Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2011

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.

---

Richard Nixon

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA in due course. I'd like all feedback that can be given. Not just the prose and referencing quirks, which I am still working on as I nominate. Things you think should be in there. Things you think should not be in there. EVERYONE has an opinion on Nixon. The tape's running ...

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Hypothermia therapy for neonatal encephalopathy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it aims to be of the quality of a definitive scientific review article and therefore should have peer-review. It has been posted for some time and been modified by a number of editors, and therefore this seems to me it is now ready for formal review.

Thanks, Deadwood Trail (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: You aim to make this a definitive scientific article and are seeking a peer-review. Are you looking for a peer-review from someone with expertise in this field (who can credibly comment on the validity of the content) or someone who can hold it up to WP's Manual of Style? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 64 Featured articles at Category:FA-Class medicine articles, several of which seem as if they would be good models.
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded and to better conform to the Manual of Syyle (MOS).
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• For ideas on how to expand the lead from its current one paragraph to two or even three paragraphs, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The first sentence does not really follow WP:BEGINNING which says in aprt The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. The word encephalopathy does not even appear in the lead, though it is in the title.
• The MOS says to provide both metric (SI) and English units, so 33 C should also be given in Fahrenheit. The {{convert}} template does a nice job of this.
• Avoid words like recently as they can soon become out of date and different readers have different ideas as to what is recent or not. Use things like "as of YEAR" or "since YEAR" instead.
• Could there be a lead image - perhaps a baby in an "incubator" or hypotermia unit (not sure what to call that)?
• Headers need to follow WP:HEAD better - avoid repeating words in the title if possible. Avoid articles (the, a, an) and make the headers as telegraphic as possible
• Article needs more refs - the whole first paragraph of Neural rescue has no refs, and the last paragraph of Experimental neonatal hypothermia also has none. The tone of the latter paragraph does not seem encyclopedic in tone to me
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V> if a paragraph has a ref and then one or more sentence after the ref (which do not have any refs themselves) then those need refs too.
• Make sure to follow WP:NPOV - This was not quite the definitive result they hoped for, but the researchers remained resolute... is not neutral and reads like something from a press release or glowing profile.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Long and short scales

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

The article has successfully achieved GA status, but failed a FA review (13 July 2011) on a number of structural / formatting / sourcing issues. I'd like to engage with the PR process to improve this article, which is regularly referred to outside WP as a definitive statement on this issue. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

I don't know enough about the topic to comment extensively on topic, so my comments are almost exclusively related to formatting and manual of style issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times (especially not in close proximity)
• Bibliographical annotation (ie. when you explain what a source is, what its purpose is, or similar) is usually confined to External links, if used at all
• A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, usually more depending on content
• "...value within each scale - the short scale logic...": phrases like this should use spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not hyphens. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH for usage rules
• Why are prefixes bolded in the tables?
• Why are certain paragraphs in History indented?
• Generally speaking , italics should be used for emphasis, and sparingly, never bolding or capitalization - see WP:ITALICS
• Don't tell the reader to "note" something - see WP:W2W
• Try to avoid very short subsections and a very long table of contents
• Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text
• All book citations need page numbers
• This link returns a 404 not found. See here for other potentially problematic links
• Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
• Don't cite anything to a wiki
• Make sure similar citations are formatted the same way
• Make sure all sources used meet the reliable source policy. For example, who is the author of this site, and what are his or her qualifications?
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Work-in-progress comments

I've copied your above comments - so that I can strikeout in the copy any that I think are now dealt with. If you are reviewing progress from time-to-time, I would appreciate an indication if you disagree the mitigation has cleared your corresponding comment. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times (especially not in close proximity)
• A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, usually more depending on content
• "...value within each scale - the short scale logic...": phrases like this should use spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not hyphens. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH for usage rules
• Generally speaking , italics should be used for emphasis, and sparingly, never bolding or capitalization - see WP:ITALICS
• All book citations need page numbers
• Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
• Don't cite anything to a wiki
• Make sure similar citations are formatted the same way
• Make sure all sources used meet the reliable source policy. For example, who is the author of this site, and what are his or her qualifications?

• Bibliographical annotation (ie. when you explain what a source is, what its purpose is, or similar) is usually confined to External links, if used at all
• Why are prefixes bolded in the tables?
• Why are certain paragraphs in History indented?
• Don't tell the reader to "note" something - see WP:W2W
• Try to avoid very short subsections and a very long table of contents
• Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text
• This link returns a 404 not found. See here for other potentially problematic links
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links.
  

---

Steve Irwin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a good idea of what needs to be done to it in order to make it a Featured Article.

Thanks, Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• The lead is quite short, given the length of the article - I'd suggest 3 paragraphs
• See list of problematic links here
• Don't use contractions or slashes, etc per WP:MOS
• "In the weeks after his death, Irwin's conservation foundation, Wildlife Warriors, reported that thousands of people from around the world were offering their support via donations to the conservation group." - source? Check for other statements needing sources
• Try to avoid sandwiching text between images
• Reference formatting needs some cleanup for consistency
• Make sure all web citations include retrieval dates, and print sources include page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Thanks for bringing this article to peer review. I'm glad someone's taking the article on and getting it into the shape it deserves!

• Given the length of this article, about 5000 words, the lead should be expanded to at least three paragraphs (500 words or so). Try to incorporate every section heading as a summary in the lead.
• Early life:
  • "Irwin was born on his mother's birthday" The date should be stated - although it's in the lead and infobox, don't forget that they are treated as completely separate entities to the body of the article.
• Marriage and family
  • This subsection might work better if it was incorporated into the Early life section, which you could rename Early life and family, since it doesn't detail his career at all.
  • This section and others feature a lot of overlinking (e.g. jewellery, hazard). Regular everyday words like that should be delinked so they don't devalue important ones (such as saltwater crocodile).
• Search and rescue in Mexico:
  • Is this section entirely relevant to the article? It seems like overdetailing.
• Environmentalism
  • "Irwin was a passionate conservationist and believed in promoting environmentalism by sharing his excitement about the natural world rather than preaching to people. He was concerned with conservation of endangered animals and land clearing leading to loss of habitat." Where has this come from? I don't see anything like it in the Age article, the next citation after this. "preaching" is a bit informal for an encyclopeadic article.
  • The Attenborough quote is repeated elsewhere in the article.
• Sporting activities:
  • The prose is repetitive ("Having grown up in [location] Irwin was a fan of [sport]") and, like the scuba section, suffers from overdetailing ("He once wore a Wallaby jersey during a demonstration at the zoo. A behind-the-scenes episode of The Crocodile Hunter showed Irwin and the crew finding a petrol station in a remote part of Namibia to watch the Wallabies defeat France in the 1999 Rugby World Cup Final.")
• Controversies:
  • I personally really hate "Controversies" sections (though some people seem to love then) because they tend to take on an inverted pyramid structure; at the top of a section comes a real controversy (e.g. Irwin taking his son into a crocodile enclosure), and then minor things that didn't really cause much controversy get added on after; "In June 2004, allegations were made that he disturbed wildlife (namely whales, seals and penguins) while filming a documentary, Ice Breaker, in Antarctica. The matter was subsequently closed without charges being laid." That's not a controversy, it's an allegation that went nowhere.
• Death:
  • This section forms nearly half the article. It is way way way too long. The problem comes from new information being added the article when it first came out in 2006. That's lead to contradictory information in some parts (did he pull the barb out or not. was the footage destroyed or not). To develop this section, you should look at the information in a historical sense; Irwin died nearly five years ago (wow) so how much of the information in this section is still relevant and how much detail still needs to be retained?
• References:
  • To echo Nikkimaria's points, References need to be consistent. Print sources should be in italics and non-print sources like websites should not be.
• Looking back through the article history, I see you've done a lot of hard work on the structure and layout of the article, and removed and replaced a lot of dead links. A lot of work now needs to be done on the content of the article. I'd say that probably means stripping it right back to remove overdetailing and contradictory information. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  

---

My Immortal

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of my favorite songs and I would like to see this article become a GA and eventually an FA. I've recently expanded it for a few days, but I'm sure it still needs some improvements.

Thanks, My love is love (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Edward Scissorhands (dance)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has valuable encyclopedic content that needs some editorial review.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this dance show, but it sounds very interesting (I have seen the movie). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Is this the best title? At first I thought it would be about a dance move like the Mashed Potato or the Boogaloo. Is it technically a ballet (story told in dance with no words soundsl ike a ballet to me, but I am not an expert)

  It is not really a traditional ballet. The other name to consider would be like his more famous work, Swan Lake (Bourne), which might lead us to Edward Scissorhands (Bourne). Also, maybe Edward Scissorhands (Matthew Bourne dance).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. I started it at Edward Scissorhands (ballet) and moved it to its current name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• The only FA that is about a dance is Sylvia (ballet), which is a bit old and needs more refs. The only GA I saw about an actual dance production is The Dying Swan - both might be models for this article and give examples and ideas for improvement.
• The lead is very short and seems like it could be expnaded a bit to me. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I think every header is included now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• The Lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the fact that the movie was set in the 1980s and the film in the 1950s is only in the lead.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would call the Inspiration section something like Composition (as it is not just about inspiration, but that is a part of composition).
  • I went with Composition and development.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Second sentence of Inspiration is a mess - run on and too much for one sentence. Why not start with a bit of background about Bourne, include the all male Swan Lake there. Then move on to his search for new projects and the composition of this show?
  • Rearranged a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would identify Bourne in the caption as the show's creator
  • done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Can there be a fair use image of the show's poster or logo? One fair use image in the infobox for a movie or show is pretty standard.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Plot needs to focus on the actual plot - there is a fair amount in there which is fine for the article but is not plot (debut in SF should go into productions, based character on a dog could go into Composition)
• At the same time the plot section has some needless repetition (He then ventures from his gothic origins into a suburban town where his loneliness is reinforced until he is taken in by Peg Boggs and adopted by both her family and the town. and He then wanders into a town where a family takes him in.[7] or his creator's death is repeated too.
• However I did not have a good idea of the rest of the plot - does he fall in love with the Winona Rider character? Does he kill someone as he does in the movie? How does the movie plot compare to this - we are told a bit on this later (topiary dance here) and given a vague idea that the ending is different, but specifics here would help flesh out this section.
• In Productions I would say that New Adventures dance company is British. Similarly, since it is a British company in the UK, why are the amounts given in dollars (and not pounds)?
  • The source is Time, which is an American magazine. Thus, US$.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Plot says the debut was in San Francisco, Productions says it was in London. Which is it?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• More needless repetition in Productions Since it's 11-week London season, the work has toured the United Kingdom, Asia, the United States, Australia and Europe.[15] as well as the very next sentence The United Kingdom tour extended for 14 weeks[3] and was followed by performances in Japan, Korea and the United States, where it ran until Spring 2007.[15] It should be "its" in the first sentence and I think "run" may be preferred to "season". In the second sentence "extended" sounds to me like the tour was made longer than planned, and the repetition should be eliminated - list places once.
  • Actually, I moved the continental overview to the first paragraph, where it does not seem redundant, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• New York run was held at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.[9] By the time it played in Brooklyn, it had visited a dozen cities.[11] Dates in NYC? Were the dozxen cities in the US only or in total since starting in London?
  • clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think I would mention LA in the US section and Paris in the European tour sentence, so that they are not a surprise in Among the cities that it sold out are New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Syndey, Melbourne and Paris.[22]
  • FIxed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• When was it in Asia / Japan / Korea?
  • I am unable to find the dates online. Probably not in english language websources. It had to be between the Feb 2006 London closing and Nov 2006 U.S. opening.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Was it the same touring company that went all over the world or were there local companies in each country?
  • Yes. I am trying to makes sure the leads were the same and can't tell how long each lead stayed with the production exactly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• In Reception I would make it clear that the first paragraph is all reviews of the original London production.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• It might also help to have some sort of introductory statement - it seems to me that reviews were mixed, mostly negative, but some praising it.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the first sentence as negative, so saying in the second that it was also panned seems contradictory At the time of its off-Broadway debut, The New York Times described it as not "so much a dance enhanced by a famous story as a drama condensed by the removal of words."[29] It was further panned in a more detailed review the following week ...
• I think Awards and nominations could just be Awards (as nominations are for awards too)
  • done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• There seems to be contradiction - the sentences say The work received the 2007 Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Choreography.[30][31] Bourne was also nominated for Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Choreography that year for Mary Poppins,[31][32] but the table says it won "Unique Theatrical Experience" and was nominated for "Outstanding Choreography". Is the nom for Mary Poppins? If so, it should not be in the table here.
  • fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Refs should be in numerical order
  • I think there is a bot that goes around fixing this type of thing. I will let the bot do its thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede the narrative flow. Combine with others or perhaps expand them if possible.
  • There are no more one-sentence paragraphs now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some comments, as requested:

