthe Gameplay section (this may be the style for such game articles) and there are several citation needed tages in the article.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The External link checker tool in this PR (top right corner) finds one dead external link.
  • Make sure that all sources used as references meet WP:RS
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede the narrative flow of the article. I would combine the three short paragraphs in later versions into one paragraph.
  • There are awards and ratings in the box that are not in the text - they should be
  • The robot in the screen shot sure does not look like a type of paint brush to me.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Me Queda Mas (music video) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 to be nominated for a GA. I would like suggestions about the article, such as any grammar errors, etc. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be merged to the main-article, please do not review it. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autotopagnosia edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am a student in Introduction to Neuroscience at Boston College and am completing an assignment to attempt to increase the amount and quality of Neuroscience information on Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment on any section and aspect of the article; however, I would especially appreciate comments on any parts of the article that are confusing or unclear. Suggestions for more specific changes are also welcome.

Thanks, KellyCardinal (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJH Comments:

  • I would move the Symptoms section before the Causes section, so the reader becomes familiar with the condition before learning how the symptoms occur.
  • The text has a lot of very short paragraphs consisting of one or two sentences, as well as some quite long paragraphs. You may want to modify this; please see the guidelines at WP:Paragraph.
  • "Many believe that the term...", "Some scientists postulate...", "Others suggest ...", "Many believe...", "some believe..." appear to be WP:WEASEL and may need to be reworded.
  • "...cure autotopagnosia to date."; "Currently, the active..."; "Currently, studies are...": These are dated statements, so it is good practice to give a specific year (for future reference). See {{As of}} for example.
  • You might consider using {{harvtxt}} for your inline references such as Carlos Semenza (1998). See Template:Harvard citation documentation for examples.
  • In your references section, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a reference (per "Parietal Lobe"). Also, I believe it is common practice to link the reference title using the external link, rather than putting the external url at the end. (But it's up to you really.) Finally, all of the "et al" entries should be italicized throughout the article.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Good luck with the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article, RHJ! We appreciate all of your feedback and have taken most of your suggestions when making our final edits to the page. We decided to keep the symptoms section after causes because it is followed by diagnosis, and we thought moving it would disrupt the flow of the article. We also could not access Harvard documents and were unsure of what you meant regarding harvtxt. Other than that, we made revisions to the article as you suggested. Your review was extremely helpful, thanks again! KellyCardinal (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 I need to do to help this article reach GA status.

Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Glimmer. Overall, I'd say it's a decent article. Here's my two cents on what could be added or improved:
    • Make sure the article is accessible to a general reader. Pretend that whoever stumbles across the page has never read a Harry Potter book before (seems unlikely, but work with me.) Starting with the lead: "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth of seven novels in the Harry Potter series by British author J. K. Rowling." Ok, that makes sense. The next line, however, loses that reader almost instantly: "Set during Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, the novel explores Lord Voldemort's past, and Harry's preparations for the final battle amidst emerging romantic relationships and the emotional confusions and conflict resolutions characteristic of mid-adolescence." Who is Harry Potter? Where's Hogwarts? Who's Lord Voldemort? What's this "final battle"? And what the heck does "and the emotional confusions and conflict resolutions characteristic of mid-adolescence." have to do with the work's greater whole? The plot introduction does a fairly good job, but then irrelevant details start bogging down the plot, e.g., "Before returning they find out that Emmeline Vance and Amelia Susan Bones are murdered by Lord Voldemort.", or "Harry hides it in the Room of Requirement." You've got to audit things from an outsider's perspective.
    • The plot seems to contain wishy-washy, non-straightforward plot descriptions ("no one seems to believe him") and overall can be cut down. Why do we need to know the symbol is hovering over the astronomy tower? Why do we need to know the exact way Ron is nearly killed in an attempt on Dumbledore's life?
    • The "Franchise" section is almost entirely irrelevant to this article.
    • We only get a paragraph on the development and writing of the book?
    • Why is "After publication, a banner draped over a bridge on a busy road in Telford proclaimed who died in the book, which may have spoiled the ending for many readers who had not yet completed the book" important? There were tons of people around the world screaming "Snape kills Dumbledore" at release parties, why single this out?
    • The latter sections of the article suffer from a lack of research. There's not much depth into critical reception beyond "X liked it", and there's only six or seven critics quoted for a sentence.
  • Overall, I think the article needs a substantial overhaul and addition of content. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, short nomination for a short list. This is basically identical to 13 other Featured Lists (i.e. Hugo Award for Best Novel) but is too short for FLC. I'd just like a quick glance-over from someone in place of that, for when I eventually take the series to FTC. Thanks! --PresN 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Not much here to check, but here are some suggestions for improvement. I think most of the points I raise are from a copy and paste of one of the other Hugo Award articles.

  • Would it make sense to wikilink Worldcon? I was going to suggest linking the WSFS, but see it is a redirect to Worldcon.
  • Since this is about the "Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story", was it really "once officially known as the Science Fiction Achievement Award.[1]"? Since I think this refers to the Hugo Award in general, would it make more sense to say something like The Hugo Award is named after Hugo Gernsback, the founder of the pioneering science fiction magazine Amazing Stories, and was originally officially known as the Science Fiction Achievement Award.[1]
  • In the same vein, how applicable to this specific award are these direct quotations? The award has been described as "a fine showcase for speculative fiction" and "the best known literary award for science fiction writing".[2][3]
  • Two problem sentences: These five novels on the ballot are the five most-nominated by members that year, with no limit on the number of stories that can be nominated. Would it make more sense as "These five graphic stories..."? The next sentence has no bearing on this award that I can see and should be cut: The 1953 through 1958 awards did not include any recognition of runner-up novels, but since 1959 all five candidates have been recorded.[5]
  • I was surprised that there was no explanation as to why there six nominees one year and five the other - assume it was a tie?
  • There is a free image of the Foglios at File:Phil and Kaja Foglio Gen Con 2007.jpg - since they have won the award both times it has been given, would it make sense to include the picture in this article somehow?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! --PresN 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandell Creighton edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 almost a year and a half since I wrote (or rather completely rewrote) it and I'm now fearing forgetting its existence entirely if I don't get some feedback! user:Fifelfoo had offered to review it (see post on talk page), but never got around to doing it. Look forward to your constructive criticism. I should add I haven't looked at it since that frenetic week in early November 2009.

Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim Riley – first batch; more to come

  • Lead
    • "together the couple had seven children" – together as opposed to how?
      • Have just copy-edited the first five sections in light of your (very helpful) comments. Will post diffs and details here later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed "together." Apparently an Americanism, a euphemistic way, perhaps, of referring to biological children in this age of blended families. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General
    • You use a lot of quotation marks that do not seem to denote quotations. For example, "perpetuated family myth". If they are quotations you should attribute them and if they aren't you could lose the quotation marks.
      • Yup, I was horrified. It would have helped had I read the article once before submitting it. Have removed them all I think or have attributions for the ones that remain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At FAC you will find Wiki-colleagues insisting that at first mention in each new paragraph, you use the name, not a pronoun. See, for instance, the second, third and fourth paras of Oxford undergraduate, 1862–1866.
      • That I hadn't realized in my writing. Very true. All first mentions are now proper nouns. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxford undergraduate, 1862–1866
    • "off-campus" strikes a jarringly anachronistic note; could you phrase this differently – "out of college" or some such?
      • :) Gone. Glad I didn't add, "he liked cruising for hamburgers off-off-campus after pulling allnighters." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His walking activity continued apace" – boom boom!
    • "what Gladstone later was to dub 'Oxford's agony'." – I'm not quite clear what Gladstone was referring to here.
      • Have changed to: "He especially honed his skills in informal conversations, conducted anywhere and everywhere, about topics great and small, bearing easily the yoke of what Gladstone later was to dub "Oxford's agony," the habit of self-importantly seeing larger than life significance in Oxford's everyday disputes." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Whether this group friendship found physical expression, is not known." – I think this is a very dubious journalistic device, of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" kind. Whether they bathed in treacle or slept standing on one leg is also not known, but why bring it up if there is no suggestion in the first place that they did so?
      • In light of your later remarks, I've left it in for now, but I agree that it is irrelevant without a more detailed description. I read some pages of Louise Creighton's Life and letters of Mandell ... and the descriptions there were quite unselfconscious. Nothing was suspected by wife, peers, friends, .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm realizing that I shouldn't be replying individually to all the points. Hereafter, you will mostly see me at the section's end. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teaching and marriage, 1867–1874
    • "instituted at University of Oxford" – at the university, surely? And is the blue link helpful at this point?
    • No need to link "Christian" – see WP:OVERLINK
    • You have repeated the blue link for "high church" – helpful?
      • Hmm. I wonder if I have a sneaking sympathy for ritual .... All gone now, all except the first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The lectures proved ominous" – many readers will find "ominous" odd here
    • Why mention Prince Leopold's medical condition? How is it relevant here?
    • "He had also become an admirer of Walter Pater" – well, perhaps I take back my fourth remark under Oxford undergraduate, 1862–1866, above.
    • "a study of the renaissance popes" – capital for "renaissance" or not? You used one earlier but not here
  • Vicar of Embleton, 1875–1884
    • "teetotalers" – spelling?
      • This is didn't know! I need a redlining editor for British (miss-)spellings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I'm working on an article that has U.S. spelling, I copy and paste my text into Word and run the spell-check, which saves me from occasional clangers. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "empower" – is this link helpful to the reader?
    • " Most at least stayed overnight" – perhaps to avoid ambiguity " Most stayed at least overnight"?
  • Cambridge professor, 1885–1891
    • "prime minister Gladstone" – horrible Americanism, some (e.g. me) might say
  • Bishop of Peterborough, 1891–1896
    • "Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister" – consistency of upper and lower case for prime ministers?
    • "Dioceses of Peterborough" – why plural?
    • "Working classes" – is this link helpful to the reader?
    • "By April's end" – a bit poetic, perhaps, for an encyclopaedia article?
    • "Prelate of Order of the Garter" – of the Order, surely?

More over the next day or so. This is a most enjoyable task; it's a first rate article about a clearly first rate person. Tim riley (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch of comments:

  • Bishop of London, 1897–1901
    • "Aarchbishopric of Canterbury" – ordinarily I'd have silently amended an obvious typo, but I'm not sure if you wish a capital or lower case A here.
    • "or too frivolous, however, his star had risen" – stronger punctuation mark than a comma wanted here
    • "local rates taxes" – I think I'd lay this out as local taxes (i.e. silently linking to "Rates (tax)")
    • "houses of parliament" – I hesitate to be prescriptive about this, but lower case looks odd here, though there are, I admit, excellent reasons for using it
    • "low church clergy in his diocese were being provoked" – very slightly tendentious phrasing, perhaps? Could it be taken as implying that the goings-on of the high church lot were "provocative"? Would "were taking exception to" be more neutral?
    • "his more strident evangelical supporters" – again, playing for safety, might "more vocal" or some such be more neutral here?
  • Legacy
    • "Creighton's reputation as a historian is considered the more enduring one" – it would help your reader, I think, if you spelled out what the rival features of his reputation could be
    • "Tripos (in the Levine quotation) – this is linked earlier; is it helpful to link it again here? Not sure
    • "According to historian(s)" – this phrase is used three times in fairly close proximity – perhaps rephrase the second mention (Evans)?
    • "in actions, in contrast to Lord Acton" – I think perhaps just "Acton" the second time in this para.
  • Character
    • "canny intelligence, however, at social gatherings" – stronger punctuation mark than a comma wanted here
      • Yeah, I noticed that in other places as well. Doesn't sound like me, but then it was a funny week, that, in November 2009. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "travelers" – British spelling wanted here, I think
  • General – I greatly like your quotation boxes – they break the text up very pleasingly and their contents are distinctly to the point. I notice that all five have the same background colour; have you considered varying it from one to another? Too busy an effect, perhaps (and I confess I know not what if anything the Manual of Style has to say on such matters). Anyway, it's just a thought.

