Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2009

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.

---

2004 World Series

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I first found this article in this form and I nominated it for FA status a while back but withdrew it due to issues being raised that would take while to fix. I hope I've addressed these issues now, but I want to be sure before I consider re-nominating, see the FAC page here.

As I'm hoping to make this a FA, please review this as you would a FAC. BUC (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments –

• At the FAC, SandyGeorgia commented on the many MLB.com (primary) sources, and asked why more third-party sources weren't included. I remember posting links to several Sports Illustrated and Time magazine issues. Have these been read? The sourcing is improved from the first FAC, but there are still a large number of MLB.com stories. Game recaps are avaliable online from many newspapers, not to mention offline stories.
  • I've found replacements for as many of the MLB.com ref as I can. Yes I've read mazine articles, doesn't appear to be any new informtion in them, just general talk about the Red Sox. BUC (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• The majority of text on the Curse of the Bambino really shouldn't be in Aftermath because it was the biggest story heading into the Series. If anything, I'd expect to see most of it matched with the ALCS summary.
  • I don't want to go into too much detail about the ALCS in this article. Curse of the Bambino didn't end until they won the world serise, so it has to be in the aftermath section.
• Couple of questionable sources: IMDB (ref 58; something better should be out there on the broadcasters) and Baseball Almanac (ref 55; it's never been proved reliable).
  • This means having too use MLB.com again. The IMDB ref was all I could find.
    • In this case, I feel it would be better to use a primary source than a poor one. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 68 is a New York Times story that should be freely avaliable online. Would be nice to include a link. I mentioned this, along with one of the sources above, at the first FAC.
• The best prose suggestion I can offer is to get someone who knows nothing about baseball to look at the article and point out jargon issues. Terms unfamiliar to non-baseball fans are always an obstacle for sports articles at FAC, and I have much trouble finding them myself.
• Game 1: "Williams gave up a lead-off double to Orlando Cabrera, and then hit Orlando Cabrera in the shoulder with a wild pitch. "lead-off" is a perfect example of baseball jargon, and I'm confused by the last part; how could it be a wild pitch and a hit batter? I'm as big a baseball fan as anyone here and that left me shaking my head.
  • I would have thought a wild pitch could quite easily hit a batter, in fact you see it all the time. However I've checked the box score and it seems it was not scored a wild pitch on this occasion. BUC (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Game 2: "Large blame for the Cardinals' losses in the first two game was directed at the fact that Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Reggie Sanders, three of the Cardinals' best batters, had combined for just one hit in 22 at-bats." Structure and grammar of this sentence need work. This would be an improvement: "Much of the blame for the Cardinals' losses in the first two games was directed at Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Reggie Sanders, three of the team's best batters, who combined for just three hits in 22 at-bats." The statistic was wrong as well.
  • I've checked the box score from games one and two, they only had one hit, in fact they only had one hit in the whole series. BUC (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That means the source for this statement has a factual error. Reference 41 says "Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Reggie Sanders are a combined 3-for-22 in the first two games of the Fall Classic." Having checked Baseball-Reference box scores to confirm the inaccuracy, a correct source should be inserted. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Game 3: "After forcing out Walker at first base, David Ortiz began moving toward Suppan who had turned his back toward third, Ortiz threw to third baseman Mueller who tagged Suppan out." Could use a semi-colon to replace the comma before Ortiz, and a pair of commas before "who"s. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

4 Minutes (Madonna song)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has all the signs of being a Featured article on Wikipedia, however there can be issues with the prose since the article is quite huge. I request reviewers to scrutinize the prose and comment on what can be done to make it perfect for FA.

Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody please ? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is on the backlog (with 24 othger requests, 14 older) so someone will get to it in the next several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is a comprehensive and informative article. Its greatest weakness at the moment is ts prose. Sentences tend to be overlong; there are repetitions; there are redundancies; punctuation is wayward. I have been through the lead in detail and highlighted the main prose glitches. What these indicate is that the whole article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit. I don't have the time to do this myself, but another editor with experience of "song" articles might oblige.

Here are my lead points:-

• It is not clear whether Timberlake and Timbaland, or just Timbaland, co-wrote and produced the song.
• "from getting destroyed" is clumsy phrasing. "from destruction" would be much neater.
• What does "instead of distracting oneself" mean? This sentence, incidentally, is far too long.
• "Lyrically the song has a message of social awareness in it and was inspired by Madonna's witnessing of the suffering of the people of Africa". You don't need "lyrically, "in it" or one of the "ofs". Thus: "The song has a message of social awareness, and was inspired by Madonna's witnessing the suffering of the people of Africa."
• I think "praised" is probably a better term than "appreciated", in this context
• What is a "hooky chorus"?
• Another overlong sentence: "Although reviewers called the song one of the most thrilling things Madonna has done in decades and one of Hard Candy's best moments, they also noticed how Madonna appeared more of a featured artist in the song than Timberlake whose vocals were compared to Michael Jackson's." It's not actually clear what point is being made here - "Madonna appeared more of a featured artist in the song than Timberlake whose vocals were compared to Michael Jackson's." What does this mean?
• "It became Madonna's thirteenth UK number one single thus making her the female artist with the most number ones in Britain." Again, this prose is heavy-footed. Try "It became Madonna's 13th UK No. 1 single, the highest total for any female artist in the UK charts."
• "portrayed...portrayed" in close repetition. Why not "depicted" for the second?
• "in the end" → "finally"
• "It was called heart-pounding" – what was? In any event, "heart-pounding" needs to be in quotes.
• Comma required after "heart-pounding", and best refer to 'Michael Jackson's "Thriller"' (there may be a couple of recluses somewhere who need to be told that).
• Another awkward sentence: "Madonna performed the song in the Hard Candy Promo Tour and the Sticky & Sweet Tour where it was performed as the opening song of the rave segment of the tour." Links required for the two tour names. Lose the "performed repetition and shorten the phrasing. Thus: "Madonna performed the song in the Hard Candy Promo Tour and also in the Sticky & Sweet Tour where it was the opening song of the tour's rave segment." You might consider a link on rave, although the link article is pretty substandard.
• Comma required after "robotic dress"
• "...Timberlake and Timbaland appeared on the video screens, during the performance." Er, doing what?

I hope that these comments will help you to develop the article toward an eventual FA. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Brian. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything else?

Anything else that needs to be done? Please guys, respond. I'm trying my best to push it up for FA.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in order to what parts from this list need to be fixed. I'm a bit concerned about the summaries' length and it would be good if someone can copy-edit this article.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Peer review regulations require articles to be free of major cleanup banners. This article has one, adting from December 2008, relating to prose and grammar. Efforts should be made to resolve these issues before the article is presented for review. Have you tried asking a friendly editor to copyedit? Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the summaries a lot of time before the peer review's start and I have been revising them prior to this. I don't if the summaries are still in a bad shape, so I did not remove the tag.Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My only question is, why was the 2nd volume having a different cover? I don't see any information. Has Viz commented on it?陣内_Jinnai 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know they haven't.Tintor2 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick review: Basic grammar problems throughout really hurt this article. The clean-up tag is deserved and should remain until a thorough scrubbing of the grammar.

The lead paragraphs opening the article are a complete jumble. What's your point? I kept asking. Is this a list of chapters? A history of the magazine? A description of reprints? What happened with animation? etc. Decide what the focus of the article is to be. Summarize that focus in the lead. Move related but nonessential info to other sections.

An overall 1-2 sentence summary of the series in the lead paragraphs would be a help. If this were Moby Dick, for example, it might be 'The novel concerns a whaling expedition led by Captain Ahab, who is obsessed with capturing the albino whale called Moby Dick.' Like that. No need for lots of detail: just some context please. No I see you have this; however, it's sort of buried for my taste.

The chapter tables themselves are probably of interest to somebody (?). The layout is consistent and the information easy to grasp. The summaries seem to be of a consistent length and level of detail. I'm guessing that do an OK job of summarizing the main points (?). HOWEVER please, please, please review the grammar and sentence structure.

Hope this helps. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tintor2's primary langauge is not english, some consideration and examples would be helpful. As for the lead, it's not remotely a jumble. It states what the article is, the basic synopsis, the details of the publishing in it's two "major" markets, and comments on the anime adaptions. Seems like a perfectly acceptable lead for a chapter list to me. If anything, it's a good example to others working on chapter lists. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope I have not offended Tintor by critiquing grammar (as requested). I fear I would not do so well in Japanese. I can barely cope in English.

About the lead: You asked, I opined. The lead gets no better or worse by arguing with my opinion.

Sentence topics:

1. Book and author.
2. Publication History.
3. Synopsis of series

1. Enlarging on publication history (basically enlarging on sentence 2)
2. Re-release as special edition.
3. Single chapter with new character, and where that chapeter was published.
4. More about that single chapter, and how it was added to the re-release
5. Some parts animated
6. Other parts animated

1. Viz media english version
2. Viz media changes to monthly issue
3. After changing to monthly, volumes issued each month,
4. That single chapter? That also got serialed in english.
5. Viz then did another English language reissue.

How about this arrangement

1. Book and author.
2. Synopsis of series

1. Publication History
2. Enlarging on publication history (basically enlarging on sentence 2)
3. Re-release as special edition

1. Viz media english version
2. Viz media changes to monthly issue
3. Viz then did another English language reissue

1. Some parts animated
2. Other parts animated

1. Single chapter with new character, and where that chapter was published.
2. More about that single chapter, and how it was added to the re-releas
3. That single chapter? That also got serialed in english.
   

There are many ways to skin this cat, but an arrangement like the one above provides an example of how the lead might be improved. Each new paragraph grouping allows for a single topic sentence that introduces the info to follow. Because the sentences in each group have related subjects, it is easier to expand and/or combine them.

Also, it's easier to see relevance (or lack of relevance) of this information to the List of Chapters title. For example -- what is the relevance of the "animated" information to this list of chapters. Should the table include animation info showing that a chapter was animated, and in which animated series? Should the animation sentences be deleted as not relevant to this list? Etc.

I don't care how the lead paragraphs are laid out, but when I say they are jumbled, they are jumbled. In current version you can't find a reasonable topic sentence for any paragraph. You start reading about one thing and then (surprise) jump to another topic, then (surprise) jump back. That's a jumble. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not offended. The arrangement looks good but WP: Lead says the maximum number of paragraphs is four.Tintor2 (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First: Break every rule. Second: OK, so how would you collect the relevant information into four paragraphs? Could you combine the Japanese and English publication histories? (Topic sentence: the episodes appear in both Japanese and English editions.) Could you remove the animation sections, which have no further relevance in the lists? You know this subject...I don't. PS If English is your second language, you must be a genius in your first language! --Nemonoman (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My language is very easy, (I'm finding English similar but with more rules) I ll later check how to fix rearrange this.Tintor2 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Use romanji in conjunction with the chapter list and the {{nihongo}} template? Extremepro (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Where can I get the romaji? The converter I use is full errors.Tintor2 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • I use romaji.org and then feed the words through Denshi Jisho to make sure I get back the right kanji & translation. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried doing one for the first chapter in jisho. However, there are many spaces 流浪人·街へ行くwas translated to "rurou nin · machi he iku".Tintor2 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Vincent van Gogh

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has undergone a very successful GAR with over 500 edits made to improve the article. Talk page discussion mentioned an interest in pursuing a WP:FAC. However, I believe that a PR is an appropriate first step in this regard.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope all you guys who helped with the GAR are watching this. I have started to address the APR above. I will need some help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned Tony, I will stay tuned, real life permitting...Modernist (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Without having read the article; just with a quick look, a problem I see is that the article is overloaded with pictures. There must be some selection of the most representative works.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Much of the GAR was spent moving images from the gallery to the main article. I believe many visual arts articles have a lot of images. In this case, we have the opportunity to actually show the reader what the text is talking about. If the images can fit in the text why not include them in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tony..and an artist like Vincent van Gogh is best explained by his pictures. The text can always be expanded...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tony and Modernist, and do not think there are too many images. But still the text needs more work, especially the second part, and then we shall see, which images are necessary (perhaps even more, probably others!). --RPD (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We had hoped for more substantive feedback. I'd appreciate any additional advice that we can get for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs a lot of work to get to FA, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow, and I note that El Greco is an FA about an artist. There are probably other model FAs.
• The lead is too short and does not seem to meet WP:LEAD - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The discussion of other relatives named Vincent seems like it could be in the Name section - could Name and Early life be combined?
• Speaking of names, the article says the proper spelling is "van Gogh" but the article uses both this and "Van Gogh". I think it is OK to use capital "Van Gogh" at the start of a sentence (start a sentence with a capital letter).
  • Please see Talk:Vincent_van_Gogh/Archive_1#Capitalization. The usage determined is "Vincent van Gogh", but "Van Gogh". Ty 08:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Having changed them all to van Gogh, I changed them back to Van Gogh pending consensus here. IMO I prefer Van Gogh, as I noticed as I was changing them yesterday...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article also refers to him as both van Gogh and Vincent, but the MOS says he should be called van Gogh (although calling him Vincent when he was a child is probably OK).
  • "Vincent" would be normal usage when necessary to avoid confusion in the text with other people also named Van Gogh, e.g. his brother Theo van Gogh. When this is not necessary, usage reverts to surname. Ty 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• The article needs more refs to get through FAC - for example Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, "...to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture." needs a ref as a direct quote - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref
• Things like Diagnoses that have been put forward include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, syphilis, poisoning from swallowed paints, temporal lobe epilepsy and acute intermittent porphyria. Any of these could have been the culprit and been aggravated by malnutrition, overwork, insomnia and a fondness for alcohol and absinthe in particular (see Still Life with Absinthe, 1887). need a ref too
• The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which impede flow and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases.
• There is not a great narrative thread in the second half of the article (after Biography)
• van Gogh is so popular and well known that I would make sure it is as complete as possible before going to FAC, otherwise there will be people who know a lot about van Gogh asking why this or that was omitted.
• I like his work very much, but at some point I think that less is more with images
  • I concur with this review in almost all aspects. I had essentially encouraged bringing the article here before FAC for its need for improvement. I also believe that the article could use some more heft. At 42KB readable prose, the article could easily be augmented by a third without any controversy over its length. This would also create turf to accommodate the abundance of images and lessen the need for removal. However, it may be the case that some removals can not be avoided.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and adding such important and useful comments...Modernist (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Michael Jackson videography

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take this videography to FLC in the future, but need to fix any problems it may have first.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, and I enjoyed reading it. I added some nbsps and made other minor proofreading changes as I went through the article. I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

Heads

• MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." For this reason, it would probably be best to shorten subhead 1.1 to "By Jackson" or something else to avoid repeating "music videos" in two heads.

Lead

• "Referred to as the "King of Pop" in subsequent years, seven of his solo albums have been promoted with music videos" - This sentence has a dangling modifier problem since "seven" was never referred to as the King of Pop. Suggestion: "Seven of the solo music videos of the "King of Pop" were promoted with music videos."
• "entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV" - It might be helpful here to spell out as well as abbreviating MTV on first use, thus: Music Television (MTV).

Music videos

• "When Walter Yetnikoff, the president of Jackson's record label, CBS, approached MTV to play the "Billie Jean" video, they initially refused; they felt... " - CBS is an "it" rather than a "they". To make the subject agree with the verb, it might be best here to say, "When Walter Yetnikoff, the president of Jackson's record label, CBS, asked MTV executives to play the "Billie Jean" video, they initially refused; they felt... ". Maybe "executives" isn't the best word, but some other plural would do equally well in fixing the s-v agreement problem.
• "When Walter Yetnikoff... " - It would be good to add the date here. The year is probably enough. It's in the lead, sort of, but needs to be in the main text as well.
• "Videos released in this period also continued the usage of group choreography... " - The Manual of Style prefers "use" to "usage".
• "The Thriller music video introduced the use of female counterparts to short films, and was expensive to make." - I had to puzzle this one out because I couldn't see how a short film could have a female counterpart. Suggestion: "The Thriller music video added female counterparts to Jackson's main part and was expensive to make." Or something like that.

Filmography

• "Quincy Jones was the musical supervisor and music producer for the film and marked Jones' first time working with Michael Jackson." - Something's slightly awry here since Jones didn't mark Jones. Suggestion: "Quincy Jones was the musical supervisor and music producer for the film, which involved Jones' first collaboration with Jackson." Or something similar.
• "Lasting 17 minutes and costing $30 million to make, the film was the most expensive video produced per-minute." - It would be good to clarify this in two ways. Does this mean Jackson's most expensive or the most expensive ever produced by anyone? If the latter, it would be good add "through 2009" if that is the case. I notice the lead says "ever" but that should be included here too if only on grounds that the lead should contain nothing that is not in the main text.
• "Another Jackson-created film, Ghosts, saw the African American musician transformed into an elderly Caucasian man with no rhythm, and holds the world record for being the longest music video ever made" Since films can't see, a slight re-wording might improve this. Suggestion: "In another Jackson-created film, Ghosts, the African American musician played an elderly Caucasian man with no rhythm. This film holds the world record as the longest music video ever made."

Television

• "One of Michael Jackson's conditions for guest starring was that he voiced himself, but a sound-alike would receive credit." - The verb tense changes in mid-sentence. "Using "would voice" instead of "voiced" would fix the problem.

Notable appearances

• "2003 saw the airing of Living with Michael Jackson, a documentary following Jackson for 8 months." - Two problems. Years don't see, and numbers from one to nine usually get written as words. Bigger numbers usually appear as digits. Suggestion: "In 2003, a documentary called Living with Michael Jackson tracked his life for eight months."

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All done. Thanks a lot. :) Pyrrhus16 12:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

School Rumble

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have it checked over for content, for any editing (any copyediting you can do would be appreciated), to see if I can get help shrinking the reception section without removing anything vital (perhaps also splitting it up more) and I want some feedback on whether the remaining items marked with need could be removed without harming the article and/or in the case of titles would be better moved to List of School Rumble episodes.

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Stacy London

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it to the featured article list. Since creating an account on wikipedia I've developed an interest in writing and continued to edit pages that are appealing to me. I've recently moved into writing new articles and I've done a lot of rewriting/updating to this article in particular. Since I've never taken any journalism or creative writing classes I feel this is a good way for me to get some constructive feedback on what could be better. This article isn't long so it shouldn't take too much time to review/critique. I would also appreciate it if someone could rate this article according to WikiProject biography's quality assessment scale and change the status (if need be) on this article's discussion page.

Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Music2611

Here are my comments on the article. I think FA is a long way for this article, but it is getting there, slowly.

• The lead fails to properly summarize the article.  Done
• The image is tagged because it doesn't have licensing info.  Done
• Vogue magazine can be linked.  Done
• Does ref 5 cover the first section of the Career section? Please make clear.  Done
• Try to avoid words such as "currently" and "most recently", they have to be changed eventually.  Done
• Either refer to Stacy London as "Stacy" or "London", you mix them up in the article. My advice would be London, because Stacy sounds like you know her personally.  Done
• Kelly's first name in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the Career section is unnecessary since he is already mentioned earlier in the article.  Done
• Final sentence of second paragraph in the Career section is unreferenced.  Done
• Third paragraph of the Career section is unreferenced.  Done
• Underscores in What Not to Wear (US) are redundant, (US) should be covered with a pipe: [[What Not to Wear (US)|What Not to Wear]]. The show should be linked the first time it is mentioned and it should be in italics.  Done
• Does ref 18 cover the Oprah thing? Please make clear.  Done
   :Removed that sentence altogether.
• Oprah's last name needs to be mentioned for readers who are unfamiliar with her. N/A
• Please rename the final section "Personal Life", is more clear.  Done
• TV.com is an unreliable source. ??? Why? ✗ Not done
• References 4,5,6,9,10,18,19 and 20 are incorrectly cited.  Done
• Reference 23 is missing publisher info.  Done
• General Comment: Please try to keep the article as chronological as possible. In the career section you jump from this year to that year, which makes reading a bit uncomfortable.  Done

Hopefully my comments are helpful.--Music26/11 12:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are very helpful. Thank You. Gbern3 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with references 4, 5, 6... 20. If no author or date is given, isn't that the only way you can cite them? 66.213.50.2 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Strictly Come Dancing

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to good article but needs that extra push. I can see some unsourced material and a lot of red links.

Thanks, LizzieHarrison 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs a lot of work before it is ready for GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead should be longer too, probably four paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the BBC HD fact seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the section headers are not in the lead at all.
• The article may need fewer sections / headers too - for example, could the Christmas specials all be in one section?
• Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references throughout. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole sections without a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed, but current refs 42 to 52 are just title and publisher. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article has many paragraphs and even sections that are quite short (one or two sentences) - in almost all cases these should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
• The article is inconsistent in its presentation of material. For example Series 1 and 2 seems not to have their own articles, and Series 1 has almost no explanatory text, just a series of lists / tables. I would have an article for each series and have the main tables of contestants and order of finish etc. in the sub-article (the tables do not need to be in both places). See WP:Summary style
• The statistics section also seems like it could split off into a separate table (if this even notable at all).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Twitter

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
  • I've gone through the automated suggestions, and found that most issues brought up are false positives. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's undergone an exhaustive re-edit and it would be great to get it closer to FA status.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please note: Twitter's peer review of March 2009 and current good article reassessment. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be done to lift it up to FA status?--The lorax (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the things in the featured article candidacy are worth noting. Our main problems there were copyediting and sources. They've both been attended to, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to register either as "solved". Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is looking very good. I carefully proofread the entire article again today and made many tiny changes, as you can see by looking at the article history. I got stuck in just a couple of places, but the article generally seems quite clear this time around. Nice job. Here are a few more suggestions or questions.

History

• "Twitter began in a "daylong brainstorming session" that was held by board members of the podcasting company Odeo... " - Wikilink podcasting?
  • Good call. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}
• "The developers prototyped with “10958″ as short code, later changing it to “40404″ for "ease of use and memorability." - "Prototyped" is not such a good verb. Suggestion: "The developers first used "10958" as the short code, later changing... ".
  • Changed to "experimented" Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}
• "when Dorsey published the first Twitter message at 12:50 PM PST... " - WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations says in part, "Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence." A few things are excepted from this guideline, but I think PST should be Pacific Standard Time (PST), especially for readers outside of the Western Hemisphere.
  • Done Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}

Finances

• "Hacked documents revealed by TechCrunch show Twitter projects its Q3 (2009) revenue to be $400,000 and its Q4 revenue to be $4 million." - It might be helpful to spell out Q3 and Q4, thus: "... projects its third quarter (Q3) revenue in 2009 to be $400,000 and its fourth quarter (Q4) revenue to be $4 million".
  • Done Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}
• "By the end of 2010 Twitter expects to be at a $140 million revenue run rate." - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that Twitter projects annual revenues of $140 million based on the revenue rate on Dec. 31, 2010? I assume the term "run rate" is used because acceleration keeps changing the base rate, but I don't know for sure. A brief in-text explanation or a footnote might be helpful here.
• "Twitter board member Todd Chaffee forecast that the company could make money from e-commerce noting that many users may want to buy items directing from Twitter... " - "directly" rather than "directing"?
  • Already amended by someone else Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}

Technology

• "Twitter has been described as akin to a Web-based IRC client." - Internet Relay Chat (IRC) on first use?
• Ditto for API slightly further down. Application programming interface (API)?
  • Both done. They used to be mentioned earlier in the article, so had already been expanded, but I'd forgotten the removal would affect. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}

Outages

• "On June 12, 2009, in what was called a potential "Twitpocalypse", the unique identifier... " - Wikilink unique identifier?
  • Done Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}
• "While Twitter itself was not affected, some third-party clients were." - How were they affected? Unable to use Twitter? For how long? Can the Twitpocalypse be quantified?
  • Written a bit more, with an extra source Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}

2008

• "In October 2008 a draft U.S. Army intelligence report identified the Twitter as a potential terrorist tool." - Delete "the"?
  • Done Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}

2009

• "In May 2009 astronaut Michael J. Massimino used Twitter to keep updates... " - Should that be "send updates" rather than "keep updates"?
  • Once again, well noticed Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)}

I hope these comments and the nit-picky changes I made prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. This is where I found this one (once again). Finetooth (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding them. There are several we should have noticed, but your eyes just flow across the errors without noticing sometimes. I'll certainly try todo a peer review when I get the chance. Not sure about the "run rate" thing though. I'll leave to someone who understands finance to decrypt. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "run rate" is a formal term in finance. See http://www.fool.com/foolu/askfoolu/2003/askfoolu030619.htm for a definition. Wikipedia only has a "run rate" definition for cricket so we can't really link to that for clarification. :-) So we've got two options: (a) make a wikipedia page that explains financial run rate and link to it or (b) pare down the details in that section so that we don't use non-vernacular terms. I'm not qualified to do (a) and I actually think (b) is a better choice since we may be covering this in too much detail anyway. Since Twitter is basically saying "and through some unspecified process we shall go from zero to millions in profit" I think the focus should be on their claim of sudden revenue and not the exact system of counting revenue. I'd be more concerned about including the accounting methodology if there was a significant discrepancy between results from different methods. Thoughts?Jopo sf (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that (b) is the better choice. I looked for something to link to and found the cricket definition too. "Oh, I don't think so", I said to myself. Finetooth (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.Jopo sf (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working hard on it for awhile now. I brought its predecessor (Star Wars Rogue Squadron) up to FA a few months ago, and I am hoping to eventually do the same with this article. I'm hoping for an eventual Featured Topic! I'm up for any and all criticisms and help here.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, and I enjoyed it. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here is a short list of other suggestions.

Lead

• "As the game progresses, Sykes and the Royal Security Forces fight the Trade Federation in fifteen missions... " - Generally, numbers from one to nine are written as words and bigger numbers as digits. Here, 15 missions (held together by a non-breaking space) would be typical. Ditto for other numbers from 10 up anywhere in the article.
• "It was released for the Nintendo 64 on December 13, 2000, with a Windows version released three months later on March 12, 2001." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "It was released for the Nintendo 64 on December 13, 2000, and a Windows version was released three months later on March 12, 2001."

• Done and done. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay

• AATs - Generally, Wikipedia articles spell out constructions like this on first use and add the abbreviation in parentheses. The abbreviation by itself then makes sense on subsequent uses; e.g., Armored assault tank (AAT). Ditto for other abbreviations used in the article.

• That's a good point. I think since they are almost never referred to by their whole names in any Star Wars media, I forgot. Changed it though! --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Unlike other medal benchmarks, platinum medal benchmarks are undisclosed to the player." - Does that mean the player never finds out about the platinum medal? How can that be?

• Hah, ya! That is exactly what it means. The game NEVER tells the player what the platinum medal criteria is... even after they surpass it. I guess they just wanted them to be really hard to get and didn't want people online spoiling the "fun" for others. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlockable content

• The first paragraph is unsourced. Generally, each statistic, each direct quotation, each claim that might reasonably be challenged, and each paragraph needs a source.

• Yaaaa I need to find some reliable sources for that paragraph. I'll work on that now. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Unlockable via passwords, the development team... " - Dangling modifier. The development team isn't unlockable.

• Moved it to the end. I think that fixes it? --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot

• "to successfully attack it and destroy numerous droids and heavy equipment" - Wikilink droid?

• I linked it to battle droid. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Development

• "After it was released in May 1999, the team sat down and watched the movie several times... - Tighten by deleting "sat down and"?
• "The game utilizes a particle system that was written in microcode... " - The Manual of Style suggests "uses" rather than "utilizes".
• "a particle system that was written in microcode for the Nintendo 64's reality signal processor." - Wikilink particle system, microcode, and signal processor?
• "Explosions and fountains also utilize these particle effects." - "Use" rather than "utilize".

• All changed except the microcode link. It is linked earlier in the same section. --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." For that reason, you should move either the image or the table down far enough to eliminate the sandwich.

• This is a little tough since there isn't much text in that section to stagger the two things. I did what I could, but there is still a bit of sandwiching going on. Do you think I could maybe move the image to a different section? --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK on my screen now. I think the general answer to your question is "yes", although I don't know of any guideline about this. In other words, if nothing else works, I think it would be better to move an image to a less-than-ideal section than to create a text sandwich. Another option is to discard an image, but that's not desirable except in articles that are clearly overloaded with images. Finetooth (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

References

• MOS:BOLD says in part, "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." For this reason, the bolding in the citations should be changed to italics or ordinary type.

• Hmmm you may be right. However, I just stole this format from other video game-related FAs, so I'm not really sure where they got the idea from... --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Big help! Thanks for taking the time to do it. I've never reviewed an article myself. Maybe I'll give it a try this weekend... --Torsodog^Talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Nikita Zotov

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was thinking of possibly getting this article to GA level, and I needed some assistance. I was wondering if a peer reviewer could possibly take a look at it, and see if they could run through it for cohesiveness, flow, grammar, etc. Also, if anyone could assist me in expanding the lead (if need be), that would also be well-appreciated.

Thank you, NW (Talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article and a good start, but it needs more work to reach GA. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• I'd suggest adding {{infobox person}} to the upper right-hand corner and filling in as much data there as possible. The "young Peter" image could then be moved into the infobox.
  • I disagree that such a thing would be necessary. But that might just be as a result of my conversations with Awadewit, a seasoned FA writer who hates them.
• It might be possible to track down the name of the artist who did the portrait of young Peter and to add this information to the license page at the Commons. I don't read Russian, so I can't help with this, but someone might.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead touches on all the main points in the article, but it does so in so little detail that a reader who stopped at the end of the lead would not come away with much. I would suggest expanding the lead to include more of the details. Don't go overboard; just flesh things out a bit. You might aim for enough detail to make three paragraphs instead of one.

Peter I of Russia's education

• As long as it doesn't cause confusion, the general guideline with repeated names is to use the full name on first use and then use just the last name thereafter. Thus, Ivan Miloslavsky would just be Miloslavsky on second and subsequent reference.
  • There is an entire family of Miloslavskys though; I thought just to be safe...
• "the "semi-invalid eldest surviving son of Maria Miloslavskaya" - The source for this should be cited directly after the end quotation marks.
  • ✓ Done
• I find the first paragraph of this section quite confusing. Was Feodor a Naryshkina? If so, why did he invite Miloslavsky back to Moscow? What was the name of the ruling family as opposed to the previous ruling family?
  • I tried to see if I could clarify it.
• "The exact year when Peter's tutoring began have ranged widely... " - "Estimates of the exact year" rather than "The exact year"?
  • ✓ Done
• I'd suggest trying to work Zotov into the beginning of this section so that the connection between Peter and Zotov is made clear at the outset. As written, the beginning of this section is about Peter and others rather than Zotov.
• "On Zotov's request, the Tsaritsa ordered engravings from the Ordnance Office of "foreign cities and palaces, sailing ships, weapons and historical events"." - The source should be cited immediately after the terminal period.
  • ✓ Done
• "Zotov placed this, along with a fairly accurate globe for the time... " - Since "engravings" is plural, "them" rather than "this"? Also, wikilink globe?
  • ✓ Done
• Wikilink blacksmith?
  • ✓ Done
• "an education that did not meet the necessities of what a future Tsar ought to know" - "tsar" should be lower-cased unless part of a formal title; e.g. Tsar Alexis. Other generic titles such as "president" should also be lower-cased.
  • ✓ Done
• "but he gave him a more proper education that the average nobleman would receive... " - "than" rather than "that"?
  • ✓ Done
• "Zotov left on a diplomatic mission to the Crimea in 1680, but with contradicting sources, this could be either before or after his tutoring of Peter." - Suggestion: " ...but sources disagree whether this was before or after... ".
  • Well, sources don't exactly say that; that is an inference based on the fact that the 1680 date is most definitely true and the 1677/1683 are ambiguous. NW (Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• "But after Zotov, Peter would never again have a regular tutor." - Sticking with straight past tense, "never again had" is probably better than "would never again have".
  • ✓ Done
• "When Peter left the Kremlin to spend his childhood at Preobrazhenskoye, just two years after Zotov left, his memories of the tutors who had taught his siblings Feodor and Sophia were so negative that he cut himself off from the traditional academic subjects and sought to learn of nature and military matters rather than mathematics, literature, good writing, foreign languages, theology, or philosophy, something that Peter himself would regret in later years." - Too many clauses. Suggestion: "When Peter left the Kremlin to spend his childhood at Preobrazhenskoye, just two years after Zotov left, his memories of the tutors who had taught his siblings Feodor and Sophia were so negative that he cut himself off from the traditional academic subjects. Instead, he sought to learn of nature and military matters rather than mathematics, literature, good writing, foreign languages, theology, or philosophy. In later years, he regretted this choice."
  • ✓ Done
• "Zotov disappears from the records of Russian history at this point, but reappears... ". "disappeared" and "reappeared"?
  • I feel that present tense is more appropriate here, but I can't think of why, exactly. I shall ask for a third opinion. On this matter. NW (Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• " ...reappears just twelve years later." - Numbers from 10 and up and generally written as digits rather than words. Exceptions exist, but I don't see any in this article. Some of the ages such as 84 should also appear as digits rather than words.
  • ✓ Done

Torture of Streltsy

• "However, Peter still deeply suspected his sister Sophia's involvement... " - More background would be helpful here. What did Sophia have to do with the Streltsy?
  • I tried to clarify it. Do you think you could give it another look? NW (Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Zotov and the other boyars" - Wikilink boyars?
  • ✓ Done

Relationship with Peter

• The Manual of Style generally frowns upon extremely short sections like this one. Two possible solutions are to expand or to merge with another section.
  • I don't believe that it is really possible to expand this section. Any idea on where it could be merged to?
• "made him a count" - Wikilink count?
  • ✓ Done

Personal life

• Wikilink monastery?
  • ✓ Done
• "and many people were the exact opposite as to what they should have been... " - Suggestion: "and many people behaved exactly opposite the norm... "
  • ✓ Done
• "where the Tsar could demonstrate how much power he had" - "through which" rather than "where"?
  • ✓ Done
• "During the wedding, the Drunken Synod would routinely go sing carols through the streets of Moscow and demand money ... " - Suggestion: "During the wedding, the Drunken Synod routinely sang carols in the streets of Moscow and demanded money... ".
  • ✓ Done
• It appears that Peter mocked and mistreated Zotov late in Zotov's life. Do historians say why? Did Zotov do anything in particular that irritated Peter?
  • That is really just because of Peter's cruel nature. He did that to people his entire life; there are numerous examples of him being as cruel to Menshikov, or Romodanovsky, or Shementev, or even his son Alexis from the time he took the throne to his death. NW (Talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• Note 1 seems to have only the first of a pair of quotation marks.
  • Fixed.

General

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than to their intended target.
  • Pointed to the right places.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

FutureSex/LoveSounds

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what can be improved on it and especially how it can be made suitable for the featured article criteria. I feel there are numerous problems with the article but would like to know if anyone else feels this way.

Thank you, StephenBHedges (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from TechOutsider

Ok, I've heard of this album before, listened to exactly one song on it, so sorta have a strangers perspective to this album. I hope I bring a fresh perspective to this article. Minor things I may fix myself.

• Should it be "released by", not "released on"?
• "took place during", should it be "took place from"?
• Wikilink "hiatus"
• "succeeded expectations"; what were the expectations?
• "and spawned"; I believe "Cry Me a River" spawned from Justified itself.
• A lot of adjectives; be sure those adjectives can be justified by a reference. Don't pull words out of your mind to describe a situation.

Looked at your pictures and media rationales, they checked out. I forgot to check the article class before this review, and the prose surprised me while reading. I pulled up the discussion page and found it was GA-class, no wonder. If the editors actively involved in this article are willing to take it to FA-class, I believe that is a) possible and b) easily feasible. Good luck. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Iravan

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has been a GA since 5th June. The article is about a character from the Hindu epic Mahabharata, who is worshipped as a South-Indian village god and has prominence among Indian eunuchs and transvestites. I would like to hear comments considering FA criteria. I would also like to hear any excessive use of jargon, which is hindering readability. Any more information needed for comprehensiveness.

Thanks, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Murder of Huang Na

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is about a high-profile murder case that occured in Singapore five years ago. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out any and all issues that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. I am particularly concerned about the lead, prose issues, cultural issues and BLP issues. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Verneukpan

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know where to improve it. Any comment is welcome. This is quite an important South African topic, so I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks, LouriePieterse 08:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz

• The lead does not contain all the facets of the salt pan like Landspeed. Expand lead as summary of article

 Done Improved lead to the correct standard. LouriePieterse 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image of salt-pan needed

 Done Found two images and added both to article. LouriePieterse 07:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sir Malcolm Campbell's response in his first interview. Which one? fact?

 Done Referenced fact. LouriePieterse 10:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing about the geological importance of the salt pan. Its history and formation is not discussed. "The surface is completely flat, claimed to be a dried up lake estimated 57 km long and 11 km wide." when?

 Done Added information about the location and size of the pan. LouriePieterse 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• birdwatching: which birds live here? Any other wildlife like insects, lizards etc.

 Done Couldn't find any relevant information. LouriePieterse 11:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Rubenescio

• The lead section should introduce the article by summarizing it, not by only discussing facts not mentioned elsewhere in the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section.

 Done Improved lead to the correct standard. LouriePieterse 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• The meaning of verneuk in Dutch is more explicit then the meaning mentioned in the article (to trick, mislead or swindle). It literally means "to fuck up" with both its literal and figurative meaning. If this is the same in Afrikaans, I think the meaning in the article should be changed.

 Done The current meaning best fits the description. The one that actaully fits bests is trick. LouriePieterse 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why is it called "Verneukpan"? Some etymological information would be nice.

 Done There is a part in the lead that describes it. LouriePieterse 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• The province and country could be mentioned and wikilinked somewhere in the prose in the beginning of the article.

 Done LouriePieterse 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article needs a section about the landscape and/or nature of the area, in which is also briefly explained what a salt pan is.

 Done Added section about the nature of the area. LouriePieterse 13:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps a section "Sports" can be created, about aerotowing, kiting, and car racing. The different sports can be either paragraphs or subsections.

 Done I prefer the activities section. As soon as I have more information I would expand. LouriePieterse 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• An image of the area would be nice.

 Done Added images. LouriePieterse 20:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The see also section can be removed, since is already linked in the article.

 Done I rather added more links to the see also. LouriePieterse 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Success with the article! Rubenescio (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

List of wind farm projects in Romania

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to list it as a featured list candidate and i would like to know some oppinions.

Thanks, Mario1987 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and useful list. I made some minor proofing changes, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "As of 2008, wind power in Romania has an installed capacity of 76 megawatts (MW), up from the seven MW installed capacity in 2007." WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... ". This applies to constructions such as 76 MW and all other similar cases in the lead. I see that you have already added nbsps to some instances in the lead but not all. You don't need to add non-breaking spaces to these constructions in the table because there they cannot become separated. So just a few places need fixing.
• "The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest US$ 84... " - The space needs to be removed from between the $ and the digits; thus: US$84. Except for this first instance, you don't need to repeat the US part of this, just $1.65 billion, for example, will do.
• Wikilink turbine?
• "with a 100-metre (330 ft) hub height" - I don't see anything to link to for "hub height". I think this must mean the height of the turbine hub above the ground. Would it be helpful to add a brief explanation like that to the text?
• "99-metre (320 ft) rotor diameters" - I think the rotor diameter must refer to the blades. Would it be helpful to briefly explain this in the text?
• "surpassing the Maranchon Wind Farm, the current largest wind farm" - Rather than "current", it might be useful to specify "the largest wind farm as of August 2009".
• "The technical wind potential designed for Romania... " - "of Romania" rather than "designed for Romania"?
• "The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest US$ 84 million in a Baia, Tulcea County based 35-MW wind farm that will have... " - Suggestion: "The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest $84 million in a 35-MW wind farm in Baia, Tulcea County, that will have... ".

References

• WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says in part, "Dates in article references should all have the same format." For this reason, you should pick either yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y and make them all the same. Since most of the ones that you have are in yyyy-mm-dd format, I'd suggest changing the other ones to conform.
• Names of newspapers and magazines should appear in italics.
• Citation 4 seems to be dead or malfunctioning.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done everything you specified and thanks for the suggestions. Mario1987 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Republic of China

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has recently been promoted to GA status, and I would like to improve it further to make it a featured article. Any input on how to improve the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, Laurent (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad and possibly comprehensive, generally well-written, well-illustrated, and mostly verifiable. I made quite a few minor proofreading changes as I read through the article, although I'm sure I didn't fix everything. For example, names of newspapers such as China Daily in the main text or in the citations should appear in italics. I'd suggest another proofreading by a fresh set of eyes. The layout has several problems associated with image placement, and I note a few other problems below.

Images

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." The map in the "History" section makes an unfortunate text sandwich with the infobox. Another text sandwich occurs in the "Potential military conflict" subsection, another in the "Government" section, and, at least on my computer screen, between the last two images in the "Military" section.
• MOS:IMAGES also says, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." On my screen, IMAGE:Chiang Kai-shek in full uniform.jpeg overlaps two sections, as does IMAGE:Surface-to-Air Missile Coverage over the Taiwan Strait.png.
• MOS:IMAGES also says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." IMAGE:Chinese republic forever.jpg violates this guideline, as does IMAGE:Taiwanarmspic1.jpg.
• MOS:IMAGES also says, "Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy." The choice of whether to use a gallery or not seems to be somewhat open, but the most common practice is to remove the galleries from the article itself and to provide a link to galleries on the Commons. That is what I would suggest here since the article is well-illustrated and includes, in some cases, duplicates of the gallery photos, and you have provided a link to the Commons gallery.

General comments

• A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to cite every direct quotation, every set of statistics, every claim that is likely to be challenged, and every paragraph. It would be a good idea to add a source for the few paragraphs in the article, outside of the lead, that include no sources at all. An example would be the first paragraph of the "History" section.

• Captions that consist of one sentence fragment don't take a terminal period.

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds seven links in the article that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended target. You can use the tool to see what and where they are.

• The link checker tool that lives here finds seven dead links in the citations.

Current political issues

• "It eventually led to the creation of a political camp led by Ex-DPP leader Shih Ming-teh which believe the President should resign than stay in disgrace; forming a 3 side standoff." - Lowercase "e" on "ex". "Three-sided" rather than "3 side". "Believes" rather than "believe". Suggestion: "It eventually led to the creation of a political camp led by ex-DPP leader Shih Ming-teh that believes the President should resign rather than stay in disgrace." The phrase about the three-sided standoff is not entirely clear to me. What are the three sides? Perhaps it would be good to turn the phrase after the semicolon into a complete sentence that names the three sides.

"Economy

• "By 1945, an hyperinflation was in progress in China and Taiwan... " - Delete "an"? Wikilink hyperinflation?
• "As of 2005, $50bn have been invested in China... "$50 billion"?
• "Although this is generally good for the economy of Taiwan, some Taiwanese expressed worries about this situation, arguing that Taiwan becomes increasingly dependent of the economy of China." - Verb tenses. "on" instead of "of"? Suggestion: "Although this is generally good for the economy of Taiwan, some Taiwanese have expressed worries about this situation, arguing that Taiwan has become increasingly dependent on the economy of China."
• "The ROC often joins international organizations under a politically neutral name. The ROC is a member of... ". - Verb tenses. "has often joined" rather than "often joins"? "has been a member of" rather than "is a member of"?

Religion

• "There are approximately over 18,718,600 religious followers in Taiwan... " - "approximately" or "over"?

Birth rate

• The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sentences. Two solutions are to expand or merge. The "birth rate" subsection might reasonably be merged with the introductory paragraph to "Demographics". Merging might also work for the orphan paragraph that ends the "Education" section and the first and last paragraphs of the "Public health" section.

References

• Page ranges such as those in citation 23 take en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: pp. 22–23.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

74th Oregon Legislative Assembly

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's a relatively innovative kind of article, and I'd like some suggestions and different perspectives on how to make the most of it. I wrote most of the article, though there have been some solid contributions by other editors like Aboutmovies and Athelwulf. The basic idea is to draw together information that is fairly disparate (newspaper articles, technical info about districts and party composition, etc.), and create a resource for anyone seeking to learn about this period of the Oregon legislature's history.

My hope is that this article can become a model for similar articles on other Oregon legislative sessions, and perhaps other states' legislatures as well. In the long run, it would be great to have articles like this for all sessions, or at least all recent sessions; then, it would be possible to look at them in the aggregate, perhaps along with related articles about elections and direct democracy (see List of Oregon ballot measures), and use them to improve the quality of overview articles like History of Oregon.

Please feel free to offer comments on related articles like those listed above, Oregon's statewide elections, 2006, Oregon legislative elections, 2008, and the navboxes at the bottom of the article.

Thanks very much, I think this peer review might be asking a great deal -- but any and all feedback will be most appreciated! Pete (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments/Suggestions from Blargh29
  • Find a source for the fact tag in the lead. Also, try to keep the parens use to a minimum.
  • I'm confused: the lead says the Governor didn't veto any bills, but he vetoed one in August. Is there a more clear way to say that?

     Done, I think. -Pete (talk)

  • Great to use a picture taken during the session. Suggestion: If there's a better one of the state house, use that in the infobox and use the picture of the construction in a paragraph about the construction project.
  • In the separate session sections, I would separate the list of bills from what newspapers said about the session. Try to summarize the commentary from the papers. Maybe something like "Several large newspapers derided the legisature's efforts to achieve X, with Newspaper 1 saying "Y" and Newspaper 2 saying "Z."

    Good point. I'll try to get that separated out more clearly. -Pete (talk)

  • Be careful about noting failed bills. A million bills die every year. Is there something noteworthy about some of them? Were they pushed by the majority, but failed anyways? Did the leadership block their passage? Was it part of the governor's platform that failed?

    Only had one in there -- the fact that Oregon's medical marijuana law was not scaled back. This was covered in detail in reliable sources, which I thought warranted inclusion. Not sure exactly who pushed it without going back to the sources. I will try to flesh this out a little and give it some context. -Pete (talk)

  • Maybe make a stub article for redlinks.

    Yeah, some day :) They're coming, I promise. -Pete (talk)

  • Maybe try to make a color coded map to show which party had control over which district. If you can get an svg graphic of the districts, you can easily change the party colors. Maybe someone from commons can do that for you? It might be easy if you can get a .pdf of the districts, then the data can be extracted into the graphic. Try asking the guy who did this: File:PA State House districts by party.svg.

    It's an excellent idea. The Senate maps were among the first things I did on WIkipedia, and I wish I'd done them a little differently. But, there are some thorny copyright questions...I think we'd be OK, but need to do a little research. -Pete (talk)

  • It looks like some legislators changed their party and some new members were installed. That is interesting and should be included. At least, the elections prior and after should be summarized. How was the session impacted by new members, or did some members go to defeat for something they did during the session?

    Good point. Some of that info exists in the articles linked, but you may be right -- may be best to summarize it here, too. -Pete (talk)

  • For the election articles, consider using one of the pre-made election templates. Here's a good example article: Pennsylvania House of Representatives elections, 2002.

    Some of that looks very good -- thanks for the link! -Pete (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Overall a pretty good start. Good luck--Blargh29 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the top notch feedback! I'll see what I can do with this. -Pete (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Kirkcaldy

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have adjustments to the article since the last time, this went under a peer review, back in May 2009. This has included the removal of the sports and recreation section (with the majority of information being merged into the culture section); a new public services section; tidy-up of the governance section removing the sub-sections and more information about the town's history in the lead introduction. I would like to see what else needs to be done with the article, since I am very determined to get Kirkcaldy to FA status

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: There's a lot in this article, but it still needs some polishing. My starting point has been the previous peer review, which listed a number of issues for attention, including several MOS requirements. It doesn't seem that all these have been addressed. My preliminary list of points, therefore, consists mainly of MOS points which must be dealt with.

• MOS issues
  • There are numerous cases where there are spaces between punctuation and reference. One example of many: "...administrative issues and fiscal policy. [7]" Should be "...administrative issues and fiscal policy.[7]"
  • There is an instance in the "Landmarks" section where a full stop follows the reference.
  • Hyphens: many MOS violations:-
    • Page ranges in references require ndashes not hyphens
    • Ndashes, not hyphens, are also required in the following formulations:-

"...Kirkcaldy–Glenrothes"

"...Oswald family – specifically..."

"...James Oswald – when Watson..."

"...Fife – catering..."

"...town – St Brycedale..."

• • The following words or terms should not be hyphenated: "re-developed" (redevloped); "re-located" (relocated); "Re-development" (Redevelopment); "sixteenth-century" (16th century)
  • "Thornton-by-pass" should be "Thornton by-pass".
  • "queer-like" is not an idiomatic English language expression. It is POV anyway. And why is it shown in italics?
• Miscellaneous issues
  • You should not use both "mile" and "mi". I suggest use "mile" consistently ("mi" is not a generally-used abbreviation in the UK)
  • "33s 4d" will be meaningless to your readers without an explanation, and a rendering into modern currency.
  • Rather than referring to decades as "80s", "90s" etc, you should say "1980s", "1990s"
  • You do not appear to be using no-break spaces, for example in 41 years, 39 years, etc. Please check for other instances where no-break spaces should be used
  • Year ranges should be given as, for example, "2009–10" not "2009/2010". Other number ranges (339/343 etc) should be divided by ndashes.

I have not looked at the prose in any detail, yet. When you've dealt with the above I will review the prose; please leave a note on my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: A note on my talkpage suggests that the above issues have been attended to. However:-

• There are still spaces between punctuation and refs - see History and Governance sections
• Page ranges in the references still have hyphens
• The "mi" abbreviation is still being used in the infobox
• You are using mdashes rather than ndashes in, for example, "1963—1964" and "Glenrothes—Kirkcaldy"
• When ndashes are used in text (as against in number ranges) they need spaces round them. Thus "...Oswald family–specifically Captain James Oswald–when Watson..." should be: "...Oswald family – specifically Captain James Oswald – when Watson..."
• You are still not using no-break spaces.
• "Re-development" still occurs in the references

These may seem trivial, but if you are taking this article to FAC, it will be expected that all MOS are fixed. I suggest you go very carefully through, to ensure that all violations have been picked up. Finally, if "queer-like smell" is a quote, it should be in quotation marks, not italics, and you need to provide a source. It's not enough just to say this is what the locals say.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Below message transferred from Brianboulton talkpage

• i have sorted it all out and more importantly i have "taken" my time doing this (i agree with this). however, this is for the exception of the no-break spaces (what are these exactly?) and replacing the abbreviation of "mi" with mile instead (how do i change this so that in the forumla "mi" is replaced with "mile" and why is this abbreviation perfectly exceptable in the infoboxs of feature articles such as Neilston and Sheffield?).Kilnburn (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the no-break spaces, but you need to know how to use these. Read WP:NBSP for instruction. I've made a few other fixes, too. The featured articles you mention are quite old (Sheffield from 2005) and people were less fussy then. If you use the standard "convert" template (see WP:CONVERT for details) the "mile" format is automatic. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Revolutionary Road (film)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into improving it and I would welcome any comments and suggestions on how it can be further improved in the hopes of getting it promoted to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs further work to reach GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about the "Development", "Reaction", or "Awards and nominations" sections.
• "The film opened in limited release on December 26, 2008, and expanded wide on January 23, 2009." - Missing word?

Synopsis

• "When he returns home late, April surprises him with a birthday cake and a proposal that they move to Paris, with April working as a secretary to support the family so that Frank can discover what he truly wants to do in life." - "With" is a relatively weak connector in a construction like this. Suggestion: "When he returns home late, April surprises him with a birthday cake and a proposal that they move to Paris. April plans to work as a secretary to support the family so that Frank can discover what he truly wants to do in life."
• "Helen then starts to ramble on of her disapproval of the Wheelers as Howard turns down his hearing aid as to drown out his wife's voice." - Suggestion: "Helen then starts to ramble on about her disapproval of the Wheelers as Howard turns down his hearing aid to drown out his wife's voice."

Development

• The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs and sections. Two possible fixes are to expand or to merge. I think you could safely merge the orphan paragraph at the end of this section with the paragraph above it.

Critical reception

• MOS:QUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{|tl|cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes). Block quotes can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags... ". For this reason, the blockquote tags would be my choice to replace the fancy quotes. Because of their length, the Todd McCarthy and David Ansen and Kirk Honeycutt and possibly the Peter Travers quotations should also be blockquotes. This is an awful lot of quoted material. It would probably be better to paraphrase some of this material and to be a bit more selective about direct quotations.

"Top ten lists

• MOS:#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I would suggest rendering the material in the "Speech and Debate" section as straight prose. This section would be easy to render as a straight prose paragraph added to the bottom of the "Critical reception section". The "Top ten lists" subsection could then disappear.

Awards and nominations

• The two-item list at the beginning could be rendered as a single paragraph of straight prose.

References

• WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says in part, "Dates in article references should all have the same format." For this reason, you need to pick either yyyy-mm-dd format or m-d-y format and use it throughout the citations. The existing citations have mixed formats.
• MOS:UNLINKDATES says in part, "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)." For this reason, the linked dates in the citations should be unlinked. Other parts of many of the citations are also overlinked.
• Citation 12 has a dead url.

General

• The dabfinder that lives here finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than to their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of these suggestions and comments. Much appreciated!--J.D. (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Vaalputs, Northern Cape

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know where to improve. This is an important topic for the South African Nuclear industry. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, LouriePieterse 09:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is usually reserved for articles that are much more developed - getting ready for WP:GAN or WP:FAC. This is a start class at best, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Since the official name seems to be Vaalputs Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, I would move the article to that name (ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this). There should at least be a redirect to the article from that name.
• SPell out abbreviations on first use, so instead of Vaalputs is the only South African radioactive waste-disposal facility, called the Vaalputs Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, operated [by] NECSA.[1] it should be something like The Vaalputs Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility is the only South African radioactive waste-disposal facility, and is operated by the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA),.[1]
• Per the WP:MOS, both metric and English units should be used - the {{convert}} template is very useful for doing this.
• Very odd word choice - smothered?? in Vaalputs lies smothered between ... WHy not just Vaalputs lies between ...? Article has several places that need a copyedit
• Per WP:See also links that are already in the article should not generally be repeted, so I am not sure the link to NECSA needs to be here again. I am also not sure why Koeberg Alert is linked as a see also - I just read that article and it does not seem to mention Vaalputs.
• The external links look as if they would be better used as refs for expanding the article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has serious potential to become Featured again, and a peer review would help confirm/deny/prepare for this.

Thanks, Cybercobra (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've planning to make some major revisions, but I never got to do it. (My user page contains links to academic papers or websites that might be used as references.) Here are few changes that must be made:

• Expand the cultural impacts of Wikipedia in the lead (in the context of web 2.0, crowdsourcing, all jazzs.)
• Discuss the roles of Jimmy Wales; e.g., how much authority does he have?
• Epistemology of Wikipedia [1]
• Discuss how Wikipedia has been killing traditional encyclopedias.
• Expand discussion of a war between deletionists and inclusionists
• Mention paid edits

Overall, the sections on reliability and community need more refinement. For example, the reliability section contains somehow lengthly quotes, which are not particularly significant nor illuminating. -- Taku (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

I've been looking it over and find so many weasel word, POV, glitches, etc., that I can't state an opinion without trying to fix it. It really needs a good house-cleaning. I have no idea what forking is supposed to mean (Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control...). It's a forking mystery. Hope you and other involved editors will have a fresh-eyed look.

Regards content and sourcing, the article looks pretty wonderful. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fork" as in Fork (software development). Term is now wikilinked for glossary purposes. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but a natural language explanation is reasonable to provide. There are lots of places where the article suddenly lurches into geekspeak. Consider that as part of an overall critique. I've cleaned up some where I understood the geekspeak. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article could do with some discussion of Wikipedia's style (fact-driven, informative, slightly dry), and perhaps a little toning down of the Wikipedia-is-wonderful POV. (Any chance of a review in return of the h2g2 article?) AlexAshman (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Brisingr

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm soon taking it to GAN and I need comments on the prose and stuff like that. Thanks, Theleftorium 09:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is in pretty good shape. I have a few suggestions about prose and Manual of Style issues.

Lead

• "a group who governed the fictional continent of Alagaësia... " - "group that" rather than "group who"? A group is literally an "it".

Setting and characters

• "a group who governed Alagaësia in past times but were almost destroyed... " - "group that"?
• "Brisingr is told in first-person from the perspectives of multiple primary protagonist characters." - Tighten slightly to "Brisingr is told in first-person from the perspectives of multiple primary protagonists." Also, wikilink protagonists?
• "return as the primary antagonists" - Wikilink antagonists?
• "and the Shade Varaug also" - To a reader unfamiliar with the books, "Shade Varaug" appears to be a single thing wikilinked once. But clicking reveals that Shade and Veraug are linked separately. A more clear way to handle these compounds is to re-cast like this: "and Varaug, a Shade,... " so that the two links don't look like one.
• "Many minor protagonist characters reprise their roles... " - Tighten by deleting "characters"?