• Lead: This needs to be expanded to provide an overview/summary of the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
• Conception and development: The article says: "The work was developed as dance theatre instead of as a musical". Was there ever any discussion of making a musical? I think this is misleading, because it suggest to the reader that a musical version is relevant here, but in fact, it appears to be a distraction. I remember reading your early drafts of this article and assuming from this sentence that the first idea had been a musical. I would simply delete the words "instead of as a musical". The article says: "films that could be adapted into stage productions in his musical dance style". Tell us more about Bourne's style of choreography and dance theatre. If the reviews of this show, interviews, etc. do not describe it in detail, look for information about his style regarding his other pieces. Look at the "Style" section in Sylvia (ballet).
• Plot: The plot should describe the events of the work in chronological order - a summary of the story, divided by acts or scenes. See Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. The plot section should not contain information about the productions, the concept or anything except plot. It should tell us more about the characters, what happens to them and what their relationships are.
• Productions: Make sure you have mentioned anything notable about the cast and designers for the extensive touring productions. Has it always been the same cast, director, etc?
• Analysis: The reviews, interviews or other articles that are mentioned throughout should be mined to create an analysis section (moving any analysis out of other sections) explaining the imagery, themes and concepts used by the author and choreographer in creating his concept for a dance adaptation of the film. There is no discussion of the music itself. Is it rock? classical? What musical influences and styles does it show? What about the choreography? This is a dance piece, so it should describe the choreographic styles and how choregraphy is used to tell the story.
• Ruhrfisch's comments above are so excellent, there is not much more I can add to them at this time, except to say that getting the peer review is an excellent way to proceed. Other models to look at for expansion ideas, in addition to the ones he mentioned, are Swan Lake and The Nutcracker. All the best -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overall comment I had thought I had retired from difficult GAs. How did I get roped into working so hard on this one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Loud (Rihanna album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Myself and Tomica1111 have spent about one month editing our version of Loud in a sandbox and today we have merged it into the actual article. We want a Peer Review because we plan on taking it to GAN, but we want to know if there is anything that needs to be done first to ensure it GAN pass. The version we have done is a massive improvement on what the previous version was, as it has been considerably expanded.

Thanks, Tomica1111 (talk) and Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Don't use contractions outside of quotes

  What's a 'contradiction' in British English? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  A contraction is a word formed by combining two words using an apostrophe. An example of this would be "don't" instead of "do not", or "I'm" instead of "I am". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• See here for a list of potentially problematic links

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Sound samples should be 10% or less of the total song length
• "which featured a prominently foreboding and angry tone with dark themes, with elements of hip hop, rock, and dubstep music genres" - can this be rephrased to avoid the repeated "with"?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "Loud focused more on up-tempo and pop related genres, ranging from dance-pop to Electro-R&B, and marks her return to her dancehall roots, which was prominent on her earlier releases Music of the Sun (2005) and A Girl like Me (2006), whilst also incorporating other genres, such as rock in "California King Bed" and reggae in the Carribean inspired "Man Down"." - very long sentence, suggest splitting

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times, particularly not in close proximity. For example, you've linked S&M twice in the lead

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "but that it is normal for Rihanna to have a new, more edgy and angrier style" - I'm not sure I understand this. Is this a natural musical development, a response to her experience with Brown, a new direction for future albums...?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• I'm not sure that the long list of studios warrants being included. If it's kept, the first comma should be changed to a colon

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• In an interview with MTV regarding the upcoming album Rihanna stated that "she wanted songs with West Indian vibe that just she can do it and not a generic pop record that Kesha or Lady Gaga or Katy Perry could just do and it works. - two points here: is this a direct quote from Rihanna? If so, why is she speaking in the third person; if not, who is speaking? Also, when does the quote end?

  Done. I don't know why it was like that, I didn't write that. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Grammar for the most part isn't bad, but there are some awkward or unclear sentences. You might try reading the article out loud and listen for phrases that you stumble over
• "the sixth track on the album is a highlight on the album, together with the next track "Man Down", when it comes to their genres." - not sure I understand this point, given that in the next sentence you say the two are different genres

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• ""Man Down" contains a heavy reggae composition" - contains or is?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "California King Bed that is a "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing"-type power ballad genetically engineered to soundtrack a bi-coastal Kate Hudson rom-com" - grammar, and if this isn't a direct quote it should be reworded for tone

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Try to avoid repeating the "In its nth week" construction in the Commercial section

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Is there an article that explains what "certified platinum" means? As a non-American, non-pop music reader, there are some elements of the article that are less clear to me than to a more "expert" reader

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "It received positive reviews from music critics, especially for it's chorus and thunderous dance beats" - grammar

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Wikilink Wallonia?
• "To further promote the album, Rihanna embarked on her fourth concert tour, the Loud Tour" - when?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Not sure the huge list of Production credits is essential, but if it is kept you should spell out and possibly link terms like "A&R"
• Ref 1 needs to be formatted

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• In general, make sure the reference formatting is as consistent as possible and that all of the sources used are reliable.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

This isn't an exhaustive list of comments, but this is a decent article, and GA shouldn't be too difficult with a bit more work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done 95% of things. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Horrible Histories

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the Horrible Histories article, and even the entire Horrible Histories category are in dire need of assistance. In a desperate bid to stop the article from being an article consisting on huge lists of books, I created a few sections and added as many sources I could find for each one. I think it is time for a huge clean-up and I think this is the best place to start, to work out exactly what needs to be changed/fixed up. FYI, there are additional sources in the talk page and in the "Books With Information" section at the bottom.

Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Are those tags at the top of the page still valid? If so, addressing them would be a good starting point
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article and should be a maximum of 4 paragraphs
• Don't include external links in article text
• Some of the long bulleted lists could be converted to prose
• Organization needs some work - very short subsections should be avoided where possible, the long ToC makes navigation difficult, etc
• Prose could use some work. Don't use contractions outside quotes, don't use "you" or "your", make sure your tone is neutral and encyclopedic
  • Please can you provide some examples of where the tone has become bias and unencyclopedic so I get some idea of what sorts of sentences need to be changed?--Coin945 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• See here for a list of problematic links
  • What do I do with the dead links? The information was on those sites once upon a time..--Coin945 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • See WP:LINKROT for some options. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Some additional citations are needed.
• For example, where did all the quotes in the second paragraph of Tours come from?

 All the quotes in Tours were from the same source, however I only included it once. I have now included the reference under each sentence from the site

• Make sure all your citations include the needed information. Don't use bare URLs as references. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In the process of doing that right now.--Coin945 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what areas should be worked on first. I'll attend to those issues straight away.--Coin945 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Beginning comments from Truthkeeper88

• Agree with everything Nikkimaria has mentioned above, so that's a good starting place
• I see some naked urls (unformatted refs) that should be formatted
• The organization is problematic but this seems to be a huge series. I'm wondering if it's necessary to list all the titles? My thoughts would be to cut down this page by keeping the background section, and all the other prose sections, and consider splitting out the long lists into a separate page such as List of Horrible Histories that can be linked to from this page.

That seems like a good idea. Recently a page was created called List of Horrible Histories books but it was soon deleted as it pretty much copied a chunk out of this article without adding anything new. I think eventually this page will be about the Horrible Histoires franchise and a new page will be about the books... your suggestion makes a lot of sense. I will take that into account.--Coin945 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the page as it is now is too long; if a new page is started, which would be a good idea, then everything going to the new page should be deleted from the current page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking you should take this slowly, start working on the bits Nikkimaria has mentioned, think about how to re-organize, and I'll work my way slowly through the article with more suggestions to come. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for your kind words of wisdom. Being the only real editor of the page, and being in year 12 is going to make this one a challenge, but this is a series of my childhood and one which I would really love to see grow and flourish. Yeah, I think I'll definitely take it slowly. First step: proper citations.--Coin945 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there anywhere I could turn to to get some help on this article? It just seems soo daunting.--Coin945 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Malvern, Worcestershire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because since it was promoted to GA a year and a half ago, it has received significant expansion by many other well informed editors, and I believe it is close to becoming a candidate for FA.

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Willamette River

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed its GA review and I want to know what could be improved in the article to get it ready for an FA nomination later on.

Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This article recently underwent a significant section re-arrangement. A section called "20th and 21st centuries" was added. The "Big Pipe" section was removed and the information about the project was cut to one paragraph. Feel free to comment about this here or on the article's talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Good to see a tributary of a FA river approaching the same status.

Lead

• For international readers it would be good to write that Oregon is a state of the USA in the text when it first appears.

• I believe the text already says it is in the United States. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Clarify why it is a "major tributary". I assume it is because of the percentage of water in the river from it.

• I added a statistic that appears later in the article; it contributes to 12 to 15 percent of the Columbia's flow. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are there more than one species of salmon or trout in the river? Perhaps amend to "including many species of salmon and trout" or something similar, otherwise to me it implies a single species, which I'd then want to be specified.