That's all I can spot. Happy to elaborate on any of the above points if I have not made my meaning clear. I vastly enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it at FAC in due course. Please let me know when you nominate it and I shall add my two penn'orth to the nomination page. – Tim riley (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done up the info boxes in different pastels; or rather, I've tried to. Some look too bright. Delighted that you chose to review the article! Your remarks were fun to read (and adopt). Will let you know at FAC time. Fer sure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the different coloured boxes look excellent. If any experts think any of the shades too bright they will offer guidance at FAC, I have no doubt. I look forward to meeting Dr. C. again at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Maribor edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 and certain other users have put a lot of work in it and would like to see where we stand with the article about a Slovenian football club, NK Maribor, and articles related to the main theme (History of NK Maribor, Eternal derby (Slovenia), Ljudski vrt Stadium etc.) that were created/updated to enrich the main article. Feel free to write anything about what needs to be fixed, what is missing in the current NK Maribor article and so on. The idea is that this article would eventually become a GA or FA. This is the first peer review of the article in question.

Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this and the realted articles. I think this will need a lot of work before it would have a chance of passing at WP:GAN and would need even more work before it would do well at WP:FAC. With GAN and FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 61 articles in the Category:FA-Class football articles and some of them will be good models for this article.
  • The biggest problem with the article as it currently exists is a lack of references. There are many places without refs that need citations. For example many paragraphs and statements in the Rivalries section need citations. There are also many extraordinary statements that need refs, like The academy is one of the most revered in the country and has produced notable players, such as Armin Bačinović, Vid Belec, Elvedin Džinič, Rene Krhin, Rene Mihelič, Damir Pekič, Marko Pridigar, Marko Simeunovič, Dejan Školnik among others. Most revered says who?
  • ANother example of a series of extraordinary claims that need references Maribor have the best top-flight record in history, having finished bellow fourth place only once. Maribor also have the highest average league finishing position for the Slovenian league, with an average league placing of 2,3. In addition, they were the first team to win 1000 points in Slovenian top-flight. Please note that I do not doubt that these are true statements, but they need citations.
  • I would also avoid language like "most revered" unless it is a direct quote from a reliable source - see WP:PEACOCK
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs all need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I am not sure the current lead is an adequate summary of all the sections of the article; the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, please make sure to provide translations for all non-obvious Slovenian words - just in the lead "Nogometni" needs to be translated
  • The article needs to be clearer in its prose. The first two sentences are NK Maribor football club, as we know it today, was founded on 12 December 1960.[1] After the elections Dr. Srečko Koren was appointed as the first club president... The phrase "as we know it today" adds nothing and actually makes me wonder if there were some sort of predecessor club? The elections in the next sentence are also unclear.
  • Numbers less than 10 are spelled out (so two but also second (not 2nd)
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up its narrative flow - please try to combine these with other paragraphs or perhaps expand them, wherever possible.
  • Problem sentences: The main reason for this was due to a 1981 affair named Žoga (English: Ball) from which the club never fully recovered from and was relegated into 3rd division.[6] - I have no idea what is meant by this sentence - what was the Zoga affair and how did it accedt the club? SOmething like this needs to be more fully explained.
  • Second problem sentence 22 October 1988 was another dark day in history of the club as Mladen Kranjc, one of the best goalscorers in history of the club, was involved in a tragic motorcycle accident that costed him his life.[6] I do not doubt this was a tragedy for him, his family, and the club. But this is the first time he is mentioned in the article that I can see - since he was so important, he should probably be mentioned earlier in History.
  • The preceding sentence also has several grammatical problems - this would be a real problem at FAC and something of an issue at GAN. Please address the other issues first, then get a copy edit before taking this to GAN.
  • Make sure that fair use images meet WP:NFCC
  • Wikipedia articles are based on published references, not original research - statements like Famous, non football related, supporters with verifiable citations confirming their support for NK Maribor are listed on this list alphabetically, ones without citations are questionable as they have not publicly acknowledged their support are just a sign of the problems without references. If there are no refs, remove them from the list.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would make sure that the use of italic text follows WP:ITALIC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air-tractor sledge edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having no experience in articles related to the Antarctic, I'm posting the article here to get feedback before a shot at FAC. I'm also interested in other editors' views on the article title; should it perhaps be moved to Vickers Monoplane No. 2 (despite spending the vast majority of its life as more of a sledge than a plane)? Any comments welcome. Apterygial talk 12:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

This is a very interesting article, on a largely overlooked aspect of Antarctic exploration history. There is certainly no reason for merging it with the evidently nonexistent monoplane article. I only have a few suggestions

  • The note giving the present-day value should state that this is on the basis of the RPI method.
  • I think you should say that Shackleton was "prepared to lead" rather than "decided to lead" the expedition. The following sentence should begin "Although" rather then "While", and I would say "continued to assist" rather than "assisted".
  • I haven't carried out a thorough prose check, but there is awkwardness in the prose on a few occasions. For example:-
    • the double "...ing" in "He had been considering taking..." is jarring
    • "Mawson's plane was originally designated by Vickers "No. 2" (the second R.E.P. Type Monoplane built), but was promoted to "No. 1" after the first crashed" could be better phrased.
      • Had a shot, but I don't like my effort. Apterygial talk 00:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Expanded this bit with more information, but I moved it to the Notes section to avoid being too far off-topic. Apterygial talk 07:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the team extensively surveyed the area they believed the air-tractor to be" needs a "where" before "they believed".
These are examples – the whole text would probably benefit from a general copyedit.
I've asked Malleus to have a look in. Apterygial talk 00:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need metric, Imperial and US gallons? What is the particular case for the last of these?
  • I wonder if, by way of a postscript, you could mention that the next aeroplane taken to the Antarctic (on Shackleton's Quest expedition, ten years later, also failed to fly (this time due to missing parts).
    • Perhaps even add Wilkins' first flight too. I returned Burke's book to the library, so I'll have a look when I'm in on Monday. Apterygial talk 00:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much welcome this article, and hope that it might mark a renaissance in Antarctic exploration articles. Many important ones remain to be written or expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope. For the moment I'll probably concentrate on the AAE, but I'll see after that. Apterygial talk 00:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Livestock Breeds Conservancy edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 through a GA review and I would like to take it to FAC. This is the first FA I will have written on an organization, and so any overall comments about layout/information (either missing or excess) would be appreciated. Further, comments on the number of references we have to the organization itself would be appreciated. We've tried to keep the number down, but there are many aspects of the breed programs on which the organization itself provides the most information. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

First, on the question of reliance on the ALBC as a source, at present 17 out of 53 citations are to it. Most of the 17 seem to be in support of non-controversial information about the nature, aims and work of the organization, and I don't personally consider this to be a problem.

On more general issues, the article is informative as regards the work of the organization, but is very thin on details about the organization itself. We are told the location of the HQ, and very little else. How big is the organisation – how many people does it employ, does it have a structure, etc? You say "The ALBC is funded by grants, sales of publications and promotional materials, membership dues and public donations", but give no indication of the size of its annual income. Is it $millions, or smaller - some general information would be useful in giving a better picture of the overall nature of the organization.

Clarification requested on the following points:-

  • History and mission, first para: "especially because of the difficulty in obtaining heritage breeds for living history sites". I'm not sure about the meaning, and the relationship between this and the previous part of the sentence is not clear.
  • History and mission, last para: explanation of "low-impact farming" necessary for us urbanites
  • The purpose of the "study" category, in terms of conservation, is not entirely clear - could this be amplified
  • Sheep and goats: "The sheep were in danger of being eradicated by a nature conservancy working to save indigenous vegetation". The nature of the danger is not clear from this.

The following minor prose issues need consideration:-

  • Lead, first paragraph: the word "since" is unnecessary; suggest a comma after "extinction"
  • Lead, second paragraph: "work" → "works"; clash between "the organization" (singular) and "they have" (plural); "in a little more than" → "in little more than"
  • History and mission, first para: "began to become aware" is clumsy. Suggest "...became aware"; the word "includes" occurs twice in the last sentence of the paragraph
  • History and mission, third para: "Its conservation criteria and literature on livestock biodiversity is also included heavily in independent publications on breeds" - "is" should be "are". "included heavily" is odd phrasing, perhaps "widely used" would be preferable
  • "Under way" is two words, not one, in Brit Eng. Is "underway" accepted American usage?
  • Pigs: "Breeds such as the Chester White and Poland China have had an over 25 percent reduction in breed numbers between 1998 and 2003," Awkwardly put; suggest "Breeds such as the Chester White and Poland China reduced by over 25 percent between 1998 and 2003,..." and the sentence should end with "same period" rather than "same time"

That's about it; I hope you find these comments useful. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any questions arising from the review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the link on Ewe goes to a disambiguation page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I think I have addressed everything on the list. Dana boomer (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Barlow edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it to GA status and would welcome your comments to try and make me achieve this. Thanks, –LiamTaylor– 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Rather a low-key career, I would have thought, but as he is only 23, maybe things will lift off for him, though at present he seems to be grounded in the non-league sphere. You have probably assembled most of the facts relevant to his career; here are a few suggestions on improving the presentation.

  • The status of his various clubs needs to be disclosed. Readers who are not familiar with the structure of English professional football need to know, for example, that the Conference North, where Hyde play, is two stages below the lowest Football League tier; likewise Stalybridge Celtic. Oldham were in the third Football League tier when Barlow played his few games for them. This information needs to be given, as the essential context of Barlow's career to date.
  • The article is strong on statistics, but very thin on description. Is it known where Barlow went to school, or which club he was playing for when spotted by Oldham? Is Barlow a full-time professional, or does he have any other means of livelihood? Do we know why, after deciding to try his luck in Australia, he decided to return within a few months? Is there any personal information that can be added - like, is he married, etc?
  • The snippets of information under "Style of play" do not constitute a section. I suugest that you either find more information, perhaps from local newspaper reports, or absorb these details elsewhere in the article.
  • The prose has the feel more of a football magazine than an encyclopedia. For example, several times you say "he enjoyed", meaning that he played. You also refer to "his first brace" without explanation.
  • Some of your sources would not be accepted by Wikipedia as high quality or reliable, in particular "findmypast.co.uk" and 192.com. There is inconsistent formatting, e.g. StalybridgeCeltic.co.uk and stalybridgeceltic.co.uk. Ref 6 lacks a retrieval date.

I accept that with such an undistinguished career, at least so far, it is hard to create what looks like a substantial article for this non-star footballer. The notability threshold for footballers is clearly quite low (though not as low as it apparently is for cricketers); it might be a case of putting the article on hold, to see if Barlow's career develops more positively in the future. At any rate, you can use these suggestions to make some minor improvements, though I rather think it will struggle to make GA unless you can flesh it out a bit. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews at the moment, please call my talkopage if you have any particular queries arising from this review, or if you wish for me to lokk at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Liam, sorry it's taken me so long to get around to this! There's not much that I can add to Brian's comments above, his peer reviews have helped me a lot in the past. If you could add some of the information suggested (early life, personal life, a bit more description) that would be good. I think it would have a chance of making GA with a bit of expansion; there isn't a minimum size that a GA needs to be, small articles can be GAs so long as all the available sources are covered. BigDom (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netball in the Cook Islands edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 improve it for possible consideration in the future.