Background

• "sold over fifteen million copies worldwide together" - Numbers from one to nine are usually written as words, while bigger numbers are usually written as digits. I'd suggest changing this to "sold over 15 million copies worldwide together" with a non-breaking space WP:NBSP between 15 and million to prevent separation on line-break. The nbsp should be added to 2.5 million slightly further down in the article and to any similar constructions. There are quite a few later in the article.
• "He turned away from his computer to get it off his back and began writing on parchment paper... " - Slang. This could be fixed by deleting "to get it off his back".
• "Parts of the story are told through Saphira's point of view... " - "from" rather than "through"?
• "The word "brisingr" is an ancient Old Norse word meaning "fire",[10][4][9]... " - When a string of citations like this occur, the convention is to arrange them in ascending order, thus: [4][9][10]. Ditto for any similar string in the article.
• The second of the long quotes in this section is five lines long on my computer screen. MOS:QUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks... "

Title, covers, and audio book

• "Since they did not want the same cover... " - "They" seems to refer to "Japanese" but doesn't because "Japanese" in the preceding sentence means "Japanese language". Thus, you might better replace "they" with "The Japanese".
• "Paolini himself made drawings based on the book for the deluxe edition of Brisingr, including one with Eragon's arm and hand holding the sword he receives in the book, named Brisingr, with flames around the blade." - Dangling modifer, I think. Was the sword named Brisingr as well as the book? Suggestion: "Paolini himself made drawings based on the book for the deluxe edition of Brisingr, including one with Eragon's arm and hand holding the sword he receives in the book. The sword, named Brisingr, has flames around the blade." I'd also suggest tightening by deleting "himself" and "based on the book".

References

• The dates in the citations should be consistently formatted. They don't have to be in the same format as the dates in the main text (although they can be), but they can't be mixed. All should either be yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y.

General

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds a link that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment

• In the "Promotion and release" section, you might link spoiler and maybe rune. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, I really appreciate it! As for your comment on the dates, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} automatically uses the yyyy-mm-dd format for access dates. All my FAs and GAs uses both m-d-y and yyyy-mm-dd in the references so I don't think that will be a problem. Thanks again! Theleftorium 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I'm glad to help. The guidelines about the date formatting live at WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency. If you prefer yyyy-mm-dd for any reason, you can make them all conform to that in the citations (but not in the main text). The date formatting in the citations does not have to match the date formatting in the main text. You might be able to slip a mixed batch of citation dates through a GA review, but I doubt that it would survive at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. All taken care of. Thanks again! Theleftorium 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

McDonald's Cycle Center

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article may be a future WP:FAC candidate. I would like to clean it up before considering such a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, generally clear, and well-illustrated. I have concerns about the big text sandwich, the wholly honorific treatment of McDonald's, and a few prose or Manual of Style issues.

Lead

• "With the street address of 239 East Randolph Street, it is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Randolph and Columbus Drive, in the northeast corner of Millennium Park in the Loop community area of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois, USA. - - A big too complicated perhaps. Suggestion: "The center, at 239 East Randolph Street, is in the northeast corner of Millennium Park in the Loop community area of Chicago, in the U.S. state of Illinois."
  • Done, with a minor modification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• The direct link to an external site (Bike 2015 plan) needs to be turned into a normal citation."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Details

• This section has a text sandwich between the map and the first three images.
  • I have tried to rearrange the text a bit to lessen the squeezing. Is it still a problem?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid so. On my computer screen, there's still a text sandwich of about four lines. I'm not quite sure what to suggest. Would it be possible to make the map slightly smaller but clickable to enlarge? I see that the base map has no writing on it, and I'm unfamiliar with how the writing is being added. If it's not possible to shrink the map, could you move one of the four images in the stack on the right to another section? Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • With newly added text, it should be fine now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Citations should be arranged so that the citation numbers in the text appear in ascending order; i.e. [5][10] rather than [10][5]. Ditto for any instance of this in other sections.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The appearance is poignantly represented with a sloping visibly solar paneled roof" expresses an editorial opinion. Suggestion: "The atrium has a sloping solar-paneled roof".
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • N.B. I have added some critical appreciation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

General information

• "At the time the McDonald's Cycle Center opened, bicycle centers were already common throughout Europe and planned or enacted in several U.S. cities." Would "established" be better than "enacted"?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Since McDonald's is providing a healthier menu and fostering grade school physical education in an effort to help its customers improve their health, sponsoring bicycle and exercise activity in the park augments the company's other initiatives." The source you cite does not support the idea that McDonald's is truly interested in its customers' health. In fact, the source chides McDonald's throughout, saying "... there's something insidious about McDonald's recent alignment with health-related activities. Essentially, it's funding what it calls "active lifestyle programs" in schools and public spaces, activities we desperately need to counteract the damage caused by the high-sodium, trans-fatty foods it serves." This is the most serious flaw I've detected in the article; it gives McDonald's credit without mentioning the company's possibly cynical motives. Since the source you've cited talks about the "McDonaldization of America", it shouldn't be hard to balance the claims to make sure that they are NPOV rather than pro-McDonald.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rentals

• "Deposits can be secured with a valid credit card and/or driver's license." - The Manual of Style deprecates "and/or". Would just plain "credit card or driver's license" be OK? Would you ever actually need to show both?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and they continued to be so at the time of the renaming." - Maybe add the date here?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Repairs

• I wonder if any more detail could be added here. How many mechanics? What kinds of repairs do they do? Could I take my bicycle there to get new brakes, for example? Would I have to be a member to get my bicycle fixed there?
  • I don't have access to bicycling magazines, but in municipal newspapers I have found a lot more information in general, but just one more fact regarding repairs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • When I first wrote the article, I only had access to in-state newspapers. Now, I have international newspaper access. Your suggestion caused me to read through dozens of articles and expand this article. You may want to review all the new text that I have added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another careful look later today. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Other

• The dabfinder that lives here finds four links that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended targets.
  • Fixed--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: The addition of the material about the history of bike laws in Illinois adds a most interesting dimension to the article. You've added a great deal of other information as well, and I must say that the article is far deeper and more interesting than the first time I read it.

• I think it would look better to have a little more space between the map and the text to its right, but I don't know how to make this happen. As I said before, I'm not sure how maps consisting of a base map with overlays work or how to tweak them. It's probably OK as is but not perfect. This is just a perfectionist's observation, not anything I can point to in the Manual of Style.
  • Cloud Gate was recently promoted to FA with this map. Now that we have moved the opposing text down with intervening text, I think it is acceptable. Note BP Pedestrian Bridge was promoted, but had the map in a separate section , which I think is less useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Finetooth (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• The Cycle Center, is high-regarded and world-renown." - Should be "highly regarded and world-renowned". The claims in this sentence and the rest of the paragraph are so strong that they might be challenged. For example, someone might argue that "world-renowned" suggests that everybody knows about the center and thinks highly of it, whereas it's probably not well-known to the general public outside of Chicago. City planners and bike enthusiasts are most likely to know about it. I'm not suggesting a big re-write, just some mild adjustments to make sure the claims don't fall into the category of "over-enthusiastic".
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Details

• I think the metric figures in the second paragraph should be rounded to the nearest whole number to match the rounding of the imperial figures. You can use |0 instead of |1 in the template to round to the nearest whole number.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The center has a see-through design, with thin steel frames for its predominate windows." - The word is "predominant", but "main" might be a better choice or, possibly, "dominant".
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

General information

• Your addition of the Chicago Tribune writer's doubts about McDonald's motives help tilt toward NPOV. I might suggest adding the word "however" at the beginning of this sentence and wikilinking fast food.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The city and its cycle center are considered exemplary by other cities in pursuit of covered, secure bicycle parking near public transportation." - This probably needs a source even though similar claims are sourced later in the article. You might be able to use ref = name to clone one of the other citations that support this claim.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Membership

• "By 2007, the annual membership for those selected from the wait list was $20/month or $149/year." - The Manual of Style deprecates the front slashes in situations like this. Better would be $20 per month and $149 per year.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• "The center has four private stall showers for both men and women... " - I assumed the first time I read this that it meant four unisex stall showers, but it might mean four for men and four for women. This probably should be clarified.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps "tagalongs" should be briefly explained for readers who might not know what they are. I don't see anything offhand to link to, but they might have another name that I don't know or have forgotten. "Duneland" is another word of this sort.
  • Whereas, I am quite sure that in this context duneland refers to Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, I linked it. However, I do not even know what a tagalong is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I figured it out and created a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical review

• "Commissioner d’Escoto and the City of Chicago Department of Transportation, were the 2004 recipients of the Chicago Architecture Foundation's Stein Ray & Harris Patron of the Year award in the governmental category jointly with several other features of Millennium Park." - The sentence says literally that the commissioner and the department shared an award with "several other features". I think this one needs to be re-cast for clarity. The sentence should probably also be merged with the larger paragraph above it to avoid the criticism that it is an orphan.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Nice job of expansion. I hope these further suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

History of Florida State University

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello...I have been working on the History of Florida State University for some time and I think it is ready for peer review. While clearly additional work needs to be done, I now need the critical eye, suggestions and contributions of other Wikipedians to make the article better, hopefully culminating in GA or FA status.

Thank you in advance for any help with this work!

Sirberus (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and a good start. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

• MOS:BOLD suggests limiting the use of bolding to a few special cases such as the article name in the first paragraph of an article. Since this article's title is descriptive, it doesn't need to reappear in the first paragraph. So far, so good. But I don't think the bolding of the university's names later in the article meet the guidelines. They leaped out at me, which is why I'm mentioning them first. Perhaps just title case with no bolding would be better; e.g., Florida State University.  Done

• WP:ITALICS says in part, "It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics." The long sections of italicized words in the main text and the footnotes should be changed to normal type. The one in "Student activism and racial integration" is one example, but the big swatches of italics in "References" are the main culprits.  Done

*The "Pathways of Excellence" section has too much booster language and jargon and too many peacock terms. Something like "which are intended to have a dramatic transformational effect on the overall academic quality and scholarly productivity of the university" is meaningless. I don't mean to be rude, but it's better to look for sources outside of the university for material that evaluates the university. The university's public relations or public information office can probably be relied on for information about enrollment, new buildings, faculty size, and a lot of other things, but the people there are hired to put a positive spin on things. Where did the money come from to hire 200 new faculty members and to build these new buildings? Was any part of this "aggressive expansion" controversial?  Done

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading. MOS:IMAGES also says, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." I see instances of both problems in this article. You might be able to solve the problem simply by re-locating the images, although short sections might not be big enough to accommodate more than one image without crowding.  Done

• Much of the article seems to be well-sourced. However, some paragraphs with information that is not common knowledge lack sources. An example is the second paragraph of "Presbyterian influence". A good rule of thumb is to provide sources for each direct quotation, each unusual claim, each set of statistics, and each paragraph.

Update: In process. Sirberus (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Curiously, no equivalent building exists on the campus of Florida State University." - This sentence in the "Buckman Act" section got my attention because of the sly humor. Alas, "curiously" is POVish and should be deleted if the article is to be neutral. In fact, the whole sentence should be deleted to avoid making an anti-Buckman judgment introduced by Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you can quote a reliable source who makes the Buckman joke...  Done

• The reference section is in disarray. Some of the citations use the "cite" family of templates, while others do not. The result is a hodge-podge. I'd suggest using the "cite" templates throughout and trying "cite book" or "cite journal" or some of the others when "cite web" is inadequate. You can read more about these at WP:CIT. Be careful not to mix the "Citation" family of templates with the "cite" family; they are explained together at WP:CIT, and it's fairly easy to confuse them. Alternatively, you could avoid using any citation templates and do the citations all "by hand", making sure that the elements are in the proper order and that the formatting is consistent from one citation to the next. All of the dates in the citations, for example, should either be in m-d-y format or yyyy-mm-dd format but not a mixture. Sorry this is so complicated. You might be able to imitate what others have successfully used in featured articles about education. You can find a complete list of these articles at WP:FA#Education.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Sirberus acknowledgement to Finetooth:
  • Thank you for the feedback! These are very helpful remarks and I will work to improve the article accordingly. Sirberus (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Lomana LuaLua

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that all it lacks is a good lead. I want to see if anyone can suggest any other improvements for this article bearing in mind that I haven't contributed to it yet.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, generally well-written, stable, neutral, seems factually accurate and verifiable, and is broad in coverage. I agree that the lead needs work. Also, a few sentences, especially toward the end, have too many clauses and might be better split in two. I have noted some of those below, but I'm not sure I mentioned them all. Another read-through with that in mind would be a good idea. Here are a few specific suggestions or questions to consider.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." As you indicate, the existing lead doesn't quite do that. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything in the lead that is not developed in the main text.
• Spell out Democratic Republic of the Congo here and in the infobox? Otherwise it looks like Dr. Congo or something mysterious.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Background

• "He attended Forest Gate Community school as a teenager and started to play football at the age of 16 and was playing for Leyton Sixth Form College in London when he was spotted at the age of 17 by Third Division side, Colchester United." - Too many clauses. Suggestion: "He attended Forest Gate Community school as a teenager and started to play football at the age of 16. He was playing for Leyton Sixth Form College in London when he was spotted at the age of 17 by Third Division side, Colchester United."

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "His brother, Kazenga LuaLua, is also a professional footballer who currently plays for Lomana's former club... " - It's better to use "as of 2009" than "currently" since things may be different in a year or two.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle United

• WP:MOS#Italics says in part, "For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics." All of the italics in this section should be changed to regular type. Ditto for italicized quotations in the other sections and in the reference section.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Al-Arabi

• The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short sections like this one. Since its only sentence mentions 2008, perhaps this section could be expanded.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

International career

• "threats were made to his family, which caused him to consider his international career" - "reconsider" rather than "consider"?

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "but in the next game against the hosts Tunisia, he was sent off" - Wikilink sent off?

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "LuaLua was recalled to the DR Congo squad for a friendly against Tunisa... " - Would it be helpful to explain what "a friendly" means?

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He was named as the captain of DR Congo for the tournament in place of Shabani Nonda who was injured for a second successive Nations Cup,[73] but delayed his departure to be available to his club Portsmouth for a crucial league match,[74] missing a friendly with Senegal." - Too many clauses perhaps? Suggestion: "He was named as the captain of DR Congo for the tournament in place of Shabani Nonda, who was injured for a second successive Nations Cup.[73] However, he delayed his departure to be available to his club Portsmouth for a crucial league match,[74] missing a friendly with Senegal."

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

• The disambiguation tool that lives here identified three disambiguation problems in the article. You can use the tool to see where they are and figure out the correct fix.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

• The license looks odd to me, but perhaps it's OK. The file size is awfully small for a self-made photo. The uploader and the photographer don't seem to be the same person. How can a fact-checker be sure the photographer wanted to license the image this way?

It's been there for 2 years so I assume it's OK. I searched Flickr but unfortunately I couldn't find anything. Spiderone (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few comments are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Sofia Rotaru

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has changed to the worse with large portions being deleted recently. I believe the article can gain good status again. However I think that suggestions of fellow reviewers and fellow editors would be most helpful for the further improvement of the article.

Thanks, Rubikonchik (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Because this article is fully protected and filled with cleanup tags, it is eligible for peer review. I am removing the peer review for now. I encourage the editors of the article to re-submit for peer review after the cleanup tags are resolved and the article returns to a stable state and can be un-protected. Thank you for your understanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am archiving this - the PR instructions clearly indicate the article must be free of major cleanup tags and this is full of them. I also think a fully protected article is inelgible for PR since it cannot be edited by most users - the idea of PR is to improve articles and this can't be changed, let alone improved while it is fully protected. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

List of works of John Douglas (new churches)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I should like to submit it as a FLC when it is ready. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. The list consists of all the churches designed by John Douglas (omitting those that were not built).

Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: Is there any reason why this is not named "List of new churches by John Douglas"? How many churches did he revise / alter / remodel? Could it just be "List of churches by John Douglas"? By the way, I glanced at it quickly and it looks well done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The title sort of evolved, but I agree it is clumsy. My problem is that Douglas designed in the order of 500 buildings and structures. Not all of these are sufficiently notable to merit a place in a list, but a high proportion of them are. So I had to split the original list, because it was unmanageable. The other lists on which I am working are List of works of John Douglas (church restorations, amendments and furniture) (51 items), List of works of John Douglas (houses and associated buildings) (68 items), and List of works of John Douglas (other buildings and structures) (57 items). Perhaps these titles could also be amended in the way you suggest. What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there already a FL on architects works that has a title to follow? Or is there any sort of Wikiproject Architecture guideline on naming such list articles? I think I would prefer "List of X by John Douglas" where X is new churches or houses and associated buildings or church restorations and amendments... To me it just seems odd / awkward to repeat "works" in each title followed by the actual topic in parentheses. I would also make a dab for List of works of John Douglas whatever the names wind up being. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree with User:Ruhrfisch that "List of new churches by John Douglas" would be better. When it comes to titles, heads, and subheads, brevity is good.

Lead

• "He is probably best remembered though for his incorporation of vernacular elements in his buildings... " - Slightly tighten by deleting "though"?
• "in which he was influenced by the black-and-white revival in Chester" - Would it be useful to link to black and white village or to briefly explain the term?
• "John Douglas was born in the Cheshire village of Sandiway and was articled to the Lancaster architect... " - "Articled" may be a term unfamiliar to some readers. Would it be useful to link it to articled clerk or to briefly explain it or to use a word like "apprenticed"?
• "Grade II* contains "particularly important buildings... " - Maybe "includes" rather than "contains"?

GeoGroup Template

• I believe the {{GeoGroupTemplate}} belongs in an "External links" section rather than in the main text since the links are to external sites. "External links" would come after the "References" section.

New churches

• Wikilink vestry in the description of St John the Baptist's Church?
• Wikilink nave in the description of St Ann's Church?
• Wikilink chancel in the description of Christ Church?
• Perhaps link slate and lead in the description of St Stephen's Church?
• Wikilink curate in the description of St Barnabas?
• Wikilink manor house in the description of Chapel of the Good Shepherd?
• Wikilink flats in the description of St Deiniol's Church?
• Cap L but lowercase "c" for Lady chapel in the description of St James Church?
• Wikilink steeple in the description of St David's Welsh Church? Also, if Douglas & Fordham was the official name, the ampersand is correct. Otherwise, it should be Douglas and Fordham.
• Generally, Wikipedia does not use Mr. or Mrs. to identify people. In the Christ Church entry, Mrs. Eleanor Frost should be Eleanor Frost, I believe, and the description would begin, "The church was built in memory of Frost's husband, Charles... "
• In the description of St David's Welsh Church, hyphenate "Welsh-speaking"?

See also

• The {{Commons}} template could be added here too.

References

• Rather than embedding a numbered link to the DNB with no explanation, it might be helpful to add a note to the end of the reference explaining that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is available online by subscription.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• All the above done, other than the ampersand which is part of the official name of the partnership. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Samus Aran

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually bring it to FAC. I'm also looking for more information for the article, but the Reception section in particular. Gary King (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look through my databases to see if I can find anything. If I don't respond after a while, ping me I probably forgot or something. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm having connection issues with my remote proxy, but I'm workin' on it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Have you exhausted the articles listed here? Artichoker^[talk] 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  For sure, that's the first place I went. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was reading through an article I found in a newspaper database, and I found a bit saying that in Zero Mission, Samus's "Power Grip" allows her to jump up and grab onto ledges (not very exciting, I know). Any truth to this? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I know she can do that in Fusion, but yeah I think in Zero Mission, too. Some information on that here. There are just too many in-game items to mention, so it's not worth mentioning the Power Grip I think. Gary King (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question, but is there anything worth mentioning about action figure sales? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The only one was made in 2003 and little was heard about it. It probably sold 1,000 copies, max. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First 4 Figures (official site) currently has a line of Metroid figures. I can't find any proper sales information on their site, but they do say that they only made 2,500 Varia Suit Samus figures and it sold out. Isn't that usable in the article? -sesuPRIME 11:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I found something in one of my old issues of Game Informer from nine years ago: Video Game Deathmatch! The one reader submitted match-up is Samus vs. Mega Man; it ends with Samus victorious. This will fit nicely in the second paragraph of the reception section, no? -sesuPRIME 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to Samus's article because I just found two more bits of reception. Nearly every issue of Game Informer of the past few years has a "Top 10" list, and I just rediscovered two such lists that place Samus-related goodness right at number 1: "The Top 10 Video Game Shadow Selves" places the SA-X as #1 and "The Top 10 Video Game Twists" has the reveal that Samus is actually a woman at #1. Man, I had forgotten how much GI loves Metroid. -sesuPRIME 13:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind putting this stuff in the article since I don't have access to any of it? Where can I find the sales information? Gary King (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and I already added the Top 10 Twists bit to the Reception. And at the very end of the product description on this page it says "Limited to 2,500 pieces worldwide", and below the images is a table that says it's sold out. -sesuPRIME 06:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I added the toy info. It's at the bottom of Reception for now because I don't really know where else to put it; I'll figure it out later. Gary King (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the rest of the GI stuff. -sesuPRIME 08:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) Methinks it is necessary to have an image of Samus's face in the article (other than that horribly pixelated NES screenshot). Maybe File:Samusproductionsketch.png from Prime isn't the best option as the photo-realistic appearance wasn't used in any other game, but something like Zero Mission artwork of her in the Zero Suit would illustrate the current design of her face (as opposed to the anime-style design used in Fusion) and show off the Zero Suit itself, which is significant because it became her de facto Power Suit-less attire. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We need some critical commentary on the image in the article somewhere in order to add one, otherwise it's just there for decoration purposes. Gary King (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by Master Chief's main image, I cropped the main image of Samus because it seemed unnecessarily tall and, more importantly, it was a possible copyright violation because of its size. Anyway, I think the article's other image should also be cropped because only a small portion of it is actually of Samus and the rest is uninteresting. Since the image would only be around 30 pixels wide after removing the landscape, I suggest it also be enlarged a bit, like this. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay do it, sounds good. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Amador Valley High School

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm bringing this article through the GAN process and potentially preparing this article for FAC. Looking for comments from editors to see what I can do to pass GAN and possibly even FAC Is the article comprehensive enough? What details are missing? There have been some concerns about NPOV in the article, are there still some remains of non-NPOV statements (especially in the Math Team and Speech and Debate sections)? Transitions are a bit rough - I would appreciate some suggestions on how to make the prose of the article flow better. Is the last paragraph of the lead an appropriate summary of the article's content? I would greatly appreciate your help in reviewing this article and judging how far away it is from Good Article and Featured Article Criteria. Thanks for your time, Deltawk (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Central Morocco Tamazight

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it get to Good Article status. I've contributed significantly to it, and listed it for GAR once, but I was advised to delist it and move it here. I was told that the main area of improvement is in the prose. Advice on how to make it flow better, or on information which should be included, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs some work before it gets to GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD, which says that 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, but the Orthography and Phonlogy sections do not seem to be in the lead.
• The article is WP:OVERLINKed - for example Tarifit and Tashelhiyt are linked at least twice in the lead alone.
• The use of italic text needs to follow WP:ITALIC
• The map in the infobox needs a caption, and seems to disagree with this Central Morocco Tamazight is spoken in the Atlas mountains in western Algeria, in valleys next to Taza, near Rabat, and close to the Moroccan border in the south.[1] The caption on the other map could do a better job of explaining what is shown in relation to this dialect
  • I'm having trouble figuring out how to get a caption on the map image in the language infobox to display...Mo-Al (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Article is generally well-referenced, but some places need a ref, such as Some[who?] argue that Central Morocco Tamazight should be considered a dialect of Tashelhiyt. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that need to be combined with others or perhaps expanded in almost all cases.
• Avoid needless repetition, for example we are told twice that King Mohammed established IRCAM in two separate places (History and Official status

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I took too long and edit-conflicted with Ruhrfisch.

• From the lead, "related genetically"... is this the standard usage for linguistics? I'm a biologist; it sounds a little off.
• I clicked morphology hoping for an explanation of "templatic", but didn't find anything. Can you include a short explanation (or alternatively, expand the morphology article)?
• Any reason for using the spelling Tamaziɣt for the endonym in the lead and Tamazight in the first section?
• What's the literal translation of Tamazight? I'm unclear on the significance of using the term "Tamazight" to refer to the language, as described in the nomenclature section.
• For those unclear on the location of Morocco, that map in the infobox is not going to help. Maybe zoom out a bit?
• I find the dialects section a bit confusing. A second map might be helpful. It's not clear how the list of dialects in the second paragraph maps to the high/middle/Djabel Sargho distinction in the first paragraph.
• "At one point the Berber states of Numidia and Mauretania existed" - awkward wording.
• "the use of Berber languages was suppressed or even banned." - even if covered in existing sources, I think this deserves its own footnote.
• "was limited to some Berber elite" - awkward.
• "Berber...is now taught as a compulsory language" - which Berber language is being taught? Does it depend on the region?
• The map in the geography section is confusing. "Tamazirt" = Tamazight?
  • Added 'Tamazirt' to Nomenclature, though still need a source. Mo-Al (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• "This would give Tamazight 40% command, Tachelhiyt 40%, and Tarifit 20%." - "command" doesn't sound right here.
• "Tamazight has been used to teach children Tamazight " - Tifinagh has been used...?
  • Fixed typo. Mo-Al (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• The lead says the language "is not found on signs or buildings" but there's a picture of a sign in the orthography section.
• I can't really tell you much about the phonology and grammar sections, since I know so little about them.

Overall this strikes me as a comprehensive article that was written in sections and thus needs some copyediting. The history section is also a bit chronologically confusing, but cleaning up the prose should help with that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Eurostar

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have chosen to list this article for Peer Review. This is due to significant improvements that have been made in recent months, but direction is now lacking, and thus ways to improve. Originally referencing was considered an issue, but obviously references are no longer the constraint keeping things down, having been effectively dealt with. But more must be done, new ideas and improvements voiced so they can be enacted. I'll do what I can to make this a strong page, and continue to make it stronger, however I need input on how to do so, or at least people's thoughts on the stage of the article. Anybody care to chip in on how to furthern this page?Kyteto (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm short on editing time for the next few days, and I'll have to review this in stages. For starters, here are some suggestions about the images.

Images

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." The existing article probably has more images than the text can accommodate without violating this guideline. Many images in the existing layout overlap sections.

• The same set of guidelines also says, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." The image and the map in the "Frequency" section create a text sandwich, and the bumping of the table and the last image in the "Current fleet" section bump against one another to create a kind of no-text zone.

• The same guidelines also say, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." Quite a few images such as the one to the left of "Fleet updates" violate this guideline.

• The guidelines say, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." This applies to other directional images such as trains traveling into or out of the page. For this reason, an image like IMAGE:ICE 3 Oberhaider-Wald-Tunnel.jpg is usually placed on the right, whereas IMAGE:LGV Interconnexion Est - Chennevières-lès-Louvres - 4.jpg would go on the left. Finetooth (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and informative. In addition to my concerns about the layout, I have a few suggestions about issues related to prose and to the Manual of Style.

• In the infobox, the "Franchising" text says, "Not subject to franchising European Union states joint operation". To an outsider, this doesn't quite make sense. Does it mean "not subject to franchising because it is a European Union states joint operation"? Would it be more clear simply to say, "not subject to franchising"?

Lead

• A sentence begins, "The service is operated by the commonly synonymous eighteen-carriage Class 373 trains... ". I'm not sure what "commonly synonymous" means.

General

• WP:MOSQUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins." The quotation in "Awards and accolades" is too short for a block quote and should be embedded in the text with normal quotation marks. The longer quote in "New destinations" should be a blockquote".

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I'd suggest turning all of the bulleted lists in the article into straight prose.

Conception and planning

• Shouldn't "cross-Channel" be "cross-channel"? It would be capitalised in English Channel, I agree, but why in cross-channel? Ditto for Tunnel (tunnel) when it stands alone rather than as part of the formal name, Channel Tunnel.
• "Ideas for such a tunnel underneath the English Channel had been first mooted as early as 1802... " - "suggested" rather than "mooted"?
• "with the first serious attempt in 1881, which was abandoned due to a hostile press seeing the tunnel as compromising Britain's natural defences". "With" isn't a very good connector here. I'd suggest making a separate sentence out of this: "The first serious push to dig a tunnel was abandoned in 1881 because a hostile press believed the project would compromise Britain's natural defences."
• "Having been operating high-speed TGV services since 1981, and with construction of a new high-speed line between Paris and the Channel Tunnel, LGV Nord, under way, TGV technology was chosen as the base for the trains." - Logic? I think this sentence means something like "High-speed TGV services had been in operation since 1981. Since construction of a new high-speed line, LGV Nord, was under way between Paris and the Channel Tunnel, the project group chose TGV technology as the base for the trains." I'd suggest a copyedit to look for and repair sentences like this one.

Regional Eurostar and Nightstar

• '"Seven shorter NoL Eurostar trains for these Regional Eurostar services were built, but with predicted journey times of almost nine hours for Glasgow to Paris, the growth of low-cost air travel during the 1990s made the plans commercially unviable; although both government policy and the privatisation of British Rail has been suggested as reasons for the failure as well." - A copyedit would probably catch and fix run-on sentences like this one.

Accidents and incidents

• Wikilink bogie?

Minor incidents"

• " In October 1994 there were teething problems relating to the start of operations." - "Teething problems"?

Although this is not a complete line-by-line review, I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 11)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to try Seasons of Bleach being not delisted.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• The song title "Kimi wo Mamotte, Kimi wo Aishite" misses its kanji form.

• Done.

• "Episode List" -> "Episode list"

• Done

• The episode title romaji needs to be title-cased.

• I don't understand it very well. Do you mean adding macrons or capitals?Tintor2 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Capitals. Goodraise 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done (I think).Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the later airdates are currently unsourced.

• Done.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The general ref. uses an incorrect title.

  Done.

• How do you know that the season starts with episode 215?
• How do you know that episode 229 isn't part of season 12?

• Yep I'm also curious about how these seasons are divided. The first ten seasons seem to have a source for their division, but this doesn't.
• After some discussion I was given this [2] and this [3] images from dentsu which confirm the episodes from season 11.

Goodraise 18:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Article probably needs a copy-edit, I'll take a look at it when I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Beta Pictoris

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try to get this article to featured status, having done major expansion work on it in the past. It is already listed as a Good article. The main areas I have concern about are whether the application of various formulae in the text violates WP:NOR, and that the language may be too technical in places.

Thank you, Icalanise (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RJHall notes:

Overall it looks pretty good to me. I didn't see much in the way of potential terminology issues, save perhaps "refractory material" (but that's linked so it's probably not a problem). Here's a few thoughts on potential enhancements:

• Where formulae are used in notes, you might consider adding an inline cite for each formula (within the corresponding note).
• You could clarify why the "presence of significant amounts of dust around the star implies a young age of the system".
• You might want to explain the statement that "its very young age makes the noise even worse".
• Doesn't the high rotation rate also indicate a young star?
• Personally I like to see more details on the star itself. Perhaps you could add information on convection, magnetic field, CNO vs. P-P cycle, &c. An estimated main sequence lifespan would be good, as would be the star's ultimate fate.
• There are perhaps an excessive number of parenthetical structures in the text. I believe that some reviewers don't care for those because they don't work well with page-reading software for the vision impaired.[4]

Nice work. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. A few questions arising from your points.

• Can ref tags be nested? Last time I checked you couldn't do that, but maybe the functionality has since been added?

  they can be nested using {{#tag:ref|Ref content|name=NAME|group=GROUP NAME}} construct like in Oberon (moon). Ruslik_Zero 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed about the evolution - it would be preferable to get a source to directly quote main sequence lifetime, but how far could we push taking values from, e.g. the Geneva Grids of stellar evolution before it becomes too much like synthesis?

Icalanise (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• For Vega I tried putting a source and a range in the footnote, then just put an approximate value in the text. It seemed to be acceptable to the FAC reviewers. At least nobody has called me on it yet. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An apology: I have been rather busier than I had been expecting recently so haven't had time to address some points made above, I do plan to do so in the near future. Icalanise (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured you'd get to them (or not) when you had the time. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Review by Ruslik:

1. The article says that the disk is made of 'gas and dust'. However little information is provided about the gas component. The article only says that it is 'carbon rich'. Can some information about the mass, thinkingness, spatial extent and the chemical composition of the gas disk be added? Is this gas primordial or a result of evaporation of planetesimals? (The latter is probably true.) See [5], [6], [7] and [8].
2. The distance to Beta Pictoris was found by measuring the star's trigonometric parallax. This sentence should be moved to the second paragraph of this section.
3. As Beta Pictoris rotates fast, can this cause its poles to be hotter than the equator like in the case of Vega? This is should be discussed (if possible). Fast rotation would also distort its shape making it into an oblate spheroid.
4. It would be good if the article discussed coronal and chromospheric activity (See [9]) and also X-ray emission. This discussion should be correlated with the discussion of internal structure, magnetic fields and convection.
5. Alternatively it may be passing through an unknown phase that might also have occurred early in the development of our solar system: in our solar system there are carbon-rich meteorites known as enstatite chondrites, which may have formed in a carbon-rich environment. The enstatite chondrites are not the most carbon rich meteorites (they only slightly enriched in carbon as compared to ordinary chondrites). The most carbon rich are carbonaceous chondrites.
6. and the warps and inclined rings in the inner disk suggest a massive planet on an inclined orbit is disrupting the disk. What is 'the inner disk'?
7. The separation in the radial direction, that is unknown, so this is a lower limit on the true separation. This sentence needs to be rewritten.
8. if the planet is in an orbit with a semimajor axis of 8 AU, its orbital period would be 16 years and it would currently be too close to Beta Pictoris as seen from Earth to be detected. But the planet has been already detected, has not it?

Ruslik_Zero 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses to some of Ruslik0's points.

• Definitely agree that more about the star's characteristics is needed here. Not sure that there is going to be much oblateness though, doing a back-of-the-envelope estimate assuming a "Roche spheroid" (i.e. gravitational+centrifugal potentials) I get that the polar radius is going to be roughly 95% of the equatorial one, this is rather less distorted than stars such as Achernar (64%) [10], Alderamin (80%), Rasalhague (83%) [11] or Altair (81%) [12], so I'd guess that there isn't going to be much gravity darkening either. I haven't found any references about interferometric measurements of the star's shape.
• I used the example of the enstatite chondrites as that was what was mentioned in the reference. Probably should mention the carbonaceous chondrites too though.
• Ok being a pedant inner disk should be "innermost regions of the disk" I guess...
• Planet has already been detected, but the image dates back to 2003 and the planet's orbital motion would change the apparent separation. Agree that this needs to be explained better.

Icalanise (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Che (film)

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to see what else needs to be done to this article in order to get it ready for a FA review.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article seems very comprehensive; there do, however, seem to be a fair number of (mainly) prose issues that need attention. I have only looked in depth at the lead, so far:-

• There is too much detail in the lead section, especially with all the release information in the third paragraph. The lead should be an overview, in summary style. These details belong in the body of the article, but not here.
• WP:LEAD emphasises that, among other things, the lead should "draw the reader into the article", using "accessible" language. Personally, I doubt whether the second sentence meets this requirement: "Rather than a chronological recitation, the films offer an elliptical series of interspersed moments along the overall timeline." I can just about follow this, but surely it can be said more simply?
• Likewise, terms like "narrative linearity" and "aspect ratios" should be avoided in the lead. I know they're linked, but to the general reader they are likely to be off-putting.
• "...the Caribbean island..." Why not specify Cuba?
• First sentence of second lead paragraph is too long. Suggest full stop after "Bolivia". Then reword: "When financing fell through, Malick left the project, and subsequently Soderbergh agreed to direct the film."
• "...should also be depicted in the film." The words "in the film" are redundant.
• Not grammatical: "Peter Buchman was hired to write the screenplay and result was so long that Soderbergh decided to divide the film into two parts: one chronicling Cuba and other depicting Bolivia." Suggest colon after "screenplay"; replace "and result" with "the script", replace colon with a comma.
• "Filmmakers" sounds disembodied, unless preceded by "the". Thus "The filmmakers..."
• "...the decision also made it difficult..." "also" is unnecessary
• "Soderbergh shot the films back-to-back in the beginning of July 2007.." Doesn't make sense. Do you mean he started filming at the beginning of July 2007?
• "There, it received mixed reviews, and Del Toro won the Best Actor Award." These are two disconnected events, so "and" is inappropriate. I suggest a complete revision of the sentence: "Although Del Toro won the Best Actor Award, the film received mixed reviews" - or some such
• "...in order to qualify..." Delete "in order" (frowned on in Wikipedia)
• Much of the rest of this paragraph is covered by my earlier comment about over-detailing and should be cut considerably.
• Some odd terms used in the lead:-
  • "recitation" ("account", probably, if this sentence survives)
  • "ill-fated demise": Weird!
  • "to only depict" ("limited to")

Obviously it will take a while to complete the review, and since I have many other review commitments, as well as my own work, I will have to do it in rather a piecemeal fashion. Anyhow, there's quite a bit for you to be getting on with – I'll be back later.

These are great comments and thanks so much for taking the time. I will get to work on tweaking the lead paragraph. You're right about the size, though. He needs to be trimmed.--J.D. (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Comments

• Plot
  • The dividing line between the two films should be indicated
  • The numbering of days should be explained
  • Why is one statement in parentheses? Is this not part of the film?
  • "...the guerrillas capture some Bolivian soldiers who refuse to join the revolution and instead return to their villages." Please clarify: did these soldiers escape, were they released, or what?
  • Who captured Debray?
• Development
  • "Del Toro then personally met..."; "personally" is redundant
  • This same sentence ought to be split. I suggest "...and childhood friends.[5] He traveled to Cuba, where he met Guevara's widow..."
  • Awkward phrasing: "...who expressed that he was happy for the "serious" research being undertaken." I would simplify, to "who expressed approval of the "serious" research being undertaken."
  • "...several guerrillas who fought alongside him in Cuba." "him" ought to be specified as Guevara."
  • "While researching on both films..." Did he have two films in mind at this stage, or would it be better to refer to "the project"?
  • "In his encounters..." → "In encounters..."
  • The last sentence of this section does not seem to belong in "Development". It seems rather a post-production comment.

Sorry, that's all I can do for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing

• Screenplay
  • "After a year-and-a-half, the financing had not come together entirely and Malick left to make The New World, a film about Jamestown, Virginia." This sentence is rather loosely written. It has no timeframe (a year-and-a-half from when?), "the financing" of what?, "had not come together entirely" is vague. The details of Malick's next project are irrelevant to this article.
  • What are these "multi-territory deals"?
  • A paragraph break is necessary after ref [11] (the subject matter changes).
  • I have repunctuated the Peter Buchman sentence, but shouldn't it be "a script he worked on", rather than "a script he worked"?
  • Since Buchman, rather than Alexander the Great, spent a year reading books about Guevara, the sentence should begin: "Buchman spent a year..."
  • "...which he gave three storylines." Suggest "to which he gave three storylines."
  • "Buchman found that the problem with containing all of these stories in one film was that he had to condense time and this distorted history." There are rather a lot of awkwardly-phrased sentences like this. I can't list them all, but it does highlight the need for the services of a sharp copyeditor. For this sentence I suggest "Buchman found that to contain all these stories in one film meant that he had to condense time and distort history."
  • "Buchman went back and with Del Toro expanded the Cuban story for The Argentine." Apart from the mention at the beginning of the lead, this is the first reference to the first film being called The Argentine. This needs to be properly indroduced here. I don't like the formulation "Buchman went back..." (went back where?). So I would refashion the whole sentence: "Buchman together with Del Toro expanded the Cuban story for the first film, which the decided to call The Argentine."
  • Last sentence of para 2 needs a comma, after either "U.S. State Department" or "New York", depending on what your intended meaning is.
  • "The original source material for these scripts..." "These" is inappropriate; the scripts were not the subject of the previous sentence.
  • "From there, he drew on interviews with people who knew Guevara from both of those time periods and read every book available that pertained to both Cuba and Bolivia." "From there..." – from where? And "he" needs to be specified. Perhaps the sentence should begin "After this, Soderbergh drew on interviews..." Also, "of" is redundant, and a comma is needed after "time periods".
  • Watch for unnecessary overdetailing. Example: "They interviewed them individually and then Pombo and Benigno together about their experiences in Cuba and Bolivia." "They interviewed them about their experiences in Cuba and Bolivia" is sufficient.
  • Last sentence of this paragraph needs splitting; too many facts, too many "ands" for a single sentence.

• Financing
  • "Initially, Che was going to be made in English and a strong interest in financing it was met" Terribly awkward. Suggest "Initially, Che was going to be made with English dialogue, and interest in financing it was strong." You should also indicate from whom this interest came. The sentence should end at this point. New sentence: "However, when the..."
  • "break it up" → "subdivide it"
  • Watch multi-clause sentences

• Principal photography
  • "Doubling Santa Clara proved to be difficult because it was a certain size and had a certain look." Not at all clear on first reading. Try: "Doubling for the Cuban town of Santa Clara proved difficult because of its distinctive physical features."
  • What does "Vera Cruz/Tucatan" mean? Should the slash be an "and"? And shouldn't you say that these places are in Mexico?
  • Second paragraph: overdetailed (do we really need that stuff about their being delayed for a week in Los Angeles while waiting for work papers, or the week's delay in getting the prototypes?). Come to think of it, why did they need Spanish papers?
  • "The film is a tribute to the Marxist notion of advancement..." Too direct a statement. You could perhaps get away with "According to X, the film is a tribute..." etc, but as it stands, despite the citation, it ads like a declarative statement.

Look, I'm sorry, but this review is taking up too much time. I've been trying to reduce the reportage by doing some copyedits as I go through, but frankly, the prose needs more attention than I have time to give it. Can I briefly summarise what I see as the main prose points, and leave you to work on them?

• Way too much small detail, which gets in the way of the article narrative
• Overlong sentences with multiple clauses and too many "ands"
• General wordiness; for example, instead of saying things like "He went..." you tend to say things like "He decided that he would go..." Hundreds of unnecessary words could be cut out if you worked on this aspect of the prose.
• Writing is sometimes from a specialist angle which doesn't help the general reader. For example, in this photography section you mention "the new RED One" without explaining that this is a camera. OK, you link it, but that's not sufficient - you should say "the new RED One digital camera".

I hope you won't be disheartened by this rather negative-sounding judgement, but basically the prose needs lots of work, throughout. My detailed comments and copyedits in the earlier stages may help, but I don't have time to continue in this way. I'll try and keep an eye on the article, perhaps offer the occasional edit, but your best bet might be to find another film writer who is prepared to copyedit. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your comments and taking the time to go through as much as you did. I really do appreciate it. It gives me a lot to work with.--J.D. (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Gateway Protection Programme

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone considerable expansion and I would like to get people's thoughts on the article and on further development.

Thanks, Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article seems very short for the subject. This could raises questions about its comprehensiveness. In general, however, I found it clear and succinct. Specific issues:-

• Lead: I think you mean "actual" rather than "eventual"
• Programme details
  • Why is the first sentence there? It doesn't seem to have any purpose.
  • Second sentence far too long, needs to be split after "Home Office". Then: "If they meet the criteria they are brought..." etc. But can you specify whose criteria you mean?
• History
  • There is a long gap in time in your discussion of the quota number. We have a sentence about Blunkett's intentions to set the quota at 1,000 during the second year of operation (2002–03), then suddenly we are told the 2008–09 figure. At the very least there needs to be a linking sentence or two after "slow to take off", stating that despite such-and-such pressures and because of this-and-that factors, the number remained at 500 per annum
  • You should reverse the order of paragraphs, so that the ancient history is discussed before the more recent stuff. What were the dates of the Mandate Refugee Scheme (Palestine 1948?) and the Ten or More Plan?
• Refugees resettled under the programme: There is no need to repeat in the text exactly the information provided in the table - which really ought to be in this section instead of the Burmese picture, which might go elsewhere. So the sentences: "In 2004, 150 refugees were resettled. This fell to 50 in 2005 but rose to 355 in 2006 and 485 in 2007" are unnecessary. What seems missing from the section is any reason why the figures were initially so low.
• Resettlement locations: 15 local authorities out of how many? It would be good to know.
• General point: MOS encourages the use of no-break spaces. See WP:NBSP

Hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Jonestown

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My immediate goal is to bring this article to GA standards. Any criticism furthering this goal would be appreciated. I'm also interested in how much emphasis should be placed on the classified documents and conspiracy theories related to the topic.

Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm noticing some interesting issues with the citations. For example, the article says "Another note, found 25 years later, was buried among reams of unrelated paperwork. The document ... was attributed most likely to Richard Tropp" but the citation for that sentence says that the providence of the letter is unknown. Also, obviously, two sources are very heavily relied upon. Shii (tock) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: The rules for nominating for Peer Review require articles to be clear of major cleanup banners. This article has such a banner, dated June 2009, relating to the reliability of its sources. This issue should be addressed by editors before peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have no idea about the reliability of sources used, but this seems to be fairly well referenced, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• This is a long article and the lead seems a bit sparse to me and could be expanded to four paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• There are several places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs (including the lead). This interrupts the flow of the article and these should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded.
• I am guessing the image licenses are OK for GA, but if this goes to FAC I would make extra sure that the free license from the SDSU Jonestown project website is really free. My guess is that many of the image copyrights belong to the original photographers and thus they may not be free (depsite what the website says, note I am also not an image copyright expert).
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. You might also consider using the {{Multiple image}} for some of the many portraits.
• The MOS also says not to sandwich text between images
• WP:HEAD says not to repeat the name of the article in the headers if at all possible. So, for example, "Jonestown established" could just be something like "Establishment" and "Jonestown life after mass migration" could just be "Life after mass migration" or perhaps just "After mass migration". We already know this article is about Jonestown.
• I would also consider adding years or dates to the headers to provide more context.
• Make sure to provide context to the reader - for example Jim Jones is not mentioned in the first paragraph of Origins and is only mentioned by last name in the second paragraph. I think the lead introduces him, but usually names are wikilinked twice (lead and first mention).
• The "Notes from non-surviving residents" section seems a bit too large to me and I do not see why it has to have so many long direct quotations. I would probably summarize the several notes about willing assets to the Communist Party of the USSR in a sentence or two, something like "Several notes dated November 18, 1978 were found, which left bank accounts to the Communist Party of the USSR. These were from ...."
• Statements like though the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown. need a ref. 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

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Precipitation (meteorology)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm exploring upgrading this article to FA status. The conversion to cite xxx reference notation has completed. A recent upgrade of the snow article exposed its underrepresentation within this article, so I'm concerned there could be other issues. Since entering peer review, more information has been added about hail and what a hydrometeor is as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Artificial intelligence

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
feedback mainly on _content_ and weight of content

Thanks, WhatisFeelings? (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Introductory remarks from CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Re: content and weight. This article was carefully weighted to match the content in the most widely used textbooks and histories of the field. See Talk:Artificial intelligence/Textbook survey, which records the research. The textbooks are heavily weighted towards solved problems, so there are seven or eight extra paragraphs devoted to unsolved problems. The article gives a little more weight to the social and philosophical impact of AI, but note that these sections contain the same material covered in the introductory or final chapters of the textbooks, with approximately the same weight. The same approach has been taken towards the history of AI, covered in two sections of the article (History and Approaches) and several other paragraphs. They are based major histories of AI and the short history sections in the textbooks. This scheme has been compromised by later additions of a few sections, but is still mostly intact. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC) That being said, the article could use a good copy edit and one section is as yet unwritten. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and is certainly broad and possibly comprehensive. Having only a layman's understanding of AI, I must limit myself to comment mainly about compliance with the Manual of Style and related guidelines. In general, the article is very well-written and contains few errors that a proofreader or copyeditor would pounce on. However, I have doubts about the "listiness" of the article and about the plethora of extremely short sections, which are causing problems with layout. Here are my comments and suggestions.

• MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." It also says, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." For these reasons, it would be best to avoid repeating "AI" in the heads and subheads. It will take some thought to decide on alternatives, but, for example, "History", "Philosophy", and "Research" might be OK for heads 1, 2, and 3.

 Fixed ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:LAYOUT#Headings and sections says in part, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." This article relies heavily on the use of very short sections. This makes for a very long table of contents and a cluttered appearance, and it makes it difficult to follow the guideline in MOS:IMAGES that says, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading."

 Not done The sections are short because they are numerous. AI has a lot of subfields, and each (major) subfield deserves at least a paragraph. I'm not sure if I can break down the field of AI into just 6-10 subfields and give them a half-page each. I've taken the liberty of placing AI's subfields into three main categories (tools, problems, approaches), but none of these "topics" justify a proper sub-article; the field simply isn't structured that way. So I'll have to let this criticism stand. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to help the situation by removing unnecessary levels in the structure of the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

History of AI research

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I'd suggest turning many of the bulleted lists in the article into straight prose. The two-item list in this section could easily be converted.

 Fixed ---- CharlesGillingham (talk)

Learning

• "Supervised learning includes both classification (be able to determine what category something belongs in, after seeing a number of examples of things from several categories) and regression (given a set of numerical input/output examples, discover a continuous function that would generate the outputs from the inputs)." - This might be better if broken into two or pieces. Suggestion: "Supervised learning includes classification, the ability to determine what category something belongs in after seeing examples of things from several categories. It also includes regression, the ability, given a set of numerical examples of input and output, to discover a continuous function that would generate the outputs from the inputs." Or something like that.

 Fixed ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Social intelligence

• The short list in this section could easily be rendered as straight prose.

 Fixed ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "For good human-computer interaction, an intelligent machine also needs to display emotions — at the very least it must appear polite and sensitive to the humans it interacts with." - Here and elsewhere in the article, the spaced em dash is substituting for a semi-colon or a terminal period. Generally, it's best to use a semi-colon or a period.

 Fixed ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistical AI

• "Russell & Norvig" - The Manual of Style deprecates the use of the ampersand unless it is part of an official name such as a corporation name. Most, if not all, of the ampersands in the article should be converted.

 Fixed. Other ampersands (all of which appear in footnotes) are generated by the {{Harv}} family of templates. Perhaps the templates should be changed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Logic

• This section contains a list that should be easy to render as straight prose.

 Fixed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Classifiers and statistical learning methods

• While the article is generally well-sourced, and while the sources look reliable, it's a good rule of thumb to source every paragraph as well as every direct quote, statistic, or claim that is likely to be challenged. Three of the paragraphs in this section are unsourced. Something like the "no free lunch theorem", for example, isn't common knowledge. Ditto for other unsourced paragraphs in the article.

 Fixed Placed the unsourced material in its own paragraph for now. The rest of the material is in the main sources for the section. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Found the material in the sources. Just had to sort out which sentence goes with which ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neural networks

• The "citation needed" tag needs to be considered and addressed. Ditto for any other tags in the article.

 Fixed ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Specialized languages

• The list in this section could be rendered as straight prose.

 Fixed, by removing the list. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Evaluating artificial intelligence

• MOS:BOLD says in part, "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses... " - For this reason, I'd suggest unbolding the four listed items in this section.

 Fixed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

References

• I've never seen any reference sections in Wikipedia with citations that included bulleted lists. I see why it's tempting to do them this way, but straight prose might be better and would adhere to the Manual of Style guideline. Something like this might work for citation 103, for example: Logic: ACM 1998, ~I.2.3. Also, Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 194-310. Also, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 35-77. Also, Nilsson 1998, chpt. 13-16."

 Not done I decided against this, since it produces a perfectly dense block of unreadable references. The bullet list allows readers (and editors) to easily note that each topic is covered by the most, if not all, of the central sources for the field. (As you can probably guess by my opening paragraph, this article is constantly sideswiped by people who believe that the article is biased away from or towards one or the other subfields of AI, or who come to this article from a viewpoint based in science fiction, futurism or game AI. The only "fair" solution is to provide multiple, central citations to establish the relevance of each point in the article.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens; e.g., pp. 194–310.

 Unnecessary There is a bot that comes by periodically and changes these. I'm not sure to what or from what, although they look fine to me. Hopefully the bot will come by again some day and fix any that are still wrong. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see lots of ampersands that should be "and"s.

 Unnecessary As I mentioned above, these are generated by {{Harv}}, {{Harvnb}}, etc. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I think I've fixed everything I can fix for now. We need to take care of the four things missing a citation. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Dow Chemical Company

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review. The Dow Chemical article has undergone many changes since its last peer review. I am looking for constructive comments on the article as well as looking to get a sentiment about its "B" rating.

Many Thanks for your time,

Plhofmei (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think that in its current state, this is no higher than a B rating. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The current lead is five paragraphs, which is too long according to WP:LEAD (max is four paragraphs). The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but the 1897 founding is only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Biggest problem as I see it with this is a lack of references. For example the Agricultural sciences, Basic plastics, Basic chemicals, Hydrocarbons and energy sections all have zero references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• References need to be formatted consistently - look at the Chemical and Engineering News refs 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
• This is the second or third largest chemcial company in the world - there should be more sources available on it. Try to cite as many third-party independent sources as possible (and fewer refs from Dow itself). The further reading books could all be used as refs it seems.
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be either combined with others or expanded to improve flow.
• Avoid terms like current - instead use "As of July 2009". For example, when was the Board of Directors list added? Is it up to date?
• Article is very list-y in spots - try to convert as many lists to prose as possible to improve readability and flow.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

---

England and Scotland football rivalry

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is potentially a good article. I think it is fairly stable (England and Scotland don't play each other that often) and there is plenty of material there. Any thoughts to take the article forward would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

Generally speaking this is looking pretty good. It'd stand a very good chance of passing GA as is.

• Per WP:LEAD, everything mentioned in the lead section should also be included in the body of the article. This leads onto a second point - the one thing I'd say is missing from the article is a section about attitudes of supporters and the media.
• Occasionally there is a run-on sentence, or a sentence implying a link which does not exist e.g. "The UEFA Euro 2000 qualifying play-off in 1999 is the most recent occasion upon which the two have played, and there have been no matches so far in the 21st century.", "This was the first time the match had taken place in Scotland for ten years, but England won the first game 2–0".
  • Rewritten both areas. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• SFA chief executive Gordon Smith has also raised the concern that the riots in Manchester on the day of the 2008 UEFA Cup Final may lead the FA to believe that there could be incidents of hooliganism connected to an England v Scotland fixture. - someone unfamiliar with last year's events wouldn't see the relevance of this without clicking on a link. Changing it to "riots by Rangers fans" might make it clearer.
  • Added two links and a bit more text to clarify this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Players and managers section - this doesn't mention what I'd regard as the most significant migration, the Scotch Professors who were highly influential in the early days of the English professional game.
  • I have mentioned them en passant in the results section, but will add more detail further down. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• During this time, Rangers had a higher turnover than Manchester United and could therefore offer wages that could compare with even the biggest English clubs. - there another reason Rangers rather than, say, Celtic, signed English players in the 1980s... How much the issue merits mention I'm not sure, as anything other than a very brief mention would be undue weight. But as the recent flurry of articles about the 20th anniversary of the Mo Johnston signing shows, it was still a significant issue at the time.
  • I don't think that Rangers' alleged policy of not signing Catholics is relevant to that period, or the movement of players between England and Scotland. Indeed, you could argue that Rangers signing English players was a small step towards them signing Catholics, given that those English players would probably have been Anglicans. I think the point of that passage really was that Rangers signing major players from England (due to their greater revenues) was a significant reversal of the historic trend of Scottish players moving to play in England, including some famous Rangers players (eg Jim Baxter). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Celtic also signed some English players at that time, but they were lower profile ("biscuit tin mentality" and all that), eg Paul Elliott. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You can probably ignore that comment of mine. However, while the reference states that Rangers had a high relative turnover, it does not attribute the signing of English players to that. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• The use of flags in the results list strikes me as unnecessary, and doesn't follow WP:MOSFLAG. The location column is completely redundant, since that is already covered by the venue column.
  • Corrected. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have also added a template showing the relative periods of dominance (Scotland before 1890, England generally since 1945), as there was concern expressed about this on the talk page. Also added a bit more description (hopefully not too much point of view) to introduce the results. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Is it worth mentioning the Anglo-Scottish Cup, or the issues surrounding the idea of a United Kingdom national football team?
  • Added details re the other club competitions in the club level section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure that the Scotland have played England more times than any other opponent, and vice versa.
  • Added some text and references in the records section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the article's quality scale rating as it seems to me that it meets all of the 6 B-Class criteria.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Rumination syndrome

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have turned it around from a... well... I'll let you compare the differences yourself and apply an appropriate term for what it was.

Having made this much new content, I'm sure I've tangled myself a web of grammar, spelling, and style nightmares that I'm not able to spot because of how much I've saturated my mind from reading and re-reading the whole article. The references list also seems really messy in comparison with featured/A/GA medicine articles. Style is primarily what I need input on, as I know it reads somewhat unprofessionally as it stands and I don't know what to keep and what to rewrite.

I'm hoping to eventually earn this a FA status if possible, so any comments and suggestions would be really appreciated! :)

(Also, if I need to remove the under construction tag for this to be eligible, it would not be a problem)

Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The article still has an "Under-construction" banner, though it seems that little editing has taken place since the beginning of this month. The peer review should not take place until the reconstruction is complete; can you say whether this is so, and if it is, remove the banner? Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The major reconstruction is done... I only had that there so that people wouldn't delete half of it saying that its unsourced or (insert reason here). I'm removing the banner now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do the review in the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I don't know anything of this subject, but I found it generally interesting to read. Some might find the proliferation of medical terms a bit daunting, but its hard to see what you can do about this, beyond careful linking. Because of my lack of knowledge, most of my review is about structure, grammar, MOS etc. I have made some corrections as I've gone through, but mostly I've left them to you.

The bigest weakness is the lack of inline citations in some sections of the article, with whole paragraphs left uncited. I have indicated the areas where this is most aparent. The article does not appear to lack good-quality sources, but it needs many more citations to them. Here are my detailed points.