•  Done With "including many species of salmon and trout." Jsayre64 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Course

• "The Willamette rises in three separate forks in the mountains south and southeast of Eugene, at the southern end of the Willamette Valley." There are a few problems with this sentence. Saying "the Williamette rises" doesn't sound that clear to me. I assume it means that three springs form it. Also clarify what you mean by a fork. I initially read it as pertaining to the mountain, rather than the river. It would also be useful to state what Eugene is, although in the infobox, it has not appeared in the text yet, I'd wikilink it (don't think it's an overlink as it hasn't appeared in prose yet, and this is the start of the article proper anyway). I also unsure if this is the best way to start a section. I assume that a river starts from a single source and ends at a mouth, all other sources being tributaries. How can it rise from three sources? From what I gather from following wikilinks it appears that the river only starts at the confluence of the forks, rather than at a single source. This should be clear to the reader just from the text, they should not have to follow wikilinks.

Agreed. I've replaced the opening sentences with "The upper tributaries of the Willamette originate in mountains south and southeast of Eugene and Springfield. Formed by the confluence of the Middle Fork Willamette River and Coast Fork Willamette River near Springfield, the main stem meanders generally north for 187 miles (301 km) to the Columbia." Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure using a look at a map is reliable enough to create a list of nearby areas. It may be. If it is, don't worry about it.

The two cited maps support the claims. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• In Discharge, I'm unclear why exactly August and December were chosen to specifically mention. I would expect months half a year apart to be the most different.

• USGS data shows that the Willamette's flow is least in August and greatest in December, so I added a note about that. Jsayre64 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Watershed

• Instead of "of the state" say "of Oregon".

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of saying "The largest by far is Portland", give how far or remove the term "by far" and just give the largest.

• I removed "by far." Jsayre64 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "36 percent is public" should probably be changed to "36 percent is open to the public" or "36 percent is government owned". "36 percent is public" just sounds like bad prose to me.

Agreed. I changed "public" to "publicly owned". Finetooth (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Does the note it is an American Heritage River belong in this section?

Yes. The designation is a kind of shorthand for the river system or watershed. I altered the sentence to make this more clear. Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• State that Bill Clinton is a "former President" or "then-President" or something similar.

Added "former". Finetooth (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna

• "Although much more extensive in the 19th century, the remaining forests close to the river include large stands of black cottonwood, Oregon ash, willow, and bigleaf maple." The two parts of these sentences seem unrelated, and thus should probably not be in the same sentence.

Thanks. A couple of editors have noticed something odd or missing from this sentence. I added some elaboration, including statistics, citing Benke and Cushing. The loss of riparian zone vegetation has been very large, and its effect on the river probably under-appreciated. Add enough tree-chopping to dam building, channel straightening, gravel digging, and polluting, and you can turn most any productive wild river into something like a warm, stinky canal. Riparian zone restoration can help reverse the damage to some degree. End of sermon. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worth rearranging this section slightly to group information on endangered/threatened species with protected areas? Combine the end of the second paragraph with the last and merge the rest of the second with the third, and there will be three solid paragraphs.

Good idea and done. I also added two sentences about contemporary rebounds in the osprey and beaver populations. Finetooth (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Geology

• This is quite a solid section. Linking CE is an overlink, and I'm unsure whether the quote is better included than paraphrased, but the section comes across as understandable and well-structured.

Thanks. I always enjoy working on the geology, which I find fascinating. I have unlinked "CE"; it may be common enough that readers expecting BC or AD don't find it puzzling. For the nonce at least I left the quotes around the big flow claim because it might strike readers as preposterous, some sort of typo or mistaken reading of the original. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

History

• I personally aren't fond of the title "Native inhabitants". All people in the area must have come from somewhere else at some point. Anyway, that aside, it's not a very historical title.

Something such as "Prior to European arrival" or "First inhabitants" seems to relate better.

• Well, they are the Native Americans, but that's fine with me. "Prior to European arrival" sounds ethno-centric, so I chose "First inhabitants." Jsayre64 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• When discussing these North American tribes, what is meant by "Group"? Does it relate to family groups, or perhaps villages? The additional information on "subgroups" just makes this less clear to me :/ More context would help, and wikilinks if they exist.
• "The name of the river is also of indigenous origin" Does this refer to the Willamette River? Specify. Additionally, the current location of this information doesn't make sense to me. I'd expect it to find it near information about when whoever it was that was French went there.

• Revised with this edit. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Specify William Robert Broughton was British.

•  Done With this edit. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Saying that "fur trappers...descended on rivers, streams and coastlines" sounds unencyclopaedic and rather pointless. Just as much information is conveyed by "fur trappers...hunted for beavers and otters."

•  Done With this edit. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some information in brackets here is probably not helpful for this article. Information that a couple of fur trading companies later merged, or that the Siskiyou Trail has an alternative name seem rather tangential.
• What does it mean to "create" a trail anyway?

• I changed "created" to "established." That should be more clear. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• A single paragraph subsection (exploration) seems strange. Perhaps just combine with the next subsection and call it "exploration and development" or something similar?

• I merged the section into the larger "19th-century development" section, as it talks about 19th-century events, anyway. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• What does it mean that Oregon city was "incorporated"? I assume that if I knew that it would explain what is meant by it having a distinction.

• That's a common term used for cities. Incorporated establishments have their own form of government. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the word "however" used when it is stated the loch system is still used?

•  Done I'm not sure why. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• "cut the length of the river by 65 percent between the McKenzie River confluence and Harrisburg" is ambiguous, it initially read to me that the whole river length was cut 65 percent by cutting in the stretch mentioned.

•  Done Clarified. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Information about pollution in the year 2000 seems out of place in a section on the 19th century.

•  Done I agree. I moved it to the "pollution" section and reworded it a bit. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• What does the phrase "coast west of the valley" mean?

• I suppose it's used simply to indicate that the Oregon Coast is west of the Willamette Valley. It's unneeded, though, so I removed it. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• The flooding section location and structure requires some thought. First of all, some of it doesn't seem to read as hitorical. Secondly, although the first part of a section labelled 20th century history, it goes back to about the mid 19th.

• See note at top. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Try to reduce the number of short paragraphs.

• I don't recall anyone specifically trying to address this issue, but it looks better now. Perhaps it was fixed during the big section re-arrangement. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• A note about Northern California's rivers being high doesn't seem relevant at all to this. Just note the greater weather event.

•  Done With this edit, among other small changes. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Pollution similarly goes back beyond the 20th century, and also goes into the 21st. I think it's well worth considering just pulling flooding and pollution out of History, and just set them up as their own sections. It would make structuring very much easier.

• See note at top. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the current pollution section is written in a strange tense.

• Can you explain? I don't see anything wrong with it. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• The big pipe section sounds like it would be better placed under the Engineering section.

• See note at top. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Engineering

• "relatively heavily modified for its size" is a highly ambiguous statement. All I can read into that is that the flow has been modified. Simplify or clarify.

•  Done With this edit. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• The second sentence starts with the clear statement "there are no major dams" which is then immediately countered by a bracket saying that there actually is a major dam. Wouldn't it be better to simply write that there is only one major dam?

•  Done With this edit. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bridges

• Decent summaries of various bridges here. Good section, good panorama. I would only suggest placing the whole thing into an upriver --> downriver order, which it already seems to basically be in.

Agreed. Actually, all of them are already arranged in that order. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Would bridged be considered as engineering?

Yes. We could make "Bridges" a subsection of "Engineering". I have no strong opinion about this, but Jsayre64 or Shannon1, the other main contributors, might. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All in all, a nice and well referenced article. The main problem is what is currently under the 20th century subheader of History. It seems ill-planned and out of place. In the same vein, make sure that there are no short paragraphs, common in those sections. Sourcing looks good from a quick spotcheck. I have this page watchlisted, so if there's any questions on your part or something I said needs clarification, just ask here. Good luck with FA, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback! I'll start addressing these issues soon. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, Chipmunkdavis, that this is a most helpful review. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Finetooth (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Chinese Indonesians

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this become a featured article after working on it for a good portion of the past year. Chinese Indonesians are an important ethnic group in Indonesia and are among the most studied Chinese diaspora communities in the world. The article is important to three large WikiProjects and has received a thorough copyedit from Chaosdruid, to whom I am very thankful. While there are a few outstanding issues left from the copyediting process, I believe the article is ready for scrutiny by more Wikipedia contributors. Finally, I ask that you overlook the Literature subsection for the time being as it was added by another contributor after the copyediting process was completed. I will revise and better define its scope prior to sending it to the featured article process.

Thanks, —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The "Early interaction" section can perhaps benefit from a discussion of what went on in Palembang before Zheng He showed up there. Books usually just mention that Zheng He defeated the pirate leader Chen Zuyi (a red link, eh?) there; but Chen Zuyi, obviously, did not just materialize out of thin air. There is a brief discussion of that period in the Ming Bio Dictionary's article on Shi Jinqing (red link, too?); in particular, what Ma Huan wrote about Chen's life story. More recent and more extensive sources probably can be found as well. Google Books gives me this book, for example Cheng Ho and Islam in Southeast Asia, by Tan Ta Sen, Dasheng Chen; don't know how relevant it is. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel that would be more appropriate for the articles on either Palembang or Zheng He. The subject of this article is primarily of Chinese Indonesians today and their general historical context. Getting caught up in certain details will detract from the main subject. thank you for that excellent source, though. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Although the literature section requires a major overhaul, I must admit it would be very useful to have. The role of Chinese Indonesians in the development of the press in Indonesia, for example, cannot be understated. The peranakan literature (1880s - 1920s or so) played a large role in the development of Indonesian literature. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be adding things as I find them below:

1. "The Jakarta Post, which largely caters to expatriates and middle class Indonesians" - Doubt the italicized text is necessary.
2. Setiono notes that Chinese artifacts dating from roughly 1 BC have been found in Sumatra. Would this be pertinent enough to include in the article? (Source: Setiono, Benny G. (2008). Tionghoa dalam Pusaran Politik [Indonesia's Chinese Community under Political Turmoil]. Jakarta: TransMedia Pustaka. ISBN 979-799-052-4. Page 20.
3. The quote from Coppel may be better in the Identity section.
4. Pancasila quote: Wouldn't "The New Order's interpretation of Pancasila (visualized through this shield image) suppressed all discussions of a unique Chinese identity in favor of political stability?" be more accurate? Sukarno's government was a little more tolerant ethnically, at least at the start.

As a side note, a book has been published with many of Mely G. Tan's essays in it (both the Indonesian and English-language ones). I think it is Etnis Tionghoa di Indonesia: Kumpulan Tulisan but I forget. Some more information may be found there, and if I remember correctly there's an essay regarding Chinese Indonesian cuisine.

Hope this helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You will see that Mely Tan's book is already referenced, as shown on the list of secondary sources. This is the main source of the cuisine section.