Thanks, LauraHale (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: As this article already has GA stsus, I assume that you are looking at the possibility of future featured article status, and have reviewed it in that context. I would certainly welcome seeing an article on this topic at FA; I don't think we have any featured netball articles, and precious few dealing with women's sports.

Lead
  • The lead should be a broad summary of the main text of the article. It should touch on all the main areas covered in the article, without giving too much by way of detail. At present it is rather a collection of individual facts than a general summary, and needs some redrafting.
    • Tried to fix this. Not sure the wording is any better. Summary style is not always my fortee. :( --LauraHale (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing information in the lead is unnecessary when the same information occurs in the main text - where it should of course be cited. Thde lead is a kind of shop window for the article, and when it is cluttered up with citations it has an apparance that might be off-putting to the general reader. There is also a tndency here to over-citation; in a single sentence we have successive cites to [6], [8], [6], [6], [], [9].
    • Cleared the citations out of the lead. Made sure that they were all in the body so that cites weren't left stranded. Some of the in sentence stuff needs to be looked at later but often it is cited like that because of multiple sources so I wanted to make sure just because say [2] supports the second half of the sentence but not the first, that [1] which supports both is still indicated that it supports all facts in the sentence. --LauraHale (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article structure
  • The article needs a better prose structure. It would be helpful to readers such as myself if the article began with some basic information on the Cook Islands. How many populated islands? What area is covered? What is the total population, etc.? This kind of background would provide a context to such information as there being 1,000+ registered players.
    • Restructured the article to hopefully provide more clarity. Started to add background statistics. --LauraHale (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lengthy section entitled "Local" is at present a bit of a hotchpotch of information, given rather randomly. At the moment there isn't a natural flow; for example, it seems to me that the first and the sixth paragraphs are related, and should be brought together. The overall heading of the section could be changed from "Local" to "History and development", and might be better organised into subsections dealing with, for example, (a) Sport in the Cook Islands, (b) Development of netball, (c) Internal competitions, (d) Social and cultural impact. These headings are just suggestions; you may have better ideas. I would change "International" to "International competition"
Competitive history

What are the first two lines of the main table trying to convey? They don't specify an event or a score, yet these are supposed to be "sample" results. On that point, offering a table of "sample" results is tricky; who chose these particular events as samples?It would be better to restrict the table to specific events such as the World Youth Netball Championships and the Commonwealth Games. Would the tables be better placed after the main text? There's a danger the last section may be overlooked.

Originally, I was thinking of trying to get a list of as many of the nation's international competitions as I could find. I removed all the rows where there was no score. (I also added a reference column and a few more events that the country has competed in.) The sample isn't so much a sample as it is the competitive history that I found when writing the article. Ultimately, as one of the primary contributors to this article, it would be great to have a complete list of the nation's international performances and possibly have it on its own page. I moved people up to after local. --LauraHale (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"People" section

Having just said that, I in fact wonder if it is worth a separate section to record the activities of these people. Perhaps this information should be incorporated into the earlier sections (where the feats of Noovao and Matenga are already mentioned).

Prose generally

The prose is generally readable, though its organisation is sometimes puzzling. For example, in the second paragraph of the "Local" section there is a sudden change of topic, from the future status of netball as an Olympic sport to the nitty-gritty administration of netball facilities in the islands. There are other instances of this sort of thing in the text; perhaps when the article is given a more detailed structure, this problem will be eliminated. Generally, however, all articles benefit from a copyedit by an uninvolved editor before submission to the FAC process.

Referencing and citation
  • There is a tendency to over-referencing. In general the same citation should not appear successively in the same paragraph; all the material is covered by the final cite. In the first paragraph of "Local" you have several successive cites to [18], and this happens elsewhere in the article, too. It is also unnecessary to use a string of references for relatively straightforward statement; "During this sporting event, the boys cross dress and wear the uniforms that are traditionally worn by women" has got four citations and a footnote.
  • Looking at some of the citation formats, I'm a bit puzzled by some. For instance "Kautai et al. Tanga" (why not just Kautai et al?") The short citation style is not really appropriate to website sources ("Turk"). "Notes" should not consist of uncited statements.
Images

I wonder if enough has been done to seek out images for this article. More images would certainly brighten the text, even if they were only generic shots of island life or sports facilities. Images are not a requirement for featured articles, but it is generally expected that some effort is made to secure appropriate images - though sometimes a little imagination is required.

Not many images available related to sport that I could find on Flickr or on Commons. I found two that kind of possibly convey a sense sport in the Cook Islands and included them in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these comments are helpful. Please contact my talkpage if you have queries arising from this review. I'd be happy to look at it again when you have responded to these points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Geometry guy edit

I have familiarized myself with the article, and intend to add review comments below. Before I do that, I would like to express my appreciation for all the work that has gone into this article so far: Wikipedia needs articles like this, and editors who want to make such articles shine.

According to my preliminary review, my comments are likely to relate to a common theme: this is an encyclopedia, and we should write articles from an encyclopedic viewpoint. That is easy to say, but hard to achieve, and so I would like to be as supportive as possible in my comments. The principles informing my comments are as follows: we should draw attention to significant opinion, without necessarily supporting it; we should write for the uniformed reader, without dumbing down; and we should avoid including editorial viewpoints, even though it is all too easy to do so without being aware of it. Geometry guy 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I normally review the body of an article before the lead, but just to get the ball rolling, I have comments on the first sentence:
The Cook Islands are an important netball playing country in Oceania, with more than 1,000 registered players.
This suggests that the article title is "The Cook Islands in Netball"; it is backwards for the current content and title. I recommend alternatives such as...
(FAC reviewers may have better ideas.) Note that "popular" is easier to source and cite than "important", especially as the sentence already quantifies the popularity. This is an example of the "show don't tell" principle of encyclopedic writing. Geometry guy 23:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has hit GA yesterday. Following Pyrotec's advice, I'm beginning a new peer review. In fact, when GAN began, I realized I'd need another one after completing GAN, because I don't really see how can I help the article (talking of major things) further. The article, when I began working on it, was only C-class. Later, it hit B, A and GA. During this PR, I follow only one target:

  • Bring the article to FAC condition

Sure, any help is appreciated! Please add anything that could be even slightly useful.

Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments:

  • Some FAC reviewers like the articles to list the nationality and profession of the individuals mentioned. Thus, for example, "French chemist Henri Moissan" rather than "Henri Moissan".
    You're right, it could be useful. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alt text for the Fluorine cell room, PET scan and Flourine molecule images could use a little refinement for use by visually impaired readers.
    Hmmm... I don't really get it, what's exactly wrong?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for "Whole-body PET scan using 18F-FDG", you could perhaps describe it as "A rotating, transparent image of a human figure with targeted organs highlighted." Instead, it says, "Whole-body PET scan", which is essentially just a repeat of the caption and doesn't really describe it. I.e. how would you describe the image to, say, a lay person on the phone.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, with one example that got useful. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a FAC review, I find it's a good idea to have all your ducks in a row with the citation section layout:

  • I think Dean (1999) should be added to the Bibliography list for consistency.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref. "see covalent radius of fluorine" should be in the Notes.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several references that list web sites could be filled out a little more. Please add what you can find (authors, work, publisher, date, access date, &c.).
    • "High Oxidation States: Mercury tetrafluoride synthesized" Publisher? &c.
    • "Discovery of fluorine" Access date? &c.
    • "The mobility of cluster ions NeHe+ in helium gas" Publisher? &c.
    • "The World’s Strongest Acid" Access date? &c.
    • "The Russian Literature on Rocket Propellant" Access date? Publisher? &c.
      Done all. For the fourth link, replaced with a better one--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the cites list titles in all caps. I'm sure they are the same as what is on the cite, but they would look more refined if the case were consistent with the others. (Use of all caps is sometimes frowned upon on the internet as it equates to SHOUTING. :) Example:
    • "LANGE'S HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY",
    • "FLUORINE ABUNDANCES IN PLANETARY NEBULAE"
    • "USE OF 19F NMR TO PROBE PROTEIN STRUCTURE AND CONFORMATIONAL CHANGES"
      You're right again. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Morrison ref. doesn't list a date or page range.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Leonel R Arana" ref. has authors listed inconsistently with the other cites: Last, First MI.; &c.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is one thing I would like to point out: in the very first section, 'a fluorine atom is more likely to receive a "missing" electron" is not grammatically correct. It should be "a fluorine atom is more likely to gain an electron". But check out my peer review of copper that's underway here. FREYWA 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    well, gain really suits better than receive, done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Noble gas compounds to high oxidation states of elements discussion is skewed way too much towards the former. I strongly suggest removing a bit mroe from the NG section, AND add some more examples of high oxidation states of other elements (these two topics are essentially identical since F simply oxidizes the NG same way it does Cu(IV). Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's OK? I've expanded metals to a whole para, and contracted NG further--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks better now, although I would be in favor of having even more TM high oxidation stuff. Try to trim down the section names also. Nergaal (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Added more, and that'll be it on transition metals. And titles cut, so done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. A few things to look into:

  • The isotopes section needs info on the decay modes before and after the stable isotopes.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occurrence. Which countries are the largest sources of ore and which have the largest reserves?
    Hard thing...As of now, I've found only fluorite data (surprisingly even in Wikipedia). I'll try better, though--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compounds. "This bond is the strongest covalent bond in organic chemistry and is very stable." needs a cite.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biological roles. I'm not a fan of single paragraph sections; there is no need to give a title to a single paragraph.
    First three merged. The last one is slightly expanded. I'm thinking of removing it away from article; I'll check other better elements that have dating techniques--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--mav (reviews needed) 00:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a dead link. Apart from that, good work. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply removed the url. I think that's OK since it's journal article, which has a title, journal, doi, etc. And thanks for such a pleasant comment!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copper edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Copper 2. (Haha, the previous one was empty.) The previous review shall now serve as a "backbone" for other peer reviews. As I said in the previous one:

  • M-S pointed out 2 major problems in the copper article, and I fixed them.
  • This peer review is to point out minor problems and fix them.
  • Any help is appreciated.