• Lead
  • Is the long citation string in the first line necessary - do we really need seven citations for what seems to be a simple statement of fact?
  • Notes [8] and [9] are unsourced statements (personally, I don't think post-prandial needs explaining, but you could make a wiktionary link)
  • Overlinking: "aches" and "pains" are common words, don't need links
  • What does "cognitively healthy" mean?
  • The sentence beginning "Most of thos eafflicted..." is too long and winding. Suggest full stop after Bulimia Nervosa, then "These similarities include...
  • I think the gerundive form of "binge" is "bingeing", not "binging".
• Signs and symptoms
  • The section needs more inline citations
• Rumination should be linked on first mention (after the title) in the lead, not here. And it doesn't need a capital R here.
  • Another overlong sentence, beginning
  • "In some individuals..." Suggest full stop after "swallowed". Then: "In others,...". (I'm not going to keep pointing out all the sentences that need splitting, but I suggest you check through, and take action where necessary.)
  • "...anywhere from during the actual ingestion..." Awkward phrasing, suggest drop "during"
  • No-break spaces needed: 90 minutes, 30 seconds, and lots more cases throughout the article.
• Causes
  • The section needs more inline citations. For example, nothing in the first paragraph is cited.
  • Full stop, not comma, required after "cognitively impaired"
  • "over- and under-stimulation" - hyphens required
• Diagnosis
  • Almost complete absence of citations
  • Why the list format? The section should be presented in prose, unless you are quoting from an actual list, in which case the source should be cited.

• • "bile" has been linked previously
• Differential diagnosis
  • Again, the section is presented effectively as a two-item list, and should be adjusted so that it is in normal prose.
  • Bolding should not be used in text (per WP:MOS).
  • Bulima nervosa has already been linked
  • "misdiagnosis" is a word, it doesn't need parentheses around the "mis"
  • The sentence should stop at "misdiagnosis" - the rest reads too informally. The comment does, however, require a citation.
• Pathophysiology
  • Lack of citations (none in first or third paragraphs)
  • Bolding should not be used in text
  • Third paragraph should not be in bullet-point format.
• Treatment
  • "weened" → "weaned"?
  • Strange clustering of citations at the section end; several earlier staements appear uncited.
• Prognosis: far too short to be a section on its own. Either expand, or merge into another section
• Epidemiology
  • No citations in the first paragraph
  • Number ranges, e.g "6–10%" need ndashes, not hyphens
  • Formats such as "12.9 ± 0.4" are unintelligible to the general reader. You must explain in words what is meant. After the fitst instance you can add, after your explanation, "...(represented by 12.9 ± 0.4)" and then use the numeric form thereafter
• History: this should be the first section, not the last section of the article.
• General points
  • Reference [13] needs formatting
  • External links should be more than web addresses. A minimal description should indicate the nature of the link.

I hope you find these comments helpful. As I can't watch all the peer reviews I do, please leave a message on my talkpage if you don't understand something I've said. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, and again thank you so much! I'm going to try and fix everything you've pointed out (Unfortunately I cannot find a study which defines congnitively disabled patients with rumination... Every study has one sentence which reads: It is found in 6–10% of mentally retarded patients.), starting with the lead right now. I'm copying this list to the talk page to check things off as I go. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from colin (talk · contribs)

This is a pretty good article that still needs a fair bit of work before it is ready for FAC. Here are some of the issues I found.

• The fact that it is "under-diagnosed" is not a defining characteristic of rumination syndrome. Suggest this fact be tagged on the end of (as a consequence of) the "lack of awareness" sentence at the end of the paragraph.

Actually its one of the most defining characteristics of the disorder is the total ignorance of its existence by most doctors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Avoid "recently". See WP:DATED. How recent is recent? The last year, last few years, last decade, ...? Similarly for the benign aspect. The Levine(1983) source is not sufficient to say "Past studies of rumination syndrome have described it as benign." as that paper could be a one-off. Your Sidhu(2009) source provides the contrast between past/present so that source covers both sentences. Suggest you drop Levine(1983) and Tamburrino(1994). The Sidhu(2009) paper shows how to handle the shifts from old->new. You can say things like "first believed to " "historically treated as", "Originally, ..." and then contrast that with "now". Rather than have the reader wonder "how recent is recent" we just let them know a shift has occurred and here's the current state of play.

The paper is a one off that unfortunately continues to be cited to this day (They can't make money off the cure, so its benign). Have adjusted this over to Sidhu 2009 though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Always a concern when citations only appear in the lead -- the lead should be a summary of the body so this indicates the lead is probably covering something that the body doesn't cover (or covers differently). I see that the History section doesn't really include anything much about the last century. That section should cover the above shift in thinking.

Its a small tidbit that the previous reviewer felt belonged there as it didn't fit in any sections. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Avoid language like "suffering from" and "afflicted". Just say "an affected adult with normal intelligence...", "most adults with the disorder..."
• Avoid language like "bulimics" -- best not to define people solely by their medical condition. How about "bingeing and purgine seen in bulimia".

Done - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• "private about their illness" I can't find this in the first two sources. Do you have a source for this?

• "few are correctly diagnosed" this is stronger than "often misdiagnosed" allows for. Do you have a source that confirms that correct diagnosis is very rare?

will change to often misdiagnosed. There would never be such a source as its impossible to say "Heres a bunch of people that haven't been diagnosed with Rumination syndrome" because in finding that they would diagnose them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• The lead says the reason for this is the similarity with bulimia nervosa. However, Papadopoulos(2007) says "This is due to insufficient awareness of the clinical features and also due to the broad spectrum of clinical symptoms that blur diagnosis." It then goes on to say it is frequently confused with "bulimia nervosa, gastroesophageal reflux disease and upper gastrointestinal motility disorders, including gastroparesis and chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction." The Chial(2003) source uses almost identical language. So the first two aspects are the reason, the confusion with is the consequence. The source doesn't single-out bulimia.
• The figures for treatment success are more exact than we should quote. We can't really say treatment has an 85% improvement based on one study in one hospital. That primary research paper doesn't give us the evidence that the same treatment is widely used and with similar results. Nor is that study the kind that can actually prove the treatment caused the improvement (many of the patience could have spontaneously improved, for example). The figures of 30% resolved, 56% improved are for those patients they managed to follow up at 10-months. The total number of patients was 147 so those 56 might have been the patients who responded well. See ascertainment bias.

That study was performed at, as far as I've found, the only place in the world that currently treats this condition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• The distribution of age at diagnosis chart has a mistake in the last column (14 rather than 16).

Will fix. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the first paragraph of Epidemiology needs eight footnotes. That's the sort of statement that should be sourced to one good review.

There's only one or two reviews. Whatever Papadopolis doesn't have often must be sourced by several primary sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• The age-of-onset figures are too accurate. Those are figures that are the result of one study of 147 patients aged 5 to 20 diagnosed at one clinic between 1975 and 2000. I see Eubulides (talk · contribs) has already found this issue. You say this paper is cited by lots of others. Do any of those generalise it? We can't generalise those figures or state them as a worldwide fact. Saying the mean age of diagnosis was 12.9 might simply be an artefact of the sample set containing people aged between 5 and 20. The issue isn't so much that there's only one study, it is that the limitations of that study prevent us from widening its results.

We should include what we do know right now, even if it may be statistically flawed. I don't forsee any wider studies if they have 150 patients over 25 years. A few studies in the last couple years have included the results of Chial (Which is rather recent, being from 2007), often quote for quote. It is by far the most accurate source statistically. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect I'll continue to find issues similar to those Eubulides found at FAC. This sort of investigation is very time-consuming, difficult without access to all the sources, and without a fair amount of reading up on the subject. I suggest you go through the article sentence by sentence challenging every fact. Does the source say that or does it say something much more limited? A typical flaw would be our text generalising from a single study, which is why reviews are such useful sources. Have you got a partner or friend who could play devil's advocate? You could sit together, working through the article, with one having to convince the other, ticking off or crossing out as you go along.

Well, I do have my significant other who had this for the past 5 years. I suppose this is what I'll need to do (I in many cases only have abstracts to work with. I refuse to pay $75 to look at a sheet of paper (but only for 24 hours)). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Colin°^Talk 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:MEDMOS recommends that when the article has the full text freely available online, it should be linked to (e.g., via the URL parameter in cite journal). This is in addition to the DOI, even if they end up at the same place. This is so that readers without journal access can tell if they can read the source or if they are going to be charged a ridiculous fee for two sheets of A4 paper. Colin°^Talk 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A few replies.

• Wrt defining features. You may regard "under-diagnosed" as an important feature, and one you want to stress, but it isn't defining. If this condition achieves wider awareness and starts becoming more frequently diagnosed, would it cease to exist? Be careful your advocacy doesn't colour the article.
• Wrt "Heres a bunch of people that haven't been diagnosed with Rumination syndrome" not being in a paper. Actually that kind of study does occur. For example, you could take a bunch of people diagnosed with bulimia or a bunch of people attending an eating-disorder-clinic and put them through the tests for rumination syndrome to see if you can pick up undiagnosed cases. It is the proper scientific way of saying "we are failing to pick up cases of this disease", rather than relying on a hunch.
• Wrt treatment. If there is only one centre treating this condition, we should say so and say those success figures apply to them. This raises the question: what happens to people elsewhere? Are they not diagnosed or are they told there is no treatment?
• Having only abstracts will significantly weaken your chances a FAC. It is like claiming to read a book having only read the blurb on the back. The purpose of a citation to a journal article is to say "this is what the article says, and I know because I've read it". I know we tend to supply convenience links to the abstract on PubMed through the PMID but that doesn't mean we are claiming that our source the abstract. It might be useful to highlight which sources come only from you reading the abstract. Then try to enlist help from someone with access to the sources. Is there any way you can get to a big library with access? FAC requires "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic", which for a small topic like this might reasonably expect the editors to have read most of the available journal articles.
• I know you are limited by the studies done and reviews available. This means the text has to be much less confident and more specific in its claims.

Colin°^Talk 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Sicily

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

• Its content was increased from 12k to 30k
• It covers the issues of the subject
• It is fully referenced

Thanks, Alarichus (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good work! Reads well, and looks like a good overview to me.
• I'd recommend expanding the "history" section, not necessarily by going into more detail, but by stating the obvious. See WP:OBVIOUS. For example, you know (and I know) who Innocent II was. But a teenager from the far side of the world probably wouldn't, so say "Pope Innocent II" rather than just "Innocent II". (I know there's a wikilink to follow so this might seem unnecessary, but the principle is that each article should be able to stand alone: the reader should emerge with a good understanding without having to click the link.) Lots more stating the obvious throughout the "history" section would make it considerably clearer to someone who doesn't know anything about Sicilian Normans.
• This next one is a fair bit of work, I'm afraid. References to printed material should cite the page number as well as the book. Sorry.
• As an accessibility feature, it's usual to add alt-text to the images; see WP:ALT. (Mandatory for featured article candidates).

Hope this helps.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Anything else? --Alarichus (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's looking good to me now, I must say. Nice work, and very prompt.

  I reviewed this because I'm interested in the subject. Unfortunately this means I know a bit about it, so I think it would be best if you received another review from someone who's new to the subject (and ideally someone who understands the manual of style better than me!)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thnx. OK, I'll wait until the article is reviewed again. --Alarichus (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Blackburn Olympic F.C.

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
An interesting (hopefully) article about a football club which folded 120 years ago this year but played a very important part in the development of professional sport. Please let me know what might need tweaking before I take it to FAC. Cheers!!!

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is nicely written, well-organized, and richly detailed without including anything irrelevant. I truly enjoyed reading it even though I know nearly nothing about association football. Here are a just a few suggestions:

Lead

• "The club was formed in 1878 and initially competed only in minor local competitions." - "took part" rather than "competed" to avoid repetition?

Formation and early years

• "with the help of Sydney Yates, a local iron foundry owner, who invested a large amount of money and would continue to bankroll the club" - "continued" rather than "would continue"?

Success

• "They focussed in particular on Olympic's training excursion to Blackpool, suggesting that the players would not have been able to take so much time off work unless the club was paying them some form of wage, and on players who had relocated from other areas to join the club, such as Hunter, who had moved from Sheffield." - Perhaps a bit too complex. The last part, "such as Hunter, who had moved from Sheffield" has gotten separated from "players". Suggestion: They focussed in particular on Olympic's training excursion to Blackpool, suggesting that the players would not have been able to take so much time off work unless the club was paying them some form of wage. They also investigated players such as Hunter, who had moved from Sheffield, and others who had relocated from other areas to join the club."

Decline and collapse

• "The club lodged an appeal with the FA based on the encroachment onto the pitch... - Wikilink pitch? It's linked in the next section, but I believe the instance in this section is the first use of the term.

Images

• The source links for cottontown.org and are dead on the licensing page for IMAGE:Blackburnrovers facup-1883-84.jpg. This may cause problems when fact-checkers examine the license and can't verify the source. The fix might simply involve tracking down a new url.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments Finetooth, I will crack on with the things you picked up on later today. The Rovers picture is also in the Soar/Tyler book listed in the refs, so I'll probably just give that as the source. Thanks once again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Bob Kane

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the co-creator of Batman, he has an important place in comics history, and has GA plus potential. There are a few sourcing issues, but nothing tremendous. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - thanks for an interesting article. I hope you can take a little criticism. The Lead is much too short, it should summarise the whole article. The Early Life section, also, needs more: where was he born, who were his parents, did he have any siblings? The article relies heavily on quotations—there are too many. I suggest not using quotations unless they are particularly interesting or entertaining in their own right. It is best to paraphrase and provide the citation of course. I noticed at least one dead link in the references. I suggest always using "and" and not "&" unless it forms part of an official title. I realise from your request for books that you recognise that the article needs more details. I am sorry I cannot help, but I wish you luck. Everyone loves Batman. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Fearless (Taylor Swift album)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article seems fairly well done, but that might just be my opinion, so I wanted to see what other people thought. I think this would be a good candidate to be a featured article. Please give your feedback and make any constructive changes to the article you would like. Novelwriter65 (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an album-article writer so I'll offer you format advice. I know little of the subject matter. Firstly, you need a background/production section. Tell us about the impact of her first album and the EP. Tell us where and when it was recorded and what people were involved in that production. Cite everything. You can probably get lots of quotations from interviews of Swift describing the production of the album. Include what you've got about writing lyrics, but cite it.

I would advise moving the critical reception section downwards, to just above chart performance.

In the Release section, merge release dates with the promotion section and the rest with chart performance.

The whole article, aside from the bullet-pointed singles section, should be in paragraphs. Also, make sure the article isn't written "currently". For instance, you've written that a single "will be released on 21 April 2009 to the US as the third official single". That date has gone. Write everything in past tense.

Scrap a lot of detail from the chart performance section. We don't need to know what position it was at every week. Include its peak position and how many weeks it held that position. Move the chart positions table to the chart positions section. Make "singles" its own section. Again, cite everything. I like to use Allmusic for US and Canadian charts and australian-charts.com for Oceanic and European charts.

You will need to format those references. This is the most dull part of article writing for me, but the refs must conform to WP:CITET.

The lead should be far longer and summarise the entire article. See WP:LEAD.

Best of luck. Try checking out featured standard album articles at WP:FA. Drop me a note at my talk page if you like. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Joey Jordison

This peer review discussion has been closed.

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article up to GA status as of now. This article has perviously had one unsuccessful GAN, and is currently listed as a B-class article; I need some feedback from other users. Also I need some assistance to get this article to meet the GA standards. Any input and improvements to the article would be happily appreciated.

Thanks, —Terrence and Phillip 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting. It's broad in coverage, neutral, and stable. I have a few concerns about prose and Manual of Style issues. Some of the special terms could be made more clear to general readers through wikilinks or brief in-text explanations.

• I wonder if the article might include a critical reception section with reviews of Jordison's work by music reviewers working for magazines or newspapers. I don't know if any exist, but it would make the article more broad to include them if they do.

Early life

• "The band helped Jordison break new ground, playing for live crowds in support of local bands including Atomic Opera... " - Wikilink Atomic Opera?
  • Done.
• "In early 1995, Modifidious disbanded due to a lack of interest, owed to the shift in interest from thrash metal to death metal in America." - Suggestion for tightening: "In early 1995, Modifidious disbanded because of a shift in interest from thrash metal to death metal in America."
  • Done.

Slipknot

• "A lot of Slipknot's early development was discussed by band members while Jordison worked night shifts at Sinclair's garage." - This is unclear because it might be interpreted to mean that the other band members discussed important business while Jordison was at work. I think it means that he was important in those early discussions, but I'm not sure. Also, material in the lead should also appear in the main text sections, and it's important to include in this section the information about The Pale Ones' connection to Slipknot. Otherwise, a reader of this section who zipped through the lead won't understand why the first sentence is about The Pale Ones and the third sentence about Slipknot.
  • According to Slipknot (band)#Early years (1995 – 1998), the band The Pale Ones were the original band to Slipknot, which Joey joined shortly after the band was created. Later Joey was the one who suggested to change the band's name to "Slipknot" after one of their songs from the demo Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. Hope this is what you meant to ask. Also can you help with writing this?

Murderdolls

• "Jordison became the Murderdoll's guitarist and he contacted... " - "persuaded" rather than "contacted"? Or "recruited"?
  • Done.
• "Wednesday would eventually move to vocalist... " - "eventually moved to" rather than "would eventually move to"?
  • Done.

Other musical endeavours

• "after guitarists Steinar Gundersen and Arnt Gronbech—who were also only touring members—were charged after sexually assaulting a fan in Toronto... " - "charged with" rather than "charged after"?
  • Done.
• "While touring with Korn, Jordison set a record for the most appearances at the Download Festival in England, as the only performer ever to have performed five times." - Suggestion: "While touring with Korn, Jordison set a record by becoming the first musician ever to perform on five different occasions at the Download Festival in England."
  • Done.

Equipment

• "During an interview with Drummer in 2008, Jordison offered a run down of his touring rig." - "Run-down" and "rig" might be a bit too slangy. Suggestion: "During an interview with Drummer in 2008, Jordison described his standard touring equipment."
  • Done.
• "Pearl Reference Series & Paiste Cymbals:" - The ampersand is not normally used unless part of a company name or other official name.
  • Done. I removed the ampersand and replaced it with "and".
• Many of the terms in this list are mysterious to me and, I assume, lots of other readers. Wikilink snare and octoban and other special terms? Explain others? What is a "tom"? What is a "signature heavy hi-hat"? And so on.
  • Got some of them. However I couldn't find anything about atom from the disambiguation page. The closest one I could find was Tom (instrument), although I very doubt this is the one I'm looking for. Also I wikilinked hi-hat, although a "signature heavy hi-hat" is probably just the brand name of the drum he uses.

References

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens, and multiple pages are abbreviated as pp. rather than p.; e.g., p. 22-25 in citation 1 should be pp. 22–25.
  • Done.
• Citation 30 looks incomplete, and here the p. would be correct rather than the pp.
  • Fixed part of the problem, although I don't know how to fix citation 30. Whoever got it did a bad job at citing sources.

Images

• The infobox image is interesting and illuminating, and its license looks OK to me.
  • Ok.
• I'm less certain about the fair-use rationale for the second image. It might be questioned on grounds that the image does not add anything not covered by the first image plus the text.
  • If anyone objects to using the second image, I'll probably just remove it altogether since there doesn't seem to be different free version for the image.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to most of your issues concerning about the article. You should take a look to see if everything is alright. —Terrence and Phillip 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Mary Sue Hubbard

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is something of a rescue job - a complete rewrite from scratch of an article that had some major problems in its original form. I'd like to get it up to GA and if possible FA standard, so a peer review would be useful. I would appreciate some feedback on the article before I put it up for a GA nomination.

Thanks, ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: For someone like me, who doesn't know much about Hubbard or Scientology, the article is very informative. However, parts of it, the latter half in particular, read more like crime reporting than an encyclopedia article. This is good for readability, but we have to aim to sound neutral. I have pointed out instances where I think this problem is particularly prevalent. Here is the full list of points.

• Lead
  • Just a thought, but I'm not sure that the information in the lead is presented in the best order. The most important facts should be summarised in the first paragraph; I'm don't think that her having four kids qualifies. On the other hand, if she invented or co-invented the Scientology name, that might be thought important enough for the first para, as might some mention of her downfall and imprisonment. I'm not suggesting any major re-write, just some juggling of material.
  • Very minor: "She was credited" → "She is credited"?
• Early life: I've fixed a couple of commas. Also:-
  • Clarify what Hubbard resigned from
  • The last sentence is too long and convoluted, needs splitting. I'm confused by its ending - the word "Scientology" looks isolated. You could end "otherwise called Scientology", but personaly I would just delete the word. The sentence does need a citation, however.
• Establishment and expansion
  • Delete "The" from section title per MOS
  • I don't read any follow-up to the statement in the lead that Sue hepled coin the term "Scientology"
  • "visa" should presumably be "visas"
  • "They went back to London in December on a fresh visa and stayed there until the end of May 1953, before departing for an extended holiday in Spain." As written this sentence doesn't add anything. Why did they spend six months in London?
  • Could we have some explanation of the role of "Academy Supervisor"
  • "The Hubbards continued to carry out auditing of each other..." What does this mean? And you say they "continued" - when did this start (whatever it is)?
  • "...a somewhat elite rank at that time" This reads as POV.
• Life at sea
  • "...a string of mistakes that infuriated Hubbard." What kind of mistakes were these?
• Guardian's Office scandal
  • Delete "The" from section title per MOS
  • "In the UK alone, it..." "It" has to be specified as the GO
  • "Its eventual downfall was to result from the use of illegal methods, ordered and authorized by Mary Sue, to further its campaign." Reads as POV, and also anticipates what hasn't yet been covered in the article.
  • The remainder of this section is rather loaded with non-neutral language. There are POV expressions ("The situation was potentially disastrous for the GO..." is just one example. Adjectives such as "extremely" should always be avoided - they destroy neutrality.
• Downfall
  • "Hubbard nonetheless remained active in the management of Scientology." Specify that you mean L. Ron
  • I don't think the 500-word affidavit should be incorporated into the text. It is a source, to which salient points should be cited.
• Life after...: no particular comment
• General points
  • Some online references are not properly formatted
  • Page ranges in references need ndashes, not hyphens

I hope you finds these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

History of Hertfordshire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm desperate for attention I mean, because I'd like a fresh pair of eyes on it to suggest further improvements, please!

Thanks, —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1 (talk · contribs)

• "... forged in the Norse-Saxon wars and developed through commerce serving London": I'd recommend giving a rough date for the wars (ie: which century) as the average reader won't know, and by "Norse", do you mean Viking? I don't think the two are synonyms.
• I noticed your removal of "AD" the reason for its presence was that it was in a section that mentioned prehistory and there was a chance of confusion: it could have meant either the first century BC or AD, although the convention is that without BC/AD it automatically means AD. If you don't like BC/AD, I'd recommend using BCE/CE, although MOS was never resolved on the matter of which should be used (unless there have been recent developments).
• What is meant by "of Hertford" in the following extract: "with the establishment of the two burhs ... of Hertford"? Is it referring to the county town? If so, I think it's very unusual for two burhs to be established so close together, one year apart. For example, the Saxon burh at Eddisbury hill fort was superseded by one at Chester about 10 miles away. Cheshire is very far north compared to Hertfordshire and had a relatively low population and therefore required fewer burhs, but I'd be surprised if there were two in the same town.
• When looking into the info about the planned town, I noticed that the source states it with some confidence however the article introduced uncertainty. If the source presents something as a certainty, there's no need to change that unless there are other sources that challenge it. As most of the sources are printed, I can't check this myself but you might want to double check that this doesn't happen anywhere else. I can understand why it did though. I think there may be a few more instances due to a few occurrences of words such as "seem", indicating uncertainty. That's not to say such words and phrases shouldn't be used, if the source is uncertain, then it's definitely correct to reflect that.
• Do we have a (rough) date for the founding of Hertford?
• What does the following sentence add to the article: "Hertford and several other areas in Hertfordshire are ripe for archaeological excavation"? It doesn't sound very encyclopedic, but if information is given about current and planned archaeological work it may be worth including.
• Without explaining why minting coins is relevant (ie: it indicates Hertford was a high-status settlement) the reader is left wondering why the fact that Edward and Aethelred minted coins there is worth mentioning.
• "It probably remained in royal hands into the tenth century": does "it" refer to Hitchin?
• "...but because it had many small roads rather than a few large ones, the towns followed the same pattern": in my opinion, causation isn't clear. Were the towns and villages small because of the small roads, or were the roads small because of the small villages and towns? If this is the judgement the source makes, fair enough but a little more explanation would be helpful to the reader. Presumably the small roads impeded travel and therefore hampered trade.
• The section on the 11th century sounded like someone's point of view, if describing Aethelred's reign as incompetent, it needs to be clarified who thought so (although since he's called Aethelred the Unready it would seem pretty much everyone). Another example if the judgement that it was fortunate for England that Forkbeard's son ascended to the throne. I've removed these examples, but it's something to keep an eye on.
• "The Norman church at St Albans Abbey was finished in 1088": was this the foundation of the Abbey? It could be made a bit clearer.
• After the mention of Edgar's surrender, could a sentence on the importance of the Norman Conquest be added for context? Something on the new administrative system introduced by the Normans and the introduction of feudalism.
• "The Domesday Book lists a relatively sparse 168 settlements in Hertfordshire": relative to what or where? 168 is crowded compared to the northwest back then!
• A couple of phrases such as "simply put" are a bit informal. I've removed a couple.
• MOS:DASH means that either endashes (–) or emdashes (—) can be used for parenthesis as long as use within the article is consistent. The endashes need non-breaking spaces to the right. You fixed it before I realised I'd introduced inconsistency, sorry about that and thanks for fixing it.
• "Relatively little commerce took place in Hertfordshire at the start of the [12th] century": considering it was implied earlier that trade was important to the county and Hertford was clearly important due to being a centre of coin minting in the 10th and 11th centuries, why was this? Had Hertford become less important?
• The section on the 12th century is a bit disjointed, reading like a collection of facts. How important was Baldlock? Why was it established? Were the Templar's significant land owners in the county? Can the creation of the settlement be linked back to increasing trade in the county until 1349? Stephen holding court in the county also seems like evidence of the county's increasing importance, but this speculation on my part would need a source although it would nicely tie the section together. Not sure how to tie in Breakspear, may as well leave that sentence standing alone.
• Hertford Castle is mentioned for the first time in the section on the 12th century, with no previous mention of its construction or purpose. If you could find something on Hertfordshire's castles in general, it would be great to add to the section on the 11th century after mention of the Norman Invasion. Castles were important institutions, not just military tools but constructs of social control, seigniorial residences, and even centres of administration.
• Related to the above point, what was Dauphin Louis doing in Hertfordshire in December 1216?
• Without context, the following sentence could probably be removed: "King Henry III wrote to the Sherriff of Hertfordshire in 1260 to complain of the "homicide, robbery and other lawless evildoings" in the county". Was Hertfordshire exceptionally unruly?
• "The number of residents probably fell by 30%–50%: it would be nice if the estimates for England as a whole could be included for comparison (I think it was 1/4 to 1/3, but of course would need a source).
• You'll want to make sure that serial commas are used consistently.
• "Queen Mary granted the town of Hertford its first charter": some information on what the charter allowed would be useful to the reader.
• Per MOS:QUOTE, quotes should not be in italics and short quotes (as a rule of thumb, less than four lines) doesn't need to be in a separate paragraph.
• "Cromwell captured and imprisoned the Levellers' "agitators" and a number were sentenced to death, but only one actually shot": do you mean that only one was executed rather than shot? The current wording means that others could have been executed through different methods.
• It's probably not necessary to mention that "The fire [of London] probably started by accident, but Catholics were blamed at the time".
• "Their impact on trade and commerce in Hertfordshire is hard to overstate": true, but the sentence isn't quite encyclopedic in tine.
• Per MOS:IMAGE, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two". Also, MOS:IMAGE encourages images to be placed in the section they related to, so the flag in the references section is a bit incongruous.
• "Of local interest, Stephen Austin of Fore Street, Hertford, published a newspaper called the Hartford Mercury in 1772": how is it of local interest? Was it the county's first newspaper?
• While I agree with the following and the conclusion, the bit after the reference has the ring of original research and probably needs a source: "In 1795, one Dr Walker wrote a report on agriculture and forestry within the county. He said "Herts is justly deemed the first and best corn county in the kingdom",[76] an assessment that may not be entirely free from local bias. It nevertheless shows how more advanced farming techniques and soil improvement programmes had enabled farmers to work Hertfordshire's "heavier" soils to better effect over the centuries since the Saxon-Norse wars".
• Why did the county's population expand so much in the 19th and 20th centuries? I would expect it to be related to the Industrial Revolution, however little in the modern era section explained why. The railways were important, but did residents come to the county for industry (if so was there other industry apart from paper? I doubt it could support that many jobs) or to escape industry? Or other reasons?
• Were the boundaries of the county changed by the Local Government Act 1972?

On the whole, I like the article and in places there is a good amount of detail which shows a good understanding of the subject and source material. For example, "Thus Hertfordshire developed through commerce to a greater extent than normal, and less through the agriculture that drove most of England's economy during this period": this kind of context is very good and a something I would expect of a Featured Article. The article isn't up to Featured standards yet though and would require expansion so that's it's covers the subject in depth, but in places is very good. At the moment, it would take a hammering on criterion 1a. For the next step, I'd recommend taking this to GAN because I think this should pass even without the above changes. Afterwards, perhaps leaving it for a while before returning with fresh eyes. For someone who claims to be inexperienced with long articles, I'm impressed. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very, very much for your patient work on this article and your comprehensive comments.
• I do mean "Norse" and I chose the word with due care, but thanks for pointing it out.
• I'll run with "first century CE", I think.
• Two burhs were established in Hertford, one on each side of the River Lea, in 912 and 913 respectively. The sources do note that this was unusual and in some cases speculate on the reasons why this might have been done, but there's little agreement on the reasons, only the fact.
• I'm probably guilty of POV about the 11th century. It's a period of particular interest for me, and the more you read about something, the more you build up a view. I think I should ask for an independent copyeditor to find my biases and cut them down to the facts.
• Rook's pretty clear that Hertford is an early example of town planning. Not all the sources mention this, though, and I'm not comfortable stating it with as much confidence as Rook does. There are other possible explanations for why Fore Street is so straight!
• On commerce in the 12th century, I was trying to say that commerce at the end of the century was much more prevalent than at the start. I obviously failed to say it very clearly, so I need to think about how to rephrase that.
• I agree that the 12th century part of the article needs attention in terms of flow. I think I'll go back to the sources and rewrite it from scratch.
• Yes, I need to find the date of origin and first owner of Hertford Castle. (Side note: Wikipedia's Hertford Castle article is totally wrong about it being on the site of the burhs.)
• On Dauphin Louis, I see from my handwritten notes that he was at Hertford Castle but I've failed to record much else about him. Back to the sources again on that!
• I don't know whether Hertfordshire was particularly unruly. On looking at it again, I'm with you: better to cut that sentence out completely.
• I'll take a look for sources about fatality rates from the Black Death.
• I'll standardise on the serial comma.
• Only one was executed. I swapped "shot" for "executed" because I didn't want to paraphrase the source too closely, if I remember right. I'll find a way to make that less ambiguous.
• I'll cut the ancillary detail about the Great Fire of London.
• I don't know how to phrase that sentence at the moment. It'll need some thought.
• I'll fiddle with the images.
• The Hertfordshire Mercury is still our most widely-read free paper (which is something I would say in the article if I could find a source for it...) I do not know if it was Hertfordshire's first paper, but I rather doubt it.
• Well, that sentence is "OR", if you like. I've got sources that say it was hard to farm with a medieval plough, and sources that say it's easy to farm with more modern tools. I've joined the dots there.
• On the population expansion, I have the facts at my fingertips, but not the reasons.
• Yes, there were several boundary changes (in 1972, and also with the 1938 Green Belt Act iirc). I didn't mention these things, but I can.
• Thank you again for the comprehensive review and all your hard work. I'll see about the GAN when I've fixed the issues you mention to my satisfaction.

  Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

1968 Illinois earthquake

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed an FAC on prose grounds, so I'd love to improve the prose to an FA standard, if it improves this article. Because that's the whole goal, isn't it, improving articles?

Thanks, ceranthor 18:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally seems fine to me. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "In studying its cause, scientists discovered the Cottage Grove Fault, in the Southern Illinois Basin." - It might be worthwhile to link Cottage Grove Fault, which is a subsection of the Harrisburg, Illinois, article.

History

• "The 1965 shock contradicted this idea, as it was felt only in the region of Tamms... " - It might be slightly more clear to re-state the idea. Suggestion: "The 1965 shock contradicted the idea that all quakes in the region are felt over a wide area because this one was noticed only near Tamms..."

Geography

• "The earthquake occurred at a depth of 16 miles (25.7495040000000 km)." - The precision of the second number must be intentional, but it looks strange when paired with a number rounded to the nearest whole mile. For the sake of readability, would it be better to say "about 16 miles (26 km)" and then to give the more precise figure in a footnote?
• "At that time, no faults were known in the immediate epicentral region (see below), but the motion corresponded to movement along the Wabash Valley Fault System roughly 10 miles (16 km) east of the region." - Generally, direct instructions to the reader like "see below" don't work well. Where below? I'd suggest deleting "(see below)".

Damage

• "in the home of one family in Dale, Illinois, near Tuckers Corners and southwest of McLeansboro." - Wikilink McLeansboro, Illinois, here instead of on second reference in the next paragraph?
• "For instance, a concrete-brick cistern... " - Wikilink cistern?

Response

• "thinking a water tank of 1,100 US gallons (4,164 l) had fallen" - If you round the gallons to the nearest hundred, do you want to round the liters to nearest whole number? Maybe (4,200 l) would be more appropriate. Would it be worthwhile to link l, thus: 1,100 US gallons (4,200 L)?
• "Apart from the millions who encountered the earthquake, some did not." - Suggestion: "Although millions of people felt the earthquake, others in the region did not."

Images

• The image of the Gateway Arch needs to be moved wholly into one section instead of overlapping two sections. Per MOS:IMAGES, it also should not bump against the third-level head. I think it would be OK to move it into the "Response" section and to the right. It might also be possible to squeeze it into the "Damage" section, if you prefer to place it there.

Other

• I'm happy to say that the dabfinder and link checker tools found no problems in this article.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has to be reviewed in order to be included in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation. The article has just been created and contains as much information as is available at the moment. If this isn't Peer Reviewed, then this article cannot be included in the Featured Topic, and the Topic will become delisted.

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I don't have much substance to offer, but here you go...

• Expand the lead a little, to include general information about the show.
• What makes Twitter a reliable source?
• Format reference 2.
• Needs more cats. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Dunfermline

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to aim towards GA. The article in general needs a lot of work done which I have aware of for a while. Do you also think it would be appropriate to have a places of worship section in the article (considering Dunfermline's past)?

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and generally well-done. It's certainly broad. It's neutral, stable, well-illustrated, and verifiable. My only concerns are with the incomplete lead and with mostly minor prose matters. I think another thorough proofreading or two would catch most of the small errors. I fixed a fair number of small things, but I see more, and I'm sure I missed others. I doubt that you need a places of worship section that's separate from the landmarks and buildings section, but you would know better than I if anything essential is missing. After a bit of work on the prose, you shouldn't have much trouble getting this to GA, methinks.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead doesn't mention culture, education, transport, or governance, and thus couldn't stand alone as a concise version. This often happens because a lead that was a perfectly fine summary of an earlier, shorter version of an article says nothing about sections added later.

• WP:MOS#Dates says in part, "Dates are not normally linked." I see a few linked dates in the main text and the citations. The first one is in the "History" section: "The royal palace was also connected to the abbey and the first known documentation of the Auld Alliance was signed there on 23 October 1295."

• The convention with a series of citation numbers is to arrange them in ascending order. Thus "Royal burgh status was granted by James VI in 1588.[12][8]" should be "... granted by James VI in 1588.[8][12]" Ditto for all similar strings of citation numbers in the article.

• Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. I fixed some of these, but I see others in the "Notables" section.

History

• "The first historical record for settlement in Dunfermline comes around 506 AD as a centre for the Culdee faith and the first recorded instance of the name as "Dunfermelitane" was in the confirmation charters of David I in 1128, with the form Dunfermline being officially adopted in 1609." - It's tempting to use "with" as a conjunction, but it often works less well than intended. I'd suggest looking for these in the article and trying other options to see if they work better. Suggestion for this one: "The first historical record for settlement in Dunfermline indicates that around 506 AD it was a centre for the Culdee faith. The first recorded instance of the name as "Dunfermelitane" appeared in the confirmation charters of David I in 1128, and the form "Dunfermline" was officially adopted in 1609."

• "The establishment of Scotland's only Royal Navy Dockland in neighbouring Rosyth in 1909, boosted by two world wars, led to further growth in the town becoming the area's only major employer." - Suggestion: "The establishment of Scotland's only Royal Navy Dockland in neighbouring Rosyth in 1909 and its expansion during two world wars led to further growth in the town. The Navy became the area's only major employer." Or am I misunderstanding?

Governance

• "More recently, this was replaced by a single-tier authority - Fife Council which was has been based in Glenrothes since 1996." - Typo? Also, the spaced hyphen should be replaced with "authority, Fife Council," I think.

Local government

• "Being the headquarters for the west region of Fife Council, the town still has a control administrative and planning issues which are based in the city chambers - first built between 1879 and 1881 in a blend of French, Gothic and Scots baronial styles." - Another typo? Another spaced hyphen.

Westminster and Holyrood

• "by the first past the post system of election" - This phrase should probably be explained for readers who live far from Scotland.
• "The seat is currently held by Willie Rennie for the Liberal Democrats since the result of the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election in 2006 following the passing of the previous MP, Rachel Squire" - "Death" rather than the euphemism, "passing"?
• "The seat is currently held by Jim Tolson for the Liberal Democrats." - It might be better to say "as of 2009" rather than "currently". Ditto for the Willie Rennie sentence.

Demography

• Reference numbers should be snugged up against the terminal punctuation with no space between. I fixed one of these in the earlier sections, but I see more here.

Notable buildings and landmarks

• "The United Free church in Queen Anne Street founded by Ralph Erskine, and the Gillespie church, named after Thomas Gillespie (1708—1774) are of notable since both Erskine and Gillespie were important figures in the Secession movement." - Missing word?
• Should nave, provost, and sarcophagus be wikilinked?
• "followed by the expansion of the choir with a shine around 1240" - What is a "choir with a shine"?
• The spaced hyphens should be replaced throughout with spaced en dashes, commas, or unspaced em dashes.
• "Even though, much of the castle dates from the 16th century, the plain rectangular tower is around 1500." - Suggestion: "Even though much of the castle dates from the 16th century, the plain rectangular tower was built around 1500." Since 1500 is the first year of the 16th century, I'm not sure I've got this right.

Culture

• "Many bands to come out of Dunfermline in terms of popular music such as The Skids, Big Country, Nazareth and Yoshi (Yoshi band)." - Something missing?

References

• The formatting of all of the full dates in the reference section should be consistent, either yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y but not a mixture.
• Some of the citations are incomplete. Citations to internet sources, for example, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found.
• If you use p. and pp. in some places, you should stick with this format throughout rather than doing some as p and pp without periods.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk)

---

Peru national football team

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it in order for it to be a strong Featured Article Candidate that will be able to pass the process and become a Featured Article.

As of now, the article is a strong Good Article. It has been heavily improved and been molded in the form of the Scotland national football team article (though not exactly alike). The article holds plenty of references, but comments were made on some of them as they did not seem reliable for FA status. The article should be an easy read, and an easy article to review. There really is very little to improve by this point. All it needs is a "polish" that can give it that shine that will make it FA quality.

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

---

Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to FA-status (as do a couple of others who have kindly helped to improve it or who have commented upon it), and I'd like some further fresh eyes on what's needed for the final push at FAC.

Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks close to ready for FAC, but I think that it still needs some work before then - here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I would make the lead image (map) larger as it is a bit too small to read easily on my monitor now. Also, what is in the southwest corner (where the North arrow is)?
• There are places where it would help to provide a bit more context to the reader - for example the map shows the college is between Market and SHip Streets today, but I would make clearer in the "Buildings in 1571" section that it is still on the original site. I also wonder if it would help to add the word "founder" to the caption of the protrait of Hugh Price.
• Is "Buildings in 1571" the best section header here? Perhaps something like "Founding and original buildings (1571)" or "Original buidings (1571)"?
• Could some sort of color or highlighting be added to File:Ralph Agas map of Oxford 1578.gif to show where the college is on the 1578 map?
• The caption for File:Engraving Jesus College 1675.jpg could be clearer - what street is shown in the foreground? Is the chapel shown on the right?
• Could years (ranges) be added to the (sub)section headings?
• The {{inflation}} template might help with giving the up to date values of the various amounts raised and spent in building the college.
• I would identify the first quad on the right side in the caption for File:Engraving Jesus College 1740.jpg
• It might be the late hour for me, or the fact that I am tired and a bit ditracted, but I think there are several places where some sort of topic sentence / brief introduction to the section would help comprehension very much. For example, when talking about the first quadrangle, it seems to have just sort of been made haphazardly over centuries, without a clear plan from the start. If that is the correct understanding, then I think adding a sentence or two at the start of thesection that explained that would help (show the view of the forest before focusing on the trees). SOme of this is in the lead, but it would help to have the information repeated in the body of the article. This is done nicely in the case of the second quad with Francis Mansell, who was appointed principal in 1630, raised hundreds of pounds from donors towards the building of a second quadrangle in 1640.
• I also think that adding a brief note as to whether the building described still stands today might help make things clearer - so when talking about the original buildings if none of them are still extant, I would say that (At the time of the college's founding, it had X buildings, none of which survive today) and when the first quad is described, I would make clear if the series of low two story buildings survives (even if greatly modified) today.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

H2g2

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how it can be improved beyond the changes I've already made. Since h2g2 has an Edited Entry about Wikipedia, I feel Wikipedia's article about h2g2 should aim for roughly the same status (good/featured article).

Thanks, AlexAshman (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will copy edit over the next few days as requested, but a couple of things leap out at me.

• First, you should try to reduce or eliminate entirely the external links in the body of the article -- ie those that are not being used as references. Those that are or can be used as references should use one the appropriate citing formats, <ref></ref> or even better {{citeweb}}. Also, headings should be in sentence case, per WP:MOSHEAD, rather than title case. Hope this helps for now. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

Many thanks for responding to my message. I've removed all the external links and created references where appropriate. I've also changed one of the section titles. 'Peer Review', 'Update Forum' and so forth are considered proper nouns and are capitalised on h2g2 - should they be treated as proper nouns in the section titles?  – AlexAshman (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Brief Comments from Deltawk

• The article needs more fair-use images - some screenshots of specific pages that you refer to in your article would be helpful. Deltawk (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

Will do - just waiting for autoconfirmed status so I can upload some graphics. AlexAshman (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add some screenshots but a user has removed them on the basis that the section they applied to needed more references. AlexAshman (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(Note however that a screenshot I added to the infobox is still present, so I'll mark this as done for now.) AlexAshman (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(Oh and I've added references to the skins section and reinstated the skin screenshots) AlexAshman (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:OVERLINK states to "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." I skimmed through the page, and terms like "information", "friends", "recipes", "threads", "internet", "experts", "typos", "statistics", "musicians", "logged in", "retired", and more have well-known meanings and should be unlinked. Also, years should be unlinked. Wikipedia:OVERLINK is helpful. Deltawk (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

• This disambiguation tool here found some links in your article that link to disambiguation pages and not the intended article. It seems like most of the links should be removed per Wikipedia:OVERLINK, but wikilinks like Quantum Theory and Digibox should be disambiguated and fixed. Deltawk (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

Comments from User:TechOutsider

• Earth should to be capitalized in the context.  Done (by reviewer)

More to come .. sorry it's my bedtime! TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Only capitalize proper nouns. For example, "Peer Review".
• Some more references; many sections have no references at all. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Peer Review" is a proper noun in h2g2 terms - as for references, I've struggled to find secondary sources as the website doesn't appear that often in newspapers. AlexAshman (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from User:Peregrine Fisher

• I don't know if your going for WP:FAC, but if you are, then the article is relying on too many primary sources, and not enough secondary sources. Basically, it needs to be based more on newspaper articles and such, and less on pages from H2G2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA easily, and I would like to see if there are any other outlying concerns before taking this to FAC.

Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need more critical reviews for the Reception. A while back when Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver was at FAC, some editors expressed concern that there were too few reviews (particularly from print sources) and that the Reception section seemed biased as a result. They barely let it slide with seven reviews, and that was only because it's an older game that doesn't have as many reviews as more recent titles do. -sesuPRIME 12:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully there are more reviews out there. I'll have to start looking. Artichoker^[talk] 17:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well and is interesting and informative. I have a few suggestions, mostly related to the Manual of Style and to minor prose issues.

• WP:MOS#Scrolling lists says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing." You should be able to fix this problem by making the box in the "Reception" section a fixed feature without the "hide" option.
  • I am reluctant to do this, as virtually every other video game FA (see a list at the bottom of WP:VG) uses the collapsible template. Furthermore, I'm not sure how to create one without the "hide" option.

Sometimes I'm unaware of guidelines within particular areas, so you are most likely right. Finetooth (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "They were first released in Japan in January 2004... " - It would be good to make clear that "they" refers to FireRed and LeafGreen rather than to the 1996 originals. I wasn't quite certain about this until I read the "Development" section. Maybe the first sentence of the lead could be revised slightly to include "...of the original Pocket Monsters Red and Green video games of 1996... ".
  • Fixed.

Gameplay

• "Players will be able to access a contextual "Help" feature allows them to look up data at almost any point in the game." - Missing word? Also, should this be "are able to" rather than "will be able to"?
  • Fixed.

Connectivity with other devices

• "FireRed and LeafGreen, like its predecessors... " - "Their" rather than "its"? Or do the games come bundled so that Fire Red and Leaf Green is one thing rather than two? From the box art and other hints, I'm thinking that they are two separate games that are sold separately in separate boxes. No?
  • You are correct, it should be "their". Fixed.
• "support linked communications via the Game Boy Advance Game Link Cable in which connected players may trade or battle" - "through which" rather than "in which"?
  • Fixed.
• "In addition, when connected to FireRed or LeafGreen, owners of Ruby or Sapphire will receive a patch... " - "receive" rather than "will receive"? Most of the descriptions in the article use present tense, which seems correct since the games are happening now rather than in the future.
  • Fixed.
• "In Box the player may organize and view his or her collected Pokémon... " - This reminded me that "his or her" is generally preferred to "his/her". I'd recommend changing all of them in the article to "his or her".
  • Fixed.
• "Nintendo has set up "JoySpots" at retail locations for this very purpose." - Delete "very"?
  • Fixed.

Synopsis

• "This is one distinct region of many in the Pokémon world, with different geographical habitats for the existing Pokémon species, along with human-populated towns and cities, and Routes connecting locations to one another." - "With" doesn't work well as a conjunction. Re-casting often produces something better. Suggestion: "This is one distinct region of many in the Pokémon world, which includes varied geographical habitats for the Pokémon species, human-populated towns and cities, and routes between locations."
  • I like your suggestion. Fixed.
• "Some areas are only accessible once the player learns a special ability... " - "acquires" rather than "learns"?
  • Clarified that it is the Pokémon learning the ability rather than the player.
• "Near the end of the plot, the protagonist will be able to venture... " - "is" rather than "will be"?
  • Fixed.
• "After starting his/her journey and venturing alone into deep grass, a voice warns the player to stop." - The voice doesn't venture into deep grass. Suggestion: "After the player starts a journey and ventures alone into deep grass, a voice warns the player to stop."
  • Fixed.
• "The rival will then challenge the player... " - "challenges" rather than "will challenge"? I'll stop pointing out these verb tenses, but I'd suggest looking for others and rendering them in present tense.
  • Fixed all instances.

Development

• "however many people speculated that Nintendo was expecting less demand for the new games" - The source supports the idea of at least one person, but how do you know it was "many people"?
  • Clarified.
• "The North American versions of FireRed and LeafGreen were first indirectly announced at DICE in 2004." - Should "DICE" be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use?
  • It seems awkward to spell it out, and since it is only used one time in the article, I think linking to it is fine. That way the player can still easily identify what the acronym stands for if he or she wishes.
• "Despite the original games being released as Red and Blue in that region... " - Slightly better would be "Although the original games were released as Red and Blue in that region... ".
  • Fixed.
• "instead updated them by implementing additional sounds... " - "adding" rather than "implementing"?
  • Fixed
• "Masuda noted this as choice on his part... " - Missing word?
  • I don't see what word the sentence is missing?

I thought it probably should be "a choice" rather than "choice". Finetooth (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know how I read over that. Thanks, and fixed. Artichoker^[talk] 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
  • Fixed.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful review! Artichoker^[talk] 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

St. Johns River

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just expanded it quite a bit and am looking for feedback. May take it to FA, definitely to GA. Any responses appreciated. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Sustainability

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are preparing to list it as a featured article candidate. The regular editors of the article are too close to it and need a fresh pair of eyes to see what we do not see. We have likely nailed down many of the formatting issues, but are nevertheless looking for both "big picture" advice (especially concerning neutrality, readability, reliability of sources and such) as well as small details (links, etc.) that may trip us up. While the article has been stable recently, there have been repeated claims by one editor that the article is overly-reliant on UN sources. Our view is that much of the comparative data pertaining to sustainability comes from UN agencies or UN-sponsored studies, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. That said, we have tried to use a broad range of sources from a variety of perspectives and methodologies.

Thanks, Sunray (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• As I mentioned on Sunray's talk page, I would make sure that all of the points from the previous peer review have been addressed. My comments are mostly WP:MOS pointsthat seem to need to be addressed - I am not an expert on the topic and the UN refs seem to be reliable to me.  Done
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - the best FA model I can find is Renewable energy in Scotland - while not a perfect match, it faces many of the same issues (trying to cover a broad topic which can be controversial)
• The lead image caption does not really tie the image explicitly to the article, perhaps something like Sustainability can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, as seen in NASA's Blue Marble composite images from 2001 (left) and 2002 (right). Done
• Images also need alternate text for the visually impaired before going to WP:FAC - see WP:ALT  Done
• Captions that are not full sentences generally do not end with a period / full stop  Done
• Image captions in general need to do a better job of explaining the image and its relation the text. For example, there are seven labels on File:Sustainable development.svg, but the caption just says "The three pillars of sustainability.[3] I think many people skimming an article still read the captions, so these need to do a better job of describing the image and its connection to the topic.  Done
• Per WP:MOS#Images, most images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.  Done
• Does the lead follow WP:LEAD? The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure the current lead does this.  Done
• Quotations need to follow MOS:QUOTE - unless a whole sentence is being quoted, punctuation goes outside the quotation marks, so fix things like Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[7] to ...a "journey" or "destination".[7] Done
• Per WP:ITALIC the use of italics to apparently imply quotation in "This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[11]" is incorrect - if it is a quote, use quotation marks. Done
• Linking statements such as "The next section traces the evolution of thinking about sustainability in human history." are not generally given in Wikipedia FAs. Done
• Avoid all capital letters in things like GLOBAL BIOPHYSICAL CYCLES CRITICAL FOR LIFE Done
• Spell out abbreviations on first use and give the abbreviation after in parentheses. So fix sentences like concept of living within environmental constraints underpins the IUCN, UNEP and WWF definition of sustainability:... Done
• This needs a ref: Societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources either moved on or faced collapse. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.  Done
• Refs need to be consistent and to present a minimum of information for each ref. Books generally need page numbers, but the Guns, Germs, and Steel ref and some other book refs do not.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Things like current ref 92 with a bare link "UNEP Grid Arendal. [1] A selection of global-scale reports. Retrieved on: 2009-3-12" need to be fixed. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• While a huge amount of work has bgone into this, it is not anywhere near ready for WP:FAC from a MOS point of view. Most articles have the hardest time meeting WP:WIAFA criteria 1a (well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard). I think parts of this could be made more concise. The Definition section is one example. Making this more concise will not make it read better, it will also make it less huge and thus more inviting to the average reader.

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 _><>°^° 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Politics of global warming

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's previously a B-article, and includes a lot of great detail but now is pretty outdated. I was curious what should be taken out and what should be added.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs a lot of work to get to B or GA class, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
• Please see WP:LEAD - the lead should be 3 to 4 paragraphs for this length article. To expand it, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• There seems to be too much empahsis in the article on the US compared to the rest of the world - this is a global problem. See WP:WEIGHT - perhaps if the article were called "Politics of global warming in the United States" the US part by itself would be better.
• Biggest obstacle I can see to getting this to a higher class is the lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• Article has very few images - there should be a lead image for example. Perhaps the article on global warming or the Kyoto treaty has an image that could be used.
• Spell out abbreviations on first use, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses - like UNFCCC
• Article is quite listy in spots - first section after the lead does not even have any explanatory text, just a list. Lists should generally be converted to prose for better readability
• To improve flow, the very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Star Trek: First Contact

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Continuing my lonesome quest to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all the Star Trek films, I've been working on this, the eighth installment. I'm sure it's in need of a good, stiff copyediting, but any opinions on any of the content in the article (and whatever should be?) I am happy to hear. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article looks to be in very good shape in terms of the content and structure. Given that you readily admit it could use another couple of passes on the prose side, I'll try to focus on content only, save where something is genuinely unclear. If you do want me to point out any writing niggles, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. Steve ^T • C:

Lead

• It's mentioned that Braga and Moore "[moved] the time period the Borg corrupted from the European Renaissance to the mid-21st century" though at this point in the article it hasn't been established that the original [pitch? script? outline?] incorporated the Renaissance idea.
• "Cast member Jonathan Frakes was chosen to direct, to make sure the job fell to someone who understood Star Trek."—slightly unrepresentative of the article body, which says he was only chosen after other (non-Trek) directors turned the job down.
• The only major section of the article that seems to be not covered by the lead is "Themes"; I know not everything can be included, but considering how many times it was noted for its strong Moby Dick overtones, a sentence or two is easily justified.

Plot

• Though it's more or less within guidelines, it's perhaps a little long; the story isn't that complex, so maybe have another look for things that if removed would not impact on the reader's understanding of either the section or the article as a whole.

Cast

• "I didn't think you could do anything about the Borg without (my character)."—square brackets for the paraphrase?
• Missing cite at the end of the Krige entry.

Development

• "Paramount decided to produce another Star Trek feature for a holiday 1996 release."—perhaps the time of year would be better, or at least mention which holiday?
• "Ridley Scott and John McTiernan reportedly turned the project down. Stewart met with one of the potential candidates and concluded that "they didn't know Star Trek."—the implication here is that the director Stewart met was Scott or McTiernan; I don't think that was your intention, so perhaps the link between the two statements could be weakened.
• Piped link to "fourth Alien film" should envelop "fourth".

Design

• A larger and less spartan ready room was created."— Star Trek actually misuses the term "ready room" (see link), so clarification might be required here to indicate we mean Picard's bridge-adjacent cabin.
• "Engineering was simulated"—ambiguous; perhaps better to spell out that this means the Engineering department/section.
• "The Vulcan ship was designed to resemble a starfish, a crab and a boomerang."—all at the same time? Just checking.

Release

• You mention the premiere date, but not the actual date the film opened in general release.
• Missing cite for the awards nominations.

Critical response

• "Critical response to First Contact was generally positive."—it’s that old nitpick of mine; because it's usually possible to find positive reviews for even the worst-received films, you need to avoid the impression of selective quoting. Fortunately, I don't think it would be difficult to find a cite for this.

General

• Some mild overlinking in places; it'll probably disappear as the article is tweaked between now and the inevitable FAC.
• Are you happy with all the fair-use rationales? Given the trouble I had getting this through FAC, they might be worth another look (though I know it's probably easier for a film like this—which comes from the imagination rather than history).

And that's all the weather. Steve ^T • C 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. As for the images, if push comes to shove I can eliminate the bridge shot as I'm not sure it displays enough detail or combination of elements. The others I think have pretty slam-dunk rationales, I need to upload a nice version of the Borg queen shot and tweak it to improve, prolly. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And if you really want to do a copyedit, don't let me stop you :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts to share below:

Lead section

• Use of "picture" in second sentence sounds like insider slang; may be best simplified by using "film" instead
• In the first paragraph, maybe establish the century in which the film starts out? That way, a new reader can know how far back they traveled to "the mid-21st century" mentioned later.
• Perhaps mention the year Star Trek Generations was released? Helps establish a time frame.
• Second sentence of second paragraph is a bit long; I suggest breaking it up where the semi-colon is.
• "The script called for" sounds slang-ish. Maybe "The script involved" or something similar?
• Expand "Designer" to "Production designer" to clarify his role more immediately
• "Many of the sets were completely new; filming began with weeks of location shooting in Arizona and California before moving to ship-based scenes." The details should be organized differently for the semi-colon to work. Suggestion: "Filming began with weeks of location shooting in Arizona and California; filming then production moved to brand new sets to film ship-based scenes."
• "...remained one of the top ten grossing films for four weeks after release." I'm not sure if this detail is important enough for the lead section; more noteworthy would be ranking first for the first four weeks. Recommend leaving it to the article body.
• While I enjoy reading James Berardinelli's reviews, I'm not sure if I'd cite him alongside Ebert. He does not seem to have made a name for himself. His Wikipedia article doesn't show any kind of independently sourced background that endorses him.