1. I don't see this error. It renders properly with "The Jakarta Post" capitalized and the rest of the text not capitalized.
2. I'll have to see if this is mentioned in other sources as well. I'm sure new information about Chinese migration in general is found every day, so older sources (such as the one I'm using) may not have it.
3. I had considered that, but it would have little context compared to the latter section, where the quote sums up the paragraph about Chinese Indonesians repatriating to China quite well.
4. That seems unwieldy, but it's a good point. I'll see what I can do.

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I was suggesting removing the text which largely caters to expatriates and middle class Indonesians near the bottom of the article, after The Jakarta Post. I fail to see how it is pertinent to the article. Sorry about the poor formatting.

4. Thanks.

Side note: Ah. Hope this makes FA. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the explanation suggests the class accessibility of these Chinese restaurants. Tan's article suggests that JP's readership indicates that restaurants on this list must of among the better quality ones. She further comments that although the Jakarta middle class was still small at the time, these restaurants still had enough market to remain profitable. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it explicit, especially since papers like Kompas, which seem to have a rather general readership, still include reviews of places many people cannot afford. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble figuring out how to reword the Pancasila caption. The wording you suggested seems to suggest that the shield was created during the New Order. It had, in fact, been in use since 1950. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "Pancasila (visualized through this shield image) was interpreted by The New Order in a way that suppressed all discussions of a unique Chinese identity in favor of political stability" Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Revised. Let me know if it doesn't work for you. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A little wordy, but seems better to me. Good job! Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Melanistic mask

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is very short, at 400-and-some words; however, I believe I've refined it quite a bit since I gave it a rudimentary rewrite and would like to nominate it for GA status. I've used the highest-quality sources available and have spent quite a bit of time checking its accuracy and expanding descriptions and explanations.

I'd like feedback concerning the content in this particular case, though stylistic suggestions would be welcomed too. (Should add alt text!) Would a section detailing the various breeds that have masking as a fixed or variable trait be worth including?

Thanks, Anna ^talk 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working in this interesting article. Unfortunatley it left me with more questions than it answered. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I am not sure what would be a useful model here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs has a number of FAs and GAs, but none are really about a trait like this. I also looked at the Genetics FAs at Category:FA-Class MCB articles - perhaps something there might help.
• The lead needs to 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 there is not really any mention of the genetics in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• The lead as it currently stands is somewhat technical and could be more accessible for the average reader.
• GA criteria include broad coverage of the topic - here are questions I was left with
• Is the melanistic mask only when the dog's face is black or one of the related colors? (Lots of mention of pheomelanin, but I think this is not associated with the mask)
• What about dogs that are black all over already? When I looked at the border collie puppy photo, most of its body fur is black, so how can you tell it has a mask (as opposed to a balck face to go with its black body and neck)?
• Do all pugs have such a mask or just some? If a bnreed has it, do all members of the breed have it?
• Is there any idea why some breeds have it and others do not (or are there any wild canids that have this mask)?
• Many dogs have black noses (skin color, not fur). Is that related?
• Any ideas or theories as to why this arises? Any proposed evolutionary advantages (or is it just a mutation that was then bred for intentionally)?
• Any sort of history? Who gave it the name? When was it first noted / described? When did the genetic work occur?
• Needs a ref in those areas will be colored by eumelanin instead of pheomelanin pigment, making it look as though the dog has a mask on its face. Eumelanin is usually black, but may instead be liver (also known as chocolate; dark brown), blue (also known as slate; dark grey), or isabella (also known as lilac; light grey-brown); accordingly, a mask may be any of these colors. Pheomelanin occurs in shades of red ranging from ivory to mahogany, which include cream, gold, and tan.
• What makes Sue Ann Bowling a WP:RS - the web page cites no sources that I could see (did not read it all)
• Many of the captions could be expanded and added as text
• Try to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
• Not much more to say as it is so short.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ruhrfisch. I suspected it would be confusing to those not already familiar with the material so this is very helpful. Good points mentioned and I'll work to improve everything. Few comments:

• "Melanistic mask" simply refers to melanin pigment and the appearance of the trait. I can trawl individual breed histories to see if/why it was considered desirable.
• I'll add a section about breeds to clarify why it always occurs in some but only sometimes in others. That's the "fixed/variable trait" section I mentioned in my comments above.
• BC puppy's tan cheeks are "covered" in front by the mask, which is how you can tell. Compare it, for example, to this BC. I'll insert something about that.
• Not sure what you mean about black noses. Eumelanin is what colors the nose and flesh -- will add that -- and is often produced in the coat as well, and it is usually black as the article states. I'll try to work in a link to another page explaining these pigment types in dogs in greater depth, but I don't think this one is the best starting place. A link to a more friendly article is a good idea.
• The article does state "accordingly, the melanistic mask may be any of these colors" in reference to eumelanin. That entire portion could be made clearer -- I tend to obfuscate, but I'm in recovery. ;) Anna ^talk 05:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • I was wondering if there was any relation between skin pigmentation (a black nose is pretty common) and fur pigmentation. So do black noses correlate with the mask? Or do breeds with "pink" noses (I am sure there is some technical term for it) also lack the mask consistently?
    • Sorry I missed the "accordingly, the melanistic mask may be any of these colors" statement - I was tired when I reviewed this and just did not catch that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate it for GA status. I really hard worked on it, and improved it, from article in within 2-3 sentences from a section, to an article that kinda deserves to be chosen for Good. Also, thanks to the User:Pixelyoshi, who web cited some of the references. I would be greatful to the user that can peer review the article.

Thanks, Tomica1111 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• I did a bit of copy-editing, more is needed - GOCE should help with that

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Its composition defines a different pace from Rihanna's previous singles." - what does this mean? Try to avoid vague and subjective statements, except for reviews

  Paraphrased Tomica1111 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The song hqas a strong chorus and a bridge, which is pulled by strong vocals." - phrasing's a bit strange here, and "strong" shouldn't be repeated. Try to avoid excessive repetition where possible

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Samples from copyrighted music should be no longer than 10% of the total song - given the length of this song, your sample should be 22 seconds max

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• File:Russian_Roulette_video_shot.jpg needs a much stronger fair-use rationale. Try looking at music video screenshots on music GAs or FAs to get an idea of what's required here

  Changed it. I think that this is the right one... Tomica1111 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Try to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times - see WP:TONE

   Done

• "the single is a bad Céline Dion song with barrel-turning revolver noises that actually sound like a can of spray paint being shook up" - is this a direct quote from the source? If not, needs to be reworded; if so, should have quotation marks

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date formatting in references - either "January 1, 2001" or "2001-01-01"

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure all web citations have publishers and retrieval dates

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Try to make citation formatting consistent - similar sources should be formatted similarly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

   Done Tomica1111 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. I appreciate your review. You can now close it. Tomica1111 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Oh Santa!

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It's quite a short article and I want to know what needs to be done to ensure a GA pass.

Thanks, Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 12:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should do this after you've made as many contributions to the article as possible, not now. It needs a lot of work. Much bulk up of information, copy-edit before and after, reliable sources etc.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• A specific example would be the Mashup section, which would require more information to warrant its own section. If not, it should be merged with a couple other things to form a section with a title like "Other versions" or something like that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I agree with the reviewers above, the article is not quite at GA readiness. You may want to go to WP:GA and check out other song articles that are GAs. Use those article as templates for this one. I'll go through the article and give you some feedback.

• Do song titles need to be italicized? I don't know just asking. Check other GA/FA song articles to be sure.
• The mashup section needs to be expanded per above. Is there anything else that can be added? One-sentence is not enough to justify a section.
• Are there any negative reviews that can be added?
• Quotation marks w/in a quote should be single (') marks rather than double (").
• You refer to Mariah Carey as Mariah throughout the article. I don't think this is professional. It should probably be her last name or rewritten to avoid using her name at all.
• I added a template to the end of the Promotion section about it broadcast on an ABC special. That should be referenced.
• Watch overlinking. Terms can be linked once in the lead and once in the article and that's usually it. You should go through and check for overlinking.
• Refs should be formatted consistently:

• I see Mariahcarey.com is italicized sometimes and other times it isn't. It should not be italicized. Same with the Billboard refs, though if you are referencing the magazine in some places and the website in others then that would explain the difference.
• Check ref 6, it may be a dead link.
• Ref 14 needs an accessdate. YouTube isn't a very credible reference. Same with ITunes. Not that they can't ever be used but be careful when using them.

• Overall I'd say you're off to a good start. Use one of the GA/FA song articles as a template to help you figure out what else should be added. This concludes my review if you have questions then contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. Cheers and best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done everything, I've near-on re-written the article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

---

2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to bring it to FA some day. Let me know if any basketball terms are unclear.

Thanks, ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I found it fairly easy to follow; here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are two FAs that seem like they would be useful models: 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team - note that both are relatively old FAs and may not be up to current FA standards (the USC article needs more refs)
• There are quite a few dabs and redirects to fix see here
  • Fixed all of them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Two dead external links here - need to be fixed before FAC
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I was struck by the lack of images. I found a free picture of Fran Dunphy on Flickr and added it to his article. The Liacouras Center has a photo of the exterior - both images could be used here. FAs need a free image to be used when they are on the Main Page.
  • Added both. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 06:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Lead seems OK to me
• I would change the first three sentences in Preseason from The team plays their home games at the Liacouras Center, which has a capacity of 10,206.[1] They are in their 29th season as a member of the Atlantic 10 Conference.[2] In their previous season, Temple was picked to finish fifth in the conference ... to something like In 2010-2011, the Temple Owls mens' basketball team was its 29th season as a member of the Atlantic 10 Conference, which it joined in 1982.[2] Since 1997, the team team has played its home games at the Liacouras Center, which has a capacity of 10,206.[1] In the previous 2009-2010 season, Temple was picked to finish fifth in the conference ... Try to give years when possible, and put them in chronological order (they've been in the league the longest so it comes first, then the arena, then previous season).
  • 29th season and 1982 are redundant, Otherwise, done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• To me "team" is a singlular noun (so "the team is...") and Owls is plural {so "the Owls are..."). This seems to be what the USC model FA follows too. To me using plural pronouns for the team seems odd (since it is singular)(so "the team .... it")
• Verb tense is wrong here - 2018 is still in the future, so it is not certain Head coach Fran Dunphy was rewarded with a contract extension on May 5, 2010 that kept him with Temple until the 2017-18 season.[6] ... perhaps "would keep him" or "should keep him"?
  • Changed to "keeps". ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure why "however" is used here - what is the implied contrast?? However, the 2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team lost two starters to graduation from their previous campaign: Ryan Brooks and Luis Guzman. The previous sentence is on the coach's contract extension, so I doubt the contrast is meant to be with that. If the comparison is with the number of players lost at the start of the previous season, that information is not in this article.
  • Removed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would make sure to wikilink basketball terms. The article seems fairly clear to me, but I understand most things involving basketball. I think that readers who are less well informed about the sport would benefit from a link for things like rebounds, assists, etc.
  • Linked in the statistics section. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Give class year (junior / Senior etc) for the "two players [who] left Temple voluntarily"
  • Sophomores. Clarified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Make clear this is shortly before the 2010-2011 season started? On October 21, 2010, the Owls were picked by other Atlantic 10 coaches to win the league, receiving 19 first place votes.
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - redshirt is linked three times in three paragraphs
  • Delinked. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• In Recruiting is there any reason not to use regular ref tags in the two tables of assessment of incoming players?
  • Part of the the table. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would probably add a sentence explaining that "incoming signees" were typically recruited the previous season and that 2011-12 team recruits will not join the team until the following season.
  • In my opinion, this is not important. It says when they committed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Add year? The sole member of the Owls' 2011 recruiting class is Will Cummings, a point guard from Jacksonville, Florida who committed on September 4[, 2010].[23]
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Refs needed for Schedule?
  • Fixed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Can it comehow be made clear when the postseason starts in the March table? A10 and NCAA
  • Does this matter? It is mentioned in the season section. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• POV? On December 12, behind Micheal Eric's 16 points, Temple destroyed Akron 82-47.
  • Changed to routed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Language is decent, but a copy edit before FAC would be a good idea.
  • Would you mind? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• The model articles each have a sort of postseason analysys and what happened to the team and its members section. I realize they are about national football champions and not a decent basketball team, but it might be worth looking at them and seeing if there is any sort of additional post season material to add. Have any members of the team been drafted into the NBA or other pro basketball league, for example?
  • Added an NBA Draft section. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Chuck Versus the Intersect