Don't get infamous or deitified when posting comments! FREYWA 16:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Stone edit

  • Organocopper chemistry should be improved Reactions of organocopper reagents is not linked although it gives a good impression what copper reagents can do. Is Gilman and acetylides is all what is worth to mention? --Stone (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FA zinc does not give the occurrence in biological systems in the Occurrence section , but deals with this occurrence in the Biological role section. I like this better, but there might be a reason to split the topic.--Stone (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chemical characteristics does not mention the clearly the two main oxidation states, this is moved to the compounds where I think it is less intuitive to search for it.--Stone (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • biological electron transport, the electrical "wiring" of a cell might not be the best wording. The section needs a ref very urgent.--Stone (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking foreign countries in the Production section and the consistent use of US and USA might help. Not everybody knows New Mexico.--Stone (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] [9] might give a clue of market manipulations of the copper price.--Stone (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you understand me? I have no knowledge of economics. FREYWA 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I can understand you. The lack of knowledge of economics on your side is not a problem. There might be others to help you. If this article contains only things you an I know than that article is for sure only C-Class, because it misses some topics. I will have a look on the economics topic when I have more time.--Stone (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cu2S (chalcocite) + pine oil → CuS2 I do not get this equation. The problem for me is that this is not the key point of froth flotation.--Stone (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Done Smokefoot fixed it already by completely rewriting the section. FREYWA 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copper is 100% recyclable Is this fact only true for copper? Is aluminium any different? --Stone (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Done The sentence is there, you misinterpreted your own query. FREYWA 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant: I have not the slightest clue why copper is so more recyclable than other materials. There must be a sentence to describe that fact.--Stone (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Materialscientist edit

I would go through the reference list, eliminate/complete dubious refs, then start providing missing refs to the facts in the article. Also, some bulleted lists could be rewritten into prose. Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Nergaal edit

  • Isotopes section is way too short
  • more needs to be added about the methods - what are the chemical processes, in detail?
  • many sections have paragraphs without any references
  • history is a bit thin on the modern side
  • precautions is a bit short

Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is starting to look quite well. However, it is still really thin of referencing. I have added fact tags at the places where it still needs refs. Once those are fixed this could be getting close for GA. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Doing... I've realised that this is not a job for one. Everyone, get your reference-finding instincts ready, because we are about to starve the page of the [citation needed] tags. FREYWA 06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of RJHall edit

  • The links are in need of some work. There is overlinking of obvious terms, such as heat, pipe, water, moss, mildew, bacteria, ships, &c. The first use of a term is not always where a link appears, such as for Roman and iron. I'm also finding repeated linking, such as four links to iron, and the first use of the term is not always where the link is found.
  • I count 39 paragraphs that begin with "Copper". Please try to change it up so this doesn't stand out as much. I think no more than one paragraph per section would be good.
  • There are too many single-sentence paragraphs.
  • Please include some information on the elemental abundance of copper and discuss the formation via nucleosynthesis.[10][11]

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel 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 it's currently GA rated and I'd like to prep it for a FA nomination. I've recently revamped the article (i.e. subsequent to it receiving the GA rating) and I'd appreciate another set of eyes on it. In particular, I'm concerned about:

  • the quality and sufficiency of cite refs;
  • making sure that in-universe information is appropriate in the context of the article;
  • whether any sections are too thin and require expansion; and
  • whether any sections might be considered filler and would be better off removing entirely or merging into another section of the article

Thanks for your help!

-- Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking on this request! I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have in the course of the review. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: You are very welcome. Thanks for all your work on this interesting article. I think this needs a fair amount more work before it would have a good chance at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The {{Copy edit}} template at the top of the page would be a quick fail at FAC, and technically disqualifies the article from receiving a peer review (no major cleanup banners). Please make sure a copy edit is done and this banner is then removed before FAC.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on comic books, one of which is Watchmen - since that has a tie in with a movie and this has the tie in with the cartoon, it may be a useful model.
  • Make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see the other language versions or reprints or revival mentioned in the lead. Even more importantly, I see no mention of the cartoon and its relation to the comic book in the lead.
  • There is a free photo of Hama at File:LarryHama5.23.09ByLuigiNovi.jpg - given his importance to the book, it seems like it would be nice to use it here.
  • Per the WP:MOS, English units like 3 and 3/4 inch should have their metric equivalents given too. The {{convert}} template does this nicely.
  • Looking at the FA criteria, one of the most difficult for most articles to achieve is a professional level of English. I agree this needs a copyedit to reach that standard.
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. Looking at the GI Joe page, I see that Hasbro also discontinued the 3.75" figures in 1994. I think (if this is correct) that that fact should be mentioned here, as it seems to tie in to the book's cancellation that year.
  • This article also mentions the Devil's Due GI Joe comics in passing - I think there needs to be a little bit more on this book in this article (it is not even linked except in the nav box at the bottom).
  • Not sure if there are sources for this or not, but what was the business arrangement between Hasbro and Marvel? Did Hasbro pay Marvel to do the book (like an ad)? Did Marvel have to pay Hasbro to license the characters? How were the profits shared? If there is material touching on this, that would be good to include.
  • There is also almost no material on critical response to the comics - I know they were a toy commerical, but surely in 14 years some critic must have said something about them (besides Hama's comments).
  • Another issue that would raise real problems at FAC is a lack of references in places. For example this paragraph from the "Promotion and Reception" section: The comic was also credited with bringing in a new generation of comic readers - young boys who were drawn to the comic book through its association with the toy line, who then went on to other comics. Who credited it? Any statements that seem to be quoting someone should be sourced.
  • The spin offs and reprints and Cahin of command sections have no (zero) refs that I can see. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Second paragraph about the cartoon also has no refs - again, these would be quick fails at FAC. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I also am not sure if all the sources used meet WP:RS - I am not an expert on comic book sources by any means.
  • Watch for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which break up the narrative flow. Wherever possible, I would either combine these with others or perhaps expand them.
  • Same goes for short sections - Foreign language versions is one sentence long. Could it be combined with Reprints (esp. since translations are a kind of reprint?) The Reprints section has three paragraphs which are each only 2 sentences long - not sure if they can be combined or not.
  • The Characters section seems a little too in-universe to me - ymmv
  • Avoid phrases like todate in To date, ten volumes have been published. as these can quickly get out of date. Use things like "As of March (or April) 2011" instead.
  • Per WP:See also, the See also section is usually for links not already in the article.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments I took a quick look at the article again and see two things that are potential concerns at FAC.

  • There are several places without inline citations / references. The plot is probably OK without refs (as the comic books themselves are the source of the plot). But things like Written by Michael Higgins, and again with art by Trimpe, it was set outside the continuity of both series, although the final issue did introduce the Transformers character Goldbug, who later appeared in the main The Transformers comic book series. need a ref. In general, any paragraph that does not end with a ref is going to raise questions at FAC.
  • Three fair use images have been added to the article. Please make sure that each image used meets all the criteria in WP:NFCC. One fair use image in the infobox is fine. In general, the more the article discusses the image and what is in it, the better the chance it meets NFCC. The least likely image to pass muster as fair use is the one from the cartoon, which just seems to be an illustration. The general question to ask is, does the image add anything to the reader's understanding that text alone would? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Here's a small review for me. The two fair use images that is used. (The one of Baroness and the "Silent Interlude") does not have a fair use rationale for this article and also you must ask yourself if these fair use images meet WP:NFCC at all. If you want them to be you must place a commentary of them that would help make the image necessary and to say something that normal print wouldn't say and would make the image more than a illustration. And you must use a fair use rationale for them if you are going to leave them on the article. Although in my opinion the Baroness one isn't necessary if that image is also the main image of the fictional character and reader's can see that image in that article with just clicking on a link of this article. I hope I helped. Jhenderson 777 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that three references:
were not considered to be RS at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92#G.I. Joe characters. I would think it extremely unlikely that they would not be commented on at FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query: the scope of the RSN was limited. In your opinion, could a case possibly be made for referring to certain types of information hosted there, such as the Larry Hama interviews (which were not commented on in the aforemention RSN). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Broadband Network edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 a major expansion I like some feedback before going for FA. Thanks, -- d'oh! [talk] 03:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes by Peripitus

  • Error in "terminated the partnership, along Aurora Energy" - though perhaps ?
  • some convoluted language
  • →"Telstra, NBN Co, and the Australian Government are negotiating a $11 billion deal to allow NBN Co to use Telstra's infrastructure to lower the total cost of building the project. The deal will also lead to the decommissioning of the copper network which will see Telstra's customers transferred to the NBN"
  • The deal is not an $11bn one but is worth that to Testra - the above implies it the wrong way around
  • The paragraph does not make it clear that this is a heads of agreement rather than a contract
Perhaps better longer and different as something like —→ "Telstra, NBN Co, and the Australian government signed a heads of agreement in June 2010 that provided Telstra compensation for the gradual decommissioning of its existing copper network. The agreement was estimated to be worth $11bn to Telstra and benefits NBN Co by transitioning existing customers, eliminating a wholesale competitor and providing access to existing infrastructure.
  • "was temporarily set at a flat rate A$300 per premise with no ongoing charges which will expire in July 2011" - comma or reordering needed somewhere here.
  • There really needs to be a section on the roll-out process and timeframe.
  • There is no explanation of how the A$27.1 billion figure was come to, how and over what timeframe it is proposed to be spent, how and over what time it is to be recovered, what the total proposed cost of the network is ($40 something billion) comes to mind and who and how is to pay for the difference between the two figures. These things have been fairly well written about.
  • I would like if there was somehting about the connection requirements for ISPs - I remember reading Simon Hackett writing (on whirlpool.net) about the number of required POPs and the consequent cost for ISPs to connect and the subsequent implicit lower limit on the size of ISPs. Hopefully some of this subject was picked up elsewhere and can be use.
  • Internet is a proper noun and should be capitalised
  • POI should be all caps in all places.
  • Does WiMax need a hyphen ? I don't know
  • The lead has cited material that is not in the body (for instance the $35.7bn figure) this material should all be in the body of the article as the lead is supposed to summarise.
  • The lead should summarise the article - at the moment it works as an introduction instead. Much of the construction, design and operation sections are not alluded to.

Hope that this has been helpful - Peripitus (Talk) 23:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, it is very helpful. The reason I used "PoI" instead of "POI" is NBN Co used "PoI" in the business plan. Other than the "resell" rule for RSPs mentioned in the article, there is not other requirements for accessing the NBN, Hackett just pointed out the high start-up cost for smaller RSPs. Prices or the way NBN charges shouldn't be included because they can and will be changed without media attention, which will make it very hard to update the article. -- d'oh! [talk] 06:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panopticon (album) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After being brutally shot down at GAN, I'd like to polish this up for another push at Good Article status. Please give me your thoughts. I'm totally willing to exchange peer reviews, also; you scratch my wikiback, I'll scratch yours!

Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My .02 cents regarding writing an album article is by basing it on U2's No Line on the Horizon for no other specific reason than it has an FAC status and is, apparently well-regarded (I can't stand Bono otherwise).

My review:

  • I would divide the Personnel section into two columns for better readability (and because every GA and FAC article I've looked at does it).
    • Fair. I've done this.
  • The article also has some unformatted links here
    • I'll sort these out to the best of my ability.
  • It's missing info on chart performance
    • It isn't; it only charted to the most minor of extents. It's mentioned in the Writing, recording and release section, towards the end.
  • Just for the sake of avoiding any contention in the future, I think the statements in the lede should also be cited.
    • This directly contradicts what was said in the GA review it received; WP:LEADCITE basically says that only really contentious stuff needs citing in the lead; as such, it's not really necessary in this article.
  • Critical reviews should also be placed under the secondary header of "Critical reviews". (again this is because every GA and FAC article I've looked at does it)
      • You're right. Disregard this. I've recently had my lede for Holy Wood criticized for having too much citation by Lakeshade.-Red marquis (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's missing any info on "Commercial performance".
    • Same as above; this was a truly underground release and there's very little that can be dug up about it.
  • Info on the release and the single should be splintered off into their own sections.
    • There was actually no single; just a music video. I also have to disagree about these things being sectioned off; it would butcher what little flow the album has at the moment, and a two-paragraph section would be a little weak.
  • "Sound" should be changed to "Composition". It sounds more "encyclopaedic".
    • Again, I'm compelled to disagree. Although 'composition' is more encyclopaedic, it refers to something different. In the Sound section, only the aural qualities are referred to; 'composition' implies the intentions of the musicians, whereas 'sound' is about how reviewers responded to and described what they heard.
  • It is otherwise commendably well-written, balanced and objective.