Plot

• Establish when the film opens up to set the stage for how far back they travel.
• "venture outside the ship" may be too much of an Easter egg... maybe use "extra-vehicular activity" more directly in that sentence?

Cast

• Link to The Next Generation; it's the first time it's mentioned in the article body. I don't think the lead section should count for linking; it stands alone as an overview. It may be worth explaining more in the body about the film involved the cast of The Next Generation because of this disjointedness.
• As you mentioned before, you are not so confident about the image in "Cast". I have to echo this concern. It shows stuff, but nothing that to me would make the readers think, "Wow, I'm glad I got to see it, it helps me understand the article." It more borders on a visual treat. (The other two screenshots are golden, though!)
• I'm not so sure about the structure of content in "Cast"; it starts out talking about minor roles, then it lists the major roles. Any way to at least shape a summary paragraph for the main cast, list the major actors and roles, and move the paragraphs about minor roles to the end?

Development

• "The pair had written a number of Next Generation episodes, as well as the script for the preceding film." Maybe mention the Generations script first? It seems more relevant to open with that, then mention the additional credentials of episode-writing.
• "With this idea in mind"... if you start a new paragraph, it may help to re-state the idea.
• "budget of $45" Wow, inflation! :) Just throw the word "million" in there.
• "but First Contact was the first film" → "but First Contact was his first feature film"
• "The planned title of Resurrection was scrapped before the third draft of the script when Fox announced the title of the fourth Alien film" I think "before the third draft of the script" is a small detail that came off as confusing. It may be better to just say, "...was scrapped when Fox..."

Design

• "Following the destruction of the Enterprise-D in Generations" Sounds too in-universe, like a plot sentence. Maybe word it to ground it in reality more, like "The starship Enterprise-D was destroyed in the previous film, Generations, so the task for creating..."

Sheesh, this is a lot! :) Believe me, a lot of it is great already. Most of my suggestions are nitpicks. I have to go AFK (haven't used that acronym in a while) but I will be back to keep reading and suggesting. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Round 2:

Design

• "...to add texture, and slides of the..." I recommend breaking up the sentence here because this particular area has a lot of detail, and the reader could benefit from a full stop to digest the information about the model's panels, then move on.
• "ships that would read differently from a distance" Is there a simpler way to say this? Like "clearly look different from a distance"?
• "giving the bridge a cleaner look" I'm not sure what "cleaner" means in this context? I assume space was freed up, but "cleaner" didn't seem to match.
• "similar to the Enterprise-D designs" → "similar to the design in the Enterprise-D"
• "...scenes utilized..." → "...scenes used..." In most cases, the word "utilized" can be replaced by the simpler "used".
• "Several scenes were designed similar to those..." I'm not clear what the similar designs are. Ship design, set design, interior, exterior? Can this be explained any more?
• "...rather than ridiculous" I recommend the word "exaggerated"; I think it applies similarly.
• "Stewart began turning green" Just make it simpler and say that he became ill. Not all readers may be familiar with the concept of turning green! :)

Costumes and makeup

• "reminiscent of the television series but fresher" The word "fresher" could be replaced by one that's more accurate.
• "...so many changes during the course of the film, changing..." Change (heh) "changing" into "going" to vary in wording
• "Borg queen" Should be "Borg Queen", I believe, but wanted to make sure. It can be lowercase if you use it like "the queen" (after an initial mention of "Borg Queen", of course).
• The talk of the Borg Queen being more human than Alien makes me wonder if it's possible to link to Alien (Alien franchise)#Queen in some way? Did the citation say anything to suggest that it was an explicit comparison of queens?

GTG yet again... hope these suggestions so far help. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for the comments. There's no explicit mention of the Alien comparisons in the sources I have access to; I'm going to check the DVD special features, hopefully there's something there, and I'm also hunting for a special issue of Star Trek: The Magazine which I know had lots of info on the design (including concept art of some wacky pyramid and spherical hovering thrones, instead of a lower torso and legs). I'm still cursing the day I threw out all those magazines... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Last Exile

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review after rewriting the entire article from the mess that it was to what it is now. I am turning all articles related to Last Exile into quality articles, which I have already done with the list of Last Exile episodes, and want to push the main for GAN, if not FAN.

Thanks, Arsonal (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

• The Anime News Network references belonging to the encyclopedia section are unreliable since they are editable by any user. News, interviews and reviews from the site are reliable. You should also check this in the episode list.
• Considering the series is licensed in North America, there should be more reviews available for reception.
• The series link in cite episodes is unnecesary since you are linking to the same article.
• "Due to Geneon stopping production of its titles, both CD soundtracks are out of print in North America." Needs reference.

Out of curiosity, does your ANN concern include the release database such as this as well? For the Geneon statement, I've included a reference on the company being defunct. I will add more reviews when I find some RS. Thanks for the rest! Arsonal (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yep. However, I think these types of releases can be find at websites like Amazon.com or RightStuff.com.

All right. I'll see about phasing them out. Is there a preferred vendor site for referencing? Arsonal (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose you can use anyone.Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 46 is a video from youtube. Youtube videos tend to have several copyright issues. However, I don't know if there is another way to source the interview.

• The video is actually the work of the uploader himself. This can be verified by the entry on his blog and the matching usernames (gamenwatch and gamenwatchcvs). An alternative is to use the template {{Cite interview}}, as the interview was given at the 2004 Anime Expo I believe. The reference can then include the comments transcribed from the video (without necessarily including the link to the YouTube video itself). Is that all right? Arsonal (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose that would work, though I think it's okay to leave like these unless there are issues regarding this in the GA review.

Comments from G.A.S

• The following GA or FA articles may also help you: Fullmetal Alchemist, Serial Experiments Lain, Madlax and Tokyo Mew Mew.
• The lead is overlinked: No links are required for "Japanese", "Earth", "Europe", "Germany" "North America", "English language", "United Kingdom" (etc.) (Geography links are not required in anime and manga articles).
• The second sentence in the lead seems very long at 48 words, consider breaking it up.
• I find "The series belongs to the steampunk subgenre of science fiction" redundant to the infobox, especially since it is not expanded upon in the article.

All done. I've actually been referring to Serial Experiments Lain a bit for the article structure. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

We Are the World

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to take it to GA, before submitting it at FAC. A peer review would help fix any problems the article may have.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 12:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, neutral, stable, and verifiable. I made some proofing changes, and I have some further suggestions about prose and Manual of Style issues.

• I added quite a few no-break codes to hold digits and units together in constructions like $5 million and 5 a.m. If you look for them, you'll probably find some that I missed. WP:NBSP explains how this works.

Thanks! I'll see if I can find anymore that need doing. Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Background and writing

• "The musician planned to have the proceeds of such a venture donated to a new organization called United Support of Artists for Africa (USA for Africa)." - Tighten slightly be deleting "of such a venture"?
• "The non-profit foundation would then feed and relieve the starving people of Africa." - Perhaps "starving people in Africa" since "the starving people of Africa" implies that all Africans were starving and that the foundation hoped to feed them all.
• "In Belafonte's plans, money would also be set aside to fund hunger in the United States of America." - Not to "fund hunger", surely? How about "to help eliminate hunger"?
• "Quincy Jones was drafted in to co-produce the song... " - Tighten by deleting "in"?
• "Jackson revealed to Richie that he not only wanted to sing on the song, but to participate in its writing as well." - "Sing the song" rather than "sing on the song"?
• "Jackson then presented his demo to Richie and Jones... " - Wikilink demo?

All done. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recording sessions

• "was filled with musicians, technicians, video crews, retinues, assistants and organizers as the four musicians entered" - Wikilink retinues?
• "To begin the night, a "vocal guide" of "We Are the World" was recorded by Richie and Jackson, which would then be duplicated and put on tape for each of the invited performers" - Tightened to "To begin the night, a "vocal guide" of "We Are the World" was recorded by Richie and Jackson and duplicated on tape for each of the invited performers."
• "The guide was recorded on the sixth take... " - Wikilink take?
• WP:MOSQUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation... ". The fancy quotes in the section should be changed to blockquotes.
• "They were also greeted by Stevie Wonder, who proclaimed that if the recording was not completed in one take, he and Ray Charles would drive everybody home." - Although comics don't usually explain jokes, it would be good to explain this one for readers who don't know that Charles and Wonder were blind. You might just revise slightly to say, "... he and Ray Charles, two blind men, would drive everybody home."
• "their names were written on silver gaffer tape stuck to the floor" - Wikilink gaffer tape?
• "When all the participants were settled, Bob Geldof took to a podium and addressed the group... " - Tighten slightly to "When the participants were settled, Bob Geldof took the podium and addressed the group... "
• "Stevie Wonder announced at 1 am that he would like to substitute the "sha-lum sha-lin-gay" sound for a line in Swahili." - Don't you mean just the opposite, that he wanted to substitute Swahili for sha-lum... "?

All done, aside from the last one. "Sha-lum" was already in the song, but Wonder wanted to replace it with a line in Swahili. Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Music and vocal arrangements

• ""We Are the World" is sang from a first person viewpoint... " - "Sung" rather than "sang".
• "and ad libs from Charles and Ingram... " - Wikilink ad libs?

All done. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Release and reception

• The fancy quotes should be replaced by a blockquote.

Done. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid

• ""We could go out and spend it all in one shot. Maybe we'd save some lives in the short term but it would be like putting a Band-Aid over a serious wound." - The Manual of Style advises against linking things inside direct quotations.

Done. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and copy-editing. It was extremely helpful. :) Pyrrhus16 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Watwmag.jpg - I have added to this FUR, but I wonder if the image is necessary as the text describes it very well. I'm not convinced that this passes WP:NFCC #8 yet.

• That's the one I had the most doubts over, so I've removed it. Saves any hassle at FAC. Pyrrhus16 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• File:Michael Jackson - We are the World.ogg - A few more details need to be added to this FUR regarding precisely which musical elements the listener will hear.

• Added a bit more. Pyrrhus16 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• File:We Are the World alternative cover.jpg - The name of the copyright holder needs to be added to this FUR.

• Done. Pyrrhus16 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything else checks out. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The article looks great but I have a couple of questions, how is it possible that the article only mentions "Do They Know It's Christmas?" once, and it wasn't even in the recording or writing part, that song was relesed months before "We Are the World", it was that song that started everything, specially in Oceania and Continental Europe. I find it hard to believe that a song that have the same purpose and the same scheme as another song released previously wasn't inspired by it.

Also altought the references in the Release and reception section are valid and reliable, they are 20 years old, people that read that will think that the song is still the fastest selling single, or the biggest selling single in the US, when is clear that "Candle in the Wind 1997" is the biggest selling single in America, I mean it was certified 8 times platinum the day it was released by the RIAA, so the references may be reliable and valid but I think a clarification needs to be placed, perhaps that the record was held until 1997 or something like that. And finally Holland and the Netherlands are the same thing, the same with Dutch Singles Chart and Holland Singles Chart, but the correct name is "Dutch Top 40".200.106.6.245 (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Anfield

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe with a few modifications the article could be close to featured standard, anyway let's see what you think. Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Only got five minutes of my lunch break left, but I'll make a start......

• All-seater stadium doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead, I'd lose it completely in the opening sentence in fact
• "a brewer and friend of fellow brewer" sounds very clunky, although I can't think how to re-word it right now
• "Everton F.C." and "Everton FC" used in the same para - be consistent
• "at the time playing host" - comma needed after "time"
• Double full stop after Accrington F.C.
• This culminated with Everton F.C. moving to Goodison Park, Houlding was left with an empty stadium" - comma is not appropriate here, it should be a new sentence
• You have Lancashire League (football) piped as simply "league", I would suggest the name of the actual league should be shown or the wikilink removed altogether
• "with Liverpool winning" - with......ing should be avoided at all costs
• "A new stand was constructed in 1895......and was built on the site of the present Main Stand" - "and was built" not needed

Back to work now, more to follow........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Back as promised.....

• Three very short sentences make up "After Liverpool had won their second League Championship....Boer War in 1900" - I suggest the middle one be merged with one of the other two
• Also, I don't think Championship needs a capital C
• "Local journalist.....local newspapers" - only need to state "local" once
• Don't put "all standing" in brackets
• Liverpool County Football Association could be wikilinked
• "ripped down" sounds a bit unencyclopedic, maybe just say "demolished"
• "adopted as the Club's anthem" - no need for capital on club
• "tributes to the 96 people who died at Hillsborough." - maybe a tad pedantic, but not all 96 actually died at Hillsborough, maybe reword to "died as a result of the disaster"
• "Main stand" is shown at least twice with the S uncapitalised
• "directors box and the players dressing rooms" - apostrophes missing after both directors and players
• "their design includes the three European Cups, Paisley won during his tenure" - no need for that comma
• Scottish is spelt wrong in the bit about the Shankly Gates
• "There is another tribute to Shankly, a statue of him is located at the visitors' centre in front of the Kop." - poorly worded, plus you already mentioned it so no need to do so again
• "the groundsman are assisted" - grammatically incorrect

Will pop back and do the rest later, hope I've helped so far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

British Rail Class 390

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to be re-evaluated for quality and importance. This article needs to be reassigned a different quality and importance but I don't know what. Please re-evaluate this article and assign the correct quality ranking and/or importance.

Can you also point out the places that can should be improved to make this a Good Article.

Thanks, Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As I mentioned on the nominator's talk page, peer review is not really for assessment, but this seems about like a C class article to me. With an eye to WP:GAN, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest problem as I see it with the article is a lack of references (which is already noted with a cleanup tag at the top of the article). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole sections without a single ref (first two sections for example). Without refs there is no way this is getting to FA
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Per WP:CITE references generally come directly AFTER punctuation (no space), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the APT speed record seems to be only in the lead.
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - for example the APT is linked twice in two sentences in just the lead.
• Spell out numbers under ten
• Whole article needs to be copyedited - it is July 2009, but there are still sentences like This is expected to continue until mid-September 2008. Can this be updated?
• Also avoid use of words like current - use things like "as of 2009" instead
• COuld the list of names be split out as its own article per WP:Summary style?
• Images are nice but licenses may be an issue - one example File:Virgin trains 390012 cab interior.jpg has a tag in the image linking it to a different website than is mentioned in the file for it.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Frenchification of Brussels

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I intend to keep editing it anyway, I hope that's not a problem. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is already featured in Dutch and French, and we're trying to get it featured in English too. This is a mix of translation from the Dutch and French versions (the latter actually being an improved-upon version of the former), so it might need to be more uniform in some respects. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 05:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

From Hell

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this story about the Jack the Ripper legend inspired an eponymous film and has potential for GA if not even FA. I understand the lead needs expansion, and the article is way undersourced at the moment. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree that the lead needs to be expanded and that the article needs many more references.
• Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale mentions this comic and is an FA, Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution is also a FA and is the basis of the comic book and should have some refs in it that are useful.
• There is at least a free image of Moore that could be used here. A free photo of the origial letter is also available at File:FromHellLetter.jpg and there are numerous free images of the prince in his article. The The Ghost of a Flea article has the Blake image which could also be used in the plot.
• I would read WP:IN-U when rewriting the plot section (which can just be called Plot, not plot overview)
• If possible, I would add a section on composition - how Moore and Campbell came to create the work
• The article also needs a section on critical reaction - some of this is already scattered through the article in the plot and other sections.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow and Watchmen is a FA by Moore made into a film, so it seems like a good model.
• Without refs much of this could be Original Research - it is important to look at what others have written about the work and use their comments.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Manchester, Maryland

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like comments on where the articles needs improvements, which sections (if any) need expanding or contracting. If my references are in order, if my placement of pictures are correct and if I need more or less pictures.

Thanks, Mopenstein (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Manchester sounds like an interesting place, and this is a good start on an article about it. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

• Dates like 1863 in the lead should not be linked. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Constructions like Baltimore County, Maryland, or Hanover, Pennsylvania, take a comma after the state name. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• I did some proofreading and fixing, but the entire article could use another round of proofreading to catch nitpicky things.
• It's often helpful to editors working in a particular subject area to look at featured articles in that area to see what other editors have done. You'll find a list of featured articles about towns and cities at WP:FA#Geography and places.
• Another good place for advice about city articles is WP:USCITY. The guidelines there, for example, suggest a standard arrangement for the order of sections in a city article and include ideas about what might be said about a town or city. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Present day

• Because "present" is non-specific, it would probably be better to use "21st century" or "Since 2000" or something similar. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Official seal

• "The large oak would later become a fixture of the town... " - "became" rather than "would become"? done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Government

• "Manchester has a democratically elected Mayor and Town Council. The Mayor and individual Councilman are elected for a term of four years." - Words like "mayor" and "town council" are normally lower-cased when used in a generic way rather than as part of a formal name. Ditto for "councilman". In addition, the Manual of Style recommends using words, where possible, that avoid gender bias. Thus, councilors would be better than councilmen. done Mopenstein (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. Two solutions are to expand or to merge. In this case, I think you could reasonably merge all of the subsections in this section. In addition, WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I would suggest turning the bulleted list in this section into straight prose. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Education

• I'd turn the list here into straight prose as well. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Words like "ninth grade" and "kindergarten" should all be lower-cased unless part of a formal name. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Parks

• I'd combine all of the subsections here too. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• For emphasis, Wikipedia normally uses italics rather than bolding, per MOS:BOLD. This would apply to Charlotte's Quest. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Events

• I'd eliminate the subheads and combine the subsections under the general head. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography

• Since these subsections are so short, I'd combine them. It would be possible to add to the first paragraph, though, by saying something about geology, topography, and nearby bodies of water or mountains, if any. Is the land flat? Is it rolling? What sorts of soils and rocks does the town lie on? done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

People of note

• I'd suggest putting this section last. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Infrastructure

• I'd turn the list into straight prose and combine the subsections. done Mopenstein (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

References

• Citations to Internet sources should include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. The "cite" family of templates provide a convenient way to do fill-in-the-blank citations, and the templates put the elements in the correct order. You can find them at WP:CIT and play around with them in your sandbox to see how they work. Don't mix citation styles in a single article; that is, don't use the "citation" family of templates as well as the "cite" family; you'll find both at WP:CIT. done Mopenstein (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Nice images. You'll want to add categories to your images at the Commons. "Towns in Maryland" seems like a good one to start with, and you might find other good fits. The categories help other users to find your images and possibly add them to other articles.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Music of the Final Fantasy series

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I put this article through a pretty strenuous GA nom a while back, and I want to try to polish it up and send it to FAC. Any suggestions or problems with the article will be very much appreciated. --PresN 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This appears to be in excellent shape. I had to work hard to find much to say, but here are a few observations and suggestions.

Heads and subheads

• MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." For this reason, I would suggest eliminating the words "Final Fantasy" from all of the heads and subheads. With most, this should be easy. For example, you could simply shorten "Final Fantasy X-2" to "X-2". Others will take a bit more thought.

Themes

• "It has been described as being 'as recognizable in gaming circles as the Super Mario Bros. theme or Sonic the Hedgehog's title screen pop." - The quotation marks showing the end of the quote in this sentence seem to be missing.

1987–1994: Famicom era

• "Aside from informing him of the specific technical limitations of the Famicom system, the game was released in 1987." - Dangling modifier. The game didn't inform him.
• "The soundtrack included that first attempt in the Final Fantasy series... " - "the" rather than "that"?
• "The first actual vocals in a song would appear in Final Fantasy VII." - Straight past, "appeared"?

Chocobo series

• "Only some of the games have received separate soundtrack releases." - Would "have led to" be better than "received"?

Merchandise

• "The majority of Final Fantasy games, including all of the main series games, have received a soundtrack album release." - "have led to"?

References

• MOS:ALLCAPS says in part, "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case: Replace "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today"." For this reason, citations like #28 should be changed to title case.

General

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds three links that go to disambiguation pages rather than to the intended target.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments! It's a great help. --PresN 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

November Nine

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to nominate this for FLC but know my grammar/wording sometimes needs help. Any review would be appreciated.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but lacks the kind of background material that would make it truly accessible to readers unfamiliar with poker or these tournaments. I have several suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead doesn't mention 2009.
  • Done and added some stuff about the prestige/championship.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• When during the year does the tournament take place?
  • Added---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads and subheads

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads or subheads. For this reason, I'd suggest shortening "2008 November Nine" to "2008". Ditto for "2009".
  • Done---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "decided to delay the final table until shortly before the scheduled broadcast of the final table" - Re-cast to eliminate repetition of "final table"? Explain the meaning of "final table" to readers who might not know?
  • Done---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• "By delaying the final table, however, all nine contestants became instant poker celebritities." - The contestants didn't delay the final table. Suggestion: "Because the final table was delayed, all nine contestants became instant poker celebrities."
  • Re worded to avoid celebrities in back to back sentences as well.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception and criticism

• "questions started arising as to how the delay would affect the tournament... " - Suggestion: "questions arose about how the delay would affect the tournament... "

Key

• Should "chip stack" and "cashes" be explained for readers unfamiliar with poker? What are the bracelets for?

2008 Starting chip count

• Aren't these numbers dollars rather than chips? If so, shouldn't they carry the $ sign? Why would anyone who won have more dollars at the beginning than at the end? It would be helpful to provide more context for readers who don't know the game.
• "Kelly Kim, the short stack entering the final table, was an established pro who earned cash in numerous events but never won a major tournament." - Explain "short stack"?

2009

• "The final table's "rags to riches" story is the current chip leader: Darvin Moon, a logger from Maryland." - "Current" means when?
• "Moon will be competing against seven-time bracelet winner... " - When?

General

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds many circular wikilinks or links that go to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Oliver Fish

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to submit this new article for GA (and then who knows) and just wanted some feedback. Thanks, — TAnthony^Talk 23:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally clear, but it might not be possible to make it broad enough in its current configuration to achieve GA. The Patricia Mauceri incident is the only thing summarized in your two-sentence lead, and it's pretty thin material. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• Rather than trying to make an article out of a single, fairly ordinary incident and a single soap-opera character, you might consider expanding this into an article about the entire series. That way you would be more likely to find reliable sources that discuss casting and production, and you might find critical reactions to the series. I often look to see what other editors have done with subjects I'm working on. You'll find a list of Good Article (GA) Wikipedia articles about television programs at WP:GA#Television and radio drama. Something there might give you ideas about how to proceed.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead doesn't mention "Characterization" or "Storylines".

Impact and controversy

• "TV Guide later quoted ABC VP of Daytime Programming Sue Johnson saying... " - WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations says in part, "Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence." For this reason, "VP" should be "vice president (VP)". In addition, "ABC VP of Daytime Programming" may be too many adjectives to string together in front of Sue Johnson. Suggestion: "TV Guide later quoted Sue Johnson, vice president of daytime programming at ABC, saying... ". Probably ABC is common enough that you don't need to spell it out, but you could if you wanted to.

• MOS:QUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation... " - For that reason, the quote starting with ""Soaps have a history of exploring social issues... " should be set off as a blockquote.

Characterization and portrayal

• The quote beginning "I think there's definitely a conflict of interest there." is also four lines on my computer screen and might look better as a blockquote.

Storylines

• "she is busy as a volunteer and has dismissed Fish as a geek... " - Wikilink geek?

References

• Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, and access date, or as much of that information as is available. Citations 9 through 20 lack access dates and publisher information. Since you use {{cite web}} for some of the citations, it would be good to use it for the rest.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

These are all great suggestions, and I will implement many ... the gay storyline itself is in its infancy, and I think that later there will be more notable material to give the article a wider scope more suitable for a GA. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 07:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Harvard Bridge

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have made numerous changes to it, expanding and improving it drastically. I have one area of concern, but I'm wondering what others, who are unfamiliar with the article, might suggest.

Thanks, Denimadept (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and I love the smoot - here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:FAC.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 14 Featured articles on bridges in Category:FA-Class Bridge articles several of which would be good models.
• The lead is way too shart per WP:LEAD. 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
• Also make sure to provide context to the reader - the lead does not mention the bridge is in Massachusetts or the United States. Not everyone worldwide knows where Cambridge and Boston are. Or which way are looking in the panoramic view - the caption should identify the shores (which is Boston and which is Cambridge and the bridge in the distance, prominent buildings might be identified too).
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases. This will improve flow.
• Organization is muddled - unless there is good reason not to, it is generally best to tell things chronologically. For example we are told the bridge is completed, then its cost to build, then we are told about the third commissioner's death several months before all this. I am not sure what the quote about the dead commissioner adds to the article either.
• The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
• I like the smoots, but would not include them in the infobox instead of feet - I would list the sidewalk length in feet and then give meters and smoots
• Refs need more information in several cases and the citation style is not consistent - see the model FAs for examples. 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 {{inflation}} template might be useful
• I had a covered bridge article at FAC that iused decimal feet and was asked to convert them to feet and inches - the {{convert}} template can handle that too
• I think this bridge might be pictured in some of the illustrations in the book Make Way for Ducklings - probably worth a mention if it is the same bridge. Or if it is in TV shows or movies you could add an in popular culture section
• This generally seems well referenced, but there are a few places without refs that need them (some marked with tags already). My rule of thumb is every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The Houdini section is very short - could it be merged elsewhere?
• Have you looked at the National Bridge Inventory for this? Ask if you are not sure how to do this.

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 _><>°^° 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have copied this from my talk page as it seemed to make more sense to have this discussion here. My comments are based on this version, after I made one edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Bridge review feedback comments

Thanks for the review! I've implemented several of your suggestions, see the edit history for details. I have a few comments for you, though.

• Organization is chronological in specific sections, and generally regarding the order of sections as well. Some things, mainly in the first few sections, overlap because that's how it works: politics and accounting are separated from the engineering tasks. Or so I see it.

• I'm not understanding your point about "pull quotes". The {{cquote}} template seems to work well there. Since I got rid of the Greeley text, there's only one such quote now. That may help, no?
  • I fixed this with one edit. A pull quote repeats material already in the article and is set off here with the big blue quoteation marks. The blockquote sets off the block of material without the fancy blue quotes. This is needed for FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The {{cquote}} looks better in my opinion, but you have more experience in this. When do we use the {{cquote}}?
      • Cquote is used only if it is a pull quote (usually if there are not many images and you want to emphaisze something by repeating it, which is what a pull quote does). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The smoots are not in the infobox instead of feet. Feet are there too, as are meters.
  • Huh? The sidewalk length is given in smoots and meters, but NOT feet. The MOS says to give units in the standard for that country first (feet), then give metirc and other conversions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I see what you mean. That's intentional, as it's only the length measured by the fraternity, not that of the actual bridge. Perhaps reversing the order will do.

• Cites are a problem, no argument. In general, the full cite is used first, then a sub-cite with different page numbers is used subsequently, instead of repeating the same thing over and over with different page numbers as the only change. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to do this?
  • If you want to use this system, which is fine, see Joseph Priestley House for an example - you list the sources separately and just use a short identifier for the refs themselves (Chicago Style). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll have to get to this.

• Someone who has a copy of Make Way for Ducklings is welcome to check it and add to this. I don't have one and feel it's a trivial reference which the article doesn't need. Such is about the book, not the bridge. It belongs on the book's article with a link to the bridge's article, if true.

• Same with any other references which are about those sources rather than the bridge. Trivia is to be removed, not added, unless it is strongly co-related to the subject. Such may exist, I have no idea. I seem to remember having removed quite a bit of it last Spring.

• I consider the Houdini section superfluous, but others don't, so I referenced it and got two images, one of which was later pulled by someone who felt it was a copyright violation even though I took the picture. The section used to be a trivia section. Houdini performed many places, this was just one of them.
  • I think it is notable, but it should should be integrated into the rest of the article somewhere. The FAs I have written on covered bridges have a use section that such information would fit in, perhaps. The current "Maintenance and updates" section might also be a place for it - perhaps renamed as "Use and updates" or something similar. I would also crop the large black bars above and below the image - they add nothing. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Can't crop it like that w/o making the image file size notably bigger. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's what Photoshop did when I tried. I may have to make another attempt.
      • Just made another attempt and was reminded about the solution I figured out last time. The proper solution is to find a copy of the plate and scan it myself. I've not yet found time to do this. If I crop and save, the 56KB file goes to 90KB+ at quality 60. To keep the size down, I have to sacrifice too much quality. - Denimadept (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Will the National Bridge Inventory have as much information about this bridge as we've already placed in it? I believe I have a copy of it from last year (it's downloadable, in sections), but have yet to write software to make use of it. This is an area where I encourage other editors to contribute. :-)
  • I do not think this would pass FAC without the NBI info - FAs are supposed to be comprehensive. There is a web page with these results here. See Cogan House Covered Bridge for an example of how to cite this and the information given in that case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I found it, finally. The entry says it's on the NRHP, but that I've not yet found. I may have to decode the NBI db myself, to get that information.
      • Ask at the NRHP WikiProject talk page - they are very helpful and can find it for you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the assist! Please reply here, if you do answer. - Denimadept (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Just looking at it again, the lead still needs to be expanded, there are still places that have no refs that need them, and there are still several short paragraphs that need to be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd appreciate your pointing out where cites are needed. The paragraphs are more a matter of taste and topic, I think, though I'm certainly interested in specific instances. - Denimadept (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I apologize I somehow removed an "e" with my previous edit. I will try to add a few {{fact}} tags, but basically if a paragraph has no ref or one or more sentences have no refs, they should have cites added. No paragraph should end without a cite, and all direct quotes, stats, and extraoridnary claims need them too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The bit about sounding like original research is true, no lie. It's to answer why there's such a big difference between the length as measured by smoots and the actual length of the bridge. I seem to remember the question has risen before. How would you suggest reformulating this to fix both issues? - Denimadept (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Hmmm, please see WP:OR - unless it can be sourced to a reliable source, I am not sure how to include that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
            • We have all the referenced facts right there in the article prior to that section. It's a problem. - Denimadept (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I think I've figured out a solution. Off to edit! - Denimadept (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

---

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, if this article is eligible for Featured list. Thanks, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am currently reviewing Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), which when completed will have a height of 415 metres and, according to the article, will be "the building with the world's highest residence" until overtaken by developments in Dubai. I don't see this building in your lists – does it not qualify as a residential building? I see the New York Trump Tower is listed. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), doesnt use as a resedential buildins instead it main usage is Hotel and condominium, see here, [13].Infact as its name shows its not a residential building at all !

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and useful list. However, it could be even better. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• It seems risky to trust a single source, Emporis, for all of the data. Can any of the claims in this article be verified by other reliable sources? Has Emporis missed anything or made any mistakes? (See, for example, User:Brianboulton's note above).
• What is being measured? What are the two end points? For example, does a basement, if any exists, count toward the total? Does an antenna on the roof count toward the total?
• Would it be useful to add a "ranking criteria" section such as the one found in List of tallest buildings in the world?
• Do the heights of any of these buildings ever change with time because of settling or earth movement?
• Who does the measuring? How is it done? Does any official government list of building heights exist in any countries?
• Having the tallest anything is often a source of local pride, and to some extent the construction of ever-taller buildings seems competitive. In fact, the existing article uses the phrase "claim the title" twice in the lead. Would it be possible to expand on this? Is Dubai in some sense in a race with Australia and the United Arab Emirates? Has The New York Times or another reliable source perhaps published an article about this race? I suppose it is a "race to the top" rather than a "race to the bottom" :-).

Lead

• "These are lists of the tallest residential buildings in the world." - Since the title says "list", do you want this to be plural, "lists" here? I realize that the article includes two sublists, but the title says one list.
• "These are lists of the tallest residential buildings in the world. They are residential buildings whose occupiable height is devoted at least 90 percent to residential use."- To avoid the repeating "residential" three times in two sentences, and to eliminate referring to a building as a "who", this might be re-cast. Suggestion: "At least 90 percent of their occupiable height is devoted to residential use."
• "is set to rise 618 m (2,030 ft)" - MOS:CONVERSIONS says in part, "In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses... " For this reason, the abbreviation parameter (abbr=on) in the conversion template should be deleted.

Image caption

• Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia is currently the world's tallest residential building." - "Currently" means when? Something like "as of July 2009" would be better.

Completed residential buildings

• "residential buildings at least 200 metres in height" - This one needs a conversion to imperial units.

Residential buildings under construction

• Under construction as of when?
• "This list contains residential buildings that are currently under construction." - As of July 2009?

Notes

• I'd suggest more specific dating in both notes.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will find some other reliable sources, but Emporis is the best reliable source, i have seen User:Brianboulton's comment on Trupmh international hotel and i have also clarified this above.

• I think it is not neccessary to add ranking criteira here also like list of tallest buuildings in the world.

No rule says you have to, but I think it would make the article more interesting. Your article would then be considerably more interesting than the Emporis list. With a few additions like this and some further sourcing, your list (Wikipedia's list) would be the best such list in the world. That is how I think about these things. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok we will add the criteria in the first paragraph, but in some other style, i mean not to add the similar one like List of tallest buiuldings in the world have, give me some ideas about it, i am also thinking.

• The heights of these buildings(which are currently under construction) are not set to change.

It was possibly a silly question, but I got to wondering whether these buildings ever rise and fall in relation to sea level. Their weight might depress the earth they sit on, or an earthquake might cause them to move up or down and stay slightly higher or lower in relation to the sea. This wouldn't change their absolute height, so it's probably irrelevant. But thinking like this led me to wonder whether any buildings have fallen down or have been torn down deliberately that would be on this list if they still existed. I'm not suggesting that you have to do anything with these ideas, but you might if it interests you or makes you curious. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes there is an race to the top, as CTBUH have an aticle related to this topic, the competitiveness of varius cities of world.

• I am opposed to add Lists because in all the list on wikipedia, they uses List instead of Lists.So i will go for List...

My point is that it is inconsistent to say "list" in one place and "lists" in another. You could easily change the second one to "list" to match the title. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I will oppose you, because majority of article containing lists have the title List.Infact the article of List of tallest buildings in the world which is a featured list, have the title List.

• Ok i will change the lead sentance to your one, At least 90 percent of their occupiable height is devoted to residential use.

• Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia is currently the world's tallest residential building." - "Currently" means when? Something like "as of July 2009" would be better,

here we can add the date of its completion which is 2005, so we can say Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia is the tallest residential building in the world since 2005.Wht you say ?

You miss my point. I'm not referring to the date of construction. I'm referring to the ambiguity inherent in a word like "currently". It means "now", but "now" changes as time passes. "Now" or "currently" mean July 2009 or "today", but tomorrow they will mean August 2009, and next year they will mean 2010. It may be true that Q1 is the tallest as of July 2009, but it won't always be true that Q1 is the tallest currently. What I'm saying is that it's usually better to pin these claims down to a specific date. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Which specific date we can add ???

• Residential buildings under construction, as of when ?

all these buildings have different dates of construction so where they all could be added.At leats in the title this cant be added. Instead i think we can add one more column Constuction starts and Construction ends.

The two new columns might do the job. My main concern here was that while the buildings may be under construction in July 2009, at some future date they will no longer be under construction. If you say "Residential buildings under construction as of July 2009" another editor will be able to tell at a glance whether the article might need updating, and a reader will be able to tell at a glance whether the article is up-to-date or not. If you don't pin the date down, either with the new columns or in some other way, no one can easily tell if the list is fresh or stale. Does this make sense? I was thinking of something simpler than the columns such as changing the subhead to read "Residential buildings under construction as of 2009", but your way might be better. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We cant add the title Residential buildings under construction as of 2009 beacause the commencement of construction of all these buildings havent started in july 2009,as there are anumber of buildings whose construction have started in 2006, 2008, 2008 .... its a silly idea i suggest, we can simply maintain the current title.Other list of buildings in wikipedia also have this type of title, by adding two more coloumns i think the whole table will shrink and it might looks awful !

Sorry. I think we are having language-barrier problems. I was not suggesting that you change the title of the article, and I have not been able to make my points clear. I don't really know what to say. Finetooth (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

These are very useful suggestions to improve this article, we can disscuss more like them.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The Green Green Grass

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the only section I believe the article fits into. Anyhow, I believe that The Green Green Grass article is nearly top standard and would like to be shown where the article lacks in areas, so that I can improve it and nominate it for featured article.

Thanks, The Music Collector (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this has had a lot of work done on it, but needs some more work before it is ready for WP:FAC. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many articles in Category:FA-Class television articles, some of which are on series and could be good models.
• WP:LEAD says the lead should be no more than four paragraphs in length - this is five.
• The article has about 10 fair use images - there is no way this will get through FAC with that many fair use images - see WP:NFCC
• Biggest problem with this reaching FA as I see it is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but the whole Origins section has no refs (except for the quote box).
• The refs that are there are often incomplete in terms of the information provided. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Another example is the current last ref "Radiotimes – 30 May to 5 June edition (Sunday at 5.10pm)" which does not give the year. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• See WP:WIAFA for the requirements for FA - 1a, professional English, is the hardest criteria for most articles to meet. Language here is OK, but needs to be more encyclopedic in tone in palces - for example however, one more successful sitcom was still lurking in the darkness.[9] needs to be rewritten.
• This is about a work of fiction, so please read WP:IN-U carefully to avoid writing about things from an in-universe perspective.
• When introducing nicknames like "Boycie", spell out the full name first, then give the nickname. So for example this could be added to to read something like Set in Oakham in Shropshire, it stars John Challis as Aubrey Boyce, a gentleman farmer [known as Boycie], ...
• Provide context for the reader - so add the year or dates to the lead where it says It was announced in The Mirror, that the series had been axed,[6] however it was later revealed that the series had been shelved... - see WP:PCR
• Be consistent - for example Only Fools and Horses is italicized usually, but is not in at least one place.
• ALso avoid WP:OVERLINKing - Only Fools and Horses is linked five times in the article - three is the max (lead, infobox, and first time in text after the lead).

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

99p Stores

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having created and gradually been building up this article, I think it is at the stage where it could benefit from a peer review to hopefully feedback any improvements that could be made. I hope in the near future to submit it for GA and would like feedback on whether it is on the right track.

Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and informative. It's a good start but not yet ready for GAN. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• I did a bit of proofreading as I went and fixed a few minor errors. I don't think I caught them all, and I would suggest another proofing.
• The article needs a careful copyedit. Sentences like this one in the lead have too many clauses: "Although the retailer made a pre-tax loss of £1.14 million in the year to January 31, 2007, they claim that since then, consumers have become more cautious with their money and where they spend it, in response to the current economic conditions, with commercial director Hussein Lalani noticing an increase of customers from the wealthier AB social grade during the recession." I see other sentences like this one that could be improved by breaking into two sentences. Alas, I no longer have time to do complete copyedits. You might ask someone listed at WP:PRV#General copyediting, or perhaps you know someone who likes to copyedit.
• Somewhere early in the article, perhaps in the "History" section, it would be good to explain what the "p" in 99p stands for and what the "pound" in Poundland stands for. Readers who live outside the UK may be unfamiliar with the currency and may have no idea what the difference is. It might not hurt to give some equivalents in other major world currencies such as euros, francs, yen, dollars, or possibly others; normally that is not necessary, but it might be helpful in this case.
• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds two wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target. Done
• I added a fair number of no-break codes to the article. They are invisible to readers. Their function is to keep digits and units from separating on computer-screen line breaks. WP:NBSP has details. You might find some that I missed.

Products offered

• "The retailer offers a large range of products in its 3,500 lines, from DIY and electrical to toys and stationary products." - What is DIY? It's customary in Wikipedia articles to spell out abbreviations on first use and to include the abbreviation in parentheses on first use as well. After that, the abbreviation alone is fine and makes sense since it has been explained. Done
• "Their best seller is 250g Galaxy chocolate bars." - "Seller" is singular, but "bars" is plural. Metric quantities are normally expressed in Wikipedia also as imperial units. Suggestion: "Their best seller is the 250-gram (8.8 oz) Galaxy chocolate bar." I used the {{convert}} template to do the conversion, but you can also do them with a calculator and a conversion table. I've already converted the liters to imperial quarts in the article, but I thought I should explain what I was doing and why. Done
• "offering customers better value" - This seems to be an editorial judgment rather than a verifiable fact. Suggestion: "The business buys a third of its products from the Far East, allowing for gross margins of up to 50 percent." Done

Store expansion

• "In April 2006, the retailer secured an £8m cash injection from its venture... " - Does £8m mean £8 million? It's best to spell it out. Done

Customer base

• "Commercial director Hussein Lalani has noticed a lot more consumers from the AB social grade in his stores, expecting this trend to continue even after the economy recovers." - It might be good to explain in the text what the A and B stand for. Outsiders will have no idea. Done

Product sale to underaged customer

• "The company were also fined £3000 in February 2006, after staff in their Acton and West Ealing stores were caught selling 18 rated dvds to a 15-year-old boy during a council sting operation." - This needs to be explained more clearly for readers who live outside the UK. What is an 18-rated dvd? Is it a digital video disc (DVD) with pornography? Could it be something other than pornography? Also, you might wikilink sting to help readers who might find the term puzzling.

Reviews

• "Some reviewers note that they have seen several items cheaper from other retailers; however mostly the products on offer at 99p Stores are of good value." - The correlation between "cheap" and "good value" is sometimes seen as contradictory. I'm wondering if any of the reviewers have expressed this view; if so, their ideas should be represented in the article too.
• "Reviews on dooyoo.co.uk show an average rating of 4.5/5." - This will probably be meaningless to readers who live far away. What is dooyoo.co.uk? What do the rating numbers mean? Is this on a scale of 1 to 10 on which 10 is the best possible score? What exactly is being rated?

Images

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." For this reason, the image under "Products offered" should be moved down or to the right. Done
• MOS:IMAGES also suggests using the "thumb" setting for most images rather than choosing a specific pixel width.

References

• Citation 18 has a dead url.
• Citation 10 links to a general Epson site that seems to say nothing about the 99p stores.
• WP:MOSNUM says to use the same format for all of the dates in the reference section. The existing article has a mixture of yyyy-mm-dd dates and d-m-y dates. You need to choose one format and stick with it. The date formatting in the main text also has to be consistent within the main text but does not have to be the same as the date formatting in the reference section.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we're looking for more feedback on the article before submitting it for GA.

Thanks, Rocksey (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad, generally clear, verifiable, stable, and neutral. My chief concern is with the extensive use of direct quotes, some of which probably violate copyright because of their length. I think this can be fixed by judicious trimming and paraphrasing. Here are my suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about "Reception".
• "Within days of replacement actor Michael Muhney's June 2009 debut, heterosexual villain Adam engages in an off-screen sexual encounter with another male character." - This sentence might have a few too many adjectives in front of "debut". Suggestion: "Within days of Engen's replacement by actor Michael Muhney in June 2009, Adam, a heterosexual villain, engages in an off-screen sexual encounter with another male character."

Controversy

• "On May 27, 2009, The Young and the Restless co-head writer/co-executive producer Maria Arena Bell... : - The Manual of Style generally prefers "and" to replace the front slash. Also, when an unbroken series of wiklinked words and phrases bump into each other, it's hard for a reader to tell one link from the next. This problem can usually be solved by recasting to separate the links. Suggestion: "On May 27, 2009, Maria Arena Bell , the co-head writer and co-executive producer for The Young and Restless... ".

• WP:MOSQUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation... " - For that reason, the quote starting with "It was Chris’ personal decision to leave the show. We’re sorry he did. ... " should be set off as a blockquote. Ditto for the next quote, that starts with, ""Chris is terrific as Adam. I love Chris and I think... ".

• WP:Non-free content#text says in part, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Although "brief" and "extensive" are not precisely defined, a good rule of thumb is to limit direct quotes from a single source to 100 words or less. The Engen quote of about 375 words is in my opinion a likely copyright violation, even though properly attributed to the source, because of its length. This can be readily fixed by reducing the amount of quoted material and by paraphrasing if necessary. Sometimes paraphrasing is better in any case because it can make a point more clearly and economically than a direct quote that is rambling and discursive.

• The Davidson quote should also be set off as a blockquote, but it is also too long, about 275 words.

Characterization and portrayal

• The second Engen quote in this section is long enough for a blockquote.

Images

• The fair-use rationales for the two images are a little thin. Would it be possible, for example, to replace either with a suitable free-use image? Are both images necessary for a reader to understand the text, or would one be enough?

References

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: "pp. 36–39" rather than "pp. 36-39".

General

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds one link "gaslight" that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target. You can use this tool at any time on any article.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so helpful, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Rocksey (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8)

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it at WP:Featured list candidates soon, and I'd like any suggestions for what else needs doing.

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but needs work on prose and Manual of Style issues. Here are a few suggestions.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each section of the main text and not to include material that is not developed in the main text. The existing lead doesn't mention the "Reception" section, and it includes details about broadcast times and methods that aren't mentioned in any main text section. The second problem might be addressed by adding a "Production" section that includes this material, which can then be briefly summarized in the lead.

• "Season eight airs Sundays at 7:30 p.m. on CTV... " - WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... " This applies specifically to constructions like 7:30 p.m. and anything else that might split awkwardly on any computer screen. You will probably find quite a few of these here and there throughout the article. Adding the nbsp code will turn them into inseparable units.
• "Unlike seasons six and seven, which premiered in the U.S., "Uptown Girl Part One", this season's premiere episode, was broadcast in Canada first, with "Uptown Girl Part Two" airing a week later; in the U.S., however, both parts aired together as an hour-long special." - I had trouble figuring out what this sentence meant. Suggestion: "Unlike seasons six and seven, which premiered in the U.S., season 8 was broadcast in Canada first. "Uptown Girl Part One" began the season, and "Uptown Girl Part Two" aired a week later; in the U.S., however, both parts aired together as an hour-long special."

Cast

• "Beginning in this season, Amanda Stepto, Aubrey Graham, Mike Lobel, and Adamo Ruggiero as Christine "Spike" Nelson, Jimmy Brooks, Jay Hogart, and Marco Del Rossi, respectively, have also been dropped to recurring status, as well as Lauren Collins (Paige Michalchuk), who also appears in Life with Derek, Stacey Farber (Ellie Nash), who has signed on to appear in a new series for the 2008–09 television season, 18 to Life, and Shenae Grimes (Darcy Edwards), who has taken a leading role in the new American television series 90210, which premiered in September 2008 and is filmed in Los Angeles, California." - Too complex. Suggestion: "Beginning in this season, Amanda Stepto, Aubrey Graham, Mike Lobel, and Adamo Ruggiero as Christine "Spike" Nelson, Jimmy Brooks, Jay Hogart, and Marco Del Rossi, respectively, have also been dropped to recurring status. Others in this category include Lauren Collins (Paige Michalchuk), who also appears in Life with Derek and Stacey Farber (Ellie Nash), who has signed on to appear in a new series for the 2008–09 television season, 18 to Life,. In addition, Shenae Grimes (Darcy Edwards) has taken a leading role in the new American television series 90210, which premiered in September 2008 and is filmed in Los Angeles, California."
• "Argiris Karras plays twelfth grade Riley Stavros... " - When two linked words or phrases bump into each other like this, it's hard for the reader to tell at a glance what is being linked. Usually it's possible to recast slightly to avoid this kind of link bump. Suggestion: ""Argiris Karras plays Riley Stavros, a twelfth grader... " Ditto for any other bumped links in the article.
• "Raymond Ablack, Samantha Munro, Jajube Mandiela, Aislinn Paul, Natty Zavitz, and Scott Paterson, who previously held recurring roles as Sav Bhandari, Anya MacPherson, Chante Black, Clare Edwards, Bruce, and Johnny DiMarco. - not a sentence, no verb
• "and former cast members Jake Epstein (Craig Manning)... " - "cast member" since only one?

Crew

• Perhaps this section could be re-named "Production" and could include the broadcasting details mentioned in the lead.
• "This time it deals with the anniversary of Rick Murray's death and his haunting former classmates." - Does this mean that he returns to haunt his former classmates, or does it mean that his former classmates are haunting?

Reception

• "That number was even lower for episode eleven, when overnight ratings showed it received 139,000 viewers." - "attracted" rather than "received"?
• "Calgary Herald and National Post writer Michael Morrison said Paula Brancati "has become my favorite Canadian actress", admiring her ability to play two different characters on two different series – Jane Vaugn on Degrassi: The Next Generation and Jenny on Being Erica – with an age difference of about thirteen years,[47] and in playing Jane, a character who is the victim of child molestation "[it] is never an easy thing for an actor to portray, but Brancati does it convincingly." - Too complex. I'd suggest making two sentences out of this one.
• The giant final paragraph would be better split in logical places into about three smaller ones.
• "At AfterElton.com, a magazine a website that focuses on the portrayal of bisexual and homosexual men in the media, was critical that the sexuality of new character Riley, played by Argiris Karras, has so far been through the eyes of Peter Stone, Riley's unrequited love interest, and that the storyline served only to advance Peter's character." - This sentence doesn't make sense.

Notes

• Citation 33 is incomplete.
• WP:MOSNUM#Formatting consistency says in part, "Dates in article references should all have the same format." For this reason, you should change all of the date formats in the reference section to either yyyy-mm-dd or d-m-y but not a mixture of the two.
• Citation 17 has a dead url.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Bubbles (chimpanzee)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC in the future, but need to fix any problems it may have first.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while it is clear a lot of work has gone into it, I think some more work is needed before it is ready for FAC. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I would use a different crop of the lead image, taken from here. The original picture shows Bubbles, Jackson and a boy. I can see cropping out the boy, but would leave Jackson in. Bubbles is notable solely for his relation with Jackson and they are wearing matching or similar outfits in the image, which is discussed in the article.
• There are free images of Michael Jackson and the Neverland Ranch in their articles that might be useful additions here
• The external link has some information not in the article (like where he was born) and seems to contradict the article in other places (it says he was sold as an infant to a Hollywood trainer for Jackson, not resuced by him - this might be two different interpretations of the same event).
• I would check the links in the refs - the Yahoo news ref is a dead link, for example. Look at any current FAC for tools to check both ref links and for dabs
• Watch for wording that is too close to the original - the article has The story was untrue but was an idea that some newspapers found too delightful not to report.[22] and the New York Times source has ...it was "not true" that Mr. Jackson's pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, would be ring bearer, an idea that some newspapers found too delightful not to report. I would probably attribute this to the New York Times, so "the story was untrue but according to the New York Times it was "an idea that some newspapers found too delightful not to report".
• When you have the same ref for two sentences in a row, as long there are not direct quotations in both sentences, the ref can generally just go at the end of the second sentence.
• Problem sentences from the lead: Despite the pair enjoying a close relationship, many media sources mocked the friendship. The friendship led the public to think of Jackson as a bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood, and he was subsequently dubbed "Wacko Jacko". First off, I doubt most people would call a relationship with a chimp a "friendship" (more sort of a pet-owner relation). Perhaps something like "many media sources mocked what Jackson called their friendship" or "many media sources mocked their relationship" would be better (not sure what the sources say). The second sentence repeats firendship and seems to imply that all of Jackson's perceived problems stemmed from Bubbles, but I think it would be more accurate to say it was one of several odd things that led to the Wacko Jacko epithet.
• I would check if some of the sources are reliable - for example the $2 million legacy to Bubbles is sources to a Chinese source which seems a bit odd.
• There are some places where things are out of chronologfical order - I wonder if the narrative would flow better if things were in order. For example in the "Early life and adoption" section (even there the section name is out of order - it starts with adoption then describes early life) we go from 1985 to 1990 to late 1980s. Or in "Exile from Neverland and suicide attempt" we go from 2003 to 2004 and then back to late 2003. The worst one is in "Death of Michael Jackson and current residence" where the whole second paragraph comes chronologically before the first (Bubbles was in the shelter in FLorida which is his current home for 6 years bfore Jackson died, but the section starts with Jackson's death, then backtracks to the shlter.
• English units like 160 pound need metric equivalents - {{convert}} works well here.
• Avoid using words like currently - instead use things like "as of 2009" or "since 2003" or whatever.
• I would try and get someone to copyedit this polish the prose. At the least don't edit for several days, then print it out and read it out loud slowly with a red pen in hand to mark things.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I will implement your advice in the next few days. :) Pyrrhus16 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help - One last thing I noticed and forgot to mention until now: a chimpanzee can be called a chimp or an ape, but it is not a monkey. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems we may not be able to add Jackson to the lead image; I was told here that we have to use the least amount of non-free content. I've added a free photo of Jackson to the 'early life' section. Pyrrhus16 09:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Media review The only potential issue I see is with the non-free image of Bubbles. If there are free images available, we have to use them, no matter how poor they are. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. If a free picture does becomes available, we will have to replace it. Pyrrhus16 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 6

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a request at wp:FT. Is there anything that could be added/tweaked to this article before the season starts?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It seems extraordinary to post an article about a series that hasn't been aired yet. The article contains very little useful information at present. Compared with earlier Office TV series articles this is an outline with no flesh. Is there a reason for bringing it forward now? Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: I agree with Brian. The PR guidelines say in part that PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Not being a total ogre, I sometimes I review articles that don't strictly adhere to the guidelines. In the case of a stub or start-class article like this, though, there's not much for a reviewer to say. Wouldn't an editor involved in one of the media projects be able to give sound advice about how to move forward on this? Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Dante (Devil May Cry)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

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

I think it is almost Featured article status. I just need someone to point out the flaws of the article so I can clean them up.

Thanks, Eoghan1234 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally well-written, and I enjoyed reading it. I have a few concerns about prose issues, image placement and licensing, and about Manual of Style issues. Here are my observations.

Conception and creation

• "while survival horror players (and characters) must ration... " - Wikilink survival horror?
• "Kamiya based his idea of Dante on what he perceived as "Stylish" -- with a long coat... ". - WP:EMDASH says in part, "Other dashes: These are avoided on Wikipedia, notably in two consecutive hyphens. (--)." Instead of the two consecutive hyphens, you can use an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash. The em dash version looks like this: ""Kamiya based his idea of Dante on what he perceived as "Stylish"—with a long coat... ".

• "For Tony Redgrave, By.45 Art Warks" - I'm just checking to make sure this quote is correct. Should there be a space between "By" and ".45", and is "Warks" a misspelling of Works?

Devil May Cry video games

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it." The image placement in this section violates the guideline. To solve the problem, you can move the image down or to the right.
• "During the course of the game Dante is also reunited with his brother Vergil... " - Tighten slightly be deleting "also"?
• "Devil May Cry 3 was much better received than the previous installment... " - "much more well-received" rather than "much better received"?
• "He has considerably more dialog during cutscenes... " - "Cut scenes" is two words. Also, wikilink cut scenes?
• "until he rescues Nero, who the player then uses for the game's final showdown." - "Whom" rather than "who" since it is the object of "uses"?
• "By the end of the game, Dante and Nero seem to have a mutual respect towards one another." - "for" rather than "towards"?

Other appearances

• Should PSP be spelled out on first use, thus: PlayStation Portable (PSP) for readers who might not recognize the abbreviation alone?
• "North American/Maniax (director's cut)" - The front slash makes the combined terms ambiguous. Is the whole phrase a company name? Or is the company name Maniax, which operates in North America? Or something else?
• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." - IMAGE:Dante Nocturne.jpg overlaps two sections and should be moved into one or the other to avoid violating this guideline. The problem with doing that is that it won't fit in either. This may not be such a big problem because it's unlikely that fair-use rationales will be accepted for all three images. The question arises of whether all three are truly necessary for the reader to understand the text or whether one or more images are simply decorative. Deleting this image would solve both problems.

Cultural impact

• "The series has become the game against which other 3D action games are measured, with comparisons in reviews of games including God Of War,[39][40] Chaos Legion,[41] and Blood Will Tell." - "With" is a weak connector here. Suggestion: "The series has become the game against which other 3D action games are measured, and it has been used as a basis of comparison in reviews of games including God Of War,[39][40] Chaos Legion,[41] and Blood Will Tell."
• Wikilink IGN on first use?

References

• MOS:BOLD advises against using bolding for emphasis. For this reason, it would be better to use italics, Dante, than bolding, Dante, and so on.
• A space should follow the colon in constructions like Dante: Dante:Yeah, let's go all the way to hell!
• The link checker tool that lives here finds at least four dead links in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Pennsylvania State University

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was last peer reviewed in 2007 and subsequent work is continually being performed on the page. It is a large page about a well known university in the United States. It could possible be rated as a Good Article, A-Class, or Featured Article. I am by no means an expert on how a page should be properly written or look, it would be very good for all of the people who work on this page to see what some other editors think.

Thanks, Flyguy33 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article contains interesting and useful material but has several big problems that should be addressed.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a brief mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention "History", "Organization", "Research", "Athletics", "Student life", and other topics covered by the main text.

• All of the citation-needed and other tags should be considered and their concerns addressed.

• Large sections of the article lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every statistic, every claim that might reasonably be challenged, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. For example, "Early years" is completely unsourced but must have come from a source or sources. Ditto for other subsections of the "History" section, the entire "Special mission campuses" subsection, and other sections and parts of sections.

• On my computer screen, the map in the "Commonwealth campuses" section is garbled because place names overlap one another and are not readable.