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've rewritten and expanded this article, and I would like to get feedback on it to hopefully get it to a Good Article and eventually even Featured Article if possible. I want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything, and that I've done everything correctly. Particularly, I'd like to check the use of and formatting of citations, the ease with which a non-Chuck viewer could comprehend the plot summary, and the prose throughout, especially in the "Production" section.

Thanks, Boycool (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

Thanks for working on this article. I've never watched Chuck, so hopefully my review is what you are looking for. There are a lot of Featured Articles on television pilots that you can model this article on; Pilot (House), Pilot (Parks and Recreation), Pilot (Smallville) and Pilot (Supernatural) all being examples.

• Plot
  • I comprehended the overall plot, but some minor plot points could stand to be trimmed. Is the first paragraph that important?
    • Not some much to this episode as to subsequent ones. Without that paragraph, someone who read this article wouldn't be able to understand "Chuck Versus the Alma Mater", "Chuck Versus the Nemesis", or "Chuck Versus the Ex". --Boycool (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Conception
  • "Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak wrote the pilot for Chuck, which was initially given a put pilot commitment by NBC before a pilot order was green lit by the network in January 2007." "Pilot" appears three times in this sentence and not everyone knows what a put pilot is. Consider rephrasing.
  • The information about the first broadcast of the episode and its screening at Comic-Con should not be in Conception. Consider moving to the reception section.

• Casting
  • File:Chuck Pilot 3.jpg should be dumped as it merely illustrates what a living person looks like. A free image of Wendy Makkena would have the same purpose and effect. A free image of Zachary Levi would probably be better here anyway, instead of a one-episode guest star.
  • "Gomez later said his reaction to reading the script for the pilot was, "There's a ninja in the script! I've got to do this!"" Only use quotations if the information cannot possibly be recast. Consider "Gomez decided he wanted to be part of the pilot after reading there was a ninja in the script."
  • "Despite appearing in promotional cast photographs, Kayla Hart was dropped before filming." This is confusing as it stands; Is Kayla Hart an actress or a character?
  • "McG, [...] directed the first hour of the series". Just say he "directed the pilot" since technically there was no series at that point.

• Flashes
  • Is it really necessary to give this plot device a full section listing the time it appears? I could easily be incorporated into a footnote, placed after the first mention of the flashes in the plot section.

• Music
  • Consider merging this section with the production section.

• Cultural references
  • I know a Cultural references section has now become a must-have part of a television episode article but this one is very short. Buy More/Best Buy and Nerd Herd/Geek Squad can be incorporated into the Conception section. I really can't see the point of mentioning Batdance, Call of Duty and the North by Northwest post - they seem like incredibly minor parts of the episode.

• Reception
  • The subsections are very short, so I advise removing the subheadings.
  • You should incoporate further reviews into this section. Reception is available from The San Francisco Chronicle, The Columbus Dispatch, USA Today, The Boston Globe, to name just some.
    • I'll add the other two when I can get past the spam blockers on my laptop. --Boycool (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley0110 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Boycool (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re putting flashes as a footnote, I mean instead of having a whole section devoted to listing the instances of flashes in the episode (which is basically just a second, shorter, plot section), you can put the description of what they are as an explanatory footnote. So when flashes is first mentioned in the plot section, put <ref group=n>The episode establishes that a user who has subliminally retained the Intersect data receives feedback from it in the form of what Chuck labels "flashes". Chuck has several flashes throughout the episode.</ref> Then put

== Footnotes ==

{{reflist|group=n}}

above the References section. That stops the plot summary section being bloated but still provides an explanation for readers unfamiliar with the series. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Boycool (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

George Hirst

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC. The images still need a little work, but in the next day or two I will have added some high quality ones. I particularly want a check for cricket jargon, and any instances of it getting bogged down in statistics or a list of feats. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks a very thorough piece of work, which I will have to review in pieces; here are my first comments. Some of these you can take as suggestions rather than requests:-

Lead

• "from 1897 to 1909" → "between 1897 and 1909".
• "The Wisden Cricketer of the Year for 1901..." Surely "One of..."? Or didn't they do five then?
• I don't think cricketers "manage" runs or wickets. I'd say: "In Test matches his figures were..." (no comma)
• We have Hirst "emerging" for Yorkshire, and his bowling "re-emerging", which is a slightly awkward repetition. Perhaps you could say "his effectiveness as a bowler resumed when..."
• "to deliberately cause the ball to swing in the air" is rather clumsy. Could you simplify to "to swing the ball in the air"? You need a comma after "air"
  • All done; I left the re-emerging and switched the emerging for Yorkshire as I feel it reads a little better that way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Early life

• "children for James Hirst and his wife Sarah Maria..." is not idiomatic English. I suggest "born to"
• I think you mean "dyeing" firm, not "dying"(!)
  • Done. And no, he didn't work for a terminal company! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First seasons for Yorkshire

• "...scored 20 and 43 not out and took four wickets for 29 runs (four for 29) and two for 58 with the ball." The words "with the ball", tagged on at the end, make the sentence read oddly. I would rephrase: "scored 20 and 43 not out and, as a bowler, took four wickets for 29 runs (four for 29) and two for 58."
• "The club, needing to fill a vacant place in the team..." Does "the club" mean Yorkshire?
• "That season..." - still 1893?
• "which began in 1890" → "which had begun in 1890"
• "a feat which would have been appreciated by Yorkshire supporters as the fixture was always highly competitive." Unnecessary and inappropriate use of the subjunctive. Suggest delete "which would have been".
  • All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Leading all-rounder

• "He scored 1,535 runs at an average of 35.69, with a century and 11 fifties and took 101 wickets at an average of 23.22,[11][12] and earned selection for the Players against the Gentlemen in the matches at The Oval and Lord's." Too many "ands" in one sentence.
• "In first-class matches, he only took more than a single wicket in a first-class innings on one occasion,[7] managing only nine first-class wickets at an average of 75.77". There is both over-elaboration and under-explanation here. I don't think readers need to know that he "only took more than a single wicket in a first-class innings on one occasion". On the other hand, those who don't understand cricket won't appreciate the significance of a bowling average of 75.77. I suggest you simplify down to "In first-class matches he took only nine wickets at the very expensive average of 75.77."
• I think you need to make a clearer distinction between tour averages and Test series averages.
• "Later in the season, he played once more for the Players against the Gentlemen..." - "once more" is not necessary.
  • All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More will follow Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever. I'll make a start on these as soon as possible; possibly tomorrow but maybe not till Sunday or later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Next instalment

Discovery of swerve

• I think "swerve" should be in quotes, in the section title, as it is an informal name for this type of bowling
• end of season → end-of-season
  • Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Success against Australia

• rain affected → rain-affected
• "made it difficult to bat" → "made batting difficult"
• "Hirst was recalled to the Test team..." This point made in previous paragraph
• Encyclopaedic senetences should not begin "Notoriously..."
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Second tour of Australia

• "player absences" → "players' absences"
• I have noticed a stylistic tendency to begin sentences with the "ing" verb form, as in: "Completing the first of ten consecutive doubles,..." etc. This happens rather a lot and is not the best prose formulation, especially when overused; it would be a good idea to vary some of these (as I have with the one just mentioned).
• The second paragraph needs to begin with the words "In 1903", otherwise the switch of topic is unsettling.
• "his only previous tour" (delete unnecessary word)
• The final two (short) sentences of this paragraph both begin "Hirst...", which produces a jerky effect. Can the two sentences be combined?
• "Hirst took a total of two wickets" → "Hirst took two wickets"
  • Done except for the -ing openings which are ongoing! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To be continued/concluded Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Resuming: Sorry for the delay, here are further comments. I still have the last few sections to do, but I am trying to catch up with various chores at present so I'll need another day. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominant in county cricket

• Benefit: I suggest you add a footnote giving an approximate current value for £3,703. This is tricky, as there are so many different ways of calculating this, and sometimes the results are preposterous-seeming. Safest is to use the simple RPI, which brings a figure of around £309,000 (Measuringworth). Be sure to include in your footnote that you have used RPI and that other calculating methods exist. Also re the benefit, I suggest you add the words "over the three days of th match" to the attendance figure.
• It's in a quote, so can't be altered, but Lord Hawke's comment about Hirst "coming off" when an effort seemed most necessary will confuse some readers. They may wonder why Hirst left the fiels when an effort seemed most necessary. I suggest you add in parentheses: '(i.e. "succeeding")' after the words "coming off".
• Who is the one man, apart from Bosanquet and Hirst, to score two centuries and take ten wickets in the same match - people are bound to wonder?
• General point: how is the non-specialist reader going to understand the different meanings attached to the word "wicket"? For example: "Hirst took his 200th wicket..." and "a succession of wickets which suited spin bowling..." Perhaps you should stick o "pitch" for the second meaning.
• "playing all three matches against South Africa that summer in a series which England won 1–0." Better add "with two drawn" to avoid confusion
• In close proximity we have: "he took 10 wickets at 18.50" and "six were in the final match of the series, at a cost of 89 runs" Now, I understand the difference between these statements, but readers less familiar with the games's recording methods may not. Rather than getting into complex explanations I think I'd simply remove "at a cost of 89 runs".
• Final tests section: Try to avoid repeating "with (the) bat and ball" in the first line
• In the Lord's centenary match, how come he played for the MCC side which had toured South Africa the previous winter, when he had not been on that tour? Or do you mean that he played for the Rest of England? Eiher way, some explanation/rewording is necessary.
  • All done. The last one was a mistake on my part, as he played for the Rest. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(To be concluded)

Final comments

Later career

• "Hirst played two more first-class games; in 1921–22, he played two games for the Europeans cricket team in India and in 1929, aged 58, he made a final appearance for Yorkshire against the MCC..." I make that three, not two matches
• Coaching: When you say "during Hirst's tenure, the team were unbeaten", I assume you mean unbeaten in the Eton v Harrow series, not unbeaten in all matches. Needs clariication, e.g. "Eton lost to Harrow in 1939 for the first time..."
• When did he become Yorkshire's coach, and how did he combine this with his duties at Eton?