-Red marquis (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving over your thoughts; they're invaluable. Seegoon (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see the only problem left is the unformatted links. Good luck on getting GA status. -Red marquis (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
As part of my continuing drive to get all the Star Trek films featured, I'm submitting this one for comments, considerations, any possible issues, et al.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments by Ruby2010:

  • You mention the film's box office performance in the lead, but don't include numbers. Add how much money the film made.
  • A final film for the original series cast, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, was developed that received a kinder reception. Awkward phrasing.
  • The cast section is a little choppy and has some flow issues (not a fan of the short paragraphs). Also, the second paragraph has no references.
  • Perhaps you should mention how the actors are reprising their roles from the TV show in the production section (I know this is probably common knowledge, but it would help expand the section a little more). I'm sure there's some interesting stories out there as to why Shatner and Nimoy returned for the film.
  • I like the development section (well-written and interesting)
  • Find a suitable wikilink for "tone poem"
  • Rodis also had a significant input in developing the the early character and costume designs
  • Shatner "cracked" during the filming in 110-degree heat, insulting the head electrician and ignoring Laszlo's request for additional setup time.[52] Interesting tidbit. Perhaps expand (I assume the heat is what made Shatner "crack"?)
  • Winter recalled that the production had budgeted $4 million for the film's effects, slightly more than The Voyage Home. "But the first pass, with all the things [Shatner] wanted, was [$5 or $6] million." I assume the quote is attributed to Winter. Make this more clear (i.e. Winter commented, "quote".
  • Wikilink Eden
  • Identify who John S. Schultes is (author? professor?).
  • Winter remained with the production and The Wrath of Khan director Nicholas Meyer returned to direct the original cast's final movie, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which went on to be better received by audiences and critics. Needs reference.
  • Ref # 25 ("'Tek' beams up a bleak future".) Is Trek misspelled, or did the article do that on purpose?
  • My closing remarks: most of the article is very well-written and sourced, and will probably face no major opposition at the FA review. However, the cast section is very differently written from the rest of the article (and not in a good way!). Fix that section and the other minor comments I made above to help improve the article. Considering I have never seen this particular film, it was interesting to read. I can tell you've spent a lot of time on it (and the sources look great). Nice work! Also, if you have time, could you take a look at my article (Over There (Fringe)) and leave some comments? I made a request for a peer review recently (note that it has Leonard Nimoy in the episode!) :) Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the review. I'll see about getting to the episode when I have time next week :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jappalang

Based on article as of 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC):

Lede

  • It is the fifth and penultimate feature starring the cast of the original Star Trek science fiction television series.
    Noun plus -ing ambiguity: This can be read as "It is the fifth and penultimate feature, starring the cast of the original Star Trek science fiction television series.", which would mean it is the second last film of the franchise. Suggest: "It is the fifth and penultimate feature (of the franchise) that stars the cast of the original Star Trek science fiction television series." I am not certain if the bracketed phrase is necessary.

Plot

  • "Sybok reluctantly declares a truce with Kirk, realizing he needs his leadership experience to navigate Enterprise to Sha Ka Ree."
    It seems to me this sentence implies that before offering healing, Sybok and Kirk were constantly at loggerheads (not mentioned before). Furthermore, the phrase "Sybok ... declares ... with Kirk, realizing he (Sybok/Kirk) needs his (Sybok's/Kirk's) leadership ..." reads to me that a feud with Kirk would hinder Sybok from navigating the Enterprise (which fans would logically exclude from their interpretation but a layman might pause here) or that Sybok's healing would have erased Kirk's abilities (which seems not true). Suggest: "To maintain a cordial relationship with Kirk, Sybok stops pressing his offer, realizing that he needs the experienced captain to help reach Sha Ka Ree." Is the part of Sybok's realization he needs Kirk speculation (hence, it needs a source or be considered OR) or does he admit to it in the movie?
  • "The others doubt God who would inflict harm on people for pleasure;"
    "The others doubt a God who would inflict harm on people for pleasure" or "The others doubt that their God would inflict harm on people for pleasure"?
  • "... uses his telepathic powers in an effort to combat the entity."
    I think "in an effort" is redundant.
  • "Kirk orders Enterprise to fire a photon torpedo at their location, wounding it."
    Not too keen to watch the film again, does Kirk specifically say "our location" and every one accepts dying with the being in the process? Or is it done in the hope that it hits the being?
  • "Kirk is beamed aboard the ship, where Spock and the Klingon hostage force Klaa to stand down and apologize."
    "The ship" refers to Klaa's ship or the Enterprise? If the former, why is Spock there? Furthermore, what hostage (nowhere earlier did it state they took a hostage along)? It is also a bit inconceivable to a layman that an ordinary hostage would have rank to force a captain "to stand down and apologize."

Cast

  • Nimoy's paragraph is entirely unsourced.
  • "... is a play of words from the actor's name."
    "... is a play on words of the actor's name." or "... is a word play of the actor's name."? This also seems to have been repeated in Development (which seems to me to have phrased the idea better).
  • "... his choices to Shatner. Shatner and ..."
    Double Shatner
  • "Bryant was playing ping pong at a beach party when a casting director approached him for the role."
    I think this is pretty much irrelevant to the article.
  • "Williams-Crosby thought Vixis was Kirk's girlfriend when she arrived for her audience, but recalled that it was "fun" to play a villain."
    I do not see a contradiction ("but") between the fun of playing a villain and mistaking Vixis for Kirk's girlfriend (ST VI's shape-changer, who was supposed to be a "interest" for Kirk, was a villain, and several films have their lead's interests as secret baddies).
  • "Producer Harve Bennett makes a cameo as a Starfleet admiral."
    Unsourced
  • I agree with Ruby2010 that the flow of this section should be improved on; the information here seems a bit random in placement.

Development

  • "Shatner and Nimoy's lawyers had drafted what Shatner termed a "favored nations clause", ..."
    When did this happen? Prior to ST I, II, III, or IV? Or during the original TV series? Or when ST V was being planned?
  • "... Shatner recalled. Shatner was intrigued ..."
    Either one of these "Shatner"s can be rephrased to "he" to break up a repetition.
  • "The televangelists became the character "Zar", later "Sybok";"
    "Shatner personified his perception of the televangelists into the character "Zar", which later became "Sybok";"
  • "... Spock, McCoy and the rest of the Enterprise crew come to believe in Zar's divinity through mind-control."
    "Under mind-control"?
  • "... to the God planet, ..."
    I read that sentence to mean that the God is a celestial object. "... to the supposed planet of God, ..." or "... to the supposed God's planet, ..."?
  • "... that he had been mistreated by Nimoy."
    This mention of mistreatment is quite vague and should best be clarified.
  • "Bennett found a script by David Loughery and showed his work to Shatner, who agreed that he would be a good fit for the plot."
    "[Loughery] would be a good fit for the plot": I think something is wrong here... Is "a good choice to write the script for ST V" the intent?
  • "One of Roddenberry's employees also suggested some of the animosity towards the story was that it tread on ground that Roddenberry had wanted to approach with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but Paramount had rejected his ideas."
    "One of Roddenberry's employees suggested some of his employer's animosity towards the story stemmed back to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Roddenberry had wanted to approach that film with similar ideas that investigated the nature of God but was rejected by Paramount."
  • "... Sha Ka Ree—a play on "Sean Connery" ..."
    "... Sha Ka Ree—a wordplay on "Sean Connery" ..."

Design

  • "Shatner sought a grittier and more realistic feel to the Star Trek universe. Art director and Star Trek feature veteran Nilo Rodis worked with Shatner in visualizing the film from start to finish."
    These two sentences feel disconnected to me.
    I suggest rewording the entire paragraph as follows: "Nilo Rodis, who had worked on several Star Trek features, was appointed the art director for The Final Frontier. He and Shatner worked together to establish the visual designs for the entire film. Shatner wanted a grittier and more realistic feel to the Star Trek universe, and took a day to explain his visualization of the story to Rodis. The art director went home and sketched every scene in the script. The designs pleased Shatner, especially those scenes that he wanted to be epic."
  • "After being disappointed by the costume designers they approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested to Bennett that Rodis become the costume designer as well."
    This sentence seems to leave a question hanging: was Rodis appointed as the costume designer?
  • What are "high-quality "A" makeups" and "mid-range masks"?
  • "Shatner had rehired Richard Snell as makeup supervisor, ..."
    This sentence implies that Shatner had hired Snell before, then either fired him or let him go. There is no mention of such previous employment.
  • "... make each Klingon forehead more distinctive."
    Is the sentence's intent that every Klingon forehead was unique, or that all the Klingon foreheads were made to stand out more?
  • "Art department head Michael Okuda used his LCARS style of backlit controls on the Klingon ship and Enterprise."
    I think it should be "implemented" instead of "used"; the latter term could be interpreted as using the system to create the starships (rather than a set of circuits that is a part of the models).
  • "Because of practical considerations, he looked for a location that could stand in for three different venues without the production having to change hotels or move unnecessarily: the film's opening scene between J'onn and Sybok; the God planet's establishing shots; and the Nimbus III Paradise City."
    I think the colon is incorrectly used here (a rephrase would be required if I am right).
  • "... so he took photos based on sketches Rodis had provided of what the locations might look like."
    This sentence might frame it as that Downs photographed Rodis's sketches of "what the locations might look like." Suggest: "... so he took photographs of locations he believed would fit Rodis's designs."

Filming

  • "With deadlines looming on production, Shatner and the rest of the production searched out non-union drivers despite the threat that the Teamsters might retaliate, sabotaging equipment or, as some Hollywood unions had done in the past, fly airplanes above the production to ruin any production audio."
    A bit lengthy, suggest: "With deadlines looming, the production searched for non-union drivers despite the threat that the Teamsters might retaliate by sabotaging eqipment or flying airplanes above the filming to ruin audio recordings."
  • "... that was positioned with the real mountains visible ..."
    "... that was positioned in front of the cameras with the real mountains visible ..."
  • What is an "American descender fall", and is "highest" supposed to describe it?
  • "... the God planet location ..."
    Same issue raised in Development
  • "Spock's catch of the falling Kirk off Yosemite was replicated by creating a set of the forest floor, rotated ninety degrees."
    I think this is wrongly phrased. Creating a set of the forest floor and rotating it ninety degrees would not result in Spock's catching of Kirk. It would be more correct to say that the scene was filmed against such a set (but the imagery makes me wonder how did Kirk "fall" sideways?).
  • "The cast celebrated the end of filming the last week of December 1988."
    I think "in" is missing?
  • "... after principal photography wrapped ..."
    "had wrapped"?

Effects

  • "During the Writers Strike, Winter confronted ..."
    Who is Winter?
  • "... technicians were busy working Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and ..."
    I believed an "on" is missing.
  • "... hiring the New York-based studio made The Final Frontier the first film in the series produced on the east and west coasts."
    Unclear meaning: hiring the studio made this film the first in a series produced on both coasts?
  • "... the total budget climbed ..."
    For the film or just for the effects?
  • "Designer Lynda Weinman used a Mac II to create animatics the producers cut into the film until the finished effects were added."
    "Until the effects were completed and added, animatics (sequences of still images) created by Lynda Weinman were spliced into the film as temporary placeholders."
  • "The Rockman climax of the film was ultimately dropped due to difficulties during filming."
    "Technical difficulties forced the crew to drop the idea of having a rock monster (Rockman) as Kirk's opponent for the film's climax."
  • "Effects personnel smoked cigarettes and blew smoke into the suit's tubing, loading it with smoke that it would slowly emit, obscuring some of the suit's obvious rubber parts."
    "Effects personnel smoked cigarettes and blew smoke into the suit's tubing. The stored smoke is slowly emitted by the suit, obscuring the costume's rubbery nature."
  • "The visuals took weeks before they were ready to be shown after the completion of principal photography."
    The timeline here seems confusing to me.

Editing

  • "... not considering end credits or the opticals, which Paramount considered too long."
    Not considering the scenes with optical effects as well, which Paramount considered to be too long?
  • "Shatner was horrified with Bennett's edits, ..."
    "Horrified" seems a word needed to be attributed (who said it?), or reduced in effect.
  • "Of the first test audience, only a small portion considered the film "excellent", ..."
    The opening phrase is a bit weird and "only" can come across as biased wording. Suggestion: "A large portion of the first test audience did not consider the film "excellent", ..."
  • "Five minutes of footage were excised to improving the film's pacing, then shot an additional scene on the Bird-of-Prey to make the circumstances of Kirk's rescue clearer."
    Mismatched tenses (passive, active) results in a missing subject: who shot the additional scene?