• References such as citation 98 are broken or incomplete and should be fixed. The reference styles are mixed and should be made consistent. The "cite family" of templates used for some of the citations is fine, and sticking with these throughout will bring consistency to the reference section. Please see WP:CIT for the complete set of templates. Don't mix the "cite family" with the "citation" family, which is also explained at WP:CIT.

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." Some of the images, such as the one of Old Main in the existing article, overlap two sections and should be moved.

• MOS:IMAGES also advises against bumping an image against a third-level head or placing it directly below a third-level head. The West Halls image violates this guideline. Moving the image down or to the right would solve the problem.

I hope these few suggestions will be enough to get you started. Finetooth (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncia preliminary comments: These are some general observations. I will post some more specific comments later. There are also a lot of little copyedit problems that I will attempt to fix myself.

• The information is well-balanced and does not over- or underemphasize any areas

• Many sections don't flow well and border on being miscellaneous lists of information. In these cases there is often not enough context given to tell us why the subject is being brought up. An example is the University Park Undergraduate Association, which tells us everything about the organization except what it does. I'll give a more detailed report on these fragmentary sections later. One that is especially bad is Diversity.

• There are many startling but unsourced claims, to the effect that Penn State is the biggest or the best of something in the world. These claims may be true, but all such claims need to be sourced. I'll mark these as needing citations.

• Often there are statements about "current" or "most recent" information. In general these should instead state the date they are valid as of. Many of these are for 2005 or 2006, hardly "current". I'll fix these.

• Often the photos don't go with the section they are in. Photos should illustrate, not decorate, the article.

• There's been some vandalism of the article, not surprising considering its fragmentary nature and lack of sources. I spotted a couple: Who's Mari?, Why you should go to Pitt instead, that I fixed. Much vandalism can be caught by careful and skeptical reading, but for others you either have to know the subject well or check the references; hence the importance of having sources for all important statements.

More details to follow. --Uncia (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncia general comments: After reading this again, it doesn't seem as choppy as it did yesterday, so I think the most important area to improve is the sourcing. I get the impression that this article has been neglected, because there are lots of statements that say "recently ..." for something that happened 2 or 3 years ago. The "recently" bit is not a big problem in itself, but it indicates that no one is paying attention to this article and polishing it. I went through and fixed all the dead links, which turned out to be about 20% to 25% of all the links, which is another indication no one is watching the article. There also are not very many wikilinks, a third indication. --Uncia (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncia specific comments: In addition to the dead links, I went through and fixed some misspellings and awkward statements, and made a number of minor improvements.

• Much of the data in the top infobox is not in the body of the article. This is not necessarily an error, but it is unusual. Also, there are several items of data that are in both places but don't agree, for example, the total number of students and the total area. The best thing is to put all the data in the body, give sources there, and repeat the most important parts in the infobox. I suggest that for campus/division info the infobox should only show the grand total and not the breakdown by areas, or possibly the grand total and the University Park figure.
• infobox: "Making Life Better" is a marketing slogan, not the motto. I think Penn States doesn't even have a motto.
• Atherton is honored "by the name of a major road", but the article doesn't tell us the name of the road or where it is. It wikilinks to an article for a state road, but that also doesn't tell us the name.
• Commonwealth campuses: the discussion implies that these are strictly undergraduate campuses, which is not true. For example, York offers a Master of Education, see Graduate Students
• Athletics: explain what "club sports" are - I'm not familiar with this term, and there's no Wikipedia article on it.
• Diversity: the paragraph on "Respect Comes Full Circle" has the wrong emphasis; that is, it talks about a publicity campaign for a support network but doesn't talk about the support network itself.
• Student organizations: UPUA is described as an "advocacy group"; what do they advocate?

--Uncia (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm interested in getting some broad feedback on this article that I've spent the last week or so expanding. I've pretty much exhausted all sources, so I'm interested in prose issues and especially accessibility issues, to make sure non-gamers can understand it.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Gameplay" section, there's a left-hand image directly under a heading, which I understand is deprecated.
• In the same section, it says "When the player is at full health, the meter reads 100, while dropping to 0 subtracts one life. Gathering "spiritual points" scattered across the levels increases the player's life count by one ever 100 points accumulated." Should that be "one for every 100 points accumulated"?
• Under "Development", the third paragraph is of limited relevance to this game; it seems to be basically about the console's capabilities. Consider trimming down to the bits that are actually about the game.
• Apart from that, it looks good to me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question, how come the PC release dates arent listed in the infobox and dont we prefer the operating system (eg windows or linux) over the use of PC. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

93rd Infantry Division (United States)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to further refine and improve the article

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article about an important unit, but it needs a lot of work if it is to become a GA or even FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not follow WP:LEAD. 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.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the deactivation after WWII and current units is only in the lead.
• Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example the first paragraph in the lead could make it clearer that this was in WWI. See WP:PCR
• Much of the article is unreferenced which is a major obstacle to this getting to GA or FA. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article is very list-y and needs a copyedit. If possible can lists be converted to text?
• The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
• This doesn't make sense to me - Included were 37,000 troops, of whom 5,000 were in a naval force and 4,000 were civilians. Troops do not include civilians.
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Warfare several of which might be good models, such as 13th Airborne Division (United States)

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Daredevil (Marvel Comics)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this underrated character could easily be a GA with a bit more work, and has FA potential written all over it. It was nominated for GA over two years ago, but I think the quickfail reasons cited at the time no longer apply. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It took me a little while to catch on, but much of the article, the entire first paragraph of the lead, for example, has been copied word for word from here. Please don't waste valuable reviewing time with things like this.

Oh, arrgh! Mea culpa. Please disregard the note above. It was a late-evening mistake. The wikicomics material has been copied from this Wikipedia article, not the other way around. My other observations from last evening will still be useful, I hope, and I will add more comments and suggestions today below the first set. Finetooth (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "His father, a boxer named Jack Murdock supports him as he grows up, though he is later killed by gangsters after refusing to throw a fight." - Maybe "though the father is later killed" to avoid confusion about which "he" is meant.
• "Although Daredevil had been home to the work of many legendary comic-book artists — Everett, Kirby, Wally Wood, John Romita, Sr., and Gene Colan, among others — Frank Miller's influential... " - Em dashes should be unspaced in Wikipedia articles, according to MOS:EMDASH.

Publication history

• MOS:QUOTE says in part, "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins." For this reason, the fancy quotes here and elsewhere in the article should be replaced by blockquotes.
• "When Everett turned in his first-issue pencils extremely late... " - Jargon or special terms like this need to be linked or explained. What is a first-issue pencil?
• "Romita had felt he no longer wanted to pencil, in favor of being solely an inker." - What is an inker? What does it mean to "ink"? What is a penciller?
• "Romita later elaborated that "Stan showed me Dick Ayers' splash page... " Here's another. "Splash page" should be linked or explained.
• "when he refuses to throw a fight" - Readers unfamiliar with boxing might not know what this means.
• MOS:BOLD says that only the first use of the title terms are to be bolded. For this reason, "Daredevil" should not be bolded in this section.
• "Daredevil would embark on a series of adventers involving such villains as the Owl, Stilt-Man, Gladiator, and the Enforcers." - Watch out for tense changes like this one. For consistency, shouldn't the verb be "embarks" rather than "would embark"?

1980s

• A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every statistic, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. The first three paragraphs of this section are unsourced. The language is sophisticated, and the information here is not common knowledge.

• Oh, I see. Much of the article has been copied word for word from here. I need go no further. Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it copied from there to here, or from here to there? BOZ (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It was copied from Wikipedia on 28 June 2009 under the GFDL, as the WikiComics log shows. Thank you, User:BOZ for patiently showing me the log. Finetooth (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments:

1980s

• "However, successor Dennis O'Neil did not find the commercial success of his predecessor." - "achieve" rather than "find"
• "then writing the acclaimed "Daredevil: Born Again" storyline in #227-233 (Feb.-Aug. 1986)... " - Each of the issue ranges, page ranges, and date ranges in the article take an en dash rather than a hyphen, thus: #227–233. Also, WP:MOS#Longer periods says in part,"Write months as whole words (February, not 2), except in the ISO 8601 format. Use abbreviations such as Feb only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." Thus, all of the constructions like (Feb.–Aug. 1986) really should be (February–August 1986).
• "Miller ends the story on a positive note, with Murdock reuniting with Karen Page as his sometime lover, and the mother he thought dead, now a nun, and resuming a less complicated life in Hell's Kitchen." - I won't attempt to point all of these out, but generally "with" doesn't make a good conjunction and forces the rather awkward "-ing" verb forms. Usually sentences like this can be recast to be slightly better. Suggestion: "Miller ends the story on a positive note when Murdock reunites with Karen Page as his sometime lover, and the mother he thought dead, now a nun, resumes a less complicated life in Hell's Kitchen."
• The final paragraph of this section lacks a source or sources.

1990s

• The first two paragraphs and the last paragraph of this section lack sources.
• "Its first eight-issue story arc" - Wikilink story arc?

2000s"

• The first three paragraphs lack sources.
• "The 2001 miniseries Daredevil: Yellow presented another take on Daredevil's origins using letters written to Karen Page after her death as a narrative device. Here Page believes she is in love... " - Here the verb tenses change unexpectedly from past to present. Shouldn't it be "presents" rather than "presented"? I'd suggest looking for this pattern throughout the article. The switch happens, I think, because sometimes you are describing what the creators did in the past and, shortly thereafter, you are describing actions in the narrative present of the story. It's important to keep them separated by verb tense to help keep readers from confusing the two groups.
• "Over the next couple of arcs, Brubaker would make use of older characters... " - "made" rather than "would make"?

Powers and abilities

• "Due to his lack of sight, Daredevil developed a radar sense." - "develops"?
• "This weakness is often used to immobilize Daredevil if he were bombarded by too much sound, which will cause him great pain and disorient him." - "when he is bombarded by too much sound, which causes him great pain and disorients him"? Narrative present.
• "However, this ability can be fooled if the other persons heart is not beating at a natural rate, such as if they have a pacemaker." - "person's" rather than "persons". Also, to avoid the number disagreement between "person" and "they", you might say "... natural rate, as would be the case with a pacemaker". Also, wikilink pacemaker?
• "his specially-designed billy club" - Wikilink billy club?
• "his billy club can extend into a six foot bo-staff" - What is a bo-staff?

References

• Most of the date formats in the citations are yyyy-mm-dd. The Manual of Style suggests making the formatting in the references consistent. The quickest way to achieve this would be to make them all yyyy-mm-dd.
• Citation 5 has a dead url.

Images

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." IMAGE:Ddsmith.png violates this guideline.
• MOS:IMAGES also says in part, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." Several images in the existing article bump into third-level heads.
• I've never seen so many non-free images in a single article. Each individually might have a convincing rationale, yet I would find it hard to argue that they are all needed for the reader to understand the subject.

General

• It would be good to merge any extremely short paragraphs or sections with other paragraphs or sections.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Guitar Hero 5

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Trying to get a bead on if there's anything drastically missing for this article given as the game is still not released but has a number of features/songs announced.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This has interesting material but presents serious problems for a reader with no background in the series. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead says little about "Gameplay" or "Development" and nothing about "Soundtrack".
• The main problem here is not the lead, however. It's the lack of a clear explanation of the game that would make it easy for a general reader to understand it. The first sentence of "Gameplay" says, "Gameplay in Guitar Hero 5 will be similar to that from World Tour." Someone who knows nothing about World Tour will be lost. Even though that reader can click on the two gameplay links you provide, it would be helpful to begin the "Gameplay" section with a paragraph or two or even a short subsection that summarizes the basic essentials of the series gameplay.
• The second sentence of "Gameplay" illustrates another problem. It says, "However, this version of the game will allow up to four players to any combination of instruments, meaning the game will allow multiples of the same type." This sentence doesn't make sense. Probably "players to" should be "players to choose". Furthermore, it's not clear what "meaning the game will allow multiples of the same type" means. Careful proofreading should catch missing words, typos, and other low-level errors. Re-reading from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about the Guitar Hero series should help you to spot and re-write confusing passages. Another confusing sentence occurs a couple of lines later: "The Band Revival meter will appear when a player fails out of the song... " A newbie won't know what a Band Revival meter is or what is meant by "fail out of a song". For the article to make sense, things like this need to be briefly explained.
• The jargon in the article needs to be thoughtfully linked or explained. Examples of jargon or mystery terms include "unlockable content", "note track", "pitch", "whammy bar", "controller", "avatar", "gig", "touch pad", "strum bar", "drum kit", and probably others. Imagine explaining these things to somebody's great-great-grandfather who died in 1920. If you can make this clear to him, you will have solved the clarity problem.
• Citation 2 is malformed.
• Citation 20 is circular. It links to another Wikipedia article, not a reliable source.

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to work on these aspects. Because the gameplay is generally the same for these games, I've relied mostly on the general series article to describe elements in depth but I've included a bit more here, and wikilinked terms that - while correct that they are not common - would be expected to be reasonably common knowledge for this topic or inferred from the context but could still have that wikilink just in case. Also the references have been fixed. A quick review would be helpful here. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Messerschmitt Bf 109

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have some outside opinion as to what this article may miss to become a featured article. Its probably easier for a fresh set of eyes to find the gaping holes in the content, layout and style. As for the content, I am fairly satisfied with it, it really covers everything as far as the plane goes, and perhaps it would be time to break the main article down into sub-articles. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Kurfürst (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a huge amount of work has been done on this article, it needs some more work before it is ready to go to WP:FAC. With WP:WIAFA in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not follow WP:LEAD. 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.
• 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 almost all of the material on fighter aces seems to only be in the lead, as one example.
• Biggest problem I see for this passing FAC is a lack of references. There are refs in many places, but many pragraphs and importanct claims lack refs. For example, the third paragraph in the "Emils in the Battle of Britain" section has no refs, or the whole "Development" section has only one ref (and has a citation needed tag), and the Operators section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See current refs 51 and 57 for examples of internet refs that need more information. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The hardest criteria for most articles to meet in FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. This is decently written but needs polished before FAC. I would wait to get a copy edit after fixing some of the other issues (below).
• There are numerous places that need to be made consistent - part of getting an article ready for FA is to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. For example, German names like Bayerische Flugzeugwerke are italicized in some places and not in others.
• ALso the translations need to be provided directly after the first use of the word, but at least for Bayerische Flugzeugwerke the translation is after the second use.
• Units need to be given in both metric and English - the {{convert}} template is useful for doing this automatically.
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• Image captions of various aircraft should be consistent - some say where the aircraft is now (or was when photgraphed), others do not.
• The article is quite long (144 kb) and could be split into several subarticles per WP:Summary style. The E, F and G variants seem like they could be subarticles.
• Also when referring to subarticles like the list of survivors, this article should briefly summarize the most important points of the subarticle.
• There are several places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the article. These should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded in almost all cases.
• Images need alt text - see WP:ALT

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Intel Core i7

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has received no rating and I want to know what should be improved to make this a Good Article

Thanks, Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 11:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've doen a little studying on this article and have come up with some improvements:

• On the Performance section, this sentence "The Inquirer managed to get a 965 engineering sample to a core clock rate of up to 4GHz with fan cooling and Turbo Booster. This is quite impressive but may not be reachable on all home systems." This needs a reference, specifically to the Inquirer article that is beeing written about. "This is quite impressive" is a personal judgement, leave such things to the reader, they don't belong in an encylopedia.

• Some of the references are sloppy; some are simply URLs copy-pasted into ref tags. This shouldn't be the case, all references should be put into a template, such as {{cite web}}, and have the following filled on a minimum level: URL, Title, Publisher, Access date. The following should be filled in where possible: Author, Publishment date, and if possible wikilink the Publisher field if there is an article.

• Several statements need citation, a few have had tags placed on them for a while. This needs to be resolved, or the necessary statements deleted, verify or simplify basically.

• There are a great deal of bullet points. This should be put in prose where possible, I think this is not unrealistic in some areas.

• Some of the references are inappropriate, in that they are too informal. Forums and blogs shouldn't be cited, there's no verifiable statements, that's just regurgitating popular conception, and potentially the mistakes of amatures and opinionated 'nobodies'.

• More images would be nice, but perhaps difficult to get hold of. This is only desirable, not policy.

I hope these are useful for you in making this article better, there is some way to go with this if you're hoping to make this into a GA. There is potential and with some determination and effort on these points, I'm sure it'll shape up to the task. It might be good to create a Future section and talk about upcoming models.

---

Madonna (entertainer)

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has changed and improved a lot from the time when it was de-listed from FA status. I believe the article can gain back the bronze star again. However I though of taking the suggestions of my fellow reviewers and fellow editors to see if any further improvement can be done on the article.

Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments This certainly seems comprehensive, and it's generally well-written. I found and fixed a few typos, misspellings, and other tiny errors, but I doubt that I caught them all. I also doubt that there are many more because the article is polished. I note some Manual of Style issues that should be addressed. Mostly they are little things like missing hard spaces here and there that won't take a lot of time to fix. Writing alt text is a somewhat bigger challenge; I wrote my first one yesterday, and the process of imagining how to describe a formal portrait to a blind person was interesting, though not necessarily easy. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

Lead

• "Born in Bay City, Michigan and raised" - When you have a city–state combo like this, the state should have a comma after it too; i.e., "Bay City, Michigan, and raised". You should add a comma to all similar cases throughout the article. The same is true of triple dates ending with the year; e.g. "August 16, 1958, to... ", which appears early in the next section.
• "Madonna signed an unprecedented $120 million dollar contract" - WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... ". It specifically mentions combinations like "$120 million" as well as several other kinds of combinations. You should check the whole article for these and add nbsp codes where needed. Reviewers at FAC will be sure to look for them. In addition, it's not necessary to say "dollar"; the $ symbol is standard; i.e. "$120 million contract".

1958-1981: Early life and beginnings

• "who was a first-generation Italian American Chrysler/General Motors design engineer... " - It's good practice when you have a series of wikilinks that bump into one another like these three to recast the sentence to make them visually distinct from one another. Suggestion: "who was a first-generation Italian American who worked as a design engineer for Chrysler and General Motors. It would be good to search the whole article for these link bumps and separate them.
• "convinced her father to allow her to partake the classes" - "take" rather than "partake"?

1982–1985: Madonna, Like a Virgin and marriage to Sean Penn

• "visiting Los Angeles over December 82-January 83" - Date ranges take an en-dash rather than a hyphen.
• "critic Vincent Canby named the film as one of the 10 best films of 1985... " - Here you have used digits for 10, but at least some other numbers bigger than 10 in the article are written as words. Typically, numbers from one to nine are expressed as words, and bigger numbers are expressed as digits. You should aim for consistency.
• "Since the commercial and music video were nearly identical, Pepsi was unable to convince the public that their commercial had was not inappropriate." - Delete "had"? Or change to "was not appropriate"?
• "At the end of the year, Madonna deceided to leave the controversial... " - "decided"
• "The release of Truth or Dare, Sex book, Erotica, Body of Evidence and the appearance on Letterman - all of them made critics question Madonna as asexual renegade" - Rather than a hyphen, perhaps "... and the appearance on Letterman all made critics question... "?

Musical style and influences

• "her dancers wore t-shirts" - T-shirts

Music videos

• It might help to break this giant paragraph into two or three paragraphs.

References

• WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says in part, "Dates in article references should all have the same format." For this reason, you should choose either yyyy-mm-dd or m-d-y and use it throughout the reference section.

Captions

• Captions that are only sentence fragments do not get terminal periods.

Alt text

• WP:ALT says in part, "Every visible image should have alt text... " for readers who cannot see the images. FAC reviewers are now requiring alt text. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.

General

• The link checker tool that lives here finds at least two dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Thelnetham Windmill

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article. I'd like some feedback on what needs doing to achieve FA status as WP:MILLS currently lacks a featured article.

Thanks, Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. As someone who has written about wooden covered bridges of roughly the same age, I am impressed with (and slightly jealous of) how much detailed history is known about the mill and its restoration.

• I would try to expand the lead a bit as I do not think it really does justice to the article. My rule of thumb is to try and at least mention each section in the lead somehow (even if only a word or phrase). Perhaps it could be three paragraphs: a general overview paragraph, then one summarizing the history and one on the restoration?
• The two images in the article are nice, but I wish more could be added. For example could a map showing the location Thelnetham be included? Or is there a general diagram of the interior of windmills that would help a layperson undertand what all the parts mentioned are better? I also wonder if there could photos taken inside the mill today, so if the section is on restoring the millstones, there could be a photo of them, that sort of thing.
• I wonder if there could be a bit more context added for the reader in places - for example I am not sure what tailwinde / tailwinded means (the first may be a typo in The mill was tailwinde c1920, and as a result one pair of sails was removed. If a brief expalantion of this is / involves could be added, I think it would help. See WP:PCR Ditto with some of the machinery / parts - so if it were The new windshaft[, which transfers power from the sails to turn the millstone,] was fitted on 16 July 1832.[5] that might be clearer.
• I think some terms could be linked that are not now - for example polythene is known as polyethylene in the US, so linking the term would help for readers less familiar with the name (or the Beatles song Polythene Pam)
• The 1985 section could really be 1985—1987 as it decribes work done over three years. It seems a bit odd that so much detail is given in previous years and then the final three years are described so briefly. Is there not much information avaiable?
• I would also like to learn more about the current operation of the mill - the fact that flour ground there can be purchased is only in the lad and should be given again here (and cited). Who runs it? Does someone have to live there to adjust the sails year round?
• The last several sections are quite short anbd might benefit from either being expanded or combined with other sections.
  • For example, the list of Millers could be a table in the history section (and I would use ? or unknown for the unknow dates, so "ebecca Button 1837-?" or "Richard Button unknown-1860"
  • "Culture and media" is one sentence on the video of the restoration - could this be combined with the 1985 ssection (end of restoration)? The video ref should have the year of the video if known.
  • Restoration team could perhaps also be combined with 1985-1987 section as a sort of summary. Was there a dedication ceremony or Grand (Re)opening?
• Are authors or page numbers known for the newspaper articles?
• I liked the amount of detail given - it might be seen as excessive by some reviewers in FAC. Notsure on this. As noted above it does seem odd to have so much detail on some years and so little on the last three.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Mjroots

• Lead - this has been expanded.
• Images - I've added a third image.
• Context - Tailwinded has been explained. Windshaft is explained in the Mill machinery article, per hatnote at top of section.
• Links - will go over the article and add more links
• 1985 - has been renamed
• Current use - I will expand the article to cover this.
• Later sections - Millers and Culture and Media sections are per WP:MILLS suggested structure for articles about individual windmills. I think there was a grand re-opening but I wasn't there. I can only work with the resources I have available to me. That said, I may give the Suffolk Mills Group a shout to ask if their members can expand the article and correct any mistakes I may have made. The Restoration team was much larger originally, but was removed per GAR.
• Newspaper articles - I've included all info I have, from cuttings reproduced in the restoration reports. Original papers should be available via Norfolk Libraries or Suffolk Libraries but I'm over 100 miles away now.
• I think that there wasn't quite as much material produced over the last few years as the owners naturally concentrated upon the completion of the restoration. Again, SMG members may be able to expand the article.

Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Times Square

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I REALLY want to help fix this article, all I need to know is what I should focus on.

Thanks, Irunongames • play 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• The title of the article shouldn't be doubled in headings
• "Citation needed" and "unsourced" tags need to be addressed
• Lists should be converted to prose as much as possible
• Pop culture section needs cleanup, and should be pared down
• References are mostly bare URLs - should be expanded, preferably using cite templates
• Blogs are not reliable sources
• Needs a general copyedit

Just some general observations, feel free to disagree. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs

By popular request :):

• I'm not sure what File:JessicasNewYorkPortrait2.jpg adds to the article. It's an example of portraiture, sure, but that doesn't mesh with the caption (which talks about the act of portraiture), takes up a lot of vertical space, and doesn't have the proper info on its description page (which means it might not even fly as a validly used image, anyhow.) This also extends into the issue prevalent in articles like these in that there are often too many images, diluting and overpowering the text. Some judicious picking of the best-quality images might be best. To me, the images with the least amount of significant info being imparted are File:NYPDManhattanNewYorkCity.jpg, File:Times Square 09.JPG, and File:Times Square Night.JPG
• The "Times Square" in pop culture should be cut or converted into a short summarizing paragraph. It's iconic, okay, but mentioning every film it's appeared in is not a good practice, or a feasible one.
• Similarly, the notable landmarks is a rather disingenuous heading, as it covers what corporations are there, which aren't notable landmarks themselves. The entire section could be prosified, and needs sourcing. Speaking of sourcing...
• The entire article needs moar sources! Right now you appear to be just using web sources, which for such a topic won't cover it. You've got some promising paragraphs about Times Square history, but A) they aren't sourced and B) need to be expanded. Right now the article only gives us a superficial look at the topic. There's a book mentioned in the bibliography, which apparently hasn't been used (or hasn't been directly cited), I would grab a hold of it if you could. Books are going to be a necessity for expanding this topic. Even a superficial Google Books search brought up interesting tidbits (e.g. [14]), but get out to a library and search as well. You'll probably be best doing that and avoiding the travel books :)

Overall, it's a great start, it just needs some expansion and sourcing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Wright brothers

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review in response to comments on the discussion page as well as my own agreement that the entry deserves featured article status. I have not contributed to this artcile, but have found it useful and informative. ShelbyBell (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article about a popular subject but not yet ready for a run at FA. Generally, the prose is flowing and easy to read. However, problems that drew my attention included a lack of sourcing for many whole paragraphs, entire subsections, and many claims that might reasonably be questioned. Something else that would help make the article more understandable to readers who know little about aircraft would be to link specialized terms. I did a rather thorough sentence-by-sentence review through the "Trouble establishing legitimacy" subsection. I think my review to that point might be enough, since you can to some extent extrapolate from it to the rest of the article.

• WP:IMAGES advises against making text sandwiches, places where text is squeezed between two or more images. I see several of these in the article.

Lead

• "They are also officially credited worldwide through the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, the standard-setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics, as "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight." - "They" can't be credited as a flight. Suggestion: " ... aeronautics and astronautics with achieving 'the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight."
• "into the first practical fixed-wing aircraft" - Wikilink fixed-wing aircraft?
• "Their careful wind tunnel tests produced better aeronautical data than any before... " - Wikilink wind tunnel?
• "the invention of a system of aerodynamic control" - Wikilink aerodynamic?

Early childhood

• "Wilbur Wright was born near Millville, Indiana in 1867; Orville in Dayton, Ohio" - In each place in the article where you have a city, state combination like these two, you need a comma (or a terminal period if it comes at the end of a sentence) after the state, thus: "... Millville, Indiana, in 1867; Orville in Dayton, Ohio,... ". These are hard to see in edit mode because the ]] tricks the eye into imagining the end punctuation.

Early career and research

• was accidentally struck in the face by a hockey stick" - Wikilink hockey stick?
• "did not attend Yale as planned" - Wikilink Yale?
• "was terminally ill with tuberculosis" - Wikilink tuberculosis?
• "In May, Smithsonian Institution Secretary... " - Wikilink Smithsonian Institution?
• "brought together several men who tested various types of gliders over the sand" - Wikilink gliders?

Ideas about control

• "in another hang gliding crash in 1899" - Wikilink hang gliding?

Toward flight

• Rather than repeating "flight", which is part of the level 2 section head directly above this subhead, I'd suggest something like "First steps".
• A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, every direct quote, and every paragraph. This entire subsection is unsourced yet must have come from a source or sources.
• Normally in Wikipedia articles quantities such as five feet are also expressed in metric equivalents. I find that the {{convert}} template is handy for doing the conversions, thus: "flying a 5-foot (1.5 m) box kite". There's a learning curve associated with the template and its possibilities; some editors prefer to do these calculations in some other way and enter them. Oh, never mind. I see you have used the template in the table in the "Gliders" section.
• "When the wings were warped, or twisted, one end would receive more lift and rise... " - Suggestion: "received more lift and rose... ".
• "after writing to the government meteorologist stationed there" - Wikiliink meteorologist?
• "the 1896 Chanute experiments at Lake Michigan" - Wikilink Lake Michigan?
• "The trip from Dayton required a train ride to Cincinnati; change trains for an overnight ride to Old Point Comfort, Virginia (near Newport News); ferryboat to Norfolk; train to Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and boat ride to Kitty Hawk on the Outer Banks." - Suggestion: "The trip from Dayton required a train ride to Cincinnati; a change of trains for an overnight ride to Old Point Comfort, Virginia (near Newport News); a ferryboat to Norfolk; a train to Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and a boat ride to Kitty Hawk on the Outer Banks." Also, wikilink Outer Banks?

Gliders

• The table has one conversion from imperial to metric for the "Chord" measurements, but two are unconverted. Also, do you not want to convert the lengths and weights to metric for some reason?
• "This airfoil caused severe pitch problems" - Wikilink pitch (flight)?
• ""We came down here for wind and sand, and we have got them." - Needs a ref to give the source.

1900 Glider

• To avoid repeating "glider", how about just "1900"?
• "Most of the kite tests were unpiloted with sandbags or chains (and even a local boy) as onboard ballast." - Suggestion: "Most of the kite tests were unpiloted and used sandbags or chains (and even a local boy) as onboard ballast."
• Most of this subsection is unsourced.

1901 Glider

• Shorten to "1901"?
• The first three paragraphs are unsourced.
• "which would exaggerate predicted lift" - "exaggerated" rather than "would exaggerate"?
• "allowed the brothers to balance lift against drag" - Wikilink drag?
• "Wilbur, at Chanute's invitation, traveled to Chicago to give a speech to the Western Society of Engineers on September 18, 1901." - The link to an external link embedded in this sentence should be replaced by a citation.
• "complemented by a lantern slide show" - Wikilink lantern slide?

1902 Glider

• Shorten to "1902"?
• Many of the paragraphs in this subsection are unsourced.
• "The principles remained the same when ailerons superseded wing-warping." - Wikilink ailerons?

Adding power

• "The finished blades were just over eight feet long, made of three laminations of glued spruce." - Metric conversion?
• "Their altitude was about 10 ft above the ground." - Metric conversion?
• I don't want to push you into overlinking, but it might help to link terms like "engine block", "crankcase" and "wing strut" for readers who might not be familiar with engines and aircraft.
• Some of the paragraphs in this subsection are unsourced.

Trouble establishing legitimacy

• "Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to disinterest reporters in their experiments." - "Disinterest" isn't quite the right word. Suggestion: "Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments."
• "each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles" - Metric conversion?
• "rather soggy 85 acre pasture" - Metric conversion?
• This subsection includes a lot of unsourced statistics as well as unsourced paragraphs. It might also include unnecessary detail, though that's a judgment call. My mind began to wander in this section.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

A J M Industries, LLC

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…It has been nominated for deletion and I would like constructive criticisms to improve the article and maintain it's neutrality.

Thanks, Helpful4sure (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The long-standing policy for peer reviews is that they be free of major cleanup banners. Being considered for deletion is just such a banner and having looked at the AfD there are several !votes for deltion and only one to keep. PR resources are limited and if this is not deleted, please feel free to nominate this for PR again. The main problem here seems to be notability which PR can't do much to address. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Alamogordo, New Mexico

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A year ago this article was reorganized per WP:USCITY and greatly expanded, and it has been stable since then. Last month I went through it carefully and updated all the information and polished the writing and organization, and tried to bring it completely within the guidelines at WP:USCITY. I would like to bring it up to WP:Good Article status.

Requested comments:

• identification of missing topics
• identification of topics that have too much detail, or should not be included at all
• conformance to letter and spirit of WP:USCITY

Thanks, Uncia (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly interesting and broad and, with further work, could become a GA candidate. I have several suggestions for improvement.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead doesn't quite do that because it says nothing about government, infrastructure, healthcare, or notable residents. With an article this long, you could safely add another paragraph to the lead and perhaps expand the first three just a bit.

 Done expanded lede to provide more context, and point out interesting and notable facts. There's now info on government, infrastructure, and healthcare. I left out the notable residents because none of them is (in my opinion) notable enough to go in the lede. --Uncia (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've never seen citations formatted the way they are in this article. The "cite" family is entirely familiar, but what do things the {{Rp}} templates do? If "x-1" are the page numbers, a more common way to handle them is to create a separate section called "Bibliography" or "Works cited" and to enter the complete bibliographical information there. Then you can create references with the usual pair of ref tags, inside of which you can write "Townsend, pp. x–1" instead of using the "cite" template and the "rp" template. Maybe the "Rp" is OK too, but I've not encountered it before. Will readers understand it?

✗ Not done I think {{Rp}} is not widely used, but should not be confusing, so I am leaving these in. I learned the {{Rp}} technique from John Broughton's book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, in the section Adding Page Numbers to Footnote Numbers. This technique is intended for when you cite a longer work, such as a book, several times, and cite different pages each time. The technique you mention is essentially WP:Parenthetical referencing, more commonly called Harvard style. There is more discussion of the page number problem at the {{Rp}} template page, including some speculation that someday the cite family will be improved so that an additional template is no longer necessary. 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know that. Your explanation is helpful, and I will learn more about this system. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." The existing article has text sandwiches in "Aeronautics and space exploration", and "Sports".

 Done expanded coverage of Holloman tests, White Sands Space Harbor, Desert Dawgs, Gus Macker; some rearranging of existing text; there's now enough text that the pictures don't sandwich the text. --Uncia (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:IMAGES also says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." The final image overlaps "Hospital" and "Health profile". This could be fixed by combining the two short subsections under the larger main heading and eliminating the subheads. The "Hospital" subsection is too short, in any case.

 Done combined the two sections. 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Economy" section, the table "Otero County non-agricultural civilian employment 2006" is so big that it squashes the text to its left. It appears that the table could be much narrower and still be legible. That would give the text more room to breathe.

 Done broke up some of the longer lines so the table would draw narrower; it's about half its previous width. 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:IMAGES also says in part, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it." The F-22 Raptor violates this guideline and should be moved down or to the right. Ditto for the "New buildings in Alamogordo" image.

 Done moved these down. 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections. Two solutions are to expand or to merge. In the "Demographics" section, for example, it shouldn't be hard to merge the orphan paragraph and the orphan subsection with the other material and to simply delete the two subheads.

 Done merged the orphans, added 2008 estimate for Otero County 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Possibilities for expansion include something about geology (rocks, soils, geological history of the region) and the history of the region before 1898. People may have lived in or traveled through the area for about 10,000 years.

 Done I've added some geology and some accounts of the inhabitants before 1898 (the area has indeed been inhabited for about 11,000 years) --Uncia (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:BOLD generally advises against using bolding for emphasis except in the first sentence of the lead and in places such as the heads and subheads, where it is added automatically. "Otero County Administration Building" in the "History" section should not be bolded.

 Done 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I'd suggest turning the list in the economic development section into straight prose. Ditto for the list in the "Government" section.

 Done Rewrote these as prose; they now read much better! 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the paragraphs, such as the first three paragraphs of the "Media" section, lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every direct quotation, every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every paragraph.

 Done I've added lots of references; there are a few statements that I know to be true but for which I cannot find a source, and I have marked these as Citation needed --Uncia (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the Book burnings are oversourced. I'd try to pare these down to one or two of the most reliable sources for each claim.

 Done I simplified the narrative a little (mostly by cutting out direct quotes from the participants) and cut the references back to just the most reliable and accessible ones. --Uncia (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful, and very helpful comments. I have made most of the changes you recommended, and am working on the rest. --Uncia (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Just a side note. As it says at the top of the PR page, we have limited space here, and it's best not to add the "done" and "not done" templates. If you like, you can add a non-image version, as explained at the top of the PR page. Finetooth (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All done! Thanks again to Finetooth for extremely helpful comments; I think the article is much better now that when it started peer review. I'm going to leave it at peer review until 20 August (14 days after last comments) in case anyone wants to comment further. Then I'll archive the peer review and move on to WP:GAN. --Uncia (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Boys in Red accident

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Well pretty much all the developments I was anticipating coming up on this subject have occurred and this article is now complete from a content perspective and compared to many other articles on "smaller accidents" on Wikipedia based off small disasters with few fatalities that generally don't make major headlines in international news I'm am extremely happy with how this one has developed. I find it is very informative and covers in detail the accident, reaction and has a detailed explanation on the aftermath and the changes to law and policy regarding student transportation with the province of New Brunswick resulting from the accident. The next step for this article is a FAC so to get ready for that I'm looking for a rather thorough review to cover a few areas of the article I am rather unsure of or may have done to an un-professional/encyclopedic standard even after it's first Peer Review about 6-7 months ago. So anyways, feedback would be appreciated on:

-Clarity: Is the information on this article easy to understand? Are their sections that are redundant or repeat a certain point to frequently? Feedback much appreciated here.

-Layout: Could I reorganize the information in this article in a better manner?

-English: Is the writing style good? Is it boring? Are there many mistakes in the article.

-References: Don't think these are an issue but as always they need to be looked at.

Feel free to point out other issues you find. I would much rather have a rough Peer Review than a rough FAC. Also any tips to a newcomer to FAC would be much appreciated! Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice article, interesting to read.
• Needs alt text in the images. See WP:ALT.

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Accident", first paragraph: three repetitions of the word "van" in the first three sentences. Consider rephrasing.

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Accident", second paragraph, adjective used where an adverb would be correct. ("Emergency services responded more slowly than usual", or maybe "emergency services responded less quickly than usual".) Consider rephrasing.

Changed. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• From my (British English) perspective, the article seems confused about what language it's in. There's "centre" instead of "center", which indicates Commonwealth English, but "tire" instead of "tyre" which suggests American. There's also "licence" early in the article, but "license" as a noun later on. Maybe these are features of Canadian, though, so there's not necessarily an error there.

Will look into this, not 100% sure on how license/center are spelled as I do tend to spend a lot of time on both American and British forums rather than Canadian ones. Tire however is correct in Canadian English usage. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• province intended to implement a "vast majority" of these recommendations at the satisfaction of many of the families—is "at" the correct preposition for that?

Re-phrased. Thanks for your help by the way. I will look into other issues over the next few days. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, I didn't feel the article would benefit from reorganisation, but I felt there was a slight tendency to overuse the passive voice. Maybe try varying the sentence length a bit more as well.

Hope this helps.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is in much better shape than the last time I read it. Even so, it is not yet up to FA standards. The toughest requirement for FA for many editors is that the prose should be of professional quality or close to it. All of the small errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar should be cleaned up, and the article should follow Manual of Style guidelines unless there is a good reason not to. In addition, the prose should flow and should be concise. The article would no doubt benefit from the advice of a copyeditor; you might be able to find one in the copyeditor sublist at WP:PRV. Here are a couple of other suggestions:

• WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... I would say that a term such as "School District 15" falls into this category. Just to be safe, I'd also recommend adding non-breaking spaces to things like 6,000 mourners to keep such things together.

• Dates such as 1984 should not be linked.

Addressed. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's generally better to turn bulleted lists into prose if they read well as prose.

Dealt with. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:ALLCAPS says in part, "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case: Replace "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today"." I see some of these in the "Reference" section.

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Newspaper names such as The New York Times need to be italicized.

I think you were referring to The Globe and Mail name in the article. If so that's fixed. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The url in citation 5 is dead. You might be able to find the story at another url or via the Internet Archive or some other archive.

Removed. Thank you for your suggestions. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dtbohrer

• Where does the nickname "Boys in Red" come from?

The title of this article seems to be constantly drawing scrutiny so I will explain it. The Bathurst Phantoms basketball team colors are red and black. Numerous media organizations have referred to the accident as either the Boys in Red accident or Boys in Red tragedy or stuff of the like, from my personal experience living within the province many people may also make reference to the accident simply by saying the Boys in Red. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is their any way that this could be worked into the article? I feel that it would beneficial. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first instance of Route 8 should probably be clarified as New Brunswick Route 8.

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "(The Pope) expresses sentiments of deep sympathy..." : "The Pope" should be surrounded by square brackets "[ ]", instead of parentheses, if it was not part of the original quote.

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any way of finding out what kind of truck the van hit (like semi, box truck, etc.)?

Clarified that it was a semi-trailer. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The url in citation 2 redirects to the Calgary Sun homepage.

Broken, redundant... removed. Thanks for your help. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just some minor details that weren't mentioned above. Interesting article, though... --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article to be ready for FA status, and this is timely in light of a substantial demographic shift occurring on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thanks, bd2412 T 16:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting and timely article, but I do not think it is yet ready for FAC. With WP:WIAFA in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think it would help to have a sentence or two somewhere early in the article explaining the Supreme Court for non-American readers (this is done nicely for the justices riding circuit).
• The previous point is symptomatic of a need to provide context for the reader. For example Justice Cardozo is first mentioned in this sentence but is not wikilinked or identified by full name: For example, in appointing Cardozo, President Hoover was as concerned about the controversy over having three New York Justices on the Court as he was about having two Jewish Justices.[8]
• Article needs more references, for example the fourth paragraph of Geographic background and the first paragraphs of both Ethnicity and Roman Catholic Justices all lack references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs like current 72 and 73 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
• Books all need publishers, ISBN etc.
• In the Catholic justices section, I would use the {{Main}} template instead of hiding the link to the list in the second to last paragraph. See, List of Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices.
• The end of the Catholic justics section mentions the Catholic majority on the court, then there is the Jewish justices section, then there is a section on "The shift to a Catholic majority". First off, per WP:HEAD this section should not start with the word "the" if at all possible. I also wonder if "Justices" should be capitalized in headers - is it customary to capitalize the word "justice"? More importantly, avoid repeating the same thing twice in two different sections. Most importantly, I also wonder if logically it would make sense to avoid separation of these two sections by the Jewish justices section - could the "Shift to a Catholic majority" section be a subsection of the Catholic justices section for example?
• The article seems a bit skewed towards its current makeup. See WP:WEIGHT
• Also avoid words like "Currently" instead use wording like "As of July 2009"
• The article has some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in almost all cases.
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• At FAC images will need alternate text per WP:ALT

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 _><>°^° 03:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on these issues. I don't think the issue of recentism can be avoided, however, for two reasons. First, the Court has only recently tended to become diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity, and even to a degree in terms of religion. Second, there is simply much more information available about the lives of more recent justices. bd2412 T 04:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that more data is available for recent Justices, but it seems like the article is focused mostly on the current 9 (plus Souter) - could the finances section be expanded to the past 20 years or so, for example? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on scaring up some more data next week. bd2412 T 03:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on what work remains before sending it up for featured list status. It has undergone a lot of renovations over the last year+, including massive redos of all the episode summaries to bring them within the guidelines for length, a lead rewrite, and extensive sourcing. Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from User:Tintor2

• The first paragraph needs a reference for the director and Pierrot.
• "As expected" in the second paragraph seems a bit informal. It could use "Like the previous dub" in my opinion.
• Primary references for the theme songs could help to avoid issues in the FLC.
• The last two sentences from the lead could use a ref. I suppose Amazon has the DVDs info.

All fixed except the themes - shouldn't need an inline cite as it is sourced to the episodes (didn't need one for the main's FA). Will add if its been an issue in recent FLCs though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on spelling, grammar, and style through episode 26. I can look at the rest later. Feel free to use your own discretion as I have not seen the show. Arsonal (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• First para: 1. "...infused with the DNA of rare animals giving them special powers..." Comma after 'them'. 2. "...the girls protect the earth from aliens who wish to "reclaim" it." Recommend changing 'the earth' to 'Earth'.
• Second para: 1. "...premiered on TV Aichi on April 6, 2002 where it ran..." Comma after '2002'. 2. "Mew Mew Power was licensed for regional language broadcast in French by Arès Films." Change 'French' to 'France' to refer to the language of a location.
• Third para: ""Koi wa A La Mode" , performed by the five voice actors..." There is an extra space after the song title.
• I recommend wikilinking countries, but you can get a second opinion on that.
• Random Pop Girl is an interesting name for a TV channel...

Episodes

• Ep2: "Ichigo begins working at Cafe Mew Mew and searching for the other four girls who bear the Mew marks." The second half sounds strange, recommend changing 'and' to 'while'.
• Ep3: "Instead, they find Lettuce afraid of being isolated because of her new powers and started "haunting" the pool." Correct past tense.
• Ep5: "The team remins still happy with second place and names Ichigo the team's Most Valuable Player." Typo on 'remins'?
• Ep6: "The woman, Mary McGuire, is a pianist who Ryou asked for a performance at an upcoming formal party to reward the girls for their good work." Change who → whom.
• Ep7: 1. "Ichigo finally yells at her, but later..." Remove comma. 2. "While protecting Ichigo and Mint the monster's attacks, Pudding's mew mark is revealed and she transforms into Mew Pudding." Comma after 'Mint', semicolon instead of comma after 'attacks'.
• Ep8: "The incident prompted the other villagers to join in Masazou's cause to oppose the construction." Past to present tense.
• Ep10: "At the café, the girls read a newspaper article about the incident and realize that none of them are the girl shown in the picture." 'None of them are' should be 'None of them is'.
• Ep11: "...so they introduce themselves to Tokyo as the protectors of justice, "Tokyo Mew Mew."" Period goes after the double quotes.
• Ep12: "A fight keeps Ichigo preoccupied to destroy the tree simultaneously, and it begins releasing its poison." Is it supposed to be 'preoccupied from destroying'?
• Ep13: 1. "Worried about Masaya knowing her identity..." Change 'knowing' to 'discovering'? 2. Wikilink kendo.
• Ep15: "Ichigo users her new attack to destroy the chimera anima..." Typo on 'users'.
• Ep16: 1. "...Lettuce realizes that she is who he really loves." Change 'who' to 'whom'. 2. "Later, she sees Norihiro gives Satsuki and engagement ring." Typo on 'and'.
• Ep18: "...eventually learning its Lettuce and Pudding spying on them..." 'Its' should have and apostrophe.
• Ep19: "...despite having a name meaning "dolphin."" Period goes after the double quotes.
• Ep20: "Instead, she asks the teacher if she could pretend to be her mom for a little while." Change 'could' to 'can'.
• Ep21: 1. Wikilink ultramarine lorikeet. 2. "The aliens are also searching for it and appear to find it..." Did they find it or didn't they?
• Ep22: "Ichigo laments her undone homework, but gets no help." Remove comma.
• Ep23: 1. "Hurt, the girls run out of the café and Ichigo scolders Ryou and Keiichiro for ignoring the girls' feelings." Change 'scolders' to 'scolds'. 2. "Kish appears and creates two chimera animas from the spirits he's stolen from Miwa and Mow." Expand contraction. 3. "Ichigo defeats them and the girls spirits are restored..." Comma after 'them' and apostrophe after 'girls'.
• Ep24: "The Mew Mews fight for the stone, but are having a hard time..." Remove comma.
• Ep25: "Masha and Keiichiro discover the cocoon and the Mew Mews rush to Tokyo Tower." Add comma after 'cocoon'.
• Ep26: 1. "The Mew Mews attack the cocoon at the top of Tokyo Tower, but are unable to destroy it and a huge moth hatches from it." Move comma to after 'destroy it'. 2. "Kish interrupts causing her to fall..." Comma after 'interrupts'.

Thanks, all fixed (I hope?) :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More comments Same deal with discretion. Arsonal (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Image needs a descriptive alternate text.
• There seems to be an error on the first citation about Studio Pierrot. It looks like the original reference tag was removed in a previous edit.
• Ref 12 seems dead according to Checklinks.

Episodes

• Ep24&25: Why do they also have Mew Mew Power titles if they were not aired in the US?
• Ep27: "Outside, Ichigo bends over the sleeping Masaya and thinks about kisses." Change the last part to "thinks about kissing kim"?
• Ep29: 1. Disambiguate Siamese to Siamese (cat). 2. "Fiancée" should be "fiancé" for the male version.
• Ep34: "...took all of the credit for making it, and denies..." Drop the comma.
• Ep35: "Ichigo learns she is a fan of Zakuro's..." The possessive is not appropriate here.
• Ep40: "...finding Tart under the dome." Capitalize "dome".
• Ep41: "Mew Lettuce and Ryou arrive by bought..." Typo on "bought"?
• Ep43: "Ichigo still believes Zakuro has not betrayed them, Mint says people change." Sentence needs a transition or a semicolon instead.
• Ep44: "...Ryou can not be the Blue Knight..." No space between "can" and "not".
• Ep45: 1. "Valentines Day" should be "Valentine's Day". 2. "Just as kis is about to kill him..." I suppose "kis" should be "Kish"?
• Ep46: 1. "...one where he invited to join the team..." Missing "is" after "he". 2. Change "...the Mew Mew wonders what is going on" to "...the Mew Mews wonder"?
• Ep47: I don't think octopus arms are called tentacles.
• Ep48: "Masaya returns to normal, seeming unharmed." Change "seeming" to "seemingly".
• Ep49: "Ryou realizes its a trap..." Change "its" to "it's".
• Ep52: 1. "...Deep Blue wins and claims he has destroy Masaya completely..." Should be "has destroyed". 2. "...moves to activate the mew aqua and destroy the Earth." Does he activate the mew aqua to destroy Earth or is he actually already in the process of destroying Earth?

While they were not aired in the US, they were produced and the episodes included in the non-US airings and releases (including the UK airing), so they still have Mew Mew Power titles. All the rest fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Good luck with the FLN. :) Arsonal (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again for reviewing the list! Been ages since I've seen such a thorough PR! :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

---

Metroid: Other M

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive comments on how to improve it. Gary King (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts were "wait until the game comes out," but it seems like you've covered everything that can be. Some stupidly minor grammar things and other stuff:

• "...a trailer was briefly shown during the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2009," This comma should be a period.
• "...the game would be a return to the style of the traditional series as opposed to the Prime series, though the game would have a "harder edge"." Maybe you should clarify what this "return to form" is. Also, how does the "harder edge" element correlate to the game being in the Prime series vs. being a traditional Metroid game?
• "Set between Super Metroid and Metroid Fusion, Sakamoto said..." Maybe I'm the only one who sees this, but in my mind, Sakamoto himself is set between Super Metroid and Metroid Fusion.
• "In the aforementioned interview, Jeremy Parish expresses worries that..." Say who Jeremy Parish is, and maybe mention 1UP somewhere as well.
• "Yusuke Hayashi has stated that..." The way this line comes right after Jeremy's interview question, it makes me that Hayashi's quote was not an answer. I don't know how to explain what I'm thinking. It would sound better to me if you wrote "in response," as opposed to just "he stated." I guess to me it disconnects the interview question from the answer.
• "Yoshio Sakamoto confirms that..." I don't know what tense you're supposed to write in, but you've mixed past and present a bit in the article.

It's not a lot, but I hope it helps. As far as broader things, I don't know what else there is to do. The Development section reads more like a What the gameplay will be sort of section, although that can't be helped. Over time, as previews come out and gameplay elements are solidified, you can start an actual Gameplay section and focus on Other M's pre-release life in the Development section --gakon5 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, all done except for the second point, which are grabbed from an announcement article for the game. These quotes are not expanded on in the original article so that's all we've got. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Operation Crossroads

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

I think this article has progressed to the point it's better then a B-class article. It's well sourced, well illustrated (with a featured picture) and plenty of content. I think it's well on the way to being a featured article, and would like to know what additional work needs done.

Thanks, — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth

I found this to be most interesting, well-written, apparently comprehensive, and well-illustrated. It's greatest weakness may be its lack of sourcing in places and its tendency to inject explanations that may be true but appear to come from the general knowledge of the subject by Wikipedia editor(s) rather than verifiable sources. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. I did a close reading down to the "Radiation" section, and I noted several recurring small problems such as the lack of metric conversions in many places, the lack of non-breaking spaces here and there, and a few unexplained technical terms that could be linked or briefly explained for the general reader. Mainly, though, this looks very good, and you should be able to get it to FA quality with more work.

General

• Images need alt text to pass FAC reviews. See WP:ALT for details and examples.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead comes pretty close but doesn't mention "Bikini after Crossroads" or "Legacy" and might be a bit more inclusive.

• Per WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting, dates should no longer be autoformatted.

Preparation

• "The atoll remains unpopulated." - It would be good to include here "as of 2009" so that the reader can tell whether the information is up-to-date.

Ships

• "brought 200 pigs, 60 guinea pigs, 204 goats, 5000 rats, 200 mice" - WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... " - Subject to interpretation, this might include constructions like 200 pigs. Just to be safe, I often add nbsps to combination like these.
• "containing insects to be studied for genetic effects by the National Cancer Institute" - Wikilink National Cancer Institute?

Cameras

• "and 1,500,000 feet of motion picture film" - Metric conversion?

Nicknames

• "the time of detonation for each test was announced as "H" or "How" hour;[11] in the official JTF-1 history, the term "M" or "Mike" hour is used instead" - It would be interesting to know why "M" is used. "H" comes from "hour" presumably, but what does "M" hour derive from, if anything?
• It's a good rule of thumb to provide at least one source for each paragraph as well as sources for direct quotes, sets of statistics, and any claims that might reasonably be questioned. Two of the paragraphs in this section are unsourced. Quite a few others are unsourced elsewhere in the article, including some with statistics and technical analyses that are not common knowledge and can probably be sourced.
• "starting in 1946, of bikini as the name of for woman's two-piece bathing suit" - "a woman's"? Or "for women's two-piece bathing suits"? Or "the name of two-piece bathing suits for women"?

Test Able - July 1

• "painted red, with white gun barrels and gunwales" - Wikilink gunwales?
• "inside a firestorm over two miles wide." - Metric conversion?
• "But water doesn't burn, and warships, other than aircraft carriers, are extremely resistant to blast and fire." - Probably true, but this reads like an interpretation by the Wikipedia editor. That, in turn, calls attention to the fact that most of the material in this section is unsourced.

Radiation

• "Altogether, 35% of the animals died as a direct result of blast" - Since you use "percent" earlier in the paragraph, this should be "percent" for consistency. Ditto for similar instances. The symbol, %, is also an option in some circumstances but probably not here.
• "Since rats made up 86% of the total, obviously not all of them survived." - "Obviously" is an editorial comment, and the rest of the sentence seems to refer to a calculation made by the Wikipedia editor. Shorten to "Not all of them survived" or give the number of survivors?
• "Although the Able bomb missed its target, Nevada, by nearly half a mile," - Metric conversion?
• "Had the Nevada been fully manned, she would likely have become a floating coffin, dead in the water for lack of a live crew." - It seems likely, but is this Wikipedia's interpretation, or can it be backed up by a reliable source?

Test Baker - July 25

• "Wilson cloud" appears here and in the lead photo. Should it be linked (perhaps to Wilson cloud chamber or briefly explained?
• "any ships that remained afloat within 1,000 yards" - Metric conversion? Ditto for other unconverted imperial expressions in the article.
• Citation 17 seems to be floating under the table on my computer screen.
• "where she capsized in shallow water on 22 December 1946" - Dates are no longer autoformatted.

Sequence of blast events

• "The Able shot also produced a Wilson cloud, but heat from the fireball dried it out more quickly." - The Manual of Style generally advises against extremely short paragraphs such as this one. Two possible solutions are to expand or to merge. With this one, I'd suggest merging with the paragraph above.

References

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
• A few of the references such as Citation 49 are malformed in that the title is normally linked, and the bare url is invisible.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article about a subject of your own choosing. I found this one in the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Ordonnance (French constitutional law)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know

• whether it is intelligible by non-French readers (maybe restricting oneself to people who are familiar with Law or government procedures in general),
• whether there are things that should be improved, especially compared to the Manual of Style and other formal criteria.

Thanks, David.Monniaux (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good work! I found it intelligible. I do read French, though, and I am familiar with both law and government procedures.
• In doing my background research for this review, I read fr:Ordonnance en droit constitutionnel français on the French Wikipedia. Can I suggest that you expand this article with some material translated from that one? The French article's structure also has useful aspects. (If you translate material from the French Wikipedia, please add {{translated|fr|Ordonnance en droit constitutionnel français}} to the article's talk page—please make sure it's the talk page not the article itself—in order to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licencing rules.)
• Please do feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you'd like me to look at it again after any edits you make.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I don't read French, but these sound like good suggestions. I had read the article already and here are some suggestions for improvement based mostly on the MOS.

• The article needs more references - for example both the Motivations and Vocabulary notes sections have no references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• While there is a choice of the kind of references used, the MOS says to pick one and stick with it - so The use of ordonnances for controversial laws is generally criticized by the opposition as anti-democratic, and demeaning to Parliament (Guillaume, 2005), in much the same way as the use of article 49-3 to force a bill to be voted.[10] needs to be fixed, for example
• The article has a large number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should either be combined with others or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
• The Previous usages section might work better as a History section (suitably expanded) and might also work better earlier in the article (explain how the practice came to be, then describe how it is used today)
• Could images be added? Perhaps photos of the government building(s) in Paris where these are issued / made (not sure of the verb)?

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for Featured Article, and I'd like review of it before doing so.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have done the first part. I will get back to complete my review, but my online access during the next few days is going to be limited, so there may be delays. The article looks like the usual comprehensively researched study of Nixon's rise to power; the points I raise are mostly minor prose issues.