Style and technique

• "A left arm bowler, he took a long run-up..." you have already established that he was a left-arm bowler
• "his abilities as a batsman and bowler seemed to be similar" - not sure that "abilities" is right here (batting and bowling require different abilities; I possess neither, alas). Perhaps rephrase; I assume you are indicating that for much of his career he was equally successful as a batsman and as a bowler.
• "he was most effective with bat or ball when the team depended on his success". I think this point has already been made - see beginning of this section.
• "His record as a Test cricketer was less impressive than in county cricket" - not quite grammatical. Perhaps: "His record as a Test cricketer was less impressive than his figures in county cricket"?
• Something wrong here: "A plain speaking man, Hirst was he could be firm and even outspoken at times". Propbably "was he" superfluous.
  • All done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That ends my detailed comments. I have done light copyediting here and there, which you are welcome to adjust. Overall this is pretty impressive; my main concern is that possibly it is a little overdetailed for the casual reader - a few too many references to performances in individual matches, which makes for heavy going for all but the most commited readers. Something to consider; otherwise, well done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and all your work. I've cut some details of matches. However, I left some of the 1906 performances as I believe they are quite important, and I kept in most of the Test stuff, particularly 1902, as Tests were the pinnacle of his career. However, I'll keep pruning over the next few days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Nyon Conference

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got the article passed almost deceptively smoothly at GA, I'm now wondering about pushing on to FA. I'm aware the article needs a copyedit - so don't feel the need to comment on that here, but of course you can - but potentially the bigger issue is one of size/scope. I'm struggling to see what there is more to say, but that sort of thing always needs fresh eyes. Referencing, as well, should be good but a check wouldn't hurt.

Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 07:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• No comments yet, but I did some copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: While the article is pretty good, the prose in general needs a bit of fine-tuning. As such I would send this to an A-class review for MILHIST. Here are some of my issues:

• Instead of having the location and date in parentheses (Nyon, Switzerland, September 1937), converting it to prose for the start of the lead would be more beneficial.
• "attended by" modify, perhaps 'which was also attended by..'
• "would patrol most of the western Mediterranean, and parts of the east;" no comma needed, and perhaps it could read "..of the east, and the other signatories"; to me it flows slightly better that way.
• Link Italy and Germany on first mention in the lead.
• "The Italian submarine Iride attacked the British destroyer Havock, unsuccessfully, strengthening Eden's stance towards Italy.[8]" huh? This paragraph-ending sentence throws me for a loop. How does it connect to the previous stu'ff; was it a catalyst? also, who's Eden? It feels like either this sentence needs to be meshed in better or a sentence is missing before this.
• "A conference was arranged for all parties with a Mediterranean coastline, along with Germany and Italy," Italy has a Mediterranean coastline so it seems repetitive to include them.
• "with the new prime minister, Camille Chautemps, against." against what, exactly?
• "There were appeals by Italy and Germany that the Non-Intervention Committee handle the piracy and other issues the conference was to discuss, not a conference like Nyon. Britain and France rejected this suggestion, and continued to prepare for the conference" I'm a little unclear as to what Italy and Germany wanted here. It sounds like they wanted a separate conference to handle the piracy matters, but does that mean they wanted two?
• A lot of dates bounce back and forth between md and dm (September 8, 9 September). Keep them to dm since it's a European matter.
• "It clauses provided for any submarine" Its clauses
• "It ended on September 14" is this accurate, since there were two agreements, the latter of which was on the 17th?
• "It was decided that French and British fleets patrol the areas of sea west of Malta, and attack any suspicious submarines." no comma needed.
• Tyrrhenian Sea doesn't have to be linked three times.
• "A compromise was signed on the 29th," of September or October?
• Why are names used for some references and titles for others? only the two bulletins of international news have no author listed, so others that use titles should be fixed.

This was definitely an interesting article on a Conference that I was surprised I knew nothing about. With a bit of fine-tuning and the A-class review it should have little trouble at FAC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Korkoro

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A peer review might help the page survive a GAN.

Thanks, _morelMW^illiam 10:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Hi William and other reviewers. I will begin posting large issues with the article, before going into smaller and prose related issues. Will, a main issue I notice are the references. Many of poorly or not properly formatted. Many are missing either works or publisher fields, and all are missing accessdates. Additionally, many statements, sentences and thoughts are not sourced (a source should really be present after every sentence). That, and the awkward paragraphing make reading a bit difficult. Lastly, I think it would be beneficial to expand the "filming" section as it is currently very small. So far those are the large issues, once you have addressed those, I'll be happy to come back for round 2. Good luck! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I formatted the references and linked the sources for all the sentences. I also expanded the filming section. Thank you Nathan._morelMW^illiam 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Truthkeeper88 per request

First, let me congratulate you with the enormous progress you've made since I first saw this article. I have a few general comments to make, will watch the page and Nathan's comments, and then swing back again:

• Remove the hyperlinks to external websites; if you can't wikilink them, then simply mention them in text, in italics.
• Movie titles should be in italics throughout the article.
• Anything in quotes should use double quotation marks - this is done a bit inconsistently throughout, some in single quote marks, some in double. Make them consistent.
• The reviews use the term gypsy, but in the lead and the plot the term Romani is used more often. This will need to be made consistent, or somehow a phrase, or explanation, added that the Romani are known as gypsies. I think it's there in the lead, but needs a little more clarification.
• The acolades section should be renamed to be "Awards".
• I would prefer to see the "Background section" about the Holocaust and the Romani people come a little earlier, perhaps even right after the plot summary. Not many people are aware that the Romani were sent to concentrations camps, were made to wear badges, etc., so I think for context this information should be presented earlier.
• The page will need a copyedit for prose. When you've made changes suggested here, either submit for a copyedit at the GOCE (Guild of Copyeditors) or give me a ping - if I have time, I'll swing through it.
• Everything taken from a source has to be paraphrased correctly, otherwise it might be considered copyvio or plagiarism. I haven't yet, but will spot-check. This is standard practice in a PR before a page goes to review (at least in my PRs).
• I haven't looked at the sourcing yet, will return with comments.
• I'm concerned about the number of FUR images - those probably won't survice a review, just so you know.

That's all for now, will post more later as I've been through it again. Very impressed with the progress, and with some work I think you have a good chance at GAN. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply I made a series of edits after reading your comments, and now there are

• No hyperlinks to external websites in the main article section
• No unitalicised occurrence of the movie title in the main article section
• No inconsistency in the usage of the terms Romani and Gypsy. The whole article now uses Romani to refer to them in all places.

Also, I shifted the production section to above the themes section. The background subsection is now right below the plot summary. I think I paraphrased it well, but third opinion would be better. I renamed the accolades section to awards. I also addressed the FURs in their purpose of use section. The three FUR images in the main text body are from the scenes that are referred to in many places in the article in the critical commentary section. Also, the scene with the Romanies as blacksmiths is a unique thing for the movie, as mentioned in the reviews. Thanks a lot for your comments. Take your time for the second round. _morelMW^illiam 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy on another page. I just had a quick look because this popped up on my watchlist, and I noticed a lot of overciting. If a source is used for more than one sentence in a row, only add the citation at the end of the string of sentences it cites. When the copyedit is done, I'll have a swing through again. Still watching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had done the same thing earlier. But I took Nathan's comments as I should cite the source for every sentence and hence the current overcited state. _morelMW^illiam 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. No, it's only necessary if each statement is from a different source, which sometimes is the case. Don't worry about it, I think I'll sweep through when the copyedit is finished and I can fix for you. I can't comment on content at the moment because some of it seems to be disappearing, so I'll wait. Please feel free to ping me if I forget. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The copy editor is almost done with it, as he wrote in his talk page. Thanks a lot for offering to fix the overcitations. _morelMW^illiam 05:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when it's done and I'll go through with a final set of comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing review, post copy-editing

• →Expanded the lead. Did I mess it up?

• "a Romani who managed to escape from the Nazis with help from some kind French people" is a little awkward. Maybe something like "managed to escape with help from French villagers"?

• →Changed it to "with help from some compassionate French villagers."

• Tweaked it a little. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Plot - " The mayor, Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), who also practises as a veterinarian, " is a little awkward. Maybe try " Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), the mayor who is also a veterinarian ..."

• →Changed it to "Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), the village mayor who is also a veterinarian".

• Okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The final sentence - "The Nazi's target not only ..." > a couple of problems here. First it shouldn't be a single sentence paragraph. Second, the part about the concentrations camps appearing doesn't really make sense. I think this sentence can be its own paragraph, but needs expansion and clarification, and then should be split into multiple sentences.

• →Not a single sentence anymore. Added more clarification with regard to the concentration camps.

• Tweaked it a little. Better now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks.

• Background - This section isn't really working well at the moment. Somehow it has to be tied to the film - do you know whether the director was Romani? What inspired him to make this film? Or if he doesn't have a tie to it, then add something to the section along the lines of the film is about a forgotten episode during WWII when the Romani were, .... and fill in from there. Might require a bit of research. Another thing to do, would be to leave it as is, and combine the "Background" with the "Development" section so you have one section called "Background and development". (Btw - found some of the answers to my questions in the development section).

• →I reworded the section. How about this version?

• Yes, much better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• In this part: "went to Montreuil to interview the Romanies there.[10] However, the people there refused to talk " > try to prune out the repetition of "there", which is also in the next sentence too

• →Pruned out the second 'there'. How does it sound now?

• Okay Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence: "Following former French President Jacques Chirac's efforts to honour the Justes,[11] Gatlif came across Yvette Lundy,[9] a former schoolteacher in Gionges, La Marne, who had been deported for forging documents for the Romanies,[12] and also a small anecdote by Jacques Sigot,[9] a historian who has documented the Porajmos,[13] about a Romani family who were saved from being sent to the camp at Montreuil-Bellay by a French lawyer who sold them his home for a franc." > is too long and hard to read. Needs to be split somehow.

• →Split.

• Tweaked a little. Better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better now. Thanks.

*Filming - do we know where the barbed wire came from? Was it taken from a concentratiion camp?

• →Added info.