Music

  • "... the God planet ..."
    Same issue raised in Development
  • "Goldsmith also added a crying ram's horn."
    Added a what?
  • "The breadth of The Final Frontier's locations ..."
    This can be ambiguous: does it refer to their sizes or their overall unity of artistic effect?
  • "Sybok is introduced with a synthesized motif in the opening scene of the film, while when Kirk and Spock discuss him en route to Nimbus III it is rendered in a more mysterious fashion."
    "While when" reads awkwardly to me, and "it" feels to be referring to the motif in the opening scene, which does not synchronize with the discussion (i.e. different scenes). Suggestion: "Sybok is introduced with a synthesized motif in the opening scene of the film. His motif plays again during Kirk and Spock's discussion of him en route to Nimbus, albeit in a more mysterious fashion."
  • "The Sybok theme ..."
    "Sybok's theme ..."?
  • "Arriving at Sha-ka-ree, the planet's five-note theme bears resemblance to Goldsmith's unicorn theme from Legend;"
    "Sha-ka-ree" or "Sha Ka Ree"? This sentence should also be rephrased; the current structure makes it seem to state that the five-note theme arrives at the fictional place.
  • What are "glissandos"?
  • "... the more aggressive Sybok theme ..."
    "More aggresive" as when compared to the standard character theme or the score for God?
  • "On Tuesday November 30, ..."
    I think "Tuesday" is irrelevant.

Sound effects

  • "... creating continuity within Star Trek' sounds ..."
    What is with the apostrophe?
  • "Mangini collaborated with Shatner to work out how the new effects would sound."
    Coming after "he decided to reuse many effects rather than create new and different-sounding ones himself", the way this sentence is phrased raises a surprise of the use of "the new effects".

Themes

  • "... dubbed the film part of an ..."
    I think it would flow better with "as" inserted between "film" and "part".

Release

  • "The Final Frontier was expected to make nearly $200 million."
    Expected by who?
  • "In its first week, The Final Frontier was number one at the domestic box office, its roughly $17.4 million opening on 2,202 screens beating the $16.8 million total of The Voyage Home and making it the best Star Trek opening weekend thus far."
    Long run-on sentence: it can be split into two, with the second rephrased.
  • "... beating the $16.8 million total ..."
    It strikes me that using "beat", as "be better than",[12] with an inanimate object (box office earning) might be informal (unsuitable for encyclopaedia).
  • "The Voyage Home, however, had played in only 1,349 theaters at a time with lower ticket prices. In its second week it tumbled 58% to make $7.1 million; its third week it grossed only $3.7 million. It had a wide release of ten weeks, shorter than any Star Trek film before it."
    Do the "it"s in the later sentences refer to The Voyage Home or The Final Frontier?
  • Boxofficemojo does not strike me to be that reliable a source; I know several media outlets have cited figures from them, but the site itself does not state where it derives its figures from. I would advise sourcing from Variety (Rentrak) instead.

Overall, the content is there to be developed into an FA. A prose brush-up and resolution of the above issues should do much of the job. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review, as always, Jappa. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, good luck on a ST films FT. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Hill edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I would be grateful if someone could have a look at this in light of the substantial changes made since this article was reviewed for GA and declined. General comments are welcome as well as specific points of improvement where it can be made. I'd also appreciate someone looking at the external links section, which is quite large and I think may require some reduction.

Thanks, Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. While there is a large amount of information in the article, there are still several issues that I think would prevent it from becoming a GA without some additional work. I am sorry to be slow with this review, but I have been busy and I kept finding issues to mention. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The Hermitage was a mansion with twenty rooms[208] which had its entrance on the old Mill Lane, which ran between Sheriff Hill and Carr Hill.[209] It is not clear when the house was built. The 1858 ordinance survey map shows a building on the site,[150] but later maps show a building of larger proportions.[209] It may have been added to or rebuilt.[209] According to Kelly's Directory, the house was occupied by John Cotes Copland in 1873.[209] By 1874 it was in possession of William Clarke.
  • This is a copyright violation of the source (it is not enough to reference the source used, the facts have to be paraphrased and expressed in your own words). See
The Hermitage, a mansion with twenty rooms had its entrance on the old Mill Lane, which ran between Sheriff Hill and Carr Hill. It is not clear when the house was built. The 1858 O.S. map shows a building on the site, but later maps show a building of larger proportions. It may have been added to or rebuilt. According to Kelly’s Directory, the house was occupied by John Cotes Copland in 1873. By 1874 it was in possession of William Clarke, engineer.
  • I will remove the copyvio text next. Here are the other issues I found.
  Done I agree with the removal of this material and I'm happy to leave it out for now. This was a difficult area to research in any event simply because there is so little, reliable material available so far as I can tell on Clarke, so it perhaps best to leave this out entirely. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article and seems overly detailed in places (do all the neighboring settlements need to be named in the lead?). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, even if it is just a phrase or word, but the bus service and Hermitage blue plaque are two sections not in the lead that I can see.
  Done The blue plaque section has been removed entirely and therefore need not be mentioned. I have added that the settlement lies on a major bus route. The nature of the Metroploitan Borough of Gateshead, namely two dozen or so historic villages being incorporated into the Town itself, lends itself to the inclusion of the neighbouring villages I think, simply because any reader wishing to find out more about Sheriff Hill may well do so by looking for the neighbouring villages Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • The lead image is pretty, but is it appropriate for a place with over 5000 inhabitants? When I first looked at the article and saw the title, I thought based just on the article name and lead image that this was about a hill, not a neighborhood / settlement / suburb. Is there a better image that could be used as the lead image (and then this oculd be used elsewhere in the article)?
✗ Not done To be honest, I simply don't have a good enough picture to replace this one at the moment. I have pictures of Sheriff Hill taken from the top of the main road but they are of fairly poor quality and I am loathe to use them. I will check my records again and see what I have...Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs to do a better job providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR. Sometimes it is difficult when you know a lot about a place or topic to make sure that the background is clear to an interested reader who knows little about the subject. In History, for example, I am still not sure what Gateshead fell is - I think a fell is a hill, but then for some reason Wesley saw it as an all white waste (I had to look at the parent article to see it was snow) and the parent article says it was a moor.
  Done I have made some additions which I hope address this re: Gateshead Fell Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are relatively few dates in History. For example there is no real sense of then the Sherriff's March took place (only when it ended).
  Done Again, I have made additions to this section to include start and finish dates for The Sheriff's March Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some information in History is seemingly contradicted later by material in other sections in the article. The History section has a sentence These dwellings were known as 'sodhuts' and were mostly erected in 1833. However the Housing section says that there were 91 cottages in 1713 and add Most were essentially mud huts; earth mounds carved into dwellings and roofed with either turf or, in the majority of cases, sod.[79]
  Done Okay, I've removed the offending sentence Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section is not very comprehensive - there is almost nothing mentioned after the 1800s and some things alluded to in the lead (like the 1974 incorpoation) are not included in it at all.
✗ Not done This is more tricky. I am conscious that two PR's have commented on the length of the article and I am, therefore, a little hesitant to add much more. Even with this is mind, once industry died out here circa 1900, the characteristics of the village were pretty settled so there isn't an awful lot more to say. As for the incorporation, I simply cannot find a reliable source which details this but, on the other hand, I cannot really take it out without the implication that Sheriff Hill remains a village in Durham which patently it is not! Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I tried checking one image, File:Sodhouse Bank 1920.jpg and the internet link given as the source was not for this photo. I fixed the link.
  Done As far as I can tell, all of the links were corrected prior to WP:GA and were up to date at that time Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • The references are not consistently done - retrieved on dates are not needed if things are not online.
  DoneAgain, I removed these prior to WP:GA Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • By the way, per WP:MOSQUOTE use 'single quotes' only for quotations within a direct quotation, otherwise use "double quotes" (so known as "sodhuts" and)
  Done Corrected now I think Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some italic text that does not meet WP:ITALIC
  Done I think these have all now gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2011 (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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I agree the External links section needs to be pruned. I would look at some FAs on English cities / neighborhoods / suburbs and see what kind of ELs they have. My guess is that some are not reliable sources and the ones that are can largely be converted to references. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it looks much like a featured article now. Anything that you can suggest will be fine with me.

Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this film, which is one of my favorites. I agree that it is close to FA, but think it needs some work before it would pass WP:FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs in Category:FA-Class Animation articles, but only two seem to be films (Fritz the Cat (film) and The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), so these might be models for the animation sections). There are many FAs on films at Category:FA-Class film articles, so there should be some useful models there too. I try to pick recent featured articles as models, as the standards have gotten more stringent over time.
  • The toolbox in the top right corner of this PR page finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
  • The lead seems short for an article of this length. WP:LEAD suggests two to three paragraphs for the lead in articles this size. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • One of the hardest FA criteria for most articls at FAC to meet is a professional level of English. This is generally well-written, but I think a copyedit would help polish the rough spots before FAC. A few examples of rough language follow, all from just the lead:
    • There are several reviewers at FAC who really dislike verb + ing constrcutions, so ... based on Gary K. Wolf's novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, depicting a world in which cartoon characters interact directly with human beings. might be better as something like ... based on Gary K. Wolf's novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, which depicts a world in which cartoon characters interact directly with human beings.

Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Missing word? Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman wrote two drafts of the script before Disney brought [in?] Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment to help finance the film.

Added "in". Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do not think lapse can be used in this way as a verb (lapse longer??) While filming, the production budget began to rapidly expand and the shooting schedule lapsed longer than expected.

Changed "lapsed" to "ran". Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • A film can receive critical accliam, I am not sure it can be released with it (perhaps released to critical acclaim) However, the film was released with financial success and critical acclaim.

Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The interest was in the golden age, not from it Who Framed Roger Rabbit brought a re-emerging interest from the golden age of American animation ...