• Lead
  • Lead
  • As there was a third candidate, I'm not sure you should say that the elaction was "between" Nixon and Voorhis
    • I've put Hoeppel in the lead sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Various" and "varies" in successive sentences does not sound well. Also, I don't don't understand "The amount of evidence for these claims varies" The amount varies, i.e. goes up and down? Rewording advised.
    • • Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• District and campaign
  • First sentence: "Since its creation following the 1930 census due to California's population growth, the 12th district had been represented by Democrats." The clauses read awkwardly; a smoother version might be: "Since its creation, after the 1930 census had revealed California's population growth, the 12th district had been represented by Democrats."
    • Prob just bet to strike the clause about population growth. I threw in a pipe to reapportionment.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am uneasy about using "today" to indicate a point in time. I suggest the sentence begins: "The area has since been entirely absorbed..." etc
  • Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be clarified that the legislature doing the gerrymandering was the California state legislature, presumably Republican-dominated.
    • It was and it was, though Governor Culbert Olson was a Democrat and the Assembly (lower house) was governed by a coalition between Republicans and conservative Democrats. However, the sources indicate that the Republicans dominated, and I will so state. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Elected as part of the Roosevelt landslide of 1936, his 1938 opponent was so shy..." The opponent wasn't elected, Voorhis was, so the sentence should begin: "When Voorhis was first elected, as part of..." etc
    • • Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Search for a candidate
  • "...in advance of the June primary election" needs a year.
    • Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the semicolon after "controversy" with a full stop, to break an overlong sentence. I also wonder if "controversy" is the right word for press opposition from one newspaper?
    • I've switched to "editorial concern". That happened to be in the '46 campaign files at the Nixon library, and those files are not extensive. I don't know if others felt the same way or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "He continued to consider running..." - "He vacillated..."?
    • Don't know if he did or didn't. I think vacillated is too strong a word. That implies sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't know anything more about Dexter's frame of mind than is stated. He may just have been holding the Committee's feet over the fire for a job assurance. I don't take Voorhis's "hard to beat" comment too seriously, he had a depressive state of mind. Brooding, one Nixon biographer characterizes him.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Had Hoeppel changed parties? Should be clarified.
    • Probably he didn't. He ran three times in the Republican primary between 1938 and 1944 too. Not unusual under cross filing for a candidate to run in another party's primary, not his own, especially if a minor party. I think Hoeppel sailed under a flag of convenience. He wanted Voorhis's head. There's really not enough info to clarify this in the article. It would be possible to find out his voter registration, but I'm not planning to go to Sacramento anytime soon. Minor point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have been advised that for "sic" one should use the template, thus: [sic]
    • Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Who was the "former Whittier president" who recommended Nixon?
    • Dexter, he's described as such. But I changed it to "he".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "While a number of potential rivals also showed up at the meeting on November 2, 1945, including a local judge and assemblyman, Nixon, who spoke last, was, according to one Committee member, "electrifying"." "While" is not appropriate here; the two parts of the sentence (a number of rivals showing up, and Nixon's electrifying speech) are not connected. Suggest drop "while" and split sentence after "assemblyman".
    • • OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Primary campaign
  • Far too many commas (six) in opening sentence. My version would be: "Nixon was discharged from the Navy at the start of 1946; within days Richard and Pat Nixon, the latter eight months pregnant, returned to Whittier where they initially moved in with the candidate's parents, Frank and Hannah. (3 commas plus semicolon)
    • I divided the sentence up.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Second sentence: "in fact" redundant.
    • It's one of my writing quirks. Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Hoeppel filed as a Prohibitionist." This political shorthand won't be widely understood - at least, not here in the UK. We need to be told that he entered the election as a Prohibitionist candidate. "Nevertheless" is not the right word to begin this sentence; "Subsequently" would be OK.
    • Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "The consultant, Murray Chotiner..." At this stage, I think "a political consultant"
    • • Yep. Done and piped. The start of a rather odd relationship.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• General election (intro)
  • "...while driving to California from Washington D.C. in August, he was forced to have surgery for hemorrhoids in Ogden, Utah." I am not familiar with US medical procedures, but this sounds quite impressive. My suggested version is a lot less intriguing: "...while driving to California from Washington D.C. in August, he was delayed in Ogden, Utah, where he underwent surgery for hemorrhoids."
    • There you see the down side of having socialized medicine. Still, I am decide you don't have drive in surgery for hemorrhoids. They wash your car, too. But I digress. Changed, but some of the life is out of the article. My change is rather simpler, I just struck "driving" and inserted "en route".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• South Pasadena debates
  • "the May media attacks" - which attacks were these? I can't find an earlier mention.
    • Perhaps stated too dramatically. I meant press comment over the initial claims about the PAC issue, which puzzled Voorhis, because he knew he hadn't been endorsed by the CIO-PAC. Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there is substantial over-detailing in the background information you give concerning the South Pasadena debate. For example, the information about Knowland sending Chotiner, or Will Rogers sending Holifield, is not relevant to the debate between Nixon and Voorhis. I recommend some blue pencilwork at the lower end of the first paragraph. The account of the debate itself is compelling, and it's a pity to have it watered down by an over-fussy prelude.
    • I think you have to introduce Holifield and stress that he was there, as he tells Voorhis that Nixon cut him to pieces. His presence is essential to that, and it is less effective to introduce him at the end. Granting that, it costs nothing to mention that Chotiner was the Knowland proxy. I have cut back by deleting the sentence about how Nixon and Voorhis were the only candidates addressing the crowd, not counting cross-filing victor Holifield.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit more...

• Additional debates
  • "with the debate sponsored by the Whittier Ex-Servicemen's Association, attendance was limited to veterans," suggest should start "as the debate as sponsored by..." etc
    • Got it. It was a small hall by the way, they had to limit attendence. I couldn't find any info on it, which is why it is the only debate site not photographed. Probably name change or torn down.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, McCall challenged the Voorhis campaign to as many as eight additional debates, of which three were actually held, after Chotiner convinced the candidate that he needed to run an aggressive campaign to the end." I think a more logical structure is "Nonetheless, after Chotiner convinced Nixon that he needed to run an aggressive campaign to the end, McCall challenged the Voorhis campaign to as many as eight additional debates, of which three were actually held."
    • Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nixon parried that with a comment that..." Suggest lose the first "that".
    • OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Final days
  • "ad" is a bit informal
  • "...when outraged Nixon supporters demanded an endorsement of Nixon or at least a retraction of the letter, refused." Need to specify "Warren refused."
    • Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "On election night, Voorhis took an early lead,..." Suggest: "On election night, Voorhis took an early lead in the vote count,..."
    • Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be back to finish off. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Later

• Candidates: no comment
• Historical issues
  • "would be scrutinized" - "was scrutinized", perhaps?
    • Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Two successive sentences begin "Nixon biographer"
    • Not any more.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled by the sentence "As each candidate completed his career in political office, he wrote a memoir." It's not clear who is being written about here, or whether it is a general observation. I don't think it adds anything, it interferes with the flow, and would be best deleted.
    • I intended it as a transition into what the candidates said about it in their memoirs, but I guess you are right. Sliced and mild modifications made to following sentences.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1948, Voorhis alleged..." The pronoun could be used here.
    • "He"eded.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In what way was Hiss Nixon's nemesis? The other way round, I would have thought?
    • I think it is OK, but I understand that some might think that the nemesis relationship only goes one way, so have changed to "enemy".--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nine years later, Voorhis..." - nine years later than what? Needs clarification.
    • Dated.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Parmet need not be fully described again.
    • Amended.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Voorhis's 1947 publication was earlier described as a "memoir". Now we have (twice) "memoirs". Consistency needed.
    • Singularized.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "writing nine years after Morris" - when did Morris write?
    • 1990, as the reader now knows.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll finish when I get home tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, just a few minor points to finish:-

• Nixon campaign
  • Not many of us insular Brits know that G.O.P. means Republican Party, so I suggest a link. (I would also prefer GOP to G.O.P.)
    • Will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "The campaign emphasized smaller papers,..." - "emphasized" meaning concentrated on. I'm not sure this is the best choice of verb.
    • • Targeted? Will ponder.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nixon supporter and Republican National Committeeman from California McIntyre Faries..." This seems unnecessarily clumsy; perhaps "McIntyre Faries, Republican National Committeeman from California and a Nixon supporter,..." Also, is there a link that can help explain "Republican National Committeeman" - is this a significant office?
    • • Significant party office. I'll link to Republican National Committee. At the time, there was a committeeman and a committeewoman for each state and territory. Basically, it is the national party's governing body between conventions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Voorhis campaign: Just one small point - "Nixon later stated..." Could we know when Nixon stated this?
  • He said it in 1960, when he initially refused to debate Kennedy. I've added the info and a source in a footnote so as not to distract the reader, but still make it available to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• General comment. Very thorough, no stone left unturned. Probably needs a slow readthrough out loud, to pick up any remaining prose glitches/slightly awkward phrases, but overall looks like a worthy addition to the series. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that and perhaps nom it over the weekend. Am giving a thought to writing about the Alger Hiss affair, plenty of sources there, but I have a bunch of projects going, still, would be nice to have the article for the 60th anniversary of Hiss's conviction of perjury in January. We'll see. Thanks for the review!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

---

2008 Maryland Terrapins football team

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for featured article review. I think prose is probably the area in need of the most attention, although I am open to any constructive criticism. I don't think the prose is bad, but I've written essentially all of it, so it really needs a fresh set of eyes on it for a different perspective. Sometimes you can read your own writing again and again and not notice obvious errors.

Thanks in advance. Strikehold (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is excellent, and I think it's close to FA. However, I found quite a few small problems or errors related to the Manual of Style and other Wikipedia guidelines. I fixed a few minor punctuation errors and other small things, but I did not read the game descriptions closely enough to catch everything. More proofing never hurts. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

• The Terrapins were within grasp of the ACC Atlantic Division championship at the end of Week 12, but lost its final two games... " - Should it be "Terrapins ... their" rather than "Terrapins ... its"?

Key losses

• "Henderson, the brother of Butkus and Bednarik Award winner E.J." - I think I'd make this "E.J. Henderson" for clarity. Sometimes brothers have different last names.

Key returns

• "Forty-six of sixty-two lettermen returned (74%)" - Generally, the Manual of Style recommends "percent" instead of the symbol in simple cases like this.

Recruiting

• "was the only four-star prospect to see significant play time in 2008" - "playing" rather than "play"?
• "a position that had been attrited by the graduation of former starters Christian Varner" - Is "attrited" a word? "Vacated"? "Left empty"? "Reduced"?
• "but injured his foot and earned a medical redshirt" - "was granted" rather than "earned"?

Quarterback controversy

• Blockquotes don't need quotation marks, per WP:MOSQUOTE.

Injuries

• "while 2008 was more forgiving by comparison, it still saw several key players injured" - Since years don't literally see, I might suggest a recast like this: "while 2008 was more forgiving by comparison, several key players were injured... ".

Depth chart

• Perhaps depth chart should be linked on first use in the text (but not the heads or subheads).
• Italics are usually used sparingly. I think the depth-chart footnotes would be fine in plain type.
• "Bold indicates starter as of 28 Sep 08" - The date formatting should conform to the date formatting of the rest of the text; i.e. "September 28, 2008".

Bowl selection process

• "the latter threw for an additional 2,479 yards.[80][79]" - It's considered good form to arrange series of citation numbers in ascending order; i.e., [79][80]. Ditto for any other sequences like this in the article.

NFL draft

• "who ran the fastest 40-yard dash time at the combine of 4.30 seconds" - I added an nbsp here to prevent "4.30" and "seconds" from being separated by line-break on computer screens. WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... ". You might find more of these to fix elsewhere in the article.

Images

• The image templates will need to include alt text to pass FAC. WP:ALT has an explanation of what this entails and how to add alt text.
• It would be good to make the image licenses as complete and correct as possible. Image:Broncostadiumoct108.JPG, for example, is tagged because it is still uncategorized. Image:TerpsO.jpg has not yet been uploaded to the Commons. IMAGE:ChrisTurnerMarylandFootballCrop.jpg includes a rather round-about way of linking to the original source. It would be good to change it to link directly to Turner to make it easy for fact-checkers to verify the license.

Awards

• The dates here should all be in m-d-y format; i.e., September 29, 2008 rather than 29 September 2008, per WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency.

References

• The date formatting should all be consistent here too. The mix of yyyy-mm-dd and m-d-y will not pass scrutiny at FAC.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in your areas of interest. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what is needed in order to pass as FLC.

Thanks, Rubenescio (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by doncram Not sure a separate list for WHS sites in just one country is that worthwhile. Not very much additional material or discussion that is not or could not appear in a Europe-wide WHS list. Anyhow, I think you should include the coordinates of all of these Netherlands ones, and include a Google/Bing map link, so that readers can see where these are located. The WHS program provides coordinates at least for the approved ones, you might have to do some work to get coordinates for the proposed ones, I don't know. See Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites/Tables of WHS Sites for a working list of all the WHS sites, including coordinates from the WHS for many of them already. doncram (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: There should be some description about each of the sites, as is customary in featured lists about other kinds of historic sites. The intro text seems pretty well-written to me--I appreciate learning about how the WHS program works from that--but the main point of the list-article should be to convey the list of WHS sites and to describe them. Probably the description should convey specifically what is culturally important about the ones listed for their cultural importance, etc. For the editor who wishes to see more sources, this would provide opportunity to include a quote or two or other facts supported from other sources, too. doncram (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Further: I looked up the WHS program's coordinates for the approved NL sites, and added a table of them to the Talk page of the article. Feel free to cut-and-paste from there, to add coordinates into the actual article. I am just trying to be a bit more constructive, and I want to apologize for being maybe too negative to start. I also want to say i have been convinced by this article and the UK WHS list in progress, that separate country lists seem to be useful. I do think they should have a description column that explains the importance of each site, still.

The presence of the Curaçao entry (off of South America) in the list, and the Germany-shared one, raise for me some question as to what the article title should be. Currently the title is "List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands", which is not perfectly descriptive. It does not need to be perfectly descriptive; the article title as is can be okay. But, is there a better title possible? "List of World Heritage Sites associated with the Netherlands"? Not sure. I would not want the title to get to be awkward or long though. doncram (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Associated" might be too loose as sites in another country could be associated with the Netherlands. The problem arises because the Netherlands Antilles is included (UNESCO list the state controlling the sites as the Netherlands). As the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles are both constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, how about "list of World Heritage Sites in the Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'd defer to Rubenscio's judgement in this matter though. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The UK list, which includes 3 places not in the UK proper, has just been renamed by Nev1 to be List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom. How about going with the "of" rather than "in" preposition here, too: List of World Heritage Sites of the the Netherlands. That would allow for the Netherlands Antilles one and the one partly in Germany, which are culturally or naturally associated, but are not "in" the Netherlands. doncram (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1 (talk · contribs) Overall, this is a decent list but is slightly inaccessible. It's clearly been written by someone who is familiar with the concept of WHSs, the selection process and so on, but this means that some information has been excluded which could make the list difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Doncram also raises a good point about adding coordinates as this would allow users to see the sites on google maps. I do however strongly feel that having lists for individual countries is a good idea and disagree with the assertion that more discussion can't be added than a pan-Europe list; for instance the main European list doesn't mention tentatives and it would become unmanageably long if it did. I have a few comments which I think would help at FLC:

• It's not explained what a World Heritage Site is or the protection it gives to the sites.
• "Seven of these are cultural properties and one is a natural property": it should be explained what cultural and natural properties are.
• The term "tentative list" needs to be explained.
• "Eleven properties were submitted in 1995, only The Dutch Wadden Sea was added later, in 2007": is that just the Netherlands that nominated 11 properties?
• "Selection criteria i, ii, iii, iv, v, and vi are the cultural criteria, and selection criteria vii, viii, ix, and x are the natural criteria": ok, so what are the criteria?
• The external links in the reference column should be converted into inline citations using <ref></ref> tags.

I think it might be useful to have a notes column with a brief explanation of what the sites are. This means that the reader doesn't have to navigate away from the list to find out a little about the site beyond stuff such as when it was listed and its reference number. Also, the lead seems a bit light and could do with expansion. What period do the sites range from? Is there a particular period with more representation? Why is that? There's probably more stuff to add, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head. I don't know if there are any list of WHSs in ... FLs but I think this could make a good template and I'll look into emulating it for List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom. I'll be keeping tabs on this list and I'll be interested to see how it progresses. Nev1 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Compared to other Category:FL-Class List articles, this article is exclusively self-sourced. That is a major issue. Prapsnot (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about your comment, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. WP:V#SELF applies to self-published sources. UNESCO, and other organistations that look after assorted historic sites, who publish the information are experts and involved in the preservation of the sites. Could you expand on what you mean, as I don't think it's clear. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe any expansion effort for FL would be helped by other sources. I don't think the List is biased or self-serving. It does seem that UNESCO information is good enough for the article to exist (I don't agree the list is not worthwhile); however, it is very bare.
  
  Are there any annual number of visitors estimates, annual cost of upkeep, visitors over the past 10 years? Someone mentioned before that you may want to spell out the actual selection criteria, the kind of detail left out of the main article that should be found there is missing. It should not be a content fork. But if there is a lack of additional information at UNESCO, perhaps Magazine or Newspaper articles, or Books featuring those locations can provide it. Is there information on when some sites were last renovated or the date of the last preservation effort, how much did that cost? Current population or demographic information? Most famous prior resident? Depiction in a work of art, painting, film, etc? Not a long paragraph, but an extra detail in a note here or there with a verifiable source. An extra detail instead of just a picture and an external link. Just population estimate for each area for example, or whatever interesting detail can be found (even if it can' be found for the others).
  
  Also, some of your interwiki links are misleading. If there is no specific article named "Historic Area of Willemstad, the Inner City and Harbour," but there is an article named "Willemstad, Netherlands Antillies", then only the word "Willemstad" should be interwiki linked. It just needs some work.
  
  Sure, the UK list is better; but simply paraphrasing UNESCO, and not getting other sources for their centuries old sites, is just lazy. But then again, that article is not trying for FL status, it is happy with just being a list.Prapsnot (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the list could do with some expansion (I suggested as much in my first comments at the peer review), but I don't think all of your suggestion would be useful.

In a list article, only the important information about an entry (in this case a World Heritage Site) should be included to prevent it from becoming too long. In this case, states of preservation and dates belong in the individual articles. The UK is already struggling with the amount of information, and that just includes the period the site dates from, the date of its inscription, and a description of why the site is important. "Most famous prior resident" is subjective, but it is worth stating who the site was built for (in a notes section). These are historic sites, the population and demography isn't relevant. Info on "Depiction in a work of art, painting, film, etc" belongs in the individual articles. I believe the same can be said for upkeep and visitor numbers, although they are at least more relevant to WHS. To take the example of the Derwent Valley Mills in England (I use this example because I'm familiar with the site), a site which covers nearly 5 miles², it would be impossible to measure visitor numbers accurately (nothing more useful than an educated guess could be made). Unless there was a source which used consistent methods to measure visitor numbers, it wouldn't be useful comparing them, and for the UK at least I don't think one exists.

Now I agree that having a wide range of sources is desirable, however this is a list rather than an article. If all the relevant information is available from one source, I don't see the point in looking for other sources (but only because this is an encyclopedic article rather than academic). It's the easiest course of action, but by no means does it make someone who writes these lists lazy, as I know from personal experience. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then maybe List of World Heritage Sites in Europe is the list that has a chance at becoming a Featured List, since it is the most comprehensive.Prapsnot (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

There Goes the Neighborhood (TV series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I started it a few days ago and want to see if I can get this to Featured Status in the future (not for a long while, it's got a ways to go). Just wanted to know if it was off to a good start and draw some attention to it.

Thanks, T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start; the writing is generally clear and relatively, though not completely, free of error. However, the article is in such an early state that it's hard to do much of a peer review (PR). As the instructions at the top of the PR page say, PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Nevertheless, here are a few suggestions:

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead is an introductory paragraph rather than a summary. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything that is undeveloped in the main text sections. My advice would be to expand the article and then to completely rewrite the lead according to the guidelines.

• WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting says, "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)."

• "one family will be banished from the neighborhood, thereby eliminating them" - "One family" is an "it" rather than a "them". Careful proofreading should catch and fix small things like this.

• It would probably be helpful to say early in the lead that this is a show on U.S. television. "American Idol" only hints at that in the last line.

• Overlinking. Common words like "family" and "neighborhood" don't need to be linked.

• WP:IMAGES advises against making text sandwiches like the one in the "Production" section and the infobox.

• In Wikipedia articles, most measurements given in imperial units are also given in metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for these, though it takes a bit of reading and practice to learn how to use it. You can also do the conversions by hand and enter them. I added the template for the wall height, so you can see in edit mode how it was done. The adj=on parameter adds the hyphen, and the 0 at the end is the degree of rounding (nearest whole number).

References

• Since this is a U.S.-centric article, the date formatting in the references should be m-d-y (June 30, 2009) rather than d-m-y.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

---

Charles L. McNary

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Aboutmovies and I would like to take it to FAC, and we would appreciate advice from as many editors as possible before doing that.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remarks on first reading—The prose is a bit flat and stilted for my taste. Personally, I'd go through it looking for repeated words (e.g. "served" in the lede), passive voice sentences that could be simplified to the active (e.g. "When the two married in 1860, McNary was given a 112-acre (0.45 km2) farm in what is now the city of Keizer by his new father-in-law." → "On their marriage in 1860, McNary's new father-in-law gave him a 112-acre (0.45 km2) farm in what is now the city of Keizer."), French-origin terms that could be simplified to Anglo-Saxon ("purchased" → "bought", "agricultural" → "farming", "requested he return home" → "asked him to come home"), circumlocutions (e.g. "the daughter of a successful Salem businessman" → "A successful Salem businessman's daughter.")
• Going back over it a bit later for more in-depth remarks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remarks on second reading—There's at least one other image on Wikimedia Commons that might help make the article more attractive.

  Aside from that, I haven't found anything else to criticise about it; so I don't have much else to add on second reading. It's a decent, thorough article and on simplifying and freshening up the English a bit, I think it'll be fit to stand alongside Wikipedia's best work.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these helpful suggestions. This was just the sort of critique I was looking for, and I'll do some revising this week along the lines you suggest. Might I ask which additional image you found most fetching? Finetooth (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• A pleasure! Personally I'd use this one:
• thumb|left|McNary in more modern dress

  —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. Side note: I added a front colon to the image template above to reduce the load time on this PR page. (That turns it into a clickable link but doesn't display the image directly.) Finetooth (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

England

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I've put a lot of work into it in my note pad over the last five months and would like to know what needs to be done to get it up to GA status.

Thanks, Yorkshirian (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some comments from Nikkimaria

I have a few short suggestions for improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest moving "Demography" to right after "Geography"  Done
• I've usually seen "Economy" as a separate section from "Infrastructure"  Done
• Make sure each paragraph has at least one citation, if not more  Done
• Make sure that all units have conversions - use the convert template Done
• Be consistent in whether you use %, percent or per cent Done
• Look at WP:HYPHEN - you're missing hyphens in some places Done
• The pictures don't always match up to the text. For example, there are pictures of Boudica and Stonehenge in the history section, but neither are mentioned in the text Done
• The subdivisions picture is incorrectly named  Done
• On the "language" image, you might consider explaining what the colours mean  Done

Deserves GA status

• Endorse GA Its a perfect material for a GA article and this article definitely deserves a GA status. Nefirious (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Global Positioning System

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are plans to nominate the article, Global Positioning System, for Wikipedia Featured Article. This article has undergone considerable improvement over the past year or so with several new sections added and old ones updated. These improvements having been made, the article is now in a rather stable state with only minor changes being made on a day to day basis. We now have sections on position calculation (introductory and advanced), clock correction, and others as indicated in the table of contents. If you would like to comment on section 2 Basic concept of GPS, section 3.2 Navigation signals, section 3.4 C/A code, section 3.6 Error sources and analysis including the subsections, other sections which interest you, or make overall comments, it would be greatly appreciated. I think you will find the material interesting but we are interesting in hearing your opinions. Thanks, RHB100 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Titoxd's comments - In the lede:
  • It is the only fully functional GNSS in the world, can be used freely (unless technically restricted by the U.S. Department of Defense) - the "technically restricted" part seems a bit imprecise. Do you mean Selective Availability, the new M-codes, the anti-spoof or jamming?
  • ... satellites that transmit precise radiowave signals,... - you can afford to be more precise here. Use UHF instead.
  • Although NAVSTAR is not an acronym, a few backronyms have been created for it. - is this sentence really necessary? And the reference for the backronyms doesn't seem to pass WP:RS for starters...
  • The lede is rather short for an article of this size. A paragraph summarizing the history of the system should be added to the lede.
• History section
  • In the 1970s, the ground-based Omega Navigation System, based on signal phase comparison, - jargon. Either more development here or a link would be nice...
  • GPS requires the equations of general relativistic corrections to these atomic clocks in satellites for sufficient accuracy. - this just sounds grammatically wrong. "Equations to correct relativistic effects based on the theory of general relativity" would be better, I think.
  • The general relativistic equations correcting signals of atomic clocks in satellites were first published in 1956 by Friedwardt Winterberg - be more precise in the reference (you may want to use one of the citation templates), include publisher, author, etc. Also, full stops go before the reference, not the other way around (that is buried somewhere in WP:MOS as well).
  • The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator developed in the early 1940s, and used during World War II. - this sentence would flow better if it was split.
  • There is a big old comment in the source code: The converse is also true: if the satellite's position were known, they could identify their own position on Earth. (commented because I am not sure of this. At most, they would know the rate at which the distance between themselves and the satellite was changing. There would be at least two points (one each north and south of the equator) for which that would be true, and practically one would not get an exact position, especially with 1950s electronics, even if one knew the satellite's exact orbit, and the exact time - has that been resolved?
  • The entire second paragraph could use some references.
  • After Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was shot down in 1983 after straying into the USSR's prohibited airspace, - was this before or during the development of GPS? Also, this is repeated in the timeline...
  • Initially the highest quality signal was reserved for military use, while the signal available for civilian use was intentionally degraded ("Selective Availability", SA). Selective Availability was ended in 2000, improving the precision of civilian GPS from about 100m to about 20m. - this seems redundant to a whole section farther down the article...
  • The whole timeline section should be converted to prose. Keep the table, though.
• GPS concept
  • The trilateriation info is repeated twice in the same section. I would recommend keeping the content in the subsection, and leaving the overview in the first paragraph out. I'd try merging them somehow for style, but the overview just seems too lacking in details, especially when the info is fully developed less than a page away. (That, or just merge the two paragraphs together. The discontinuity in the treatment doesn't seem efficient here.)
  • I'm not sure the clock correction section should go here. That seems as more advanced a topic than necessary for a basic overview of the technology. Maybe it should be moved farther down the article. A sentence explaining that the fourth satellite can be used to correct the GPS unit's internal clock and a pointer to another section should suffice.
• More to come. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Inital comments from JMiall

• 'can be used freely (unless technically restricted by the U.S. Department of Defense) by anyone,' - this is a clunky bracketed clause in the most important part of the article. 'can be used freely by anyone (unless technically restricted by the U.S. Department of Defense),' would be an improvement or maybe 'can be used freely by anyone unless the system is technically restricted by the U.S. Department of Defense,'
• 'anywhere'- it can't actually be used anywhere. The lead should probably be more specific about where GPS/GNSSs can be used ie on the earth's surface or in the atmosphere with line of sight to several satellites
• the lead should probably also mention the approx location and time accuracy available as these are important aspects of why GPS use is widespread
• the link for 'phase comparison of signal transmission from pairs of stations' could be a ref rather than direct link. As could others.
• 'and hobbies such as geocaching' - there is no mention made of this in the main part of the article
• 'Friedwardt Winterberg [1] proposed a test of General Relativity using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit in artificial satellites' - when? can this sentence be combined with next. get rid of 1 of the 2 GR links in these.
• There should be a (non-breaking) space before all units
• link White Sands Missile Range
• 'In 1998, GPS technology was inducted into the Space Foundation Space Technology Hall of Fame' - is this worth mentioning?
• link 1st use of Galileo
• What was the 1st civilian product using GPS? This should be in the timeline.
• 'Using messages received from a minimum of four visible satellites, a GPS receiver is able to determine the satellite positions and time sent' - presumably 'times sent'. If each satellite broadcasts its own position then it only needs 1 visible satellite to determine that satellite's position.
• Are the procedures in 'Position calculation introduction' and 'Correcting a GPS receiver's clock' actually close to what is generally done (I haven't got far enough in the article yet)? Or is it best-fit a solve for all 4 parameters simultaneously?
• 'but this was modified to six planes with four satellites each' - why?
• There is very little information about what is actually on each satellite including in the article GPS satellite. For example do they have onboard power/thrust supplies that will run out? What method(s) do they use to correct alignment?
• 'GPS functionality has now started to move into mobile phones en masse' - when is 'now'? JMiall₰ 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

RHB100 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I thank all of the reviewers for the reviews they have submitted thus far. Your comments have been very useful and I hope you are able to work into your busy schedule the time to submit more. I am trying to update the article in response to your comments and will continue to do so. Both of you have commented on Winterberg. One has asked for a more precise reference and the other has requested getting rid of one of the links. I will try to respond to your comments and they are certainly appreciated. However, I do not have very good information on Winterberg and I don't know if more research on Winterberg is justified for a GPS article. RHB100 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I meant get rid of 1 of the 2 GR links, not both. I've changed it above. JMiall₰ 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Many changes have been made in response to your comments. Some but not all are mentioned in the following. A link was added to help explain how the location of Sputnik was determined. Typical position accuracy put in 1sr section. I finally realized that GR was an abbreviation for general relativity and I removed the 2nd link to general relativity. Links to White Sands and Galileo system added. The procedures in 'Position calculation introduction' and 'Correcting a GPS receiver's clock' are simplified expolanations of what is actually done. Changed time sent to times sent in Position calculation, introduction section. I added a diagram to the section on GPS receiver clock in order to make it more understandable and more appropriate for an introductory section. The Timeline section has been improved and the Modernization has been merged into the Timeline section. More links have been added at the beginning of the Space segment section in order to make more information on the satellites available. I have attempted to make sure that there is adequate space between numbers and units whether achieved by the math editor, table editor, or non-breaking spaces. Please let me know of any specific cases I have missed. Natural and artificial sources of interference have been put under Error sources and analysis.
RHB100 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the table at the beginning of Error sources and analysis, we acknowledge that it is not made clear whether the numbers are standard deviatios or worst case errors. However, we are limited by what our source reference at the end of the 1st paragraph provides. In the analysis, we have taken the conservative approach by considering them to be standard deviations.
RHB100 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments from Mike1024:

• There are details on how position solutions are calculated in section 2, then section 3.4.3, then section 9, and the calculations are pretty involved. I would consider combining the three sections into a separate article, and maybe simplifying section 2 a bit and giving a link to the more detailed article.
• The article includes three pictures showing two spheres intersecting to form a circle - then goes off talking about using 4 satellites to calculate 4 unknowns. I realise it would be difficult to make a clear 3D image with 4 satellites in it, but I would consider using a 2D image to show that 3 satellites are necessary for the 2D case, and hence 4 satellites are required for the 3D case. I'm thinking something like figure 1 on <a href="http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/navsats/theory.html">this page</a>?
• In the 'Error sources and analysis' section there are a list of error sources such as "Signal Arrival C/A ± 3 m" - it's not clear whether that's a range (i.e. the error never exceeds 3m) or a standard deviation (i.e. the error exceeds 3m about 30% of the time), especially when it gets to calculations using the symbol sigma, which is the usual symbol for standard deviation.
• There's a Section 3.6, "Error sources and analysis", and a Section 4, "Possible sources of interference" - do these belong in the same section? I suppose arguably not though.
• The section "Geometric dilution of precision computation (DOP)" dives straight into how DOP is calculated, but does not explain what DOP is, or what it represents. I would consider a diagram as it's hard to explain in words. If you go for the separate article on calculations that I suggest above, you could also put the derivation of DOP equations section in there. Also, the section on DOP does all its calculations with values named x, y and z which implies (though it isn't specified) ECEF positioning - but in order to be able to calculate HDOP and VDOP isn't it typical to perform the calculations in the local tangential plane (ENU)?
• I would consider cleaning up the civilian applications section; for example the line about GPS tours looks like it was added later, and there is more text about CDMA synchronization applications than about personal navigation. Also, does the stuff about export regulations really belong in the 'civilian applications' section?
• The 'See also' section could be trimmed a bit, - I'm thinking the links to Exif, skyhook wireless, Bluetooth, things like that. Also, given that we have the page GNSS applications to list things that use GPS, I would have thought that Geodashing, Geocaching, Geotagging, Geofence, GPS drawing and so on could be moved to that page.

Needless to say these are just my observations on the article - it might be that I'm suggesting things that the article's more regular editors have a good reason not to do, in which case by all means discard the suggestions you don't like! Mike1024 (t/c) 09:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that a diagram would be helpful in explaining dilution of precision. DOP can be explained in words but a diagram would be helpful. A diagram may be added at some time in the future. Please do not assume that the use of x, y, and z imply that they are expression of the components of a vector in an ECEF coordinate system or any other coordinate system. I have always regarded x, y, and z as strictly generic unless otherwise stated and that x, y, and z can be used to express the components of a vector in any Cartesian coordinate system whatsoever including but not limited to a North, East, Down coordinate system a South, East, Up coordinate system, or a geocentric equatorial coordinate system. In making a numerical computation, the unit vector components in the A matrix should be in the coordinate system of interest. This will usually be a North, East, Down or South, East, Up coordinate system to correspond to our usual interpretation of the meaning of horizontal and vertical. RHB100 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The table "Summary of Satellites Launched" is a bit confusing - for example the column "Satellites launched" containing both launched and unlaunched satellites, plus signs, and three footnotes. I would consider splitting that into two columns, 'launched' and 'planned', with one footnote to denote launch failures. I would also consider changing the 'Currently in service' column from wording "12 of the 12 launched" to simply "12", as the number launched will be in a previous column. Mike1024 (t/c) 15:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think the table would be better if there were more columns and less use of superscripts. RHB100 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Charlotte Bobcats head coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is being peer reviewed per featured topic criteria 3c. Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• This precludes any other comments: does this topic even deserve an article? I know it's for the featured topic, but the article seems like content-forking to the extreme.

I asked rst20xx if content-forking is needed to make a topic featured, and I think he said yes... the discussion is somewhere in here... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the discussion, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. You were in the discussion! LOL. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• The image needs alt text.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The Bobcats play "-->They play

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The team began playing in 2004 as an expansion team. The Bobcats play their home games at the Time Warner Cable Arena, formerly known as the Charlotte Bobcats Arena, since 2005."-->The Bobcats began playing in 2004 as an expansion team, and have played their home games at the Time Warner Cable Arena, formerly known as the Charlotte Bobcats Arena, since 2005.

Directly copied. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "with Rod Higgins is their general manager." "with"-->and

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "three complete seasons." "complete" is unnecessary.

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "winning percentage with .391"-->winning percentage (.391)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "In the Bobcats' franchise history, they have never advanced into the playoffs.["-->The Bobcats have never advanced into the playoffs.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Larry Brown is the only Bobcats' coach to be elected"-->Larry Brown is the only Bobcats' coach to have been elected

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Vincent have spent "-->Vincent has spent

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my first comment and the list comments, everything else looks OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I added a link to List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches) in the key; how does it look? I think I might change all NBA head coaches lists to be like this now that we have that article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A pretty nice list, given that's there's not much to write, but here's a few things to fix:

• The second paragraph talks about Brown, then jumps back to Vincent then back to Brown again.

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd move the playoff note to somewhere where it creates a better flow, perhaps combining it with the note that they're the newest team in the earlier paragraph.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• To beef the article up, adding where Bickerstaff and Brown had coached just before their Bobcats tenure began may help.

If I were to add that in, wouldn't the sentence be unrelated to the article? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Wizardman 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to move it towards GA status. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,
— Ω (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments:

• I'd like to see more in-depth coverage of the spacecraft instruments, especially LAMP and LEND. Are the instruments any better than on Clementine (spacecraft)? Please give some details.
• Please include some information about the propulsion and maneuvering system, the avionics and a few details about the orbital inclination and period. How much propellant is it carrying?
• Is this vehicle solar powered? It appears so but the text doesn't say. Does it have batteries?
• What is the communication system?
• Is NASA actively compensating for MASCONs? I.e. periodic orbital adjustments?
• How does this mission complement the other current missions to the Moon?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Pool of Radiance

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to get this article up to GA status and I think I'm not far from it. I feel that this one should one day be ready for an FA, but first thing's first! :) Whatever you think this article needs, or doesn't need, I'm looking for your opinion.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question. Is G.M. really worth mentioning even if it didn't give a score in the Reception section? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

G.M. gave pages 5 different scores (or something like that) for things like graphics, sound, gameplay, etc., but they didn't have any single unified score, so I didn't put any in. Averaging the scores would have been OR. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've been watching this article, on account of it being by the excellent Dungeons & Dragons taskforce. You guys do great work; keep it up. I do have a few issues with the article, but I don't have time today to go into detail. I'll be back tomorrow or the next day with detailed impressions. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere! Vantine84 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• This was my favorite game ever in the world when it came out. I have some stuff I need to do this weekend, but I will return soon and offer some thoughts which may be of help. (If you don't hear from me by August 1 please send a reminder on my talk page.) Thank you for spearheading the push to make it GA and perhaps someday FA! Scartol • Tok 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The more, the merrier! :) I don't think there's any limit to how many people can do a review, is there? BOZ (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm here to review it a day later than I said I'd be. Sorry; I could have sworn it was only two days ago. Anyway, here we go:
  • Copyediting will be required throughout. The lead alone is really rough; a few examples:
    • "Pool of Radiance was the first computer adaptation of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game." Okay, but you say "Pool of Radiance" at the beginning of two sentences in a row. Change it up with stuff like "the game" and "it".
    • "Pools of Radiance is based on the same game mechanics as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons." You just said this. Also, you refer to it here as "Pools of Radiance", with no italicization.
    • "It uses the Gold Box game engine to run a first person perspective, as well as an overhead perspective where characters are represented as icons." The wording is very unclear. "Run" a first person perspective? "as well as an overhead perspective"? I've played the game, so I understand this to some degree, but the uninitiated will be confused. Also, don't forget to put a "-" between first and person. I'm not going to offer wording suggestions, because I don't really have time for copyediting, but here's one for this sentence: "Pool of Radiance was the first game built with the Gold Box engine, which would later be used such games as Neverwinter Nights AOL. It takes place primarily from a first-person perspective, with a secondary top-down perspective for combat encounters." That's rough, but not horrible.
  • Gameplay will need work to reduce the detail and enthusiast knowledge. (Also, I noticed some second-person writing; the article refers to "your foe"). You've done a good job so far, but it could still use more work. Examples:
    • "Retreating characters (or enemies) are vulnerable to free attacks from surrounding enemies." I have perhaps intermediate knowledge of D&D's workings, but this is still a little unclear to me. For someone with beginner or no knowledge, it would make no sense.
    • "Players are able to toggle through a range of different menus during gameplay." Excessive use of gamer-centric terms.
    • In addition, the section is probably too long, with paragraph sizes too random. Try to condense the details to only the most necessary for someone to understand the game, per summary style. Also, by keeping paragraph sizes at least reasonably standardized, the reader is provided a more relaxed, flowing reading experience. Seeing a huge paragraph followed by a small one makes it feel like working through the large one is a chore.
  • As for Plot, try to keep the separation between Setting and Plot summary clear. The first paragraph of Plot summary contains a lot of information that is redundant with what we've already read in Setting. The Plot summary section aside from that is pretty good. However, particularly because of the game's non-linear and player-directed nature, it's going to need more citations. Events like "After defeating his guards, the party refuses his offer to join his side and engages the dragon boss in a deadly battle, emerging victorious", for example, almost sound like they could have gone another way. Wikipedia covers general plotlines; if multiple choices exist, mention them. An official game guide (if available) would probably be all you need. If not, there's hopefully something else.
  • The paragraphs in Development needs to be condensed. The first is decently sized, but then it trails off into short, stringy paragraphs, the last of which is only a sentence. The Copy protection section should also be merged into Development, as it isn't big enough to warrant its own subheading.
  • Merge Release into Development. Trim overlapping information and make as few subsections as possible; this will add much-needed meat to Development. As for the things that can't be merged (sequel, novel, a few of the other details), put them into a Legacy subsection at the end of Reception. The game is so influential that it should be fairly easy to find more material. For example, the final paragraph of reception.
  • Reception is the problem section. This one will probably take more work than any of the others. First, get more reviews. One of the best resources for old game reviews ([15]) tells me that you're missing the super-necessary ACE. Also, the CGW review is not used, only a preview; it shouldn't be hard to find the real thing. I don't know how you're going to find the rest, but you need them. Also, find some for the NES version. Second, trim this section; it's huge. You go into unbelievably elaborate detail about the game's rules, and the extreme undue weight placed on the Dragon magazine review would be cause to fail the article at GAN for NPOV. You dedicate FIVE paragraphs to it. Under any circumstances, that is far beyond overkill. Basically: cut the section's size in half, remove the majority of the Dragon magazine review, get more reviews, add a Legacy subsection.
• So there you have it. It's impressively detailed for an article about an old game, but it still needs work. And find a few copyeditors to go through the whole thing, preferably several times. The prose is rough throughout; I only used the lead to highlight examples. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I forgot: cut the credits section. Any important names can be mentioned in context during the Development section. For the rest, leave it to Mobygames. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This should be very helpful. :) It'll be a lot of work, but it will be worth it. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Levi's comments
I’m glad Jimmy is helping out by reviewing, I think these old fantasy games are his forté. I agree with him that some general copyediting needs to be done. He mentioned a lot of great points that I won’t repeat, but some specific examples are:

• Some sections contain words that may not fit the tone of an encyclopedia article or a little non-NPOV. Examples in Gameplay are “Just like in a regular AD&D game…” (the “just like” should be “as in” or something similar), the word “neatly” as in “neatly divided”, “devastating”, “very strategic” (probably don’t need “very”).
• In Plot summary, Tyranthraxus is referred to as a “boss”. While that is probably true, “leader” may be a better word because boss implies a more informal relationship. Citing the game’s use of the word boss is OK though. The word “deadly” in the last sentence may not be necessary.
• What do you think about using a multi-console review template for the Reception section, like {{Video game multiple console reviews}}?

Most of these issues are relatively trivial (especially for GAN) and can easily be fixed by a copyeditor. I’m willing to copyedit myself if you like, after some of the changes that Jimmy suggested about the layout are implemented. Vantine84 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! No time at the present, but hope to pick it back up tomorrow or soon thereafter. BOZ (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there have been a number of important suggestions proposed here, and you're hard at work implementing them. As for my involvement, how about this: When you're done with these repairs, let me know and I'll have a fresh look? That way I'm not likely to repeat things, and we can take things one step at a time.

Also, there's a push on right now to include alternative text for images. You'll want to make sure you include this. Scartol • Tok 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready whenever you are! I'll read up on alt-text; I just realized earlier today that I forgot to include a caption for the infobox image.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

At long last, here is my review. Let me start by saying kudos! This article is exhaustively-researched and generally a pleasure to read. You've clearly done some serious work to flesh out all the sections, and you are to be congratulated for it.

The comments below are based on the assumption that you plan to take this thing to FAC. I strongly suggest a motto of "measure twice, cut once" for that process — the more you check things before FAC, the less nightmarish the process will be. These points are for your consideration only; there is no need to provide green checkmarks or seek my approval for the next stages.

Lead

• The article's lead should be a general summary of all the major elements in the article. We have good info here on gameplay and plot, but we need more on development and reception. (I suggest one paragraph for each.) I moved the single sentence about reception to the end of the lead (to mirror the article's structure, which is generally preferred); this should obviously be expanded.

• It's good to avoid overlinking in the lead. Because you've linked to them in the main article text, I've removed the links to race and class in the lead.

• Players can hire and interact with non-player characters to further the storyline. This bit of info seems odd to have by itself — if we mention this rather standard item about RPGs, shouldn't we mention others, like buying and selling items?

Gameplay

• Surely the NES version was one of the lesser-played (and therefore less-recognized, not to mention less colorful) versions. Why use this one, and not a PC screenshot?

• I noted that mages can use small knives — this is based on my own memories of the game (and standard allowances in many RPGs). If it's wrong, please correct me. (I also withdrew the bit about how mages function like artillery or sharpshooters, since it seemed a bit unencyclopedic.)

Plot

• This image is tagged with a warning. It needs to replaced with a smaller version. You should check all the images carefully to make sure they comply with all NFCC regulations.

• Moonsea is a redirect — you should make a more accurate link to guarantee against deadlinks, and check other links to make sure they all go where they're supposed to go.

• I think the part of the first paragraph in "Setting" that begins "According to the story..." should be moved to the "Plot summary". Setting should should focus exclusively on the where and when.

Development

• The first part of this section reads like a laundry list of names. To break it up, I recommend reorganizing it a bit so that you tell who did what, and then say a bit about what they did. (For example, after you name Chuck Kroegel as the leader of the development team, give the bit about what he said the main challenge was.)

• I assume we don't have a more specific date for the Atari ST version? If not, it would read more smoothly to combine that info with the Mac edition; say something like "Versions for the Atari ST and Apple Macintosh were released later."

• Could we not get a short description of what changes (to appearance, sound, etc) took place with the NES port?

Reception

• I think the bit about the Computer Gaming World review discussing the transfer of character to Silver Blades would be better placed in the "Legacy" section.

• The comments from The Games Machine about similarities to Bard's Tale feel redundant. Maybe you could combine all such comments into one paragraph, starting perhaps with a phrase like "Several reviewers noted similarities between Pool of Radiance and earlier games like Bard's Tale."

• Note how the tenses are mixed in this sentence: "The reviewer was critical that Pool of Radiance is not original in its presentation and that the colors are a little drab, but concludes..." Whether you use past or present tense for review commentary, you should be consistent. (And, annoying as it might be, you should go through the rest of this section and make sure it's consistent throughout.)

• I don't know that we need thorough summaries of every review the game got — I'd say one paragraph about the praise and one about the criticisms would suffice (and then one about similarities to other games is good too).

• Oops! I see that one of the earlier reviews advised you to pack 'em in! I suppose this is a matter of preference — my advice is to review other video game FAs and follow their lead.

• The phrase "Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk Lesser" is confusing. Are these three people? Are they all in the Lesser family? Clarify?

• Unless you're quoting an entire sentence, don't put the final punctuation mark inside the quotation mark. (See WP:QUOTE for more info.) I've been correcting this as I find it, but you should go through again before FAC and make sure it's consistent.

• Aside from the name, is there any connection between the 1988 game and Ubisoft's 2001 game? The link is unclear to the reader.

Good luck with this article! As I said, I spent many happy hours as a teenager in the city of Phlan, and I'm very glad to see people devoting so much love and attention to securing the Pool's rightful place in the hall of respectable Wikipedia articles. Please let me know if you have any questions. Scartol • Tok 14:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :)

I am not necessarily planning on taking this to FAC, at least insofar as I have no current plan to do so, but that may be a long-term goal. That said, there's nothing wrong now in doing something that would help get an FA later. :)

For the lead, if we’re doing one paragraph each of gameplay, plot, development, and reception, I'd say the development paragraph is already in the first paragraph, and I can't see a compelling reason to switch that into being the third paragraph. :) Otherwise, I agree on your suggested structure.

Yeah, you're right. I suppose I expected to see some details about names of people involved and/or what machines they used to develop it. But this is covered in the body. Good work adding the reception bits. Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the combat image, we had this one before I started working on the article, and I don't have a better image available, so I was going to just go with that until something better comes along. :) RJHall dug up the other image we have now (which I agree needs to be reduced), so maybe he will find something better for the combat scene?

Regarding mages using knives, you are probably correct, but I didn't see this in any RS, so I've removed it.

What about me!? I'm a reliable source! =D Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as release dates go, it was hard enough to find what I do have, so I doubt I can find anything more specific without some assistance. As for the NES port and Mac editions, all of that was written by other people without me finding any sources for them; the only changes I could really make would be to remove stuff.

Yep, a previous reviewer recommended me to pack 'em in, and I'm sticking to that! :) I went to all that trouble to find stuff just to remove it? I don't think so. ;)

Yeah, I've often been frustrated by conflicting mandates from various reviewers. Listen to your heart. Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hartley Lesser, Patricia Lesser, and Kirk Lesser are often referred to as "The Lessers". Don't know if they're related, but I assume so. If there's a way to make that clearer, please advise.

Rephrased. I'm not sure it flows as smoothly as I'd like, but I think it's a bit less confusing now. Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea what connection "Ruins of Myth Drannor" has with the original game, aside from the name-grab. I'd be fine with removing the whole mention, to be honest, and maybe leaving it at the "see also" hatnote at the top of the article. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. This review names it as a sequel — perhaps we should put that in the article?

I removed Hillsfar from the See Also section, since that's best used only for articles that aren't linked in the body text. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! I don't see how "Ruins of Myth Drannor" is a sequel in anything but name, so I'm going to leave that off for now. If I see something explicitly from either the game's publisher, or from WotC, or some other source that details just how it's a sequel, I'll revise my opinion. :)

That said, I think it's finally ready... nothing can stop me now! ;) BOZ (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Family Guy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its just been assessed as being a high B, and would like to know what can be done to bring it up to GA standard, and eventually make it a FA Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: The previous review request, dated 11 August, has not been closed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that better. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have had a previous peer review have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review again. The thought is that the previous PR should have comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting a new request for peer review. It is a waste of scarce PR resources to peer review this again in its curent state. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Cosmo Gordon Lang

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Lang was once one of the most powerful people in England, and now hardly anyone knows who he was. He thought his career was a failure and he was probably right. It's still a fascinating story, and I've enjoyed compiling it, though it's well beyond my comfort zone of opera and antarctic explorers. Comments on all aspects of the article will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Childhood -
  • "In January 1865 the family moved to Glasgow on his father's appointment as a minister in the Anderston district." Wouldn't "In January 1865 the family moved to Glasgow following John Lang's appointment as a minister in the Anderston district." flow a bit better?
    • Done Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would expect if the Barony Church is historic, that an article would be worthwhile and thus maybe a redlink?
    • Yes, it is worth a redlink. I'll try and do an article for it when time permits. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1878 Lang sat and passed his matriculation examinations and, within the regulations that then applied was able, at the age of fourteen, to begin his studies at the University of Glasgow." this sentence is incredibly convoluted. Suggest breaking it up somewhat. The section "within the regulations that then applied was able, at the age of fourteen," is especially difficult. Also, shouldn't it be "began" rather than "to begin" in order to agree with the "sat and passed" in the first part?
    • Simplified and reworded. Is that better? Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oxford -
  • should link disestablishment
    • Linked. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably should link something to explain "Demosthenes" for the classically challenged.
    • Yeah, I'll try and figure a way round WP:LINK says: "Generally items within quotations should not be linked; instead, the relevant links should wherever possible be placed in the surrounding text of the article." Should I ignore this? (later) I've reworded and found a way of linking – tell me if it's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Towards ordination -
  • Need to link/explain "Nonconformist"
    • Now linked. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Leeds -
  • Surely Lex Mundi are linked?
    • Linked in lead, but I note what you say below, and will do a bit of repeat linking for the obscurer terms. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Bishop -
  • Which archbishop consecrated him? York or Canterbury?
    • Clarified (Canterbury) Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• General notes -
  • Probably need to relink some things that are linked in the lead but aren't going to be common knowledge - suffragan bishop, etc.
  • Watch the assumptions about various aspects of ecclesiastical history/function. Lots of folks aren't going to undestand the governing structure of the Church of England, etc. Suggest linkage and/or explanations in the text.
    • I will work on these points. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Sources -
  • What makes http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pst_dick.html a reliable source?
    • Absolutely nothing - a bad choice on my part. I've ditched it and replaced it with Hastings. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these pointers, and I'll keep working. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Brian, I came across this book discussing Lang's actions during the bombing of May 10, 1941. Maybe it is a useful story to include, I thought it was interesting tidbit http://books.google.com/books?id=0Jn8W5Iq9qsC&pg=PA168&dq=cosmo+lang#v=onepage&q=cosmo%20lang&f=false
• Also, I thought the Assessment section relied too heavily on one author. I would advise being careful of that and possibly seek out other authors who have a different assessment. Maybe you have already done that and found none, I am not sure. I also do not like how the lead ends saying his career fell short. He seems to have accomplished some interesting things that are not mentioned in the lead like the 1944 Education Act issue. I find that biographies are difficult (I read a lot of them) because the story of the person is colored by the lens of the person writing about him or her. That is why it is better to have at least two authors with different viewpoints in the assessment section just to make sure you aren't POV. NancyHeise ^talk 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, Nancy. I'm not sure I understand your saying that the Assessment section over-relies on one author; virtually every viewpoint on Lang is represented in the section - Lockhart, Hastings, Buchanan, friend Ronald Macdonald, Bishop Henson, not to mention Lang's self-assessment. I have added one more assessment to the final paragraph, that of Bishop Bell; unfortunately it is as negative as the rest! That, I'm afraid, is the settled view of Lang - his failure to live up to initial promise. This has to be reflected in the lead. I am sure he did many good things as archbishop - his work for church unity is mentioned several times - but the sources do not highlight these when assessing his career overall. I have to summarise what the sources say. In compiling the article I have dug pretty deep to find the widest range of reliable sources, and I don't think I have left any responsible viewpoint out. I will check out the "bombing" anecdote to see if it can provide a little colour. 22:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• I read the assessment section over again. I do not see a consensus opinion that his career was a failure. I see that one person joked with him about his portrait, another was upset that he resisted reforms (which some would consider a triumph), and that he himself wished he could have done more. A priest once made a joke at Mass about a man who died and was standing in line in front of St. Peter at the pearly gates. The man happened to be standing behind Mother Teresa and heard St. Peter say to her, "You did well but you could have done more." I don't remember the punchline for the joke, sorry. The point was that even when you do a lot of good, there are always going to be people who criticize you saying you could have done more, even if possibly, you could not have done more - (see and example of this in Pope Pius XII.) I think it is uncharitable and unencyclopedic to include an analysis of Lang at the end of the lead. Perhaps you could say something like "While Lang made many various contributions during his life, he felt as if he could have done more, an analysis with which some scholars have expressed agreement." In any event, I would eliminate the assertion that his career was a failure without at least mentioning that he was continually bestowed with honorary doctorates - for some good reasons possibly. NancyHeise ^talk 22:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Nancy, for these comments. However, the consensus view of Lang, from biographers, historians and contemporaries in the Church, is that he did not fulfil his promise. I have yet to find one assessment of him that does not reflect this viewpoint. Of course, he did some good things, but as his main biographer Lockhart says, he had opportunities to do more, and didn't take them. Reasons for this are alluded to in the article – for example his loss of zeal for social reform and his distancing himself from ordinary people, his over-identification with the monarchy and royal circles, his missed opportunity to take control of the Prayer Book controversy. Lockhart refers to the many conflicting sides of his personality. His career may not have been the "failure" he himself deemed it to be, but it seems that there was indeed a failure of leadership, noted by Hastings and specifically cited by Bishop Bell. This was a man who was an archbishop for over thirty years, and left very little mark on the Church of England – hardly anyone now remembers who he was. I believe that the good things that he did, and the public recognition he received, are fairly covered in the article, but I will look again at the sources, to be sure that I have not been unfair in my final summary.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • After reading all the assessments again, I have slightly softened the article's ending. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments I knew I had heard the name before, but it wasn't until I got to the Queen Victoria bit that I realized that his role in the Queen's funeral is mentioned in the two recent books on Victoria's death and funeral. One is called Last Days of Glory, I forget the other one. You might want to see if your local library has it, although it is gilding the lily in what is already a fairly long article.

Let me start:

• Lede:"After ordination in 1890, except for brief service as an Oxford college chaplain his early ministry was served in slum parishes in Leeds and Portsea." Awkward, I'd move the "except" clause to one end of the sentence or the other, at your option. Also, you might want to say "Portsmouth" rather than "Portsea".
  • Agreed both points Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "expressed in the Lux Mundi essays.". Troubled by this verb, but don't have a better one. Suggest you look twice at it.
  • Changed to "advocated" Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• "caused consternation in conservative circles by supporting David Lloyd George's 1909 "People's Budget"." Is it "Conservative" or "conservative"? If you don't mean the party, might want to rephrase to avoid the word. Also, mismatch between lede and article body, you say here he supported the Budget. In the body, you say he told the Lords not to oppose it. That's not the same thing, especially in view of the political gamesmanship going on. For example, he could have wanted them to pass it so as not to provoke the constitutional crisis that in fact followed, or because he saw the Asquith Government was going to push for a bill reducing the powers of the Lords. By the time Lang was appointed, Asquith was already making noise about asking the King to create peers to assure the passage of the Budget.
  • Changed "conservative" to "traditionalist". I will look closely at what Lang actually said, and will resolve the mismatch between lead and text. I'm not sure about your last sentence; Lang was appointed in November 1908, long before the budget. My history of the constitutional crisis of 1909-11 says nothing about Asquith contemplation the creation of peers that early. Not relevant to this article, though. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Early life

• "the name "William" being added inadvertently to his given names," I think you might want to explain how a minister accidently gives his kid an extra name. Totally.
  • Explanatory text added. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Long afterwards Lang commented on the inability of some of these eminent figures to handle "the Scottish boors who formed a large part of their classes".[3] An exception was Caird, who strongly influenced the young Lang towards thinking for himself." Seems to be a minor non sequitur here. The first sentence deals with keeping classroom control. The second deals with being a good teacher by influencing a student. So "An exception" doesn't seem appropriate. You might also want to consider ending that paragraph with Lang's view of the nature of God and the Universe.
  • Rephrased the stuff about Caird. The sentence about Lang's mathematical incompetence is relevant because it was this that led him to Oxford rather than Cambridge, from where his career might have taken a quite different course. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Lang's enlightened opinions" Slight POV. suggest "progressive".
  • Done (and changed earlier mention of "progressive"). Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "However, he stated, "I must confess that I played sometimes with those external temptations that our Christian London flaunts in the face of its young men."" The "However" seems to oppose the fact that Lang went to church. People who sin often do. I'd rephrase to avoid the word "however".