• Interesting. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Track listing - I'm don't know about the rules for collapsible boxes, but for some reason think they might not be allowed. You might want to look into this.

• ? Can the Tracklisting be moved to an external section? Even the way it looks as a collapsible list is awful. Or can it be removed altogether?

• If it were me, I'd remove. Is it necessary? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• →Removed the tracklisting section.

• Themes and analysis- thinking about what to do with the thin first section here. Also don't forget to use italics for the names of all films, magazines and newspapers.

• →It looks like the italics are in place.
• ? For the themes common section, I added a summary of the whole section. Would that do?

• Yes, it's better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think these paragraphs would work better if they were set up with topic sentences. In other words, something like, "Reviewers have compared the film to Stephen Spielberg's Shindler's List " and maybe mention something about self-sacrifice. Topic sentences that summarize everything in the paragraph and help the reader don't need to have a citation.

• →Added topic sentences. Not sure if they turned out well. Your opinion?

• Better Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Critical response - a little choppy. I wonder if there's a way to combine these reviews? Thinking about what to do here, but I wouldn't have a separate para for each review.

• →Reworded the whole section. Is it still choppy?

• Seems to be, but need another read through.
• This is a bit heavy going now, but much better. In my view there's really no good way of doing these, but since you have so many, you could possible prioritize and may dump one or two. Another option would be to lump them together, something like this: "Some agree the film was boring such as those from [blank], [blank], and [blank]. For now, I think it's fine.

• Isn't the present version already lumped, with one paragraph having comments on Gatlif's direction, another on the style, the next one on the historical aspects and the next on the cinematography? I think it is not very clear in its present state.

• Sources and references - haven't checked these yet. Will return.

• The foreign language sources should be identified as such

• Do this [1]; look at how this ref renders now. All the foreign lang refs need this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't get you. What should I do with the foreign language sources?

• I'll have a look at the templates, but there should be field to indicate the language of the source. I've noticed some of the sources have place of publication, such as New York, or Phoenix, but in the least that's missing from the foreign language sources, or at least the ones I looked at.

• Let me fill in the language part for the sources then.

→Filled in the language part for all the foreign language sources.

• MoS - go through the text and check that there isn't any WP:Overlinking - it seems to me that some things are linked multiple times, and also some mundane things that might not need links are linked.

• → Removed links to mundane topics like Europe and France. Also, removed the repeated linkings that I came across, except the links to magazine names and actors, as they appear in different sections, with a considerable distance between their occurrences.

• Review the policy in linking. Something should only be linked once; or if twice, then once in the lead and once in the body. It's not necessary to link something more than once in the text.
• →The magazine names don't have a second link anymore.

• Citations - I've fixed a bit of overciting, but not all. As I noted above, if the same source is used to cite multiple sentences, it's not necessary to use a ref tag after each sentence, unless there's a direct quote, or unless it's the end of a paragraph. In some cases editors will ask that each sentence is cited, but not at FAC. Not sure what they do at GAN.

• →I removed the overcitations, restricting repetitions to sentences with direct quotes, if in a group of sentences that share a reference.

• Prose - still needs work. When you've finished the points I've made above, ping me and I'll do another copyedit for you.

This is coming along. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

After the strikethroughs by Truthkeeper, the points I updated are the Lead, Tracklisting and the Overlinking related ones. Also made a couple of tweaks reducing the usage of 'also', taking the tip from the toolbox. _morelMW^illiam 06:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• This phrase "covering horse hooves with cloth bags to muffle their sounds" is verbatim from the source. Needs to reworded or put in quotation marks. It's already attributed to the Village Voice, which is good.

• Changed it to "placing cloth bags over horse hooves to muffle their sounds". Is it acceptable?

• I've reworded a little; it was still too close.

• The rest of my spotchecks showed appropriate paraphrasing or use of quotations.

• Is over use of quotations a bad feature?

• You have a lot of quotations, but it's something I do too. Some people don't like it because the article can become a quotefarm (there's a policy about this somewhere), but I think what you've done is okay. What I do is wait for a few weeks and then swing back through the page and by that time it's fairly easy to paraphrase the quotes, but it needs a little distance and perspective. Also, in my view quoting is far far better than close paraphrasing or not quoting, so you're erring on the side of caution which is good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• If it looks okay then I don't want to mess it up.

• I think it's fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 final comments

A few final comments.

• I think this is probably ready to go to GAN for a GA review. The more eyes on it, the better.
• I still have concerns about the number of fair use images. I believe fair use is strictly limited, but I'm not an image expert, so see how it goes. But don't be surprised if you're asked to remove some images.
• The prose still needs work. At the moment I don't have time to fix it, but a GA reviewer will find specific issues to be addressed. Also, I may have time to tweak as it's waiting to be reviewed. Another option would be to choose someone from the list of PR copyedit volunteers (way at the bottom). The editor at the bottom of the list is a very good copyeditor. If this goes to FA, for sure the prose will need more work.
• Otherwise, no other issues. Nice job with this expansion. It's come a long way since I first looked at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks a lot for your help. I should admit, it was your previous peer review along with an another editor's prodding to look into the French media coverage which got me working. I hope it turns out well at GAN. _morelMW^illiam 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

By Your Side (The Black Crowes album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's the last step before FAC. The article has long been a GA but I just recently finished adding content. It also went through a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors a few hours ago.

Thanks, Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

This is a nice article, which I presume you modelled on !your FA-class Lions (album) article. However, there are structural problem, particularly with the long quotes. In some places this gives a journalistic tone rather than an encyclopedic one.

• For example in the Writing and production section, "Shirley's laid back style also won praise from the band. "Kevin is the first guy that I've worked with that just went with it—especially my singing. A lot of this album is just my scratch vocals. It's very loose, and Kevin let it go.... He'd say, if we didn't get it in two or three takes, 'We'll come back tomorrow'", said Chris." looks like part of a magazine interview or profile. I recognise that it is sourced from an interview, but in an encyclopedia article, the information should come from the source, not the style of writing.

I'm not sure what you mean here – that the information should not come from the style of writing, or that the style of writing should not come from the source. Please elaborate.

I mean the encyclopedia article should not be written like a magazine article. "'Blah, blah, blah,' said Chris" sounds like the sort of text that would be in a magazine.

Is that because Chris doesn't speak in an encyclopedic tone? ;) I think the inclusion of quotes from the principals brings the reader a little closer to the subject and does better justice than a third-person rewrite could. If FAC reviewers don't like the amount of quoting, I'll trim it down.

• Further instances of this occur.
• I'm not sure of the purpose of the non-free sample File:The Black Crowes - Kickin' My Heart Around.ogg. The FUR states "The section of music is used to illustrate critics' characterization of the performance and sound." presumably referring to the Jim Farber quote. But the main crux of Farber's quoted analysis is the comparison between "Kickin' My Heart Around" and "Memo From Turner" and "What's Yer Name". Listeners won't be able to make that comparison without hearing the other two tracks.

Can I not assume the reader is familiar with these two tracks? Earlier in the caption, slide guitar and harmonica are referenced – surely I can assume the reader is familiar with those instruments for the purpose of distinguishing them in the sample, right? So there's a line somewhere...

• The same goes for File:The Black Crowes - Virtue and Vice.ogg; the sample won't help me understand Dan Aquilante's comparison to Traffic in a way words could not if I've never heard anything by Traffic.

In this one, further explanation of how it's similar to Traffic is given. If Traffic weren't mentioned, would the FUR be sufficient in your view?

The point I'm making is I'm pretty sure some of the more aggressive reviewers at FAC would rip these rationales apart. I think you should find someone who is good at FURs to give them a look and see if they think they're OK.

• Check reference formating; some single page citations have the plural "pp." instead of single "p.".

Good catch. I'll get on this.

• Some refs, e.g. Ref #19, lack page numbers.

Many of my print sources were obtained through Factiva, and the page number wasn't always provided. Thanks for finding #19.

News International's archive has Times and most Sunday Times page numbers (some ST supplements are not included) and ProQuest should have some U.S. titles. I'll have a look on Newsbank for some others.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to either of these. (News International says I have to be logged in.)

• What makes Refs #80 through #89 reliable?

The assertion has been made many times at FAC and FLC that these sites, all published by Hung Medien, only contain data that are licensed from the original chart providers. I haven't been able to find the proof of that, but it must have been provided at some point because the assertion is always accepted.

Fair enough.

• If you're not putting publishers in citations you should add locations for newspaper/magazine publications without it in the title (e.g. format The Times as "The Times (London)" and the Daily Mail (spit) as "Daily Mail (London)").

Will do.

• In the <code>{{Cite news}}</code> template you've sometimes put the work in the publisher field but italicised instead of in the work field. This should be corrected.

Ditto.

Despite the GOCE copyedit, I still think there is more work to be done. Apart from the long quotes, the top end of the article is quite well-written but it feels repetitive and rushed as it moves towards the bottom, particularly in the reception sections. It might be worth directly contacting one or two users at WP:PRV to perform a more in-depth copy edit than GOCE was able to achieve. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. This seems to be how most featured album articles read, which is not to say that featured article status is the be-all and end-all. If you can provide an example of an article in which the reception section avoids this problem, I could probably take care of it myself.

With the goalposts being constantly moved at FAC, I wonder whether any of those articles can be used as a model. The primary issue I have with the section is the repetitive "So-and-so from This magazine said 'this', so-and-so from That magazine said 'that'", etc. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not in love with that section, either, but I think I've gone beyond the usual organization method of "Reviewer 1 said this. Reviewer 2 said this. Reviewer 3 said this. [new paragraph] Reviewer 4...." I start each paragraph with a thesis about a specific aspect of the album and then back it up with examples, and I've varied the sentence structure to help with flow. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review! Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Demi Lovato discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FL but I feel like it would be wiser to get it peer reviewed first ;) Any user's comments will be appreciated!

Thanks, Pancake (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Starting Peer Review

Review started.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Toolbox (external links) indicates problem with this link.
2. Toolbox (alt text) shows no information has been provided for any image. Add |Alt = to infobox below Caption, provide suitable text.

Lead

1. Lovato starred as Mitchie Torres in the > Lovato starred in the Lovato's role is not important to her discography.
2. number nine > number nine Note: wikicode includes a non-breakable space. Use this on similar instances elsewhere e.g. top twenty.
3. Lovato's debut single, > Lovato's debut solo single, Already has a single as a duet.
4. "La La Land" charted moderately in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany, 'moderately' is rather vague, I'm afraid Germany will be dropped off with > "La La Land" charted into the top 40 in the United Kingdom and Ireland,
5. To date, Here We Go Again has sold > As from February 2010, Here We Go Again has sold or Here We Go Again has sold

Wikitables

1. Each table that has non-charting entries needs "—" denotes release that did not chart or was not released. or similar, added across the bottom row.
2. First two columns of the albums tables should have the same widths.
3. In Singles table, a note should be supplied for "Skyscraper" indicating that it is still currently charting, something like As from July 2011, "Skyscraper" was still in the US and Canadian charts and may not have peaked yet.
4. Promotional singles and Other charted songs. According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, only notable songs that achieved significant chart positions should be listed. Are any of the Promotional singles official releases? The two tables can be melded as Other charted songs retaining only the charting songs/singles.
5. In the Music videos table, 'Unknown' for Director(s): I've seen Discographies fail FL with two unknown directors. Here we have four out of eleven. Greater effort is needed to find these.