Done. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • More to come soon - saving this review for now...
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Glad to see the language issues I pointed out are fixed, but this still needs a copyedit before FAC. I am sorry that do not have time to copyedit it or point out all the problems. WP:GOCE or WP:PR/V are two places to find copyediting help.
  • In Plot, the article is inconsistent about how actors who play a role are identified. Some are full name, others last name only. Since some of these have not been named previously in the lead, I would use their full names here (I would not count the infobox).
    •   Done I have limited it to the characters who were not in the lead. All the characters that were one name were already in the lead. I hope that's better. Jhenderson 777 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - link once in the lead and most people are Ok with linking once again the article body (usually at first appearance for each). Links in infoboxes, captions and references are OK too, but the screen writiers are linked twice in the body (plus once each in the lead, infobox, and refs). Golden Age of American animation is linked 3 times in the body (and once in the lead)
  • Some of the links are of dubiuous value - does linking surreal really help the reader understand this film better? (by the way, I love the link to death from laughter)
    • Honestly I think I can get that done faster if I know which specific links you are taking about. ;) Jhenderson 777 00:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Cast section, it seems like some of the details might be better in other parts of the article. It is interesting to know that Harrison Ford and Bill Murray were considered for the role of Eddy Valiant, but would these be better somewhere in the Production section? Similarly knowing that someone else was considered for the role of Benny the cab doesn't really seem to belong in the Cast description of Roger Rabbit, and the Tex Avery inspiration might also fit b etter in development / production.
  • I assume that things found in the credits of the movie do not need a ref (as the movie itself is the source). However It is often noted that, despite her performance and trademark, sultry voice, Kathleen Turner is not listed in the closing credits as providing the speaking voice for Jessica Rabbit needs a ref (since she is not credited, and we need to know who notices this). In general I would say that any sort of detail not directly from the film (Lloyd not blinking, or having worked with Zemeckis before) should be moved out of Cast and into other parts of the article. There is enough in Cast to make a casting paragraph in Production, probably after the last paragraph of Development
  • Sentence does not make sense - to offer your services does not imply that you have been hired, but being let go does: Robert Zemeckis offered his services as director in 1982,[1] but Disney acknowledged that his previous films (I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars) were box office bombs, and thus let him go.[5]
  • Lead says Disney brought in Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment to help finance the film. but development does not. Since the lead is a summary of the whole article, it should not have unique things in it (and this needs a ref)
  • I doubt that the third Chinatown movie would have had the exact same plot as the Cloverleaf subplot here (toons? Judge Doom dropping pianos on people? ;-) )
  • In Writing the last sentence of the first paragraph (comic strip toons in the novel) doesn't really fit with the rest of the paragraph. WHy not start the second paragraph with this, then say that other plot changes involved finding a suitable antagonist...
  • Since Disney did not distribute The Thief and the Cobbler, should this article note that somehwere? Perhaps in a note, since it is tangential to this film.
  • Did they really "hire" Spielberg or were they partners?
  • Needs a ref Filming began on December 5, 1986 and lasted for 7½ months at Elstree Studios, with an additional four weeks in Los Angeles and at Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) for blue screen effects of Toontown.
  • Animation section - please read WP:ITALIC and also look at capitalization. Dynamic is not spelled dinamic.
  • The whole Home videa section has no references and needs some
  • Needs a ref Animation legend Chuck Jones made a rather scathing attack of the film in his book Chuck Jones Conversations. Among his complaints, Jones accused Robert Zemeckis of robbing Richard Williams of any creative input and ruining the piano duel that both he and Williams storyboarded.
  • Critical reception sections seems a bit skimpy to me - for a film this popular and this well-received, this section seems short
  • Identify which awards the nominations were for (Saturns, presumably) Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd and Joanna Cassidy were nominated for their performances, while Alan Silvestri and the screenwriters received nominations.[21]
  • How does File:Mickey-mouse-bugs-bunny-113.jpg meet WP:NFCC? What does seeing the image do for the reader that text along could not? WHat makes it more than just an illustration?
  • For the short films, I would link to List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit media#Animated shorts. Since they were released in 1989, 1990, and 1993, all of which were Walt Disney's first theatrical shorts since Goofy's Freeway Trouble in 1965 is at best misleading.
  • This seems like a WP:WEIGHT issue, but it seems odd to have four paragraphs on the unproduced sequel and only two sentences on the short cartoons that were released and were pretty popular.
  • Make sure that sources cited support what the article says. There are two things i checked, and in both cases what I was able to see online for refs did not match well with what the article says. This is very worrisome.
  • The first place where sources do not match the article is There is also controversy over the scene where Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are playing a piano duel, and during his trademark ranting gibberish, Donald supposedly calls Daffy a "goddamn stubborn [N-word]." First off watch punctuation inside quotation marks - see WP:LQ please. Much more importantly, the only source I could check (Snopes.com) says this is false, and cites relaible sources for this. It is fine to report rumors / controversies like this, but if reliable sources say it is false, then the article has to report that too (see WP:NPOV). I am also not sure that snopes is a reliable source - see WP:RS
  • The second place where there are source issues is The Roger Rabbit dance section. First off, the section header does not seem to follow WP:HEAD (do not repeat all or part of the name of the article if you can avoid it). Second, this seems to be another WP:WEIGHT issue (two sentences on a total of three short cartoons, but a whole section of four sentences on this dance? Most importantly, the sources I was able to check do not in any way back up most of what is in the article. The one source I could not check, an exercise video, hardly seems like the best source on a dance either. Unless much better sources can be found (a math book dedication???) I would cut this to one sentence and merge it with another part of the article (the sources are enough to show the dance existed).
  • In Legal issues why are Wolf's other Roger Rabbit books (post this film) not mentioned?
  • The Themes section is only really one theme, and seems to focus much more on history of LA streetcars than this movie. Are there any scholarly works (books, articles) on the film and its themes?
  • References are in pretty rough shape. Current ref 44 is just a link, 45 and 46 are just bare URLs. 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
  • In general, for a good chance at passing FAC, every i has to be dotted and every t crossed. This article needs a lot of close attention to every detail, not just a copyedit (though that is part of it too).

Hope this helps, enjoyed the article and learned several things about a movie I really like. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]




List of colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have created this list from scratch, including content from official government sources. All the content in this list has been sourced properly. I have also included extra relevant sections on Autonomy and a mention of the concept of aided and government colleges. I have made the section on Autonomous colleges as a table, because I believe it will be more informative. Though I have information on all the other colleges listed, I believe that including course information for all colleges will only confuse the readers. I now await comments on this list. I have included all available information regarding the status of affiliation, autonomy and aid. Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There is a disambiguation link checker in the toolbox (upper right corner of this page) which finds six dab links to fix.   Done
  • List articles no longer start with "This is a list of... How about something like "There are NUMBER colleges affiliated with Visvesvaraya Technological University..." where NUMBER is the current number.
Partially done
  • While "affiliated to" is technically correct, I think "affiliated with" is the much more comon usage - not sure if the article title should be moved or not. Does the university itself use "affiliated to" (if so, then I would stick with it - might be an Indian English vs American English issue)
Note: Colleges make use of "affiliated to", so I believe this should be fine.
  • The lead is three paragraphs, but two of these are very short (one sentence each). I would combine those and make the lead two paragraphs. I would also explain briefly in this paragraph what the difference is between an autonomous and non-autonomous colleges is. In general, avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs wherever possible.
Partially done
  • Problem sentence: An aided course receives no funding from the Government of Karnataka, while an aided course receives some funding from the Government of Karnataka, while government colleges receive full funding from the Government of Karnataka. [2] First off, repeating aided course twice seems like it has to be an error. Second, please make usre that the use of italics follows WP:ITALIC. Third, the list is about colleges, but suddenly is discussing courses - I think this needs to be clarified. I assume that these are courses at affliated colleges.   Done
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body of the article, each time at first mention.
  • Explain abbreviations on first use - so Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU)   Done
  • The article has to do a better job explaining what is going on here. I am not 100% clear what being affiliated to (with) VTU does for a college. There are also five different categories of colleges in the lists (Autonomous colleges can be Private colleges or Government aided colleges, Non-autonomous colleges can be Private colleges, or Private aided colleges, or Government Colleges), but it is not clear to me how a government aided college differs from a government college.
  • I would also add a bit of history and background - I was surprised to see VTU is relatively young as an institution - when did affiliations start? See WP:PCR
  • The image needs a fair use rationale at the least (and I am not sure it meets WP:NFCC for use in this article. WHy not include some images of campuses of some of the colleges mentioned here?   Done Logo removed, pictures of campuses included.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)   Done

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tweaked the first lead paragraph a little bit and bolded the title.
  • The second paragraph is talking in part about unaided colleges, but then this sentence is still about courses: An unaided course receives no funding from the government... Not clear to me what the connection is - is college meant instead of course?
  • I would explain in the Lead in a sentence or two what Autonomous and Non-autonomous are - the lead is a summary of the article, so summarize that.

I will be glad to take a third look, but please ask me when you have done more work on it than was done this time. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congress members killed or wounded in office edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford this article/list underwent massive editing. It has since been relatively quiet. I am looking for what would get this to Featured list status. Any help or ideas for the opening paragraph would be the most helpful, as well as thoughts on the layout of the tables.P.S. i am placing this peer review under "history" but if it is better placed under "lists" please feel free to move it.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting list. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FLC.

  • I would make it clearer in the lead what the criteria are for inclusion in the list. To me it seems that someone had to want to try to kill or seriously injure the congressman or woman for them to be included here (or there to be serious claims that the intent was lethal for the hotel "disease").
  • That said, I am not sure why Thomas Schall is included, as his death seems to me to be accidental. If the driver was for some reason trying to kill him, that needs to be made much clearer here. My guess is that other congressmen have died in vehicle accidents and are not included here - actually, Hale Boggs would be one such case.
  • I think the lead of such a list is a good place to make summaries - so X died in duels, Y shot, Z senators and Q representatives.
  • Along those lines, what if the lead sentence were something like "Since the United States Congress was established in YEAR, X of its members have been killed in office by people seeking to do them harm, and Y members have suffered serious injuries as a result of such attacks." Not sure it is the greatest, but maybe it gives you an idea.
  • Could also do breakdowns by party, sex, and mention who was the first and who the most recent (all in the lead).
  • Since the main source is titled Members of the U.S. Congress Who Have Died of Other Than Natural Causes While in Office I wonder if this would be better if it followed that source (and listed accidents and suicides)?
  • Refs look OK
  • No dabs or dead external links
  • Only checked a few images, but the liceses I checked looked OK to me.
  • Text is decent - might help to have someone else look it over / do a copyedit (or print the article out, and read it out loud).
  • The wounded section may give you trouble - what are the criteria for being seriously wounded? WOuld it make sense to split this into two lists (deaths and wounded)? I am not sure.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Whitcomb Riley edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I was hoping to get some constructive criticism on this article from another set of eyes.