• • Reworded, and lost "however"
• "Eventually the question entered Lang's mind: "Why shouldn't you be ordained?"" I'd rephrase to avoid the quotation, and perhaps give us more info about what went into Lang's decision. As it is, it sounds uninformative.
  • Lang lays great stress on this wording, which was how the question persistently came to him, and I think the exact form of words should be kept. As to "what went into Lang's decision", not much information is available. The question persisted, he discussed it with friends, he had his experience in Cuddesdon Church and acted on it. I can add a little, but not much of substance. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• troubled the conscience of his Presbyterian father. Since we don't understand why the father would feel guilty about it, if he did, why not just strike the words "the conscience of"?
  • I've reworded the father sentence entirely. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Early career

• "He later moved next door to another condemned property". The first building was not condemned, just derelict. I imagine in Britlish, "condemned" means it is ordered torn down by authority? Also, the sentence is ambiguous, it is unclear if you mean he moved into the condemned property or next door to it. I imagine next door but...
  • Clarified, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• "His first sermon in the parish church was interrupted by a parishoner's apoplectic fit, but Lang later became a forceful preacher." I don't understand the "but", since the parishoner (is that correctly spelled in Britlish?) and his episode do not reflect on Lang's skill as a speaker. Unless apoplectic is being used in the modern sense (rage) and the guy was angry because his preacher was so unforceful ... suggest a few adjustments here.
  • I've cut the sentence - it's not important enough to spend time or add words on. And you were right about the misspelling of parishioner. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• "("College Chaplain" in ordinary parlance) Surely lower case?
  • agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lang, I mean long article. Will do the rest in a bit. Very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the rest shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK,

• Bishop and canon

• "and at a Church Congress in Great Yarmouth in 1907 he pondered on how the Church's should react to this." By the next sentence, I'm gathering he said something out loud, but isn't pondering usually something you do silently?
  • I imagine you can ponder aloud, as you can think out loud, but I changed it to "speculated"
• "the New York Times. It's The New York Times. I'm looking at the editorial. The word "demagoguery" doesn't seem to appear in it. The relevant part is "The cry of the demagogue is in the air." I won't quote further, you have it as well as me, but I don't think it is referring to Lang, but rather to what people in his sub-diocese, where there is intense poverty, are saying. They are the demogogues, not him. The piece seems sympathetic to him, it kinda implies he is a bit naive.
  • Yes, I used the source poorly. It's clear the NYT wasn't accusing Lang of demagoguery; rather it was offering him a gentle warning about the "cry of the demagogue". I have reworded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Lang knew something of the area from his undergraduate activities at Toynbee Hall; nevertheless his conscience was troubled by the squalor that he saw as he travelled around the district, usually by bus and tram." Again, a mild non sequitor. He knew about it, nevertheless his conscience was troubled. Of course, if he didn't know about it, his conscience wouldn't be troubled! Suggest replace "nevertheless" with "and".
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Lang preached in wealthier parishes throughout Southern England to raise revenue for the Fund." This sentence almost implies that you had to pay to hear him preach, which I don't think was the case. How about, "Lang preached in wealtheir parishes thought Southern England, and urged his listeners to contribute to the Fund."?
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Archbishop of York

• "Such promotion for a suffragan was without recent precedent". In the lede, you say "His rapid elevation to Archbishop of York, within eighteen years of his ordination, is almost unprecedented in modern Church of England history." Those two are not consistent, if we assume "recent" and "modern Church of England history" to mean the same thing. Keep in mind that if someone did it after Lang, it is not precedent.
  • I believe lead and text are now consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Diocese of Sheffield, which was finally inaugurated at Pentecost, 1914.". Since we are not told when Lang started the project, the word "finally" is slightly problematic because there is no telling of a delay.
  • I have removed "finally". Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "The Westminster Gazette called this was" minor rephrase needed.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "an "Appeal to all Christian People", described by Hastings as "one of the rare historical documents that does not get forgotten with the years."" If so, it should at least be a redlink.
  • I've given it a redlink. I wonder who will write the article? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "marriage of the Duke of York". I'd suggest that the pipe should be to "the Duke of York" for George VI, since Duke of York has its own article.
  • Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Archbishop of Canterbury

• "probably the first" Perhaps "believed to be the first". As probably is probably not the best word.
  • You are probably right. Changed
• "Hastings maintains" Suggest "Hastings" be preceded with "Church historian" ... been a while since the reader has seen him.
  • He's mentioned earlier in this paragraph, and I've attached a description there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Joint Committee upon the Indian Constitution" I see this also on the web as the "Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform". You might want to check for the proper name.
  • Lots of different names on the web, ncluding "Joint Committee on the Indian Constitution". None of them follow Lockhart's strangely stilted "upon". I've altered this to "on". Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "I'd dump the Munich agreement photo. Lang had no connection with it. The photo of Edward VIII is justifiable, given Lang's connection with the Royals.
  • Lang supported it; he said it came from the Hand of God. However, I agree its relevance is pretty marginal, and I'll reconsider its use. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Lang led deputation". Is this proper Britlish?
  • It should (and now does) read "led a deputation" Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Lang's post-Abdication speech. Can we have a quote from it? Also, is there any evidence that Lang's stand was based more on his strained relationship with Edward and his hope that his status with the Royals would be restored if Edward was out of the picture?
  • I have added a couple of quotes from Lang's speech. As to the second question, there is no suggestion that Lang's stand was other than he maintained. He had strict views on marriage, and on how members of the Royal Family should behave. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Retirement and death: No comments
• Assessment. The cassock is a very odd way to start off this section, almost trivia. I know little about the Anglican Church except as a reasonably well informed lay person of another faith, but it doesn't seem to me to be relevant to Lang's historical place. It may well be, but it hasn't conveyed to me.

• It was a mistake to lead off with the cassock, but the point about the cassock and mitre is not trivial. Until around the time Lang became Archbishop of York, such dress was avoided by Church of England prelates because it was seen as part of the uniform of Roman Catholicism. By adopting a cassock and mitre, Lang was making a small political statement of affinity with Rome. As Hasting says, Lang discreetly catholicised the C of E; his dress code (eventually followed by nearly all his successors)was a part of this process. I have revised the first paragraph of the section to clarify this, and I hope this answers your point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "At the same time he constantly sought paths to reunion with all branches of the worldwide church; his 1939 visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as the high point of his ecumenical record." If this is an important event in Lang's career, surely it shouldn't wait for the assessment section?
  • I have put this back into the article proper.Brianboulton (talk)

Overall comments: Brian, it's your usual very strong effort, and I'm sure it will do fine at FAC. I'd suggest two things, neither of which should be difficult. First, try to explain a bit inline when it comes to the more obscure church terms. Second, I'm bothered by the assessment section, which seems to me to include trivia and anecdote--I'd consider getting rid of the next to last pagagraph (Lord High Almoner, GCVO and painting). Consider trying to streamline a bit so the section is a bit more analytical. The quote from Bell is quite good (I imagine he's saying the C of E should be able to control its own prayer book without Parliament and that Lang should have pounded the table once the modification was rejected? Consider saying so, if Bell says so!) and the last paragraph is a really good conclusion. That's about it. I'll keep an eye on things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thorough comments. On your final thoughts on the assessment section, I don't think Lang's receiving the GCVO (a very senior order of knighthood), his honorary doctorates or his appointment as almoner are trivial - they are indicators of the status he had during his lifetime. As to the painting, the object of mentioning it is to include Henson's silky remark, which I believe captures brilliantly what Lang's church contemporaries thought of him. I can add no more to what Bishop Bell said; I guess your interpretation is right, but since he didn't say it in this way we must leave it as it stands. I will continue to tinker, and will watch what other reviewers have to say. Any further remarks from you will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Brian on this, the GCVO and almoner in particualr show his continuing links with the Royal Family, the Royal Victorian Order benig one of the very few remaining honours that is awarded purely by the monarch, not on the "advice" of the PM of the day-though perhaps this is one of those issues taht could be highlighted slightly, as it won't be widely undestood outside the UK (and perhaps not even in it). David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't the honours go in the infobox? As for the putdown line, that is a particularly British sort of thing (I can think of several involving Churchill alone), but I still question whether it is relevant to an evaluation of Lang, which is what the final section really should be all about.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

infoboxes are intended to be an extremely high-level summary of the article, I've always understood that if you put something in the lead or an infobox, it should be covered properly in the article. David Underdown (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a bit about the nature of the GCVO as the gift of the Sovereign, and have moved this information up to the paragraph that summarises Lang's relationship with the Royal Family. I hope that this meets the criticism. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well ... I wouldn't call it criticism. But yeah, that's fine, I was mulling that over, actually. The GCVO is an excellent illustration of the strong relationship he had with the Royal Family during George V's life. Incidently, on the Mrs. Simplson thing, what about "relationship" rather than "affair"? It is a much looser term, and is more flexible in case there's any disputes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks, I'll change it (again). Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I looked at "Last Days of Glory", and the author relies entirely on sources you already have for the mentions of Lang. Like Willy and Ed praying together at Vicky's coffin, that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a cracking article, which I have relished reading. I've just run across it an hour since, and will, I promise, post some more considered comments shortly. But three quickies:

• On the abdication, Mrs Simpson was rather more than the king's "friend". I think you might strengthen "of the king's friendship with the American divorcée..." to "affair" or some such.
  • Ok, "affair" it is
    • Have you considered "relationship"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• If the alternative last line of the Bullett verse is, as memory tells me, "You Old Lang Swine..." I'd quote that (with citation) in your footnote.
  • I've added the alternative lines into the footnote (I prefer the original, myself)

• It would be a pity to miss Bishop Henson's devastating swipe at Lang, as quoted in the ODNB:

"...Lang complained that his new portrait by Sir William Orpen made him look 'proud, prelatical, and pompous'. 'And may I ask Your Grace to which of these epithets Your Grace takes exception?' Henson allegedly asked in reply." This is a palpable hit, meseems.
Later: Whoops! I now see it's there already! Apologies! But how right Dr Henson was! [16]

More anon. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• My only general query on this really excellent article is the proliferation of capital letters, which (to my eye, at least) rather break flow: Literature, Principal, Men's Conference, Acting Chaplain, Southern, Honorary Chaplain, Dean and Chapter, Service of Thanksgiving, Canon in Residence, Diocese of, Private Secretary, Domestic Chaplain, Christian Reunion etc passim. Both the ODNB and The Guardian go to the opposite extreme (earl of Derby, lord chancellor and so on) but there is a happy medium.
  • There was some discussion about capitalisation on the article's talkpage, in the early stages of the expansion. It was agreed that formal offices (Archbishop of York, Prime Minister, Dean and Chapter etc) should be capitalised, though not general references to bishops, archbishops etc. I have tried to follow this, also to some extent being guided by general usage and by what appears in the sources. I will check through for instances of overcapitalisation. although I can't accept that the ODNB approach is right. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • (Later): I have removed about a dozen caps; a few more have gone courtesy of another editor acting independently. I think the "happy medium" is probably achieved now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Excellent! The eye has a less bumpy ride along the line now. Tim riley (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Other one-off comments, none of earth-shattering importance:

• Lead
  • "is almost unprecedented in modern Church of England history" – some purist souls might say a thing is either precedented or it isn't. I see you are more emphatic in the main body of the article, declaring it to be unprecedented sans phrase.
    • Raised by a previous reviewer. I meant to remove the "almost" but forgot.Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oxford
  • "he was chided by the Master of Balliol" – I can’t find "chided" in the OED, which gives "chidden" as the ppl. Perhaps "reproved" or "rebuked" might be preferable? [Later: that comment was premature - I have now found this in the OED: "1897 Daily News 15 Apr. 6/3 We..notice with interest that Mr. Meredith, after vacillating in former editions between ‘chid’ and ‘chidded’, has now resolved that the past tense of ‘to chide’ is ‘chided’."]

• Portsea
  • "extremely disciplined pastoral professionaliam" - typo
    • Fixed

• Archbishop of York
  • "a letter from Mr Asquith" - "Mr" strikes an odd note. Perhaps "H H"?
    • Herbert - fixed

• Archbishop of Canterbury
  • "Lang was notified by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that he would be the successor" – this reads as though Lang was given no option in the matter, but presumably he was invited to accept?
    • I don't think it worked that way. I'll check what the sources say (I'm away from home until Friday so sans my books at present), but I'm pretty sure acceptance was assumed (I imagine there would have been some sort of informal sounding). Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, Lang's version is: " (the) Prime Minister told me he proposed to recommend me to the King as the next Archbishop of Canterbury ... I asked whether I might have some time to consider his proposal. He at once said: "No, it is inevitable ... your one and only duty is to say Yes." So I think my paraphrase is pretty accurate - Lang was given no real choice. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Abdication crisis
  • "Lang was responsible for drafting the King George V's silver jubilee broadcast message" – redundant definite article here, I think.
    • Fixed
  • "Prime Minister Baldwin" – not a very idiomatic English usage.
    • Well, I've certainly seen the usage. Will reconsider when looking at the capitalisation issue. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Retirement and death
  • "Prime Minister Churchill" - ditto

• Assessment
  • "final sentinel to the ancien regime" – this is a quote, and I haven't seen the original source, but it might be worth checking if Hastings wrote "ancien régime" with the acute accent.
    • I'll check that when I'm back home. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Very well spotted; I have inseted the missing accent. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's my meagre gleaning. Hope it's of use. Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments As requested, I have read the article and have a few minor comments / questions to try and improve what is already an excellent article.

• In "Childhood and family" the present tense is used to describe Lang's quote Glasgow, Cosmo attended the Park School, a day establishment where he won a prize for an essay on English Literature and played football intermittently; otherwise, he says, "I was never greatly interested in [the school's] proceedings."[2] This might be British English vs American, but it sounds odd to me - Lang is dead and the quote was made in the last century (and millennium), so using the present tense seems odd. I would write "otherwise, he said..."
• Similar problem / concern with "University of Glasgow" section's Lang recalls how, in a revelation as he was passing through Kelvingrove Park, he expressed aloud his sudden conviction ...
• Missing word in the "Oxford" section perhaps? Lang started at Balliol in October 1882. In his first term he successfully sat for the Brakenbury Scholarship, described by [his?] biographer Lockhart as ...
• Probably should have a ref for FAC - and the following year was a co-founder of the Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS).
• Would a link to churchwarden help in became the Settlement's first warden,[8][9] while Lang became one of its first undergraduate secretaries.?
• Would it help to add "College" to He rejected a tempting offer of the chaplaincy of All Souls [College?], as he wanted to be "up and doing" in a tough parish.[14]
• I would also link curate at first occurence in Leeds, as well as public house (non British readers might not know either term)
• In the St. Paul's section, is a comma missing in His preaching on Sunday afternoons caught the attention of William Temple[,] Lang's future successor at both York and Canterbury, who was then an undergraduate at Oxford.?
• His ashes were taken to "the Chapel of St Stephen the Martyr" but the photo caption calls it the "Chapel of St Stephen Martyr" - which is it?
• I know links in quotes are discouraged, but perhaps Cardinal Wolsey should be linked

Hope this helps, well done Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for these comments, which I have mostly fixed per your suggestions. The OUDS citation will have to wait until I get home tomorrow and can check my books. The Warden of a Settlement is a completely different office from "churchwarden"; none of the offices listed on the dab page really suit so I think best not to link. "All Souls" is very generally known as such, without "College" attached except in formal circumstances. I had linked "curacy" in the Leeds section, but have now linked curate as well. Finally, if I link Wolsey, would I be expected to link St Francis as well? Your time much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I knew who St Francis was, but was not sure on Wolsey. Others might be unsure on both, so if one is linked I guess it makes sense to link both. Does Wiktionary have a link for the kind of warden meant (churchwarden was a guess on my part)? Glad to be of service, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I have cited Lang's role in the foundation of OUDS; I've changed "warden" to "leader", to avoid any confusion as to Barnett's role. I have linked Wolsey, even though this is in a quote, and if anyone objects I shall blame it all on User:Ruhrfisch! Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Final comment: I would like to thank all the editors who have contributed to this comprehensive review, which has been of considerable benefit to the article. I have added a little text to the assessment section to address Nancy's concern, and have also included an interesting comment by Lang, made after the Guernica bombing during the Spanish Civil War - thanks to User:GeometryGirl. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Baraminology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Comments on improving this GA to meet the FA criteria are appreciated. Thanks,    M   23:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Doing...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remarks on first reading
• I'm afraid I'd say this is a way short of FA status for the moment.
• I'm an atheist and a Darwinist and I cleave strongly to the evolutionary hypothesis. You'll find few people less sympathetic to creationism than me—but even I think this article goes over the top in its rejection of Creationist hypotheses. I think it would be possible to tell the truth and still phrase this material more diplomatically.
• I think it would be better not to say "Baraminology is pseudoscience" as baldly as that, in the main body of the text, not even with the references. I'd suggest saying "Persons x, y and z say that Baraminology is pseudoscience^{<ref><ref><ref>}".
• Biological facts do not show that all life has common ancestry. What they show is that all life we have found and tested appears have a common ancestry.
• Several paragraphs under "Interpretations of Biblical kinds" are unreferenced. Source or cut.
• The article is in Category:Articles with dead external links from April 2009, and it needs not to be in that category.
• I'll come back and re-read a second time, with fresh eyes, a bit later on.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If the criteria is comprehensive coverage and not length, then what areas should be improved? The "people say it's pseudoscience" point has been discussed extensively in talk. Each time, the argument ends when someone points out that "X thinks Y" (an expression of opinion) is an inappropriate way for an encyclopedia to express a fact, which is usually attributed using a citation.[17] Though it's true that all tested life has a common ancestor (what "true" means is hazy here, unless we stick to the relevant scientific interpretation of truth), we've also done this sufficiently many times to establish it as fact ("evolution is both fact and theory"). Thanks again.    M   19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I think Wikipedia is the only mainstream encyclopaedia to use inline citations—and even that's only because of disputes. (Wikipedia may or may not be an encyclopaedia, but it's certainly an argument. Jimbo's to be congratulated for inventing the biggest, longest argument in the history of human thought. Inline citations are the Wikipedian way of winning it.) But I take your point. :)
• Re-reading...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• The lede says Baraminology was developed in the 1990s, but the article says it was first proposed in 1941. That could be clearer.
• The article says how ReMine defined a baramin. Did Wise agree, or did he have his own definition?
• Reference 2 says "the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." But the page it takes you to does not say this; the quote should be followed by a direct link that takes you to the page where this is said.
• Reference 4 should give a retrieval date.
• Reference 6 should give an ISBN, assuming it refers to a printed source. (There weren't ISBNs in 1961, if I remember correctly, but hopefully a subsequent reprint will have an ISBN?)
• Reference 15 should give an ISBN or ISSN.
• I'm not happy with references 22 and 23, which are effectively negative references. I've never even seen one of those before, and I don't like the idea of being able to cite things to a non-result. Is there a consensus about whether this is okay?
• Reference 25 goes to a redirect rather than a direct link to the article.
• Hope this helps. I also hope another editor gives a second review, if you decide to make any changes as a result of my remarks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Constitutional Council of France

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know whether it is intelligible by a non-French person.

Thanks, David.Monniaux (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncia preliminary comments:

• I've fixed up some of the wikilinks, that either pointed the wrong place or pointed to a too-generic place
• Many of the sources for this article are in the French language, and this requires special care. See the policy at WP:NONENG. In particular there are several direct quotes, which you may have translated yourself; policy is to also quote the original text in these cases. It is also helpful to translate the titles of foreign works that you use as references (in addition to giving the original title); the citation templates now have a handy parameter trans_title for specifying this.
• In many places the writing is unidiomatic, and I think in some cases uses an incorrect word. I'll give more details on these later.
• A lot of the external links, that are used in the body as sources, are dead links, please check and correct these
• Wikipedia style is not to use "bare URLs" (that is, the URL with no further information) as a citation; all works that are cited should have additional information about the title, author, publisher, date, etc. See WP:CITE#HOW.
• The second paragraph in the lede is too detailed and should be moved into the body.
• The lede does need more information about the relation of the Council to the other parts of government and how items get to it. Most American readers are not familiar with the French government, so it would be useful to have a very brief summary of how the government is organized (is it divided into three branches, like the American government?), and a description of where the Council fits.
• Current policy is not to wikilink dates in general, see MOS:UNLINKDATES

More details will follow.--Uncia (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the citation templates really painful to use and I'd appreciate a little help. I added an introductory section on the enactment of legislation and the branches of government. David.Monniaux (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncia more detailed comments: This revised article is much better, thank you! Most of my remaining comments deal with unclear statements. Also, please remember to use edit summaries when you make changes. You don't have to use citation templates if you don't want to, as long as you provide the same information. The problem with bare URLs is that the web page often moves, and if there's no description in the article beyond the URL, it is hard to find the new page. See WP:LINKROT.

• I have made a number of small changes that I believe are correct, but please check these.
• I have marked some surprising statements that are apparently unsourced as "Citation needed".

The only "citation needed" tag remaining is about the legislative riders, fixed.

• I'm confused about when the CC can rule on the constitutionality of statues. Part of the discussion seems to imply that this only happens before the bill is signed, but it's hard to believe that the CC's authority is so narrow. Is the bit about ruling before signing just one extra service provided by the CC, or is it really the only time they can rule?

This is correct. This was the case before the French constitutional law of 23 July 2008, which provided for a way to refer cases from courts to the Council. However. the exact method for doing so has to be defined by an organic law, and such a law has not been adopted. Thus, indeed, there is no way to refer statutes that have already been enacted to the Council, and they stay on the books even if they are unconstitutional (which is a problem especially for statutes adopted before 1958). I should probably add a discussion of that (but I'd have to re-read my bibliography first).

• Does the CC make decisions by a vote? If so, do the former presidents have a vote? And is it by majority vote, or a stronger requirement?

It is a majority vote with a casting vote for the President of the Council. Added.

• "deputies" is used in a couple of places without explanation: who are they? Does this mean the same thing as "member of the National Assembly"?

Yes, sorry, it's député. Fixed.

• lede: it appears from the body of the article that deciding whether rules should be statutes or regulations is also a large part of the CC's job; if this is true, you should state it here.

In the early 60's, perhaps. In practice, it is quite evident from the current workload of the Council that this is a rather marginal activity. Added content.

• "excess of power": This is not idiomatic in English; I think the meaning is that the executive has exceeded its authority. Fixed.
• "Furthermore, the Council can quash regulations": which Council? This article is about the Constitutional Council, but the previous sentence was about the Council of State.

It's the Council of State. Fixed.

• "new acts can be referred to the Constitutional Council just prior to being signed into law by the President of the Republic": who refers them to the CC? This can be read as either "the president refers them before signing", or "somebody else can refer them before the president signs". Added explanation.
• "60 opposition members of the National Assembly and/or 60 opposition members of the Senate": "and/or" is not clear here. Must there be 60 from one house? If so, we would say "or". Can there be a mixture, with some from both houses for a total of 60? In that case we would say "a total of 60 opposition members from the National Assembly and the Senate".

No, it's from the Assembly or 60 from the Senate, not 60 from a mix of both. Added precision.

• "whether reform should come under statute law": Does "reform" have a specific meaning here? In American legislation, reform is a very general term, where nearly any bill that changes an earlier law can be referred to as a "reform".
• "France has long been reticent about judicial review": (1) When you say "France" who do you mean? The citizens as a group? The court system? (2) "reticent" is probably the wrong word here; its usual meaning is "reluctant to speak", while I think you mean "reluctant to review". Fixed.

Let's say "those who have designed the French institutions" — politicians, law professors, and so on. Fixed.

• "the Council's activity considerably extended in the following decades." The CC has only been in business for 5 decades; does this statement mean that its activity has expanded throughout its lifetime (which would be a better way to put it), or can the time period be made more specific? In other words, is its activity still expanding today?

After 1974. :-) Fixed.

• "the Council agreed to partial annulments": Doe this mean "in some cases" or "in all cases"? In all cases. Added precision.
• "possibility to request a constitutional review was extended to 60 deputies or 60 senators": (1) same comment as above (regarding and/or): Does it require 60 of one house, or can it be a total of 60 from both houses? 60 of one house, as above.
• "legislative neutrons": this is not idiomatic in English - please give the French term here too. Is neutron the right word?

This is not idiomatic in French either (neutrons législatifs). The expression was coined by Jean Foyer for clauses in law that have no legal consequences, thus are "neutral" with respect to Law. There is a list of examples of such items in in Warsmann's report. Fixed.

• "The Council is made up of nine members": this is just the appointed members, right? It doesn't count former presidents. Fixed.

I think if you can resolve most of these issues, the article will be in good shape! --Uncia (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed proofreading. I'll make the updates. David.Monniaux (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1964

This peer review discussion has been closed.
There are a few things I want an outside opinion on:

1. Should there be candidate picture(s) and stats in the infobox, and if so, how should it be presented? Johnson was essentially unopposed, but due to the unique circumstances, there are a variety of candidates as well as a significant portion of "unpledged" votes.
2. The raw data for the state-by-state data can be found at User:Recognizance/Sandbox2. Should this be included? It seemed a bit superfluous given the uncompetitive nature and the existing summary of the results.
3. Wallace's withdrawal is under the "Vice-Presidential choice" section. I had debated spinning him off into a separate section, but the person I was talking to at the time thought it was fine as-is.

Outside these points, the usual feedback on prose and such. I want to make sure the article is clear given the opaque nature of the selection process. Thanks, Recognizance (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that seems pretty close to ready to FAC for me, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think I would change the layout of images (this is just my idea - feel free to disagree). I would put the LBJ picture in the lead with the caption that he won the primaries and nomination. The Wallace image could be in the Background section. The images of the favorite sons from Wisconsin and Maryland could go in those sections. The Indiana section already has the map and the MOS says not to sandwich text between images, but the favorite son from IN could perhaps go there too. If not there would still be four favorite sons photos that could be in a gallery somewhere.
• Other image concerns - it is not clear to me at all which person of the three in that image is Yorty, so the caption should identify him by position (left or center or right). The map of Indiana could also be made a bit smaller with the "upright" paramemter (if desired).
• Finally, the File:1964 Democratic presidential primaries.JPG map makes no sense to me - it is mostly yellow, which seems to be Porter, but he is fourth in the Results table. I think most casual readers will look at the lead and the images first, then read the article - this just confused me. Brown also took California on the map, but is not on the results table. I also think the shades of yellow are too close to each other to distinguish in some cases - Indiana looks like ther same shade as California, for example.
• I think it might help in the Results table to list the state the person is from and also to indicate who they supported (if not themselves). For example William W Scxranton appears only once in the article - and the link is to a Republican from Pennsylvania, but Pennyslvania did not have a primary that year. How did this happen?
• If the name is standard for articles in this series then don't change it, but I think the name is not the best fit for the article, since it also describes the convention.
• The article also does not really describe all 16 primaries - I know Texas did not have one - but New Hampshire is only mentioned once, for example.
• More later - this is a start

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll be able to better address the things you mentioned later this weekend, but I wanted to mention that I was also dissatisfied with the map that has the yellow and such. However, I'm not good with images - at all. I made the map in the Indiana section by installing Inkscape and using the paint can tool on an existing image. Also, I do need to add a bit more on LBJ's "Bobby Problem" as far as New Hampshire goes, but in most of the states, there was simply nothing of interest to talk about (see User:Recognizance/Sandbox2). I suppose saying there was no competition in X, Y, Z would help clarify that. Recognizance (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the article should mention each primary (that is the title after all) although they could just be a sentence or two in most cases. I would also give the percentages of votes received for the major candidates (over 1% perhaps) as most readers can relate to these more easily than the total vote numbers themselves. So for example the New Hampshire primary could be something like "The first primary in New Hampshire resulted in Johnson receiving 95.3 percent of the vote, while Kennedy was second with 1.6 percent and none of the other candidates received more than 0.9 percent. Wallace was not on the ballot." Then go into the unexpected Wallace result in Wisconsin. Where the article gives vote totals for Wallace I would also say what % this was.
• I found the whole paragraph on the vote in Alabama confusing (the one starts with On May 5, 1964, voters in Alabama voted by a five-to-one margin for a slate of unpledged electors controlled by Wallace...). It is in a section called Primaries, but it is not in the table of Primaries or in the talk page data. I assume it is some sort of party caucus? Anyway it needs to be clarified and the sentence on the strategy is also a bit awkward.
• The Background section describes Johnson's reluctance to run, but the article never makes clear when / why he decided to run
• Should some mention of the party meetings other than primaries be made? How did the delegates from states without primaries get chosen?
• The lead mentions that Johnson went on to win the general election in a landslide - this needs to be in the article too.
• I think that the Wallace withdrawal is OK where it is now, but perhaps the section header could be something like "VP choice and Wallace withdrawal"?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think several of the points have been taken care of. Let me address some here:

• The issues with the infobox and candidates have been solved in the best way I think we can. The candidate image in the Indiana primary just didn't feel right no matter how I played with it, so I left the map there instead since it adds something to the article. I'm looking for more information about the individual primaries, but I did allude to the details in New Hampshire with the new section entitled "The 'Bobby problem'". I'll put specific details of each race in there when I do some more digging for sources outside the raw data.
• I have no idea how the states that didn't hold primaries did their meetings. According to the book I'm reading by J. William Middendorf they appear to have been some form of caucus of local party people (he mentions at one point that it went so far as to have people worrying about traffic lights when they planned things out), but it really was an opaque process. The case of Alabama, I hope, is clearer the way it's phrased now. But there were no further details on the specifics in the books I have.
• As for the convention - I will probably move some of the detail in that section onto the article about the convention. As the article alludes to, the splitting of the convention and the primary wasn't complete at this point, so for example, the Goldwater campaign's original plan was to take control of the party delegations and skip primaries altogether. But some of the stuff (e.g. "Hello, Lyndon!") really doesn't belong here.

I'll post a follow-up when I have more information. Recognizance (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the 1968 Democratic primary page and wonder if two things could be done with the infobox. First, the states carried parameter could be added and it could be "x (of 16)" to make it clearer that only 16 states had primaries. The second idea I had was to list "Favorite son (stand in for Lyndon Johnson)" and perhaps have a photo collage with percent and states carried - this would make it clearer that Johnson got a higher percentage of the votes and carried more states than it seems at first. Hoep this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Domestication of the horse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been very well organized and the sources and references have been quoted very meticulously. It has all the what it takes to be a GA. Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad, cleanly written, and interesting. My main concern is with sourcing and interpretation; it's hard to tell whether an interpretation is coming from a reliable source or from the contributor(s) to the article. The fix for this is to source the interpretations or, if they cannot be sourced, to omit them.

• Sourcing: A good rule of thumb for citations is to give a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every paragraph. There may be exceptions to these guidelines from time-to-time, and the lede may not need many citations if the equivalent material is cited in the main text sections. I note that some of these unsourced claims or paragraphs have been flagged with "citation needed" tags, but others might easily become flagged as well. For example, the entire "Horses in ancient warfare", which includes many dates, quantities, and other claims that are not common knowledge, is almost entirely unsourced. That means it does not satisfy WP:V. The same can be said of most of the "Horses interred with chariots" section and other substantial parts of the article.

• Analysis: The "Archeological evidence" section begins with unsourced material, including the sentence, "Few of these categories, taken alone, provide irrefutable evidence of domestication, but combined add up to a persuasive argument." This is a conclusion presumably based on evidence, but it needs a source; otherwise it appears to be a conclusion drawn by a Wikipedia editor or editors. Wikipedia editors, even specialists in the subject matter, are not usually reliable sources in the sense defined by WP:RS. Ditto for any other analysis of the evidence presented. The conclusions or interpretations need to be sourced as well as the evidence.

• Date ranges such as 4000-3500 BC take en dashes rather than hyphens, thus: 4000–3500 BC. Other ranges such as "Botai settlements in this period contained between 50-150 pit houses" also take the en dash.

• WP:MOSNUM#Unit conversions says in part, "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except:... ". Thus "two spoked wheels set in grave floors 1.2-1.6m apart... " should appear as "two spoked wheels set in grave floors 1.2 to 1.6 metres (3.9 to 5.2 ft) apart... ". I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions because it automatically spells and abbreviates the quantities correctly as well as doing the math. Any quantities in the article that appear in metric only should be expressed in imperial units as well. Thus 3mm would become 3 millimetres (0.12 in).

• Linking. Terms such as phenotype and genotype in the lede should be linked on first use. On the other hand, a common word like meat, which is linked in the lede, probably does not need to be linked. Warfare should not be linked twice in the same paragraph of the lede. Reviewing all of the links and possible links in the article is a bit tedious but a good idea.

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds at least seven links in the article that go to a disambiguation page rather than to their intended targets.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing an article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Finetooth. Thanks for your helpful comments! I am going to leave the metric/endash/wikilinking/etc. cleanup to someone else for now (Nefirious? You want to help?? Please do!), but I am curious about some of your sourcing comments. I think some of the things you mention might be sourced, just several sentences go to the same source and hence the footnote is a ways off, but I think you have caught a couple of things that needed to be caught as well -- but the article is one I have looked at so many times that my eyes are rummy-- so if you could be so kind, can you just toss in a few "fact" tags at the spots where you are seeing problems? I can see what I can do to fix those. A lot of the sourcing was done by an editor who is no longer on wiki, so I may have to do some digging to find additional material. Thanks again! And Nefirious, doing the metric conversions and adding the endash syntax is pretty easy, I'd sure appreciate some help with that stuff! Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize. It's often harder for me to improve an existing article that's long and complicated than it is for me to start from scratch or from a stub or start-class article because the long article requires that I check all of the sources and compare what the sources say with what the article says. I don't have time to do that kind of close checking for each of the articles I review, but I sample here and there when something looks suspicious to me. In this case, reading as a non-horse person, I got the impression that a general overview was being imposed on the article from somewhere, but I couldn't tell where. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nefirious loves the article, and I'm flattered. And a general overview/Pre-GA review IS useful! But I have also run the GA gauntlet, and know that it's not quite there, but I don't have the energy to take it all the way through right now, especially because I'm helping someone else shepherd an article there. So like I say, I'm fine with tagging any potential sourcing problems to fix as we go! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

French presidential election referendum, 1962

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wonder whether it is intelligible by people who are not knowledgeable about French institutional history.

Thanks, David.Monniaux (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally clear to me, but I have a few suggestions.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about the controversy and doesn't mention de Gaulle.
• Dates like October 26, 1962, are no longer autoformatted (linked).

Controversy

• The embedded link to an external source, "official translation" in the hatnote should be turned into an in-line citation.
• "This was unsurprising: from 1958 to 1970, under Charles de Gaulle's presidency, was sometimes described as a "cannon aimed at Parliament", protecting the executive branch against encroachment by Parliament; all referrals except Monnerville's single came from the Prime Minister, who always got a ruling of partial unconstitutionality." - This sentence is problematic on several counts. Does "cannon" refer to the council? The direct quotation, "cannon aimed at Parliament" needs a source immediately after the punctuation (comma) at the end of the quote. "Monnerville's single" should probably be expressed as "the one from Monnerville". What does it mean to say that a proposed law is partly unconstitutional? Does that always mean that the proposal can become law?

Results

• The "official proclamation" is another embedded link to an external site that should be turned into an in-line citation.

General

• Reference tags should be placed immediately after the punctuation at the end of sourced material rather than before the punctuation.
• Much of the article is written in passive voice. It would be stronger in active voice, and many of the passive constructions would be easy to change to active. For example, the first sentence of the "Change" section now says, "In the Third and Fourth Republic, the President of the Republic had been elected by Parliament." It could be flipped and tightened to say, "During the Third and Fourth Republic, Parliament elected the president." The next sentence in this section begins, "In the 1958 constitution of the Fifth Republic, the president was elected by an electoral college... ". You could write this as, "However, the 1958 constitution of the Fifth Republic required an electoral college to elect the president... ". You might look for other constructions that could be flipped from passive to active, which often takes fewer words and is more direct and clear.
• Words like "president" and "constitution" are normally lower-cased unless part of a formal title.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

J. C. W. Beckham

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was listed at WP:FAC, where it failed to gain enough support to be promoted. There was one support and several comments, but no explicit opposes. One comment suggested that the article should have an independent copy-edit, which is why I am listing it here. I welcome any comment regarding potential impediments to the article's promotion to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble seeing what's wrong with it, to be frank.
• Stylistically, it's a bit heavy on the passive voice for my personal taste, but that's often the case for material in American English and it's certainly nothing to get worked up about. I've moved the "See also" to above the "References" and "Bibliography", which I've renamed.
• Content-wise, the only thing I'd say is maybe it would benefit from a "Legacy" section that summarises any ongoing impact he had after his death—but only if there's something useful to say. (I know nothing about the subject, so maybe there's nothing.)

  Hopefully someone else will be able to be a bit clearer about whatever the problem is, because I just can't see it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I hope you will watch for this article to return to WP:FAC (which may be a while, since I need to get Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. there first), and will lend it your support. I don't really think there is enough material to constitute a "Legacy" section, although it's a good suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I made an exceedingly small number of minor changes to the article, and I have a few other comments and suggestions for further improvement.

• I added three metric conversions as suggested by MOS:CONVERSIONS.
• I added persondata to the article. Please see WP:PERSON for details about how this works. It says in part, "Persondata is a special set of metadata that can and should be added to biographical articles (only)." Please check the persondata to make sure that it is correct. In edit mode, you can see it between "External links" and "DEFAULTSORT".
• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." The image of Beckham's birthplace makes a text sandwich with the infobox. I don't see an ideal fix for this because moving the image down or to the right within the "Early life" section won't solve the problem. Perhaps it could be moved into one of the lower sections that lacks an image? Just a thought.

• I didn't know if infoboxes qualified for the "sandwich" rule. I don't really think the Wickland photo would fit anywhere else in the article, unless I added a sentence to the end that said something like "Beckham's birthplace, Wickland, was added to the National Register of Historic Places on <whatever date>". Usually, someone gets a photo of the person's grave for the later life section, but I don't live close enough to Frankfort to get that. Do you think this is a good solution? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That might work, depending on how well the image fits in that space. It would certainly be useful to include the info about the National Register. This tidbit and the tidbit about Beckham County, Oklahoma, might be enough to create a "Legacy" section that would be big enough to accommodate the house photo. The section might need just a bit more, a sentence or two. Were any libraries or university buildings named after Beckham? Did anybody name anything else after him, a Beckham Trust Fund, or a Beckham Park?

• Not that I'm aware of. I haven't run across any mention of such a thing in any of my sources. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any great problems with the prose. However, the "Early life" section is choppy because the sentences are short and similar in construction. It would be easy to vary the pattern. You might, for instance, use "and" to combine these two sentences: "In 1881 he served as a page in the Kentucky House of Representatives at the age of 12. Later, he enrolled at Central University (now Eastern Kentucky University) in Richmond, Kentucky." And the next-to-last sentence could be recast thus: "Admitted to the bar, he commenced practice in Bardstown in 1893." Mostly, the prose doesn't strike me as too choppy, but I was a bit bothered by choppiness in the last section. Again, I think this can be easily fixed by tiny tweaks. For example, you might combine these two sentences: "The race was complicated, though, by the entry of John Y. Brown. A Democrat, Brown was a sitting U.S. Representative and former Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives." It might become "The race was complicated, though, by the entry of John Y. Brown, a Democrat who was a U.S. Representative and former Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives."

• I've incorporated these suggestions and a couple that hit me after having separated myself from the prose for a bit. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Governor of Kentucky

• "The only major legislation passed during Beckham's term were a tax increase that added a half million dollars to the state's revenue and a child labor law that forbade children under 14 to work without their parents' consent." - "Legislation is singular" but "were" is plural. Suggestion: "The only pieces of major legislation ... were... ". Or " The only major legislative acts... ".

• Good catch. Thanks.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your suggestions. I hope to bring this article back to FAC in the near future. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

MIKE2.0 Methodology

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on how to improve it from a wider audience and ultimately write a better article.

Thanks, Sean.mcclowry (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not heard of this before - the article does a decent job of letting the reader know MIKE2.0 is, but needs some work to get to GA or especially FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• This needs more references, for example the "Information Governance" section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Refs that are here are mostly from the organization behind MIKE2.0 itself - the article needs more independent third-party sources. See WP:RS
• Per WP:CITE references come directly AFTER punctuation without a space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Per WP:HEAD the headers are not capitalized correctly - "Information Governance" should just be "Information governance" for example. Generally short headers are to be preferred to long ones, so "Impact on the Information Management Community" could perhaps just be "Impact" (I don't expect it to have much impact elsewhere). Similarly "Key Concepts of MIKE2.0" should just be "Key concepts" (the reader already knows it is about MIKE2.0)
• Currently the "Criticisms of the Approach" section is only the header and needs text (or the header should be removed). If it is expanded, how about just "Criticisms" as a header?
• Image licenses appear to be incorrect in at least some cases - for example, File:Mike2 core solutions.jpg is part of a screenshot of this web page. As such I think it needs a free software license like File:Mike2 main page.jpg has.
• On closer inspection of the MIKE2.0 page for File:Mike2 core solutions.jpg (see above) I see that a user with the same (Sean McClowry) is the author of this diagram for MIKE2.0. As such it appears that you may have a conflict of interest and should be very careful editing this page - as the COI page says Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.
• The writing of the article needs to be more encyclopedic - for example the article is very list-y currently (including bullet points in the lead, which seems to go against the spirit of WP:LEAD). I would convert as many of the lists to prose as possible to improve readability.
• I would also try to get rid of the short (one or two sentence) paragraphs by either combining them with others or perhaps expanding them - this should also improve flow and readability.
• Things like "In summary" in the lead are also not very encyclopedic - this reads in places like a promotional / introductory PowerPoint about MIKE2.0 was converted to a Wikipedia article.
• As noted, the article now tries to expalin what it is about / what it does and how it does it. I would add a section on the history and development of this. How about the busines model (what are "sales" like / who uses this?). Also are there any critical reviews of the software / system?
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on computing and OpenBSD might be a useful model - note that it is an older featured article and standards have gotten tighter since it was promoted to FA.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean responds: Thanks for you comments Ruhrfisch, a number of good ones here. You are right, there are some non-encylopedic phrases in here. As well, I am very close to the MIKE2.0 approach so I don't want to do write too much of the content here ... but I will make make changes inline with some of your comments as I think it will improve the approach for the community. I will also add some more external links that reference the approach. --Sean.mcclowry (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Metroid Prime: Trilogy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive suggestions on how to improve it. Gary King (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty much stuck as is until the game is released later this month. Then we'll have full details on enhancements plus some proper reception. -sesuPRIME 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the article and did some minor adjustments, just to make it read a little better. I'm not sure how you want to handle this, so I left it for you to fix as you like. "Metroid Prime: Trilogy is an action-adventure compilation video game" is kind of a mouthful. Is there any way to cut down on the adjectives? I usually try to dissect the sentence and pull out the descriptors--try to redistribute some of the adjectives into other sentences so that the meaning is retained while making the article easier to read and understand. Also, under the "Overview" heading, you refer to the games as "Prime," "Prime 2," "Prime 3." This is easy to understand... but I probably would abstain from this in my own writing. Is it obnoxious to write the whole thing out? It may be appropriate to do so seeing that this is an e-encyclopedia, but seek other opinions. Or if you hate the suggestion, ignore it. I don't think the semicolon in the last sentence of "Overview" really works. Semicolons separate two related, yet independent clauses. The reading is kind of awkward--perhaps reorganize the first clause to place "Metroid 3" closer to the second clause, increasing the relevancy of the second clause. Or, you could just eliminate the semicolon and write a new sentence, increasing the "flowability." I suggest writing a new sentence, while still rewording the first clause... de-awkwardify it. Finally... I think the "Reception" section needs a little work. "Reviewers have been positively anticipating the release" is not a phrase you would find in a standard encyclopedia. I suggest only using raw statistics--your claim is not really provable. The second sentence in this heading is better, as it lists a fact, but does anyone know about Shui Ta or Examiner.com? I don't, personally. It is a good article, but it could use some work if you want it to reach featured status. If you want to increase the length, see if you can find some more solid facts from reputable sources. Perhaps seek a Gamestop or IGN review. Look for polls and surveys. Good luck!--Jp07 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright I've made a few fixes; it should be better now. I'll keep looking for useful sources, although there won't be too many until the compilation is actually released. Gary King (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's notable enough to warrant its own article. It's a minorly updated re-release; why shouldn't the important details just be split into the existing Metroid Prime articles? I can't really see it getting much bigger than it is, as Development, Gameplay and Plot all overlap with those articles. Reception will likely be minimal, as is usually the case with re-releases. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  Here's the relevant discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_69#Compilations_get_a_separate_article.3F Gary King (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I don't know how to restart archived discussions on Wikipedia, but it seems that back then there was a near-unanimous consensus that it shouldn't exist. I don't know why it's here now, in that case, but since this has already been discussed, and I don't know how to revive it, I'll just drop it and leave you to your peer review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source from Nintendo if you can get anything out of it. | Metroid Prime Trilogy --Jp07 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I get a "HTTP Status 500" error on that page. Gary King (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that link on the previous posting--I think I formatted wrong, sorry. Try it now. Also, here's another Nintendo link--not sure if you've looked at this yet or not: | Metroid Prime Trilogy Web Site. --Jp07 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind... I actually looked at the article and I think you've used both of them. --Jp07 (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Sunil Chhetri

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, like with Baichung Bhutia, I want this to become a GA and then an FA. I believe I have used every piece of information available out there about this young footballer and it just needs a few finishing touches.

Thanks, Spiderone (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• Numbers under ten should be written in words, so "he scored 8 goals over three seasons" should be "he scored eight goals over three seasons"
• Write "2nd" as "second"

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Sunil Chhetri was born in New Delhi to parents of Nepalese origin; KB Chhetri, a retired army personnel" - you can't describe a person as "a personnel", as "personnel" is a group noun for all the people in a company/unit. You'd need to refer to him as a "retired army officer" or something similar, depending on exactly what he did in the army

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The 2004-05 season saw Chhetri" - a season can't see as it hasn't got any eyes, maybe try "Chhetri once again scored two goals in the 2004-05 season"

 Done Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "One of his most notable performances for a club to date was...." - you don't actually explain what was notable about his performance - did he score loads of goals? Play especially brilliantly? Or was it just that it was a high-profile match?

Removed some of it. It doesn't seem to be a hugely notable match as few sources mention it. Spiderone (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Brace links to a disambiguation page

Changed to Wiktionary link, it's the 9th definition Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Chhetri spoke in an interview saying "Nothing has been confirmed as yet but yes, I think I am close to getting there,"" - if this was the case, why did he never sign for them? The article doesn't explain this

 Done Spiderone (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Coventry City boss, Chris Coleman announced" - no need for the comma

 Done Spiderone (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "that they will not be following their interest in the Indian striker" - should be "that they would not"

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Chhetri said that he will again be going to Coventry City on an extended trial of 15 days in June 2009" - again, "will" should be "would"

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope all this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Brief comments from Jimbo online (talk · contribs)

I have only briefly commented on bits that stand out as an obvious to me. I don't have time to check the references with a fine tooth comb.

• Infobox needs fixing, stats should be aligned and n dashes used.

n dashes? I don't see any on John Wark. Spiderone (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do.

• Headers - are the years to and from needed?

 Done No they aren't Spiderone (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "is known for his high work rate, ball control and goal scoring ability." - Sounds like POV, nothing in the main article to back up these comments.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the first para of club career, 9th and 7th should be written as words. This happens quite a bit through the article when referring to be Xth placed in a league.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seasons should include n dashes too.

They all use this dash: "–" Spiderone (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an n dash.

• International goals table consists of a lot of overlinking.

 Done and n dashes Spiderone (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two different flagicons for Chinese Taipai now though.

 Done Spiderone (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is a solid article with potential at WP:FAC. I would like some further advice about cleaning it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony, it may take me a while to complete this, but I'll do my best. Perhaps start with a copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I've made a start, by copyediting the lead and the first section. I've also made a few comments'quibbles:-

• Lead
  • "...downtown Chicago, Illinois in the United States." I wonder if "in the United States" is really necessary. It is generally known where Chicago is.
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

**"...rising above the Empire State Building in New York City and Chicago's current second-tallest, the Aon Center, and third-tallest, the John Hancock Center." If it rises above the second-tallest, is it necessary to say that it also surpasses the third-tallest? Stands to reason, surely?

• • • The point is not that it rises above the 2nd- and 3rd-tallest, but that it is taller than two other well-known tall buildings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The sentence now reads: "When topped out in 2009 it became the third-tallest building in the United States after Chicago's Willis Tower, Chicago's current third-tallest, the Aon Center, and fourth-tallest, the John Hancock Center." That doesn't make any sense. Which two buidings in the United Staes were taller than it? Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Looks like an IP agreed with you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Well it makes sense now. If you're happy with that wording, OK. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Should you mention that The Apprentice is a television programme?
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "the building with the world's highest residence above the ground..." I don't think "above the ground" is necessary. I also think you should qualify by saying "the world's highest domestic residence."
    • Above the ground is necessary. Suppose a city at a high elevation (compared to sea level) had a shorter building, it would still be higher relative to sea level. This is height above the ground regardless of the ground elevation. Is there another type of residence other than domestic?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I take your point about "above the ground", but your meaning would be clearer with a different phrase, e.g "above ground level". Forget the "domestic residence" point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks. changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Location

**I have rearranged the material into what seems a bit more logical sequence, but the main question in my mind is whether this section, which is hard to follow, could be replaced by a map, or at least illustrated by one. Any thoughts?

• • • I have added a new map, but I do not think it replaces the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I have tweaked the text a bit more to make it clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

**I find the three images confusing - not sure what they are showing.

• • • I have changed the captions to clarify relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, but I can already hear the FAC voices complaining about squeezing the text (MOS violation), over-imaging etc. How are you going to answer those? Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • If the FAC people want fewer images, I will eliminate some. These images are showing the surroundings of the former building that continue to surround the property.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will continue in instalments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: I have worked through two more sections and the first paragraph of the Restaurant section. I've posted the copyedited versions back to the article; here are a few comments:-

• Architecture

**"some views belie the alignment of the second setback." I don't think many readers will understand this - I think it's the quaint word "belie" that distracts. I suggest replace it with "distort".

• • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

**"The setbacks and rounded edges of the building will combat vortex formation." Needs to be reworded so that its meaning is apparent. The link to vortex is no help at all.

• • • Does that help (I think most have heard of Chicago's nickname as the Windy City).--TonyTheTiger

(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ****I've tweaked the grammar. It might be better to say "which may occur due to high winds" than "which may occur in the Windy City", but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • In the second paragraph, the confusion of tenses between present and future was very confusing; I have converted it all to future ("Will contain", "will hold" etc), which reads better. It makes me wonder, though, why this article is being written now, with inbuilt instability, rather than when the building is finished.
    • It is completed and I have changed from will to past tense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

****It still says "will include..." Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

**The long description of the location of the small riverside walk/park ("surrounded by..." etc ) is overcomplicated for such a minor feature. Suggest a simple description such as "adjoining the building", or "to the west", or whatever is appropriate.

• • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

**The third paragraph should end after "...the tallest all-residential building." The rest of the detail doesn't relate to the building which is the subject of the article.

• • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hotel
  • I have moved the comment about the relatively high room rental rates to the end, as otherwise it is out of place. Also, since the sentence begins "Initially...", there is an implication that this high pricing wasn't sustained - is that the case? I've done a few other shifts-around, too, so you'd better check that the citations are still in the right places.
    • I have swapped out a lot of refs. I will check out whether supporting refs are in the right places later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Restaurant (first paragraph)

**"...an outdoor patio terrace is scheduled to open in Summer 2009 when construction is complete." Well, it's August now, and the clock is ticking...Is the terrace open yet? Will it be open before this article completes its reviews? This highlights the issue I raised earlier: why write the article now, rather than when the building is finished?

• • • Sorry it took me so long to get to this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "The restaurant's foyer is T-shaped, and a passageway to the hotel is lined with floor-to-ceiling architectural bronze wine racks in opposing red and white wine rooms." I can visualise this better if the words "wine rooms" are removed. Perhaps the term is common in the USA; I've never heard of it over here.
    • You should be able to visualize it better now that I have added a picture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The prose is clearer. As to the additional images, well, it raises again the problem of squeezing text between images, contrary to MOS.

I'll keep at it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Later: I have got to the end of the Design history section. A few more comments:- *Remainder of Features section (Restaurant, Bar, Spa): The second Restaurant paragraph has too much detail for an encyclopedia article. In fact, none of the remaining restaurant paragraphs adds much to the article. The stuff about de Maupassant is a slight, distracting anecdote, and the rest, mainly comments on food and prices, is not really relevant in an article about a building. The Hotel Bar subsection reads rather like promotional material, so does the Spa subsection which follows it. I really think that this whole Features section needs rethinking; at present it simply is not encyclopedic. (Sorry to sound negative.) **I am looking through Category:GA-Class Food and drink articles, Category:A-Class Food and drink articles and Category:FA-Class Food and drink articles, but the only restaurant type article I see is Mzoli's. I am going to go through Category:Restaurants in Chicago, Illinois and Category:Restaurants in New York City and see if I can get a better feel for encyclopedic topics related to restaurants.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • As a separate article this would be one of the best restaurant articles on wikipedia, so I have split it out into Sixteen (Chicago restaurant). I am hoping it becomes the first non-chain restaurant to achieve GA-class or better. I have to think about the spa info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Good idea to split off the restaurant section. Perhaps reduce the spa detail a little?
        • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
          • To say that a critic "spoke of the spa in glowing terms" reads as your interpretation of the critic's comments. Suggest something more neutral, e.g. "spoke of the spa in positive terms" - or very briefly quote the critic.
            • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Design history

**Why is a building planned to have between 2.4 million and 3.1 million square feet then described in terms of "the entire 77,000-square-foot property"?

• • • On the ground level the amount of space that the lot takes up is 77,000 sqf. If you add all the square footage of each of the dozens of floors the square footage reaches millions. How should the text be changed to make this clear?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

****I'd simply delete "for the entire 77,000-square-foot (7,200 m2) property." It's not worth extending or complicating the text to get this tiny nugget of information in. The millions of square feet of floor space are the relevant figures. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

**"...meetings about erecting the world's tallest building in Chicago were occurring during the September 11, 2001 attacks." Do you mean "during", or "at the time of"?

• • • Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

****I've reworded to avoid repetitions and overlinking.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit more:

• Initial Phases
  • I have copyedited the section

**"...where the wall meets the Wabash Avenue bridge" What wall is this?

• • • I am not a construction expert, but I believe changing it to foundation wall is still correct and betterclarifies the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

**"...they "drove a steel plate next to the gap, dug out the space between and filled it with concrete", according to Bovis Lend Lease Construction Manager, Paul James." Such straightworward information surely doesn't need to be cited in the text to an individual. Suggest lose the quotes, end the sentence at "filled with concrete."[ref]

• • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

****Do you need the quotes?

• • • • • Oh yeah.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

**Irrelevant over-detail: "...the largest privately owned ready-mix concrete company in the United States until it was acquired by Toronto-Based VCNA (Votorantim Cimentos North America) in February 2008.[ref]

• • • The company does not have an article, so I included the detail for the reader to know what type of company they are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I still don't think it's relevant to the understanding of this article, which has plenty enough detail of its own. Brianboulton (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I could shorten it to "the former largest privately owned ready-mix concrete company in the United States".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
          • That sounds good. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

**Last sentence: I think this is the first time that the 10,000 psi standard has been mentioned, so I suggest you say "to meet a 10,000 pounds per square inch (69,000 kPa) specification," etc

• • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues: The section lists three cases, but to me only one seems notable. Was the case of a street advert really notable? Will it pass the memory test? Perhaps, but it should not precede the really important case of buyers kicked out of their contracts. The case of public fear of cranes falling... does it really belong to this section, at all? Publicity, yes, but not a legal case. P.S. I'm somewhat involved having been employee of one of contractors for years [well before TH&T was conceived]. NVO (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I started to change the order around, but think chronological is better than importance. I am going to revert back and expand for recent things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Still continuing the review...