References

1. De-link second, or subsequent, appearances of any linked term within this section, e.g. MTV News, MTV Networks, Viacom.
2. Check publisher/work for Hung Medien-related references, e.g. ARIA Charts > Australian Charts Portal. Whilst ARIA has supplied the information, these charts are published by Hung Medien and not by ARIA. Australian Charts Portal only show peaks in 1–50. Meanwhile ARIA Charts positions 1–100 are archived here and require more work to find peak positions.
3. Avoid redirect on ChartsPlus use UKChartsPlus, also note italics on subsequent uses.
4. Check language, for first instance provide a wikilink/piped wikilink, e.g. German > [[German language|German]]
5. According to Wikipedia:Record charts, "Since Chart Stats is an anonymous archive, its use has been challenged in the past". OCC only gives top 75 positions.
6. Ref [31] needs language = German.
7. Ref [39], English is the default language and so does not have to be specified.

Review done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Lumen (branding agency)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been newly created because I think it will be useful and give hints for students of design faculties that needs an help to get oriented in the working sphere, by knowing branding/design agencies and the specializations offered. I came to this conclusion after I talked with some people that would like to know more about companies from an external point of view, other than the companies' websites. I tried to be as more neutral as possible, putting all the references I could find, and I'll gladly accept help into getting the article into a more "encyclopedic" style.

Thank you very much, Chimechords (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

• Considering you created this article as a means for people to learn about the company from "an external point of view", a lot of your sources are from Lumen's website. You should work to find more third-party sources that can offer more objective analyses of the company and its work. If these are truly all the references you could find, you may want to consider whether the article meets the general notability guidelines.
• Of the third-party sources you do cite, vital bibliographic information is missing; Refs 2, 5, 6, 8 require author, article title, page numbers at the least. At least two of those sources I can identify as daily publications, yet only the month and year is cited.
• Layout is a bit of a problem: I would personally put History first, followed by the Organization & Services (which I would rename Corporate structure). Follow this with a Clients section that describes not only those companies who have engaged Lumen's services but includes information about notable works. Then follow with a tabulated Awards section.
• Ensure spelling and grammar is of encyclopedic standard; "it's" should be "it is", "Canadian" has a capital "C" and the passive voice should not be used without an agent phrase ("considered [by whoever] to be one of the foremost experts in consumer branding and packaging").

Bradley0110 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

USS Batfish (SS-310)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Ive done some work on this subject and have added more information. And I would like another set of eyes to have a look to find anything and everything that needs to be fixed. My plan is to push this to Good Article status so anything can help.

Thanks, Dcheagle 00:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I often want to use military fansites of various ships and units myself; they're loaded with information, very accessible, and generally accurate. But "generally accurate" isn't the same thing as a reliable source, and I'm guessing batfish.com wouldn't be judged a reliable source for Wikipedia. That site references your Friedman source and also Alden's The Fleet Submarine in the U.S. Navy: A Design and Construction History; it would be better to get Alden, maybe through an interlibrary loan, and cite the original source.
• DANFS is often quite good, and it's allowed, but battleship articles on Wikipedia are generally of a high enough quality that we don't need to be copying our text from someone else's webpage. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I heartily agree with Dank's comments above. I would also add that depending so heavily on a single source, in this case batfish.com, makes it difficult to avoid copyright violations and plagiarism. As a single case in point, the batfish.com subsection "Post-War History" begins: "After arriving in San Francisco on September 9, 1945, Batfish then went into the Mare Island Shipyard for 'inactive overhaul', to prepare her for peacetime service." The second sentence of the existing Wikipedia article's subsection "1946-1952" says: "After arriving in San Francisco the Batfish was sent to Mare Island Navy Yard for inactive overhaul to prepare the ship for her peacetime service." Although not exactly identical, the Wikipedia sentence too closely imitates the source. Just spot-checking, I see other sentences that either copy or come close to copying the sentences of the source. As you do more research and improve the article, please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Im going to do a rewrite as soon as I have time and the batfish.com source will at some point be replaced as ive got other sources that back that info up I just dont have time write hints why i used the batfish one in the first place.--Dcheagle 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments, questions, and suggestions:

• I've given the article a copyedit. In particular, the museum ship sections were very heavy on wordiness and detail, so I've tried to cut a bit of the excessive detail out. Feel free to re-add important details I've inadvertantly deleted.
• As a general rule, submarines are referred to as "boats", not "ships".
• The lead section needs to be expanded to be a general overview of the article: a couple of paragraphs total covering the most important points (when was she built/enter service, highlights of her career, when did she decommission, how did she end up a museum ship...both the planning and execution, what is her current status)
• It would be better to add the technical detail to the body of the article and cite it there (probably as part of the "Construction and commissioning" section), instead of citing it in the infobox. You could probably add a bit of background on the class here as well. See the "Design and construction" section of HMAS Otama for an idea of what I mean.
• More detail on the submarine's operational history (in particular her WWII and Korea wartime operations) would be good, if possible. Have a look at the two Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships links in the "References" section, and use these as a starting point to expand and cite the article. A greater variety of sources overall (both online and dead-tree) is also something to investigate, particularly if you plan to take this article to a promotion venue like GA.
  • Potential source: United States submarine operations in World War II by Theodore Roscoe and Richard G. Voge, published by Naval Institute Press.
  • There's also Leader of the Pack by Mark W. Allen. Although this is published by vanity press iUniverse and probably may not be the best to cite from per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, the book may identify some other, more relaible sources that can be used.
• Where was Batfish meant to be going in Orange that the strike disrupted?
• For someone not familiar with the region, specifying what river(s) the submarine was towed up would be useful.
• Where is "Lock-and-Dam No. 6" located?
• The trench that had to be dug out, was that through land, or was it simply a dredging operation to deepen a channel?
• More detail about the museum post-opening is required. Is it still open as of 2011, and what is its current status? Have there been any major events/incidents since the 1973 opening? Has Batfish required any major maintenance/overhauls/upgrades since opening? Has attendance consistently been "1000-ish per week" since opening (I imagine its fluctuated or changed over 30-odd years)?
• A couple more images would be nice, particularly of the submarine when in commission. Some of the old US Navy photos at navsource.org may be of use.

Hopefully my comments and questions give you some ideas for improvement. -- saberwyn 13:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Family Guy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA. Over the years I have developed the artical and a while ago it was copy edited. But before I nominate it I would like to get some feedback to see how I can improve the articale.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can't stand Family Guy, but there are still a number of errors in the article, so this peer review has been closed. A\/\₉3r-(0la 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The point of a peer review is to discuss improvements of an article. Why, if there are errors in the article, would the discussion be closed instead of pointing out the errors so they can be fixed? Gage (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, CE is made to get feedback from editors and get consensus that the artical is ready for FAC or FLC. If it has any errors you should put them here so I can address them. Also your opinion about the show is irrelevant. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review is over already. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What gives you authority to close it? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer The Simpsons over FG. Anyways, the peer review was closed because the "Family Guy" article may not meet portions of the GA criteria. Also the "SKL/LKS" article fails meet the GA criteria, and both articles should've been delisted from GA status I believe. All Wikipedia users will never get these two articles to GA or FA again. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat again your opinion of the show is not relevant, important or anything of value. Not to make assumptions but does this have anything to do with you already having an artical for PR. Just to make my point the reasons to close a PR are: listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed, and I believe none of those things have happened. So either give a good, valid, intelligent concern worth my and other contributors to the WP:FG's or just don't comment. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

• There is a toolbox on this PR page which shows one dab link that needs to be fixed. It also finds several problem external links including some that are dead or forbidden now.
• Copying what I wrote in the previous peer review, "LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth [ninth] season, something like that.
• The lead should be a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on the voice cast or on the lawsuits, for example.
• The last paragraph of the lead feels like too much detail / focus on the spinoffs and tie ins, not enough focus on the series itself (which is what the article is about).
• Most difficult criterion for most articles at FAC to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. Some examples of problems follow (not a complete list)
• First sentence of Origins does nto seem to match the rest of that section. MacFarlane initially conceived Family Guy in 1995 while studying animation at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).[1] He came up with a student film with characters that eventually developed into Peter and Brian. You could say something like "Family Guy can trace its roots back to 1995, when MacFarlane was studying animation at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).[1]
• Which is it - slow evolution into the current version While working on the series, the characters of Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian.[3][6] or basically the same thing with different names for the dad and dog ...the difference between the first short, The Life of Larry, and Family Guy, was that "Life of Larry was shown primarily in my dorm room and Family Guy was shown after the Super Bowl."[5]
• Another part of FAC is making sure things are done consistently - is MADtv italicized or not, for example? Attention to detail helps make the path through FAC smoother.
• I would add specific years / dates here: Family Guy was originally pitched to Fox in the same year as King of the Hill, but the show was not bought until years later, when King of the Hill became successful.[7] Also the last phrase makes it sound as if the success of King of the Hill led to FOX picking up Family Guy - is that the case??
• The organization of the article is currently confused. I ownder if it would be clearer with a History section first. This could have the current Origin section, followed by the current Early history and cancellation section (perhaps call this First run and cancellation, maybe add the years in parentheses after?), then have the Cult success and revival section - again with years.
• I would then have the Production section. I would also try to tie production information into dates as much as possible (or perhaps relate it to the season number). For example the Executive producers section seems confused without dates, also not sure it should be the first section in Production. Would Writing, Voice cast, and then Executive producers make more sense as an order?
• Seems odd that there is nothing on writing in the last 3 years (after 2008)
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - some of the structural issues raised here might be resolved by looking at FAs on animated series.
• The Voice cast mentions a lot of characters, but the Characters section comes later in the article, so the reader does not necessarily know who the characters not already mentioned in the lead are (like Herbert)
• Would Lawsuits fit better in the Controversies section? Also seems odd that were the three lawsuits in less than a year and then no more since.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Glenrothes

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is extremely well written. Being new to editing on Wikipedia I am keen to establish what the article needs to push it higher than GA status to bring it into the premier league of FA status. Therefore I would like an honest review of the article to establish any potential issues with the page and to see if there are areas of improvement. I think the demographics section in particular could be strengthend. It would also be useful to establish if it has the potential to meet FA status requirements.

Thanks, Yoostar (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a nice article, interesting, generally well-written and well-organized, and nicely illustrated. However, I think that some of the material is too detailed for foreign readers, who probably do not need to know what is happening in every suburb and every primary school. On the other hand, a bit more detail about