Thanks, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:
  • His children's poems where compiled into a book. "where"? I think you mean "were"
  • Riley achieved a level of fame during his own lifetime that has remained unmatched by other American poets during their own lifetimes. This is a WP:WEASEL pharse id unattributred.
  • He was honored with annual Riley Day celebrations in parts of the United States and was regularly called on to perform readings at national civic events. Which parts?
  • Although popular in his day, modern critics rate Riley as a minor poet... Which "modern critics"?
  • Riley remained living in his parents' home until he was twenty-one. Simpler to say "lived in his parent's home"
  • His childhood introduced him to many people who later influenced his poetry. No - something like "He was introduced in his childhood to many people who later influenced his poetry." But you need to say who those people were.
  • She was very superstitious, a belief she passed on to Riley. REphrase.
  • This is not well written and needs copy-editing.
Good suggestions are made at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and the linked articles. I would suggest that you read through this thoroughly, practice the suggested exercises and look for other experienced editors in the fields that you work in regularly who may be able to offer pointers. Wikipedia:Use plain English also has good advice. Writing "reasonably good prose" is a skill that takes time to develop and considerable effort. Reading George Orwell's 1946 essay Politics and the English Language is also highly recommended. Although written over fifty years ago, the points raised in this essay are still very true today.
For some starting points, you may wish to run the automated tips peer reviewer in the box at the top right of this page. Treat the results with caution, but it usually throws up some valid points. Hope this helps. It may seem like a lot of stuff, but developing writing skills does take some time. There are really no short-cuts.
Well referenced, images OK. Potentially this could become a good article, but the prose is below par. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming of You (album) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article because the article has failed FA and GA standards. Poor grammar is the main cause of the failures and I would like someone else's opinion on helping me copy-edit this article so it can be re-nominated for a featured article. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have read through the article and have to agree with the last GA reviewer that the prose is poor and often ungrammatical. I note that you have been pointed at the WP:Guild of copyeditors, but that you do not feel comfortable with this. Alternative suggestions are made at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and the linked articles. I would suggest that you read through this thoroughly, practice the suggested exercises and look for other experienced editors in the fields that you work in regularly who may be able to offer pointers. Wikipedia:Use plain English also has good advice. Writing "reasonably good prose" is a skill that takes time to develop and considerable effort. Reading George Orwell's 1946 essay Politics and the English Language is also highly recommended. Although written over fifty years ago, the points raised in this essay are still very true today.
For some starting points, you may wish to run the automated tips peer reviewer in the box at the top right of this page. Treat the results with caution, but it usually throws up some valid points. Hope this helps. It may seem like a lot of stuff, but developing writing skills does take some time. There are really no short-cuts. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read those recommended for me. Thank you for giving me tips. However, I was hoping on what needs to be done and tips on what to remove or revise? Thank you though, AJona1992 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is more a place to have problems pointed out than to have them fixed here. I agree that this needs some major work, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I am not sure why you do not want to use WP:GOCe, but there are also people who are willing to help with copyedits listed at WP:PR/V.
  • Another trick is to not look at the article for several days, then print it out and read it alound slowly. Often this helps you to catch errors that are missed by just reading due to familiarity with the text. I agree that this desperately needs a copyedit.
  • Another thing to look for is needless repetition. In just the lead, the fact that the album sold about 175,000 copies its first day is mentioned twice in the lead (although once it says over 175,000 and then 175,000 - which is it)
  • I also note that the sales figure mentioned above does not seem to be repeated in the article (at least a search for 175,000 does not show it). 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.
  • There is a fair use album cover image (pretty standard for articles on albums) and six fair use sound clips - how does this meet WP:NFCC?
  • The section on the Tour has no refs and needs at least one.
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • References are formatted oddly. For example, why is the year given twice in many refs, such as "Lannert, John (1997). "Year-to-date Latin Music Charts". Billboard (13 September 1997): 113. http://books.google.com/books?id=AQoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA80&dq=Selena+Dreaming+of+You&hl=en&ei=c7OcTO-4HsGC8gbugox2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Selena%20Dreaming%20of%20You&f=false." Internet refs need access date too.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to those concerns, I am still working with the article and expanding it further here since I found more articles from international sites. However, there's not a limit on music samples and this is the only place I go to for advise, everyone else doesn't bother with reviewing the articles I have expanded. AJona1992 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this to become a FA, you might look at a recent failed FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)/archive1 (from this month) which was opposed in part because the article on an album used 6 music samples. Please read WP:NFCC especially 3a. 3.a.Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. How can you justitfy six different music samples and meet every single criteria at NFCC? (all criteria must me be met for WP:FAIR USE) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:SAMPLE and it does not specify that there is a limit with adding music samples to any article on Wikipedia, its self. (1) "Only Love" was a song recorded by Selena to convey EMI Records to begin her crossover album in 1989, however, they declined because of the number of fans she, at the time, had. (2) "I'm Getting Used To You" - I don't mind removing this one because its only importance was that it peaked #22 on a music chart Selena never ventured in before. (3) "Techno Cumbia" - was remixed by A.B. Quintanilla III into a reggae/Dance Hall song to finish the rest of the album. Selena's sister, Suzette spoke about the song (on the 2002 re-issue of the album) that "Techno Cumbia" (remix version) is one of her well-known songs from the album because it uses modern sounds and is liked by children. (4) "Missing My Baby" - peaked #22 on the Rhythmic chart, it also features Full Force as back-up singers, which attributes the songs importance. (5) and (6) "Dreaming of You" and "I Could Fall in Love" are the most important music sample the album needs, not only that they are Selena's signature songs, they were featured in the 1997 movie about her life, they were given high praise in the English market. These are the only two songs (from this album) that continues to have extensive airplay today. AJona1992 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviews are one person's opinion, which you (or any editor) are free to ignore. However, WP:SAMPLE links to NFCC criterion 3a (which I linked to above) in its statement about minimal use: There is no limit to the number of samples that can be used in one article (although, critically, non-free samples are subject to requirements for minimal use), but keep in mind that music samples serve as tools for a better understanding of the article, so insert only relevant samples. These are all non-free samples and I really doubt that most FAC reviewers will be fine with 6 music samples for one album. Your call, and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate your comments and your opinions, out of the six that I can see out of the article is "I'm Getting Used To you" and "Techno Cumbia". The rest are highly crucial to the page. I'll try to find someone to help me with copy-editing the article. Thanks for your comments, AJona1992 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawton, Oklahoma edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I feel that it needs a look from someone else. I'm stuck in a rut and can't figure out what it needs, if anything. Any advice and comments would be very helpful.

Thanks, Crimsonedge34 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lawton is primarily centered on government, manufacturing and retail trade industries." -- if there isn't already, there should be info on what % each of these contributes to the national GDP to show comparative significance.
  • maybe try to add stuff about what makes this place "better" or "more interesting" or "more significant" than any other place in this world?
  • or why would someone want to live here as opposed to any other place
  • stating boring facts like "Lawton has two AM Stations" is exactly that -- stating boring facts

but these are the criteria and that's what the FAC is will be based on: Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria rm2dance (talk)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:GAN or WP:FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. An FA on a small city that may be a good model is Lock Haven, Pennsylvania.
  • There is a toolbox on this PR page which has a disambiguation link checker which finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
  • There are also several dead external links that the EL checker finds, which will need to be fixed too
  • The History section seems too brief to me. I would add a bit more on the Native American history before Fort Sill was established, as well as giving more on the relation with Fort Sill. Or when did I-44 arrive? Were there important railroad lines before that ?
  • In another example, unless you know Fort Sill is not closing, the Base Closing sentence makes little to no sense without some context. See WP:PCR
  • Watch grammar too - for example, it is unclear what the last phrase means in The city was opened to settlement through an auction of town lots beginning on August 6, 1901 and were completed sixty days later.[12] What was completed after 60 days - the settlement of the town? the auction of lots? Plus were as a verb does not match the previous verb in number
  • The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that make the article's flow choppy
  • I checked one photo - File:Henry Ware Lawton.jpg and it has no source. If this were to go to FAC the images will be checked and this would not pass muster. Where is the photo from? How can it be shown that this is the work of a US Government employee?
  • I would try to include a bit of Geology in the Geography section
  • Spell out numbers under 10 (so fourth, not 4th)
  • In the Government section, I would specify the year (As of 2011...) to make it clear when this was last updated
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness - so even if it is stating boring facts, the article needs to be comprehensive

Abraham Quintanilla Jr edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article because the article has failed GA standards. Poor grammar is the main cause of the failure and I would like someone else's opinion on helping me copy-edit this article so it can be re-nominated for a good article. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments': This PR nomination looks premature. The article failed its recent GA review, mainly because of poor prose, and you should have been prepared to work through these points with the GA reviewer before bringing the article here. In fact, so far very little has been done to tackle the problems. It is for you to take an initiative in finding another editor prepared to copyedit and correct the many prose errors; have you attempted to contact anyone who might be prepared to help here? Perhaps someone with a similar interest in Latin-American-themed articles? Your lack of activity means that a PR review is likely to highlight exactly the same issues as arose in the GA review. That won't help you, or anyone else. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have asked around, but no one has interest in any of the articles that I offer, or they are just busy. That's why I came here. AJona1992 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Me, Drink Me edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · 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 the quality of the article. Is this ready for a GA nomination?

Thanks, Salgado96 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruby2010 I do not feel the article is yet ready for GA status. The references are almost entirely bare URLs, and some of the websites may not be reliable sources. Also, there are a number of paragraphs/sentences that lack references. Hope this helps and good luck. Ruby2010 comment! 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :) well, I would like to someone with more experience to do that please, if it's possible... I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Thank You Salgado96 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon

I've just placed a couple of cleanup templates on the article: {{link rot}} and {{refimprove}}. Those are the two most glaring issues with it at the moment; it uses bare URLs, whereas citation templates should be being used. Secondly, many sections are entirely unreferenced while others are seriously underreferenced. I could go through placing {{fact}} tags everywhere, but it'd be demotivating to see your article butchered so. Suffice to say, it needs more referencing, and it needs cleaner referencing. You say you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices; as such, I'd be more than happy to help out. Just post any queries you might have on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to edify. Oh, and unfortunately – to answer your question – this isn't ready for GA status. Not just yet. Seegoon (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been listed as a Good Article, after a very useful and constructive review by MuZemike, and I would now like to take the article towards Featured Article. I'm therefore looking for any constructive criticism on the article and what myself and other editors should do to achieve this.

Thanks, Coolug (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A thoroughly queasy exercise, but interesting none the less. Most of the points shown below are relatively minor:-

Plot
  • There's an apparent contradiction here: "The victims manage to escape from the ward, and Katsuro attacks Heiter, but their attempt to escape ultimately fails." They "manage to escape", but "but their attempt to escape ultimately fails."
  • We are not told if Heiter's shooting is fatal
Cast
  • Some of the information is repetitive, e.g. "...a police officer who is investigating the disappearance of tourists in the area and is ultimately lead to discover Heiter's creation". We know this from the plot summary.
Writing
  • I am not sure that "antagonist" is the correct word here. An antogonist is an opponent or adversary; I would describe Heiter more as the film's antihero. (see also lead)
  • "...Six citing the German invasion of the Netherlands during World War II and the subsequent Nazi medical experiments". This reads as a direct connection between the invasion of the Netherlands and medical experimentation. Is this the intention? If so, how is the link justified?
  • What was the principal language of the film? You say English, German and Japanese in the infobox; does that mean a mixed script, or three different language versions available?
Filming
  • "Laser also accidentally kicked Kitamuro (Katsuro) during filming which led to a fight on set between the actors, but he ultimately helped contribute to the tension and anger throughout the scene". The "but" conjunction is wrong here. Also, you need to clarify who "he" is, and elucidate "throughout the scene".
Filming
  • "During filming, the production team were denied permission to film the car breakdown scene on the road. However, Six decided to go ahead and film on location as he felt it was perfect for the scene. The rain in the scene was added digitally in post-production." This seems rather inconsequential information, and I'm not sure I follow it. Does "on location" mean that Six defied whoever it was that denied hin permission? My general view is that the information is not important enough to warrant inclusion.
Music and sound effects
  • The two words "Nazi" and "inspiration" do not sit well together. I suggest a more neutral word, e.g. "influence".
  • "A lot of..." is not very professional-sounding. Perhaps "Many of..."
Effects
  • This is the first mention of the "three-dog"; if this is significant it should be covered in the plot synopsis rather than cropping up here.
Theatrical
  • Unnecessarily verbose: "with regard to". Try "about".
  • One sentence contains the word "release" three times. Try and knock at least one out.
  • Capitalization of "Gross"? Should there not be some comparison between revenues and the production costs, which I don't see mentioned anywhere?
Reception
  • "Whilst Total Film described the film as a disappointment that "proved itself to be a slow-moving, repetitive affair that has nowhere left to go by the hour mark". This does not constitute a whole sentence. Also, "whilst" is frowned on by WP's prose gurus; drop the word and the sentence becomes grammatical.
  • "Sarcastically" sounds like a POV on the nature of the NYT comments. The word should be withdrawn
Accolades
  • This section should be redrafted in prose, not bullet-points
Sequel
  • Not sure of the future tense in "Tom Six has stated that the first film will get audiences desensitized..." And why is he suddenly "Tom" again?
General

I have not checked out the references, but ref 8 looks like a subscription service and should be noted as such.

I hope that these comments are useful to you. As I am not able to watch individual PR pages, lease use my talkpage if you want to raise matters from this review. It would also help to shift the PR backlog if you were able to review one of the potstanding articles yourself. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this helpful review. I'll go about making some changes based upon your suggestions. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes for each of the points you have made, with the exception of keeping Heiter as an antagonist, as I feel that term is quite appropriate for the moment. Thanks again for your help. If any other editors have any suggestions I'd love to hear them, however, I'm going to be away from wikipedia a fair bit over the next two weeks so might not be able to get to them all that quickly. cya Coolug (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-93064-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/April_2011&oldid=431907402"