• Legal Issues
  • First para: I share the concern as to whether the kiosk issue is notable enough for inclusion.
    • Of the three remaining issues, it is the least notable, but I think it is sufficiently notable to remain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What does this sentence mean: "Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property for the purpose of building the skyscraper."? It's the "for the purpose of building the skyscraper" bit that I don't understand.
    • I finally got access to and was able to link the ref to the original source. I think I have reworded it correctly now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (Later) - having studied the paragraph, I think the story is this: in order to raise revenue to get the construction started, Trump presold apartments at favourable, discounted terms. The value of these apartments increased so much in the construction phase that Trump cancelled these discount deals, citing factors beyond his control (presumably the huge jump in the property market). Radler (and maybe others?) is suing Trump for the original deal. Others have begun litigation claiming that their purchases do not give them the extra afcilities in the building that they were promised. Have I summarised correctly? If so, could the paragraph be rewritten more smply, so that the picture can be more easily understood?
    • With the change to the confusing sentence, is further change needed in the paragraph. I think it says what you have summarized above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I still have great difficulty interpreting this sentence: "As president and chief operating officer of Hollinger International, which was the parent company of Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property that was the headquarters of the newpaper for the purpose of building the skyscraper in a separate transaction." It needs simplifying, thus: "As president of Chicago Sun-Times newspaper's holding company, Radler had negotiated the sale of the paper's headquarters building to Trump's consortium." Any further detaile is merely confusing - we know from earlier in the article the backgound information about the purchase of the site.

**The third paragraph appears to involve no legal issues. The disagreement with the unions looks trivial, and doesn't seem worth its place in the article.

• • • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

**Paragraph four deals with safety, but what are the "legal issues" here? The word "issues" suggest problems or differences (e.g. "is there an issue here?"). All this paragraph says is that in response to some unidentified concerns about safety, the Chicago Building Department has increased the number of safety inspections. What is the "issue"?

• • • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Final Paragraph

***You should explain why Trump sought a loan extension in September 2008

• • • • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

***Also, why, two months later, is he litigating? Did Deutsche Bank refuse to extend his loan?

• • • • I think I have gotten that cleaned up now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

***In what way did Trump claim that the project had been undermined and his reputation damaged?

• • • • It should be clear now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

***"...despite the November 10 written demands for the outstanding loan payment and the $40 million guarantee." WE know nothing about "the" November 10 written demands, or "the" $40 million guarantee. Who was guaranteeing what? These factors shouldn't be dropped into the text without any context or explanation.

• • • • I think I have corrected the information chronology.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I have copyedited the last paragraph for increased clarity, and I think it's just about OK now, though by no means easy to follow.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Construction section: I am working on this, and will get back to you. I will only have limited online access until the weekend, so I may not get done much done before then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

**FYI, the 20th is the 30th day for this peer review. Peer reviews older than 30 days close automatically if there has been no edits in the past two days. We must now make at least one edit every other day until we finish the review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Understood. on the Construction section
    • I have copyedited and simplified the first paragraph
      • Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The second paragraph reads as though the building is incomplete. I thought we had established that the building is now complete, and that the future tense ("will be the tallest", "will counteract the force of wind") is therefore inappropriate.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I think I have fixed this matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

• continuing Construction section
  • Third paragraph: In the first sentence, the limestone bedrock is presumably still 110 feet underground, so I would delete "that was". The rest of the paragraph is virtually impossible to understand without knowledge of building construction; the links to terms such as cantilever and caisson ae absolutely no help. Why is it necesary to have this technical information in a general encyclopedia article? My guess is that all the general reader needs or wants to know is that the building was ercted on stilts sunk into the ancient bedrock; all else is confusion. I suggest you strip this paragraph down to the bare essentials, and lose all the specialist construction terms
    • I have knocked out the tense issue. I would prefer to WP:PRESERVE the construction detail. This is an extremely beautiful and tall building that is a sort of architectural marvel as one of the tallest formwork building in the world (built on a riverbank no less. You and I may not understand the intricacies of the construction, but there are no doubt wikipedians who will revel in the detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm still a bit iffy about this much technical detail in a general encyclopedia, but on rereading it doesn't look too impossible, so let it be. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

**Fourth paragraph: these pieces of information are interesting and should be kept. I have posted a copyedit version to the article

• • • Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fifth paragraph: I have posted a copyedited version to the article.
    • Confused by "However, the spire installation was delayed through high winds prevented in December 2008".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I reckon I left "prevented" behind when I copyedited. I have deleted the word. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

**Final paragraph: Minor copyedits done. Also:-

• • • Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • What does "The hotel was 25% unsold" mean? How is this related to the later statement about 65% occupancy?
      • Hotel occupancy is a statement about retail guests. What percent of hotel rooms are being rented each night. 25% unsold is a figure regarding the condominium and hotel rooms sold for ownership. The 65% number has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, understood, but perhaps a more positive way of expressing his would be: "75% of the hotel's condominium and room accommodation had been sold for owhership at the time of the ceremony"?

***"...and in mid 2009 it may need a construction loan extension" We are well past mid-2009 now, so this statement should be updated.

• • • • Updated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

***The price comparisons in the last sentence seem a bit trivialising - the article is about a building, not about comparative Chicago hotel prices. Suggest delete.

• • • • Deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check earlier responses at the moment, but I will get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Following is a summary of the review's outstanding issues, as of 23 August:-

• • Text squeezed between images in Location section
    • Possible two-part solution: 1. move map to infobox replacing other map. 2. move images to horizontal layout (reducing squeezing). Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, put the better map into the infobox and drop the other. I'd like to see what the horizontal layoud does to the text before commenting on that. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

**Hotel section: Inconclusive sentence which I think is irrelevant anyway: "Initially, the hotel was charging higher room rental rates than the three five-star hotels on the Magnificent Mile."[30] My advice would be delete.

• • • removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

**More squeezed test, "Spa" and "Design History" sections

• • • I have rearranged all images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

**Legal issues. I still have trouble with "Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property..." etc. Hw was selling, not buying the property. Can you comment on my suggestion for simplifying this information?

• • • Good suggestion. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

**Construction: "...will be the tallest formwork structure in the world" - or "is the tallest..." etc.?

• • • Fixed. I have asked Raime (talk · contribs) to add some succession boxes for the page since I am not sure if it continues to be the tallest formwork building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

**Final part of Construction section not yet addressed by you.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that I had the {{convert}} template augmented to handle $/sq ft and $/sq m for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Zoroastrianism

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know of any problems on this article, so that they can be improved.

Thanks, Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, I have read this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but many of the sections seem not to be in the lead at all.
• Biggest problem I see with this getting to GA or especially FA is the lack of references. For example the Terminology section has zero refs, and the whole Distinguishing characteristics section only has one ref (with none in the Other charateristics section). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The ref which claims to be from the Guardian is really from the Independent (they are not the same)
• The article also uses two different styles of refs - superscript numbers and parentheses with the author's name and year. Either style is fine according to the MOS, but the article should only use one style throughout.
• The article is fairly list-y in places - to improve flow the lists should be converted to text wherever possible.
• Also to improve flow there are several short paragraphs (one or two sentences) which should be combined with others or expanded where possible.
• The captions do not always make it clear what connection the image has to the article - for example one caption is just "Farvahar. Persepolis, Iran." without further explanation - is this a modern work of art or an ancient carving or what? I guess that it is the same as a "Faravahar" which is shown in a later image with a bit of explanation and it appears similar to the lead image in the infobox - but there is no text on wither spelling of the word. If it is important enough to be the symbol of the religion in the infobox, shouldn't it be explained more?
• The image File:Zartosht.jpg is fair use and needs a valid fair use rationale for its onclusion here (I did not check all the other images)
• I would start the History section with Zoroaster and explain who he was to readers unfamiliar with him
• The History section also ends in the 16th century - while there is some history in other sections, this needs to be expanded to include the last several hundred years.
• I thought Freddie Mercury was at least born into a Zoroastrian family - perhaps worth mentioning
• It is often useful to have a model article for ideas and examples to follow - Islam seems to be the only FA on a major religion and may be a useful model. Anekantavada might also be a good article to look at for ideas on presenting beliefs.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

He caught most of the points I would have made. Were it me, I might consider adopting a structure similar to Catholic Church, placing a brief description of its origins first, then a discussion of its beliefs (which are probably the most important single aspect of any religion anyway), worship and prayer, organization if any, numerical data, cultural influence, and history last of them.

The notable adherents section, while interesting, probably takes up too much space, and sections to list single names generally aren't seen that well. So, in this case, "terminology" (or maybe "Name?") might come first, with the Beliefs section written out in regular paragraphs rather than bullet points and integrated with the later "Principal beliefs" section.

Whether "Religious texts" would go before or after beliefs I don't know, but probably think in this case at least "Scripture/Avesta" should go before beliefs, considering that is the basis of the beliefs.

In the relation with other religions section, it seems to stress Zoroastrianism's primacy to the almost exclusion of interrelations. I know I read that Zoroastrians consider some aspects of Abrahamic religion "heretical", because of the question regarding creation and usage by the "good god" and, "evil one" being markedly different between the two faiths, and that should probably be referenced.

History section in general might be shortened, or maybe the entire article expanded a bit to help remove what might seem to be an imbalance in favor of history. Some sentences, like the first sentence of "Principal beliefs", need to be not told "in-universe", so it might say, "Zoroastrians believe Ahura Mazda to be the beginning and the end..." Total number of citations could definitely be improved, with as I remember one or two per paragraphs considered a good starting point. That's all that comes to mind right now, above what has already been said. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Adelaide Anne Procter

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's an exhaustive survey of the few sources that exist on Procter, and I would like more eyes to look at the prose.

Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall

 Doing...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice article. I enjoyed reading that, and came away feeling informed.
• I shall focus on the prose, as you ask. Because it's generally well-written and all the following remarks are just stylistic suggestions, I have not made any changes myself; the idea is that you can consider and decide whether to reject my suggestions.

1. You may wish to consider WP:ENGVAR, which perhaps implies the article should be in English English (as about an English person). The word "favorite" in the lede surprised me.

I've changed "favorite" to "favourite" throughout - thanks for pointing that out. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You might want to go through the article looking for longer, Latin words that can be changed to shorter, simpler Anglo-Saxon ones. Examples include: "Primarily" → "first"; "Subsequently" → "later" (and note the repetition of "published" in the same sentence, which you may wish to rephrase to avoid); and so on.

I'm keeping the three "primarily"s because, in context, they mean "mostly" rather than "first" and "mostly," to me, sounds less good in these sentences. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The third paragraph of the lede begins with "The favo(u)rite poet of Queen Victoria" followed by a comma. I would prefer "Procter was Queen Victoria's favo(u)rite poet" followed by a full stop.

Agreed; changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The second paragraph of "life" begins with "... Procter was largely self-taught and had little formal education". I would strike "... and had little formal education" as redundant, since your meaning is quite clear without it.

Good point. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Later in the same paragraph, you say "wishing that her work be judged on its own merits rather than in relation to Dickens's friendship with her father". Instead of saying "rather than in relation to", which could be confusing because of the dual meaning of "relation", I would seek an alternative phrasing.

Hmm, I can't immediately think of an alternative. Will turn the gears.... Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The last sentence of that paragraph reads: "In addition to writing poetry, Procter was also ..." I would prefer: "As well as writing poetry, Procter was ..."

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. In the next paragraph, it reads: "Though on paper merely one of a number of members of the Society, fellow-member Jessie Boucherett considered Proctor to be the "animating spirit" of the Society". I would avoid the repetition of "Society".

Yes, I never liked that sentence. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Should Matilda Hays be redlinked? Is there enough information extant to write an article on her?

To my knowledge, no. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The entire "reputation" section is very heavy on the passive voice. Please consider rephrasing some of the clauses into the active.

I've re-worked the last section to put more statements in the active voice. Ricardiana (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I hope this entirely prose-focused review helps you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, S Marshall ... this is very helpful. I will try to address all of your comments in the next few days. Ricardiana (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

John Christie (murderer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to know what I can do to make it a featured article. I've tried to place equal weight on Christie's own crimes and life story and the controversy concerning his involvement in Evans's case. I'd like to know if there are any unclear parts in the article, whether I have explained the controversy well enough or if there is anything in general that needs improving.

Thanks for your comments! Wcp07 (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Kuzwa: An interesting article that gives the gist of the subject. Initial observations seems to suggest the article is in need of a good copy edit and some work on the prose would be good too. Finetooth below was kind enough to give me the link to WP:PRV so maybe you can find an experienced copy editor there to help you. Other concerns include:

• Images lack alt text, see WP:ALT for more information.

• In September 1916, Christie enlisted as a signalman in World War I. In June 1918, he was hospitalized after a mustard gas attack, claiming to have been blinded. He spent a month in a military hospital in Calais. - Might be worth noting here that the gas attack occurred in France as not to confuse the reader on the location of the events.

• That same day, the new tenant, Beresford Dubois Brown, discovered the bodies hidden in a wallpapered-over coal cellar in the kitchen. - Whose bodies? There is no mention in the murders section of him placing any bodies in the coal cellar. In-fact we don't get the suggestion that the bodies are of the last three women he murdered until the trial and execution section. Consider clarifying.

• This article almost appears to have 2 biographies on it; that of Christie and Timothy Evans. Though Timothy Evans was certainly relevant and quite important in the life of Christie it would probably be best if the information on him is shortened. It actually almost seems that many of the details present in this article on Evans are not even present on his own page. That could just be me however...

• References for the most part look fine. Extra citations would not hurt however.

Anyways was a good read. Has a few issues so I hope these suggestions help. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

-Thanks for those suggestions, Kuzwa. I'll look into them. Wcp07 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I wrote these comments before reading the above brief review. It is possible that I have duplicated comments.

The main problem with this article is lack of inline citations. Whole paragraphs, indeed whole sections, have no citations at all, so there is no way of checking statements back to source. There are other questions about the structure and grammar of the text, and I have mentioned some of these from my reading of the early part of the article, but I believe that the matter of under-citation should be addressed before I can finish the review.

• Content/structure of lead: The lead should summarise the whole article. In this case it is almost wholly concerned with the Evans case, which is is only one aspect of Christie's crimes, albeit an important one. The lead should be amended to reflect the balance of the article. Also, the Evans information in the lead is presented in a rather higgledt-piggledy fashion, without regard to chronology; for example, Jenkins's posthumous pardon of Evans came immediately after Brabin's report.
• Early life
  • "Christie was raised in Halifax, then in the West Riding of Yorkshire." Sounds as though Christie was raised in two places. Suggest "then" is unnecessary. Or say something like "Christie was raised in the Yorkshire town of Halifax."
  • Second paragraph has no citations. Also, "mathematics and algebra" – algebra is part of mathematics, surely?
  • "Manually dexterous, he was skilled at detailed work." Doesn't indicate the nature of the detailed work he was skilled at.
  • "His difficulties with sex remained throughout his life, and most of the time he could only perform with prostitutes." Citation needed.
  • "hospitalized" - why American spelling?
  • Final sentence: citation needed
• Early criminal career.
  • First paragraph is clumsily worded. For example, "Christie was convicted for many petty criminal offences. These included:..." should be followed by the offences, not the sentences for the offences. Also, "working as a postman on 12 April 1921" is ambiguous. The sentence is far too long, and needs breaking up.
  • Second paragraph has no citations
• Murders: there are virtually no citations at all in this section. The remainder of the article appears equally thinly cited.

I am leaving the review here. Perhaps you would notify me when you feel you have adequately addressed the citation issue, or if you need further advice on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

-Thanks for your comments. I agree the article needs more citations. I'll let you know when I've addressed this point so you can give further feedback on other aspects of the article. Cheers Wcp07 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Smedley Butler

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is already a good article with what I think is a good foundation for A or FA and I need to solicite comments in order to get it up to that level.

Thanks, Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a couple of minor points, as I haven't had a chance to read over the whole thing yet.

• In the infobox, the bullet points are appearing in their 'unwikified' form, could these be tweaked to appear wikified?

I don't see this, could you tell me which one is doing this?--Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be just my browser, strange...anyway the ones that are doing it are in the Battles/wars area (Tientsin, San Tan Pating, and Second Battle of Veracruz) — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are a couple of very large block quotes, are these really needed? Perhaps these could be put into own words?

I found some good stuff related to his antiwar activity and I am drafting up a couple paragraphs. Once I get them done I will remove this and replace it with something a little more meaningful. --Kumioko (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the military awards section, the ribbon for the MOH seems different to the image of the one (two) the subject received. Could be confusing.

I don't understand, are you saying that the ribbon in the display is different than the Medal displayed? If thats the case your sorta right, the ribbon has been the same but the medal changed from theh one displayed to the current neck ribbon. --Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the colour, thats all. It might be the image quality of the full medal in the infobox which makes it look like a different colour (darker in the infobox)...or just me again. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I will try to have a better look later. Good work so far. Cheers.— AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also fixed some dab links and reworded a few things, i am going to look at the links next. --Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kumioko

I know I submitted this but there are a couple things that I found and will address so I wanted to note them so its out here. Plus this way if someone should feel so inclined to do some thats ok with me too.

• Need to add alt text to images
• Need to review fix and or expand some of the references. Also a couple that appear to be broken.
• Fix some dab links, I did some already.

This is pretty much done. It still looks like there are a couple but the pages include the definition of what they are linked for. --Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Add more info for Honduras.

Done. Still need to add some but I expanded it quite a but. --Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Need to add some info about him from the other side, the article currently makes him seem without flaws but reading his book he states that they "hunted the cacos like pigs" so it seems as though the article needs some balance there.
• Need to expand the business plot section a bit.

Also need to add more here but its much better now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Need to add some more info about his speaking and post retirement life. For example his former friends distanced themselves from him and basically cut ties and stopped visiting due to his antiwar rhetoric.
• There are a couple places that need refs.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Expand the public safety section, there is a lot more to the story here and some of it is very interesting and in some cases amusing (like removing the roofs from the police cars so the police couldn't take naps on duty anymore).
• I also might try and fill in some of the red links with new articles (or link to existing articles if applicable.--Kumioko (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Early Modern warfare

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has all the qualities to be a B class article and it has not been reviewed yet. Proper references, citations and accuracy has been maintined by the editors. I thus recommend and nominate this article for peer review. Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but having a "B" rating merely means that an article needs more work? This is definitely in need of more citations, especially in the latter half. Please take a look at what is needed for an article to gain an GA or FA rating, which is usually an indicator of a well-crafted article.—RJH (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment for nominator: To clarify – peer review is primarily intended for high-quality article which have already undergone extensive work. Grade B is not an indicator of high quality. I note that you have done no work on this article; if you are seriously interested in improving its quality, I respectfully suggest that you spend some time working on it before bringing it back here for review, when I am sure your request will be acted on. At present I think this nomination is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Fulham F.C. season 2009–10

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to check how I am doing with keeping the article in line with other football season articles. I want to see whether any statistic sections etc. need to be added to the article.

Thanks, 03md 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the sections etc it looks sensible. All I would say is that since the subject matter has a largely pre-determined timeframe, it would be better to get the article peer reviewed some time after the end of the season, since 99% of what will be going into the article hasn't happened yet. --Jameboy (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. The sourcing looks good. The tables look pretty good, though some are just getting started. I agree with User:Jameboy that it's a bit premature to ask for a review. A proper lede, for example, can't be written until the main text sections are finished. Even so, here are a few thoughts about things to consider as you proceed.

• My main concern is with reader accessibility. Many potential readers don't know much about association football. For them, the jargon of the game can be mystifying, and you will increase your potential readership if you can write for them rather than only for an audience of dedicated fans. Here are a few examples of terms that it might be helpful to link or explain.

• "They will enter the Football League Cup at the third round stage due to their participation in European competition." - What is the meaning of the "third-round stage"? What does it have to do with "participation in the European competition"?
• Should "fixtures" be explained to general readers unfamiliar with the sport? Does it mean "scheduled matches"?
• Should "friendly" be explained?
• "FK Vėtra were confirmed as Fulham's opponents after winning the tie 3–2 on aggregate." - What does "on aggregate" mean?
• "and Erik Nevland scored a hat-trick against Perth" - Should "hat trick" be linked or explained?
• What is central midfield?
• "departed at the end of their loan spells" - What are loan spells?

• "Fulham began their first European campaign for seven years" - Did the campaign last for seven years? Something must be missing here, or the sentence has a typo.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

South Park (season 1)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The FAC result was that this article needs a c/e. ANy suggestions? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article seems to be in good shape, so it would be worthwhile to do another copyediting sweep or two to try to eliminate as many little errors as possible. My advice would be to take the advice of the FA reviewers, in other words. If you've worked on the article for so long that you can't see the errors, which sometimes happens, it's time to seek a fresh set of eyes. PR proper isn't the place to seek a full copyedit because reviewers here are generally swamped with other business. However, you might find someone willing to do this who is listed at WP:PRV#General copyediting.

• The PR guidelines ask that you wait at least 14 days after a "not promoted" FA to ask for a peer review. This article was "not promoted" on August 8, and yet you asked for a peer review on August 9. As the extended guidelines say, "The basic idea is that editors should look carefully at feedback from any review process, and make the needed changes before asking for a peer review." My guess is that over a two-week period you could probably find and fix most of the remaining glitches in the article without a fresh set of eyes, although a fresh set is still a good idea.

• Without reading more than the lead and glancing over the rest, I quickly spotted four minor errors. I will point these out, but since I found those so quickly, I'll bet there are more. Here are the four:

• Captions that are merely sentence fragments don't take a terminal period.
• The ampersand in "Trey Parker & Matt Stone" should be an "and". (I see a bunch of these.)
• The date formatting in the Reference section is inconsistent. You need to choose either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd and stick with it.
• Some of the citations are malformed. This is true of citations 40, 41, 42, 43, and 48. These would never survive FAC.

• One more thought. The reviewers are not trying to give you a hard time when they insist on getting an article as close to perfect as possible. The goal is to produce the best work that we can. That includes the nit-picky prose and Manual of Style things as well as the content, organization, illustration, and other things that are arguably more essential. To get something up to FA and keep it there, you have to try to make all aspects as good as possible. If this is too hard, it's OK. Getting an article up to GA is no mean feat. If you look at it that way, this article is already a success. If you want to do some more lens polishing and get it up to FA, I think you can, but you could also give it a rest for a while and tackle it later. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Tropical cyclone scales

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I could do with some feedback about what needs to be done for this article to achieve FA status. Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...

I see a red link, and a number of awkward grammatical structures of the form "between to the east of longitude 45°E and to the west of longitude 100°E", where I suspect "between longitudes 40°E and 100°E" would read better. - Denimadept (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are allowed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I'm new to this peer-review thing. - Denimadept (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So am i and you seem to be doing a good job :) Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I saw this was archived without many comments, so I reopened the PR and here are some more suggestions for improvement.

• The {{convert}} template might be useful for the various units - if it is not used, then the MOS says a non-breaking space "&nbsp;" should be added between numbers and units, so "50&nbsp;mph"

1) Its not usefull to use convert templates per this FAC - I will double check the nbsp; later.Jason Rees (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the official figures are limited to 5 km/h increments (I think that is what is meant) then there should be some sort of note mentioning this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - for example the Saffir-Simpson scale is linked twice in just the lead. Usually things are linked once each in the lead, infobox, and first time in the body of the article.
• There are some places that could provide more context to the reader - for example although Reunion is part of France, it is in the Indian Ocean (not Europe) so in the lead In the Southern Hemisphere, the Météo-France forecast center on La Reunion in France... is a bit misleading for those unfamiliar with Reunion. Perhaps something like In the Southern Hemisphere, the French Météo-France forecast center on La Reunion in the Indian Ocean... might be clearer?
• I would also identify the National Weather Service centers as such (or as branches of the US government) when first mentioning the National Hurricane Center and the other one
• The headers are all by oceanic basin except for the last (Australia) - is there a name for this part of the ocean that could be used as the header here?

I feel its better to use Australia rather than saying the Southeast Indian Ocean and Southern Pacific Ocean.

OK, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out abbreviations on first use followed by the abbreviation in parentheses - so as one example However if it forms to the north of 10°S and between 90°E to 125°E the low is labeled as a Tropical Depression by the Tropical Cyclone Warning Center (TCWC) in Jakarta, Indonesia.[18]

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks - Im going to work through these bits & pieces bit by bit.Jason Rees (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Victor Child

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's my first. Thanks, Torontonian1 (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work, and welcome to Wikipedia!
• You may wish to break your article into sections.
• You may wish to add an infobox. Template:Infobox artist is a good one for painters.
• You may wish to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts and ask for input from the painting specialists there.
• I hope these brief suggestions help!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and nicely written. I second S Marshall's suggestions above, and here are a few more thoughts.

• I repaired citation 6 by making the title clickable. You can look at the article in edit mode to see how I did that. I wondered, also, if citation 5 was missing a title or if it might be the same as citation 2. If they are the same, there's a handy trick you can use to combine them. The "ref = name" device allows you to cite something multiple times; instead of adding a separate line of text in the Reference section for each instance, it adds a superscript to the initial line. To see how this works in actual articles, you might take a peek at Charles L. McNary, where the first citation has been invoked nine times, and the second citation 23 times.

• Not everyone uses them, but I find the "cite" family of templates helpful when I do my citations. They remind me what information might be needed, and they format things correctly. They live at WP:CIT. If you use them, don't mix them with the "Citation" family of templates that lives in the same place.

• It would be good to add one or more images to the article if you can find any that are in the public domain. A portrait or mug shot of the artist and an example of his work are two ideas that spring to mind.

• "Perhaps the most significant moment in Canadian art history to include Child's paintings occurred... " - "that involved" rather than "to include"? Or maybe recast as something like "A significant moment in Canadian art history occurred when... " The problem I had with the sentence as I read it was that I had to stop to think whether this was a significant moment in Canadian art history or a significant moment in Child's history as an artist or both.

• I added a peer review template to the article's talk page per the PR instructions.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Torontonian1 responds: Your comments are very kind and helpful. I wrote this when I Googled Victor Child and realized that Wikipedia could have the only reference to this (minor) artist on the Internet. I will gratefully explore the useful suggestions you offer, having started with the verb in the sentence quoted. Thank you again.

---

Arms industry

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article comes with comprehnsive referneces and sources and is not eligible for a start article but atleast an A status. Please review the article.

Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth

The biggest problem here is that large chunks of the article have been copied word-for-word from sources. This appears to violate copyright law as explained at WP:COPYVIO. It says in part, "However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

For example, the Foreign Policy Association says, "Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and sea-based,) conventional missiles, and satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortiums mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter."

The article says, "Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and naval aviation), conventional missiles, and military satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Dassault Aviation, EADS,Finmeccanica, Thales Group, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Britain's BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortia mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter."

The whole article needs to be searched for other material that may belong to someone else and may be protected by copyright. Before I noticed the copying, I made a few other suggestions, as follows:

• Overlinking. Common terms like business, industry, weapons, and manufacturing, all in the first sentence should not be linked. I'd suggest removing all the links to words that most speakers of English are familiar with. WP:OVERLINK has details.

• Underlinking. It's easy to forget to link technical or special terms that many readers of English might find unfamiliar. Joint Strike Fighter is an example in the lede. It's linked further down in the article but should be linked on first use.

• WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line:... " Combinations like "$315 billion" need an nbsp.

• Reference numbers in the text should be snugged up against the ending punctuation. There should be no space between the end punctuation and the ref number.

• It's customary to spell out abbreviations such as GDP on first reference, thus: gross domestic product (GDP). On subsequent references, you can use GDP by itself, and readers will know what it means.

• "US$32.9bn to US$14.3bn" - There's no need to add the "US" to these, and "bn" should be written as "billion"; i.e., $32.9 billion to $14.3 billion". These need nbsps as well.

The subject matter is interesting and deserves a good article. I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• FYI These pages usually do better when reviewed internal by milhist, next time you may wish to pursue that avenue instead of a general peer review. I've left a note at milhist concerning this peer review, so you may see some of our people here in the next few days to offer opinions and advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm interested in improving it, need ideas for starting points.

Thanks, Noloop (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work! Interesting to read.
• I've dropped in the Feminism sidebar. I suggest you consider whether it's the correct sidebar for the article; you may feel there's a better one (it's not a topic area that I edit often).
• Build the lede, which is too short. It should summarise the article's contents.
• Include at least one reference per paragraph. If you can't find a reliable source to support what you say, then don't say it—even if from your personal knowledge it's true.
• I think the article would benefit from a copyedit. The Wikipedia Guild of Copyeditors may be able to help there.
• I hope these brief comments are useful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Noloop (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

MissingNo.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring it to FA, and need someone with a thorough eye to help find and isolate any errors the article may have and make it the best I can. I realize it's a very small article, but at the same time this is the extent of the information available on MissingNo.

Thank you for your time and patience, Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• "the player would have to see the Old Man's demonstration" – I'm not so sure this makes sense to someone not familiar with the games. "the player would have to see the Old Man's demonstration of how to catch Pokémon" (or something like that) would make more sense. Theleftorium 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed it with what you suggested, hopefully should be clearer for readers as a result now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not play Pokemon or this video game and I was able to follow this for the most part. I think it needs some work before FAC though, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The images have some issues - the source for File:Missingno.gif can't just be "Taken from an emulator" - I think it has to say that it is from Nintendo (although this is noted elsewhere)
• More importantly an image is repeated twice in the article, which is against WP:NFCC - a portion of the infobox image is repeated as the first of the four images in File:Missingno-ny.png, so at most that should show only the three other possible forms. If the other images are kept, then I think there needs to be more on them in the article than just though certain encounter values will result in a MissingNo. with the appearance of one of three 64×64 pixel sprites used elsewhere in the game.[8] There might be some at FAC who argue that the other forms are not needed at all (I am not an image expert).

That was done to make it easier for the image to be used in other article if need be and remain comprehensive.

OK, but I doubt it will make it through FAC with two images of the d-shaped static thingy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The refs seem to be OK, but I would check if the sources used reliable (how about destructoid.com for example?)

This came up in the GAN actually. Destructoid's been regarded as fine to use as long as it's established that it's staff-backed and not a random blogger.

OK, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would also make sure that the refs are formatted consistently - for example "Pokemon Red and Blue" is italicized in some refs, but not in others.

Not sure where to be honest...all the refs with Pokemon Red and Blue I see have them italicized just fine...

In current ref 11 it is not italicized - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since these seem to be only for the Game Boy, could a free photo of that be used - for example File:Gameboy.jpg?

No. An issue came up before with a Simpson's arcade cabinet awhile back on Wikipedia where the cabinet was deemed free, but the on-screen display caught in the photo was not :\

OK, but the image I suggested does not show any on-screen display (just a blank screen). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• One of the biggest problems I see with the article is a need to provide context for the reader - for example in the lead Game Freak should be identified as the developer.

Fixing...are there any others?

• I also note that criterion 1 of WP:WIAFA is the most difficult one for the majority of articles to meet. The same sentence in the lead referred to above Standing for "Missing Number" and described as a "programming quirk", MissingNo. is used as an error handler by Game Freak to appear in the event of the game attempting to access data for a Pokémon species that does not exist. is one example of language that needs to be cleaned up / polished.
• For context in the History section I would add a sentence or two on the development of the game(s) and about the fact that these are only for the Game Boy.

Seems unnecessary considering the glitch isn't tied absolutely to the background behind the games nor the Game Boy's hardware itself, no? (A MissingNo. for example is encounterable on Super Game Boy, Game Boy Color and GBA just fine in these carts).

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Video_gaming has many FAs on games, some of which may be useful models.

That's what I tried to do actually.

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded to the points above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the context points are to make clearer this is only for GameBoy, and to make it clearer why people tried to do this (seems to be partly for the challenge, but mostly to duplicate item 6 - the collection of items needs to be clarified / explained better too. More to come on awkward language. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Awkward language and context needed examples (try to be more thorough, still would be a good idea to get a copy edit or at least print this out and read it out loud slowly):

• perhaps split into two sentences: First documented by Nintendo in the May 1999 issue of Nintendo Power, encountering MissingNo. results in mostly temporary graphical errors and the mass duplication of the player's sixth item in their item menu, the latter effect resulting in player's guides and gaming magazines covering the glitch.
• Explain what the Hall of fame gallery is - is this high scores? Or is it some sort of Pokemon zoo (best ones I fought or captured?)
• missing word Other graphical glitches may also occur,[9] though [these?] are temporary and will be removed by viewing another Pokémon’s statistic screen or resetting the Game Boy.
• Rewrite perhaps as something like Nintendo has described MissingNo. as a "programming quirk" and has warned against encountering it;[1][5] the company removed the glitch in the game's follow up title, Pokémon Yellow.[7]
• Also needs a rewrite, perhaps as something like In a related article, they stated MissingNo. "...really says something about Pokemon fans that they took what is a potentially game ruining glitch and used it as a shortcut to level up their Pokemon."[6]
• Only one study is cited in the article, so should this be singular (a sociological study)? Reactions by players to MissingNo. has been the subject of sociological studies regarding individuals and video games. Or is the book Playing with Videogames also a soc. study? If so, say so (Another sociological examination, the book Playing with Videogames...)
• Awkward, especially the room to reproduce part It also states that in this process the individuals were celebrating and publicizing imperfections in the game while attempting to imprint themselves on the canon, and adds that the circumstances surrounding MissingNo.'s popularity is a unique case with little room to reproduce.[17]

OK, I do not do copy edits, but tried to point out the most obvious places - there are still several other places that could benefit from a copyedit - see the copyeditor volunteers at the bottom of WP:PR/V. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very interesting article. A few issues need to be addressed before FAC, however. Firstly, the images: the rationale for the header image is weak, and the second image seems pointless. Second, a copyedit will be required. I noticed, for example, awkward wording and many of those infamous "noun +ing"s. I might be able to work on it in the next few days. Finally, it wouldn't hurt to clarify the prose for the average reader, like the first paragraphs of History and Characteristics. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Began copyedit; will continue in the coming days. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Another comment: I noted that you did not update the lead image's rationale. If this is because you do not have time, I understand. However, if you leave it in its current state, it will come up during FAC. I recommend that you take care of it now. See this if you need an example rationale—it was helpfully written for me during my last FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that did help immensely, those things have always been a pain in the butt for me. I've been busy over the past few days and really only able to knock out a few things on my todo list as of late.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've gone through the whole article. I plan on editing it more, as it still has issues; the final paragraph, for example, needs a few more rewrites. My elimination of redundant words has unfortunately caused the article to become ridiculously short; this will probably lead to a pain of a FAC. Notify me when you put it up and I'll give it my support, as despite its length, I believe it's FA quality. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, strike that last part. The article in its current state fails 1c. As in, the prose is not actually covered by the references. For example, the first paragraph of Characteristics. I was just checking out the IGN link, and noticed that the text it's attributed to is not really what it says. Basically, "This causes the hexadecimal values assigned to each letter of the player's name to be referenced for the wild Pokémon on the coasts of Cinnabar and Seafoam island" and "if the value selected from the data buffer is not an existing Pokémon, a subroutine is triggered that causes the appearance of a Pokémon named MissingNo" are guesses based on IGN's comment, "Blah blah blah, number values, blah blah blah". This will be discovered at FAC, due to the recent push by certain editors to check for the proper attribution of refs. The recent FireRed and LeafGreen nomination had a lot of trouble with this, as you probably know. If you want any chance of passing FAC, you're going to need to take care of this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I put the player's guide ref beside it, since it fills in the missing gaps. It should suffice (found a gameshark booklet that showed non-existent values creating MissingNo. I was going to use as a supplementary ref just in case, but it doesn't seem to have any information to cite for it, it was bundled with an old issue of EGM and I've since lost that).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I will say I do appreciate the copyedit and the work you've done. The length of the article though troubles the hell out of me now for FAC, and it already was before it was shortened. >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. If the player's guide has that info in it, I guess it's taken care of. You might want to double check all the refs before FAC, to make sure there aren't any more mistakes. Besides that, I don't think they have a case against you at FAC. As far as I know, you cannot question an article's notability at FAC; they would need to attack it from the "it isn't researched" angle, which doesn't apply unless they can turn up missing info. Even if they do question whether it's notable, I think the coverage you've turned up proves that it is. It may be the shortest FAC ever, but as long as it meets the criteria, they can't reasonably oppose it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've finished copyediting the article. It's now short enough to guarantee annoying comments at FAC. It'll be rough, but as I said before, they don't really have anything to use against you. They can whine, but they cannot make a real opposition based on Wikipedia guidelines. I recommend that you make sure that this is the case with every aspect of the article, from MOS-adherence to reference attribution. Otherwise, be prepared for "The citations are inappropriate, not to mention the length"-style comments. Even if the length criticism is not actionable, its appearance alongside another complaint will give it weight. Expect a snowball effect as reviewers' perception of the article deteriorates with each new comment. If it is tight in all areas, however, the whiners will be exposed as such and you will get comments like "It's a nice article. The length really isn't a problem, since it covers everything there is to say". This is just something I've picked up from a few years watching FACs. There will be a snowball effect, due to peer pressure. Make sure it's a positive snowball. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Jay-Z

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's really grown, it's being better cited, it's been cleaned up a little and I think it has a change at the big leagues.

Thanks, Taylor Karras (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Liquidluck

• It needs more many more references, especially in the albums sections.
• This part: Jay-Z makes reference to the trial and incident on his songs "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)", on The Blueprint, "Threat", on The Black Album, "I Did It My Way" on The Blueprint 2: The Curse, and "Dear Summer", which was included in Memphis Bleek's 2005 release 534. Nas references this on "Ether" with the lyrics: "your man stabbed 'Un' and made you take the blame". Rival rapper Cam'ron claimed on a diss song ("Gotta Love It") that the stabbing had actually been over female rapper Charli Baltimore. is completely unreferenced, and as such violates WP:BLP- especially because it is about criminal charges. Liquidluck (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with thepoints above - this is an interesting article, but I think it needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for WP:GAN, let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead doe not really meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. But this sentence Reasonable Doubt, is ranked by Rolling Stone as #248 on its "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". seems to only be in the lead, for example.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several headers are not in the lead, the COntroversies section for example.
• I agree this needs many more referemces - 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
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• I owuld also make it clear in the photo of Jay-Z and friend in 1988 which person is Jay-Z
• There are several free photos of Beyonce that could be used here
• I am concerned that many of the quotations are far too long for WP:NFCC - as one example the extended quote from the Oasis singer is much too long - pick out the improtant sentences or phrases and keep those in a direct quotes and paraphrase the rest.
• I am also concerned about several of the lyrics quoted - first off, there also NFCC concerns, but more importantly it is not clear to me in many cases that the lyrics being quoted refer to the persons the article says they do. I would use newspaper or magazine articles or other reliable sources that say in song X Jay-Z is criticizing Y (or whatever). Otherwise this seems like original research in some cases.
• There are some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that could be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the aritcle's flow
• I also wonder if all the albums and controversies each need their own sections - I like how the Blueprint albums are in one section, could more combos like this be done? Or does the article really need two sections on Glastonbury?

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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Music of Canada

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

Thanks, Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and seems quite broad, although I was hoping you would mention Ian and Sylvia. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to try to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead is pretty skimpy and doesn't mention patriotic songs or music awards or mention any of the most famous singers by name, and it doesn't mention any of the interesting historical particulars such as the 30 percent rule.

• Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. You've used en dashes in a few, but many others throughout the article should be fixed. This applies to the heads and subheads and captions as well as the main text. Thus, "1900 - 1928" should be "1900–1928" or "1900–28".

• MOS:QUOTE advises against fancy quotes like the ones used in "19th century". It recommends using blockquotes instead but only for quotes of four lines or more. This particular quote is much too short for a blockquote and should simply be embedded in the text in ordinary quotation marks. The quote should be in regular type rather than italics.

• Phrases like "the Bell company" and "the Canadian Performing Rights Society" and "the Société Ste-Cécile" should be in ordinary type rather than italics.

• A bit of overlinking occurs here and there. For example, 19th century and other centuries should not be linked, and words like musician, newspaper, radio station, and poet are so common that linking them is probably just distracting.

• The article needs another round of proofreading to catch typos and other small errors. For example, in "1939 - 1959" a sentence says, "During the great depression, the majority of Canadians listened to what we would call today swing (Jazz) just as country was starting it's roots." "Great Depression" is how it usually appears, and "it's" should be "its". Further down in the same section, a sentence says, "1958 saw it's first Canadian rock and roll teen idol Paul Anka, who went to New York City where he auditioned for ABC with the song, Diana." Sentences in Wikipedia articles should not start with digits; years don't literally see, and "it's" should be "its". These are only examples and not a complete list of small errors.

• It's generally best to place directional images so that they face into the page. For this reason, Calixa Lavallée would be slightly better on the left, and Guy Lombardo would be slightly better on the right.

• It's generally best to avoid embedding links in the main text that go to external sites. The links to "The Canadian Boat Song" and other songs should be turned into in-line citations that give sources, urls, access dates, and other data in the usual way. In addition, the link to "The Merry Bells of England" does not seem to work.

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds 14 links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• The fair-use license for the Guy Lombardo image lacks a fair-use rationale specific to this article.
• How can a fact-checker be certain that the uploader of the Rush image could license it as public domain since the uploader is not the author?

• Ideally, the web citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. Just at a glance, I can see that the access dates are all missing, and that other data is missing that would be fairly easy to find and add.

• WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says the date formatting in the citations needs to be internally consistent. Some in the existing citations are yyyy-mm-dd, and some are m-d-y. You need to choose one format and use it throughout the references.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog, on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Noisettes discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article is well-referenced and suitably well formatted and written. I realise that the lead is probably the article's weakest aspect, and in this respect, I would like some imput as to where I can improve this. I am also struggling with regards to finding a suitable {| class="wikitable" |reference for the director of the group's first music video, "Iwe". Note that none of the Noisettes' albums or singles have yet reached certification levels and that the music video for "Saturday Night" has been filmed but not released.

Thanks in advance, Dt¹²⁸_SpeakToMe 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "(sometimes styled as NOISEttes)" I think this is extraneous information that doesn't belong in this particular article.

• I'm not sure about this point. Addition of this information helps define the discography so that it includes the first EP which was by NOISEttes not by Noisettes. Some casual readers may otherwise believe that they are two different bands.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 02:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• "the Noisette's music incorporates other styles of musical genres " Comma after here.
  • Done.
• "of act "Sonarfly"" What do you mean by "act"?
  • act --> band.
• "The Noisettes are now most well-known for their 2009 single release" Remove "now".
  • Done.
• "as well as being their first single to chart outside of the UK."-->and was their first single to chart outside the UK.
  • Done.
• "Wild Young Hearts achieved number seven on the UK Albums Chart, as well as charting in Europe." Last time I checked, UK was part of Europe (much to some Brits' chargrin!)
  • changed to "as well as managing to chart in other European countries."
• I believe MOS:DISCOG allows up to ten charts. Are there any more for the albums?
  • As far as I know, the only charts on which the Noisettes have reached are the ones listed.
• Something strange is going on with the peak chart positions in the singles table. I can barely see the country names.
  • I'll have to take a look into this...

• I believe MTV and NME are ubiquitous enough that you don't need to spell them out in the references.
  • Done.
• Would be nice if you could find replacements for ChartStats and acharts, but I can understand if you can't find them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll look into this over the weekend. Thanks for your help! Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox
  • Caption: Bassist and singer Shingai Shoniwa of Noisettes and guitarist Dan Smith perform at Stubbs BBQ on March 16, 2006. > Dan Smith, James Morrison and Shingai Shoniwa of Noisettes, March 16, 2006. Currently too long &/or POV as it ignores drummer (James Morrison) but unnecessarily advertises Stubbs.
  • Changed.
  • Alt: Image of three musicians performing in concert. There are two performers in the foreground, one female, one male. Both are playing guitar. The third musician is playing a set of drums in the background. > Three musicians performing on stage, man at left foreground is playing guitar, man in middle background on drum kit and woman at right foreground is playing guitar.
    • Much better. Thankyou!
  • Music videos. Is it 8 or 9? This may be a problem for the Lead instead.
    • Changed to nine in lead.
• Lead
  • eight music videos > nine music videos see above.
    • Yep.
  • ref [1]: IPC Media > [[IPC Media]]
    • Done.
  • the Noisette's music incorporates > Noisettes' music incorporates
    • Done.
  • ref [2] can be placed at end of sentence to cover both genres. Also change [[MTV|Music Television]] > [[MTV (UK & Ireleand)|MTV]] to avoid wikilink to US version.
    • Done.
  • Founded by lead singer and bassist Shingai Shoniwa and guitarist Dan Smith, of act "Sonarfly", the group now holds drummer James Morrison. > Founded in 2003 by lead singer and bassist Shingai Shoniwa, guitarist Dan Smith, (both from Sonarfly), and drummer James Morrison. Currently implies Morrison is a later addition to Noisettes, whereas both ref [1] and ref [3] have Morrison in band from the start.
    • Done.
  • Under the name "NOISEttes", the three recorded their first release, a four-song EP entitled Three Moods of the Noisettes, released by Side Salad Records. > Under the name "NOISEttes", the three recorded their first release, a four-song EP entitled Three Moods of the Noisettes, issued by Side Salad Records in 2005. Gives year of first release, tweaks sentence.
    • Sounds much better now.
  • Described as "garage-rock" and compared to > Described as garage-rock and compared to Wikilink genre & not in quotes.
    • Done.
  • peaked at just 75 on > peak at number 75 on More neutral, also note edit styled to keep number and 75 together in wrap arounds.
    • Changed.
  • as well as charting in Europe > as well as charting elsewhere in Europe or as well as charting on the Europe Album Charts depending on your intention.
    • Previously changed, see above.
• Studio albums
  • Date format: be consistent (may apply to other tables). Lead & caption use April 20, 2009 style. Table incorrectly uses 20 April, 2009 (no commas allowed between month and year) which could be 20 April 2009 style. See MOS:DATE.
    • Changed to April 20, 2009
  • Wikilink AUT to Austria if there is no separate chart article. Likewise EUR to Europe.
    • Done.
• Extended plays
  • See date format above.
  • Second column: Album details > Extended play details
    • Per MOS:DISCOG and to keep consistency with other discographies, I believe the header should be Album details.

      Done.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Singles
  • Consider use of Template:Singles discography as more economical (can be used for up to 20 singles and ten charts per single).
    • I would prefer to use the current format as I am unfamiliar with the above template, but I'll definatley take a look.
  • If not using this Template, Second column: Song > Title.
    • Done.
• References
  • Note some comments above. Particular references:
    3. Wikilinks to Allmusic and Macrovision not needed (already in Refs sectn).
    5. If using ChartStats, consider using Ref [11] to cover all UK charting singles and albums: saves on individual refs;
    6. Try Nielsen Business Media, Inc for publisher.
    12. For <ref name="AUSTRIA">{{de icon}}{{cite web| url=http://austriancharts.at/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Noisettes| title=Discographie Noisettes - Austria| publisher=austriancharts.at| accessdate=2009-08-05}}</ref> consider <ref name="AUSTRIA">{{cite web| url=http://austriancharts.at/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Noisettes| title=Discographie Noisettes - Austria| publisher=austriancharts.at| accessdate=2009-08-05}} NOTE: Some information in Austrian.</ref> Not all information is in German and there may be differences between Austrian and German.
    18. insert: author=Zywietz, Tobias|
    21. change: publisher=Drowned in Sound. Silentway
    24. I'm almost certain the language in The Netherlands is Dutch not German. See ref 12 too.
    28. change: publisher=Yahoo! Music. Yahoo! Inc
    29. Casual reader should be told they're going to YouTube (similar note needed on other YouTube refs). e.g. <ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dALeLKEHDz4 | title=Scratch Your Name music video| publisher=[[Universal Music Group]]| accessdate=2009-08-08 }} NOTE: [[YouTube]] website may automatically download video.</ref> If the Director(s) name is adequately sourced by another reference then delete this ref.
    • Changed all here except #28 and #12 because I'm unsure about what is meant. I think I will list YouTube in the publisher field on ref #29 however.

      Ref #12 Currently has (in German) indicating that the site's information is written in German. However much of the information on the page is in English. Consequently I would add a NOTE to that effect. For Ref #28 I wanted to avoid having two full stops (..) after Yahoo! Inc as publisher. Ref #29: sounds OK.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Have fun.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 02:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. :)

Update "Never Forget You" on European charts? See here.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

York Park

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC and It would be great to get some fresh eyes to look at the article.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, appears to be comprehensive, and is nicely illustrated. I think it's close to FA, but it needs a bit more work on prose and Manual of Style issues. I made a fair number of minor proofing and copyediting changes as I worked through the article, and here is a list of similar things that need attention.

Lead

• "it has been known as Aurora Stadium, under a six-year naming rights sponsorship deal" - Tighten by changing to "it has been known as Aurora Stadium, under a six-year naming rights agreement"?

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• "its record attendance is 20,971" - "Was" rather than "is"? Or "its record attendance, 20,971, was set in June 2006 when Hawthorn played Richmond in an Australian Football League (AFL) match."

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian football

• "Fremantle were a point ahead when the siren to end the game sounded during a stoppage for a ball-up" - Wikilink ball-up?

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• "was cancelled when a St. Kilda player was felled after the ball was kicked, earning a free kick" - Wikilink free kick? I'm assuming this was a direct free kick, but I don't actually know.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk)

• "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, with the older sirens to be put on display at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery." - "With" makes a weak conjunction. I've recast a few of these "with-as-conjunction" sentences here and there in the article, but you might fix this one and look for others. Assuming the sirens have been put on display by now, you might say, "The stadium's sirens have since been replaced, and the older sirens are displayed at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery." I don't have a ref for this.

• Don't have a ref for this. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Other uses

• Sentences should not start with digits, according to the Manual of Style. I fixed one instance, but here's another: "8,061 attended the fixture the following year, with another rematch in 2008 and 2009." You can spell out the number or recast the sentence to make the 8,061 appear somewhere other than the first position.
• "in his only Tasmanian appearance to date" - "Through 2009" rather than "to date"? "To date" might not be true a year from now.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Structures and facilities

• "Next to Aurora Function Centre is the heritage listed Northern Stand connecting the Northern" - Should "heritage listed" be linked or explained?

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The public Hall of Fame opened to the public on Saturday 21 February, 2009." - Delete "Saturday"? Delete the comma.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

History

• "A cycling track surrounded the perimeter fence until a new velodrome" - Wikilink velodrome?

• Aaroncrick (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• "drainage system able to disperse up to 100mm of rain" - All metric measurements should also be converted to imperial. The primary unit should be spelled out and the secondary unit abbreviated, according to MOS:CONVERSIONS. Ditto for any similar instances in the article.

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Record crowds

• "The record grounds record attendance is 20,971" - Is the duplication of "record" deliberate?

• Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• "However, this was before the Northern Stand was damaged, allowing many more people to fit inside the stadium." - You might want to recast this sentence to avoid making it sound as if the damage allowed many more people to fit inside. {done}}
• "20,011 saw an AFL match between Hawthorn" - Here's another sentence that starts with digits.

Notes

• Newspaper names like The Examiner should be italicized. Publishers like Tasmanian Government and Australian Broadcasting Corporation should not be italicized.
• In Citation 34, the publisher is given as Tasmanian Government. That should be "g" rather than "G".
• Citation 31 has one d-m-y date format. Since you've chosen yyyy-mm-dd for most of the others, this one should be the same. Ditto for Citation 52, and it's possible I missed one or two more.
• Some of The Examiner publication dates are missing. It would be good to fill those in if you can.

References

• It would be good to add the place of publication if known.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your own choosing. We need all the help we can get. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Comics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the main article on a major topic, it has potential to go all the way to FA. It needs some work, particularly with sourcing, so let's take it one step at a time. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the article is sourced, it was just written back when we had a different referencing style. Most of the points are referenced to and verifiable in Sabin, Perry & Aldridge and McCloud. Hiding T 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating and easy to read. Its big problem is complete lack of sourcing for large fractions of the article, which covers a wide variety of complicated ideas that must have come from sources. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A good rule of thumb for citations is to source every paragraph as well as every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that might reasonably be questioned. Lots of paragraphs in the existing article are unsourced and include lots of material that is not common knowledge, hence apt to be questioned.

• MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other."

• MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Thus, "Definition" would be better than "Defining comics", and "Creation" better than "Comic creation", and so on.

• MOS:IMAGES also says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." Thus, the "Yellow Kid" image should be relocated.

• MOS:IMAGES also says in part,"Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it." Thus "Adam and Eve" and "William Hogarth" need to go down or to the right.

• "Use" is always better than "utilize".

• The word "the" is generally avoided in heads or section heads unless absolutely necessary. Thus "The 19th century: a form established" would be better as "19th century: a form established".

• Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take terminal periods.

• Quotations, like the one from Töpffer, of four lines or more can be rendered as blockquotes.

• Sentences normally don't start with digits. You can write out the numbers instead or recast the sentence to move the digits to an inside position.

• External links are not normally embedded in the main text. "The Big Triangle", for example, should be turned into an inline citation that includes the external link (url) as part of the reference section.

• I'd recommend rendering the short list in the "Art styles" section as straight prose.

• I'd avoid addressing the reader directly, as in "For a fuller exploration of the language, please see Comics vocabulary."

• Generally it's better to expand extremely short paragraphs or sections like "In higher education" or to merge them with other paragraphs or sections.

• Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

• Some of the citations, such as 46, 48, and 49, are malformed or incomplete.

• The dabfinder tool that lives here finds seven links that go to disambiguation pages rather than to the intended target.

• The link checker tool that lives here finds five dead urls in the citations.

This is not by any means a complete line-by-line review, but I hope it proves helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Wisconsin Highway 119

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am sending this article to Peer-review in hope of getting feedback on the references, general prose or anything else that any reviewers might see that needs adjustment. My hope is to get this article to WP:GAN in the near future, but I unfortunately have a way of making many mistakes before nominating articles for any higher status. This review should help me iron out any issues that there are so I can hopefully get this article to GA status and possibly beyond. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is short and to the point and seems to get the job done. I made a few minor proofing changes and added a couple of conversion templates, {{convert}}, that do the abbreviations, spelling, and punctuation automatically as well as the math. You might find them handy in future articles. Most of my suggestions for improvement are related to prose issues and the Manual of Style.

Map

• It might be helpful to show the airport location on the map.

Lead

• "and since has had five other variations including the modern day route" - It might be helpful to readers here to make clear that the variations are different roads rather than tweaks to the same road. Suggestion: "The STH 119 designation has been used for five different roads, including the airport highway, since 1919."
• "These different roads were short lived but were located throughout the state of Wisconsin in the Milwaukee area, Manitowoc and Green Bay." - Tighten? Suggestion: "For short periods, the state assigned the number to diverse highways in Manitowoc, Green Bay, and the Milwaukee area."

Route description

• "There are multiple official signs about General Mitchell International Airport along the route going eastbound which mainly detail airport parking." - Suggestion: "Multiple official signs inform eastbound drivers about General Mitchell International Airport and its parking arrangements."
• "At the terminus the speed limit drops to 35 miles per hour (56 km/h)." - What does it drop from? What's the legal limit on the other part of the route?
• "The road terminates at Wisconsin Highway 38 giving an option to either exit onto that highway or continue into the airport." - Suggestion: "At the eastern end of STH 119, drivers can continue on Highway 38 or enter the airport."

History

• "The modern route was originally planned as one of five new freeways in a 1974 Milwaukee County memorandum, it was the only one ever built." - Suggestion: "As described in a 1974 Milwaukee County memorandum, the modern route was originally planned as one of five new freeways. It was the only one ever built."
• "The project received multiple criticisms, such as the relocation of a historic B-25 bomber and the resignation of a highway official." - Strictly speaking, a bomber and a resignation are not criticisms. Suggestion: "Criticism of the project included objections to relocating an historic B-25 bomber." It's not clear whether people objected to the resignation of the official or whether the official resigned in protest about some aspect of the project. It would be good to clarify what happened.
• "According to Wisconsin DOT official Tom Heydel (quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Road Warrior column), the signs were recently changed after drivers asked why the exit wasn't labeled as Highway 119." - Newspaper names should appear in italics. Also, delete "recently" since the date (2007) is clear from context. Also, WP:CONTRACTION says it is generally best to avoid contractions like "wasn't" in an encyclopedia article. "Was not" would be the preferred form.
• "State highway maps have labeled the route as Highway 119, since the 1983–84 official map but travelers had trouble finding the road which was not marked on signs." - Run-on sentence. Suggestion: "Since publication of the 1983–84 official map, state highway maps have labeled the route as Highway 119. However, travelers had trouble finding the road, which was not identified as Highway 119 by highway signs."

References

• WP:MOSNUM#Format consistency says in part, "Dates in article references should all have the same format." The existing references have a mixture of formats. You should pick the one you prefer and stick with it.
• The newspaper names should be italicized.

General

• "airport and Interstate 94.[6][5] - The usual custom with a string of citations like this is to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [5][6]. Ditto for any other strings of citations in the article.
• WP:NBSP suggests using no-break codes to hold items together that might look awkward if separated on computer screens by line breaks. I think something like "Highway 119" would fall into this category, and I'd be inclined to add the nbsp code between "Highway" and "119". Ditto for similar terms in the article.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you this will be quite the help. --Marcusmax(speak) 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Silver Surfer

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this character article was made a GA at a time when the standards were less evolved, and could use quite a bit of TLC to retain its status. It needs some work, particularly with sourcing, and I understand that the in-universe plot summary could use a trim. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: the article has two major cleanup banners, from January 2009 and July 2009 respectively. PR procedures require that articles must be free of such banners before nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, shoot - this one can be withdrawn then. Sorry about that. BOZ (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Graphic novel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was once a GA, but standards have changed since then and was recently delisted. It needs some work, particularly with sourcing, so let's take it one step at a time. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived due to the presence of a major cleanup banner. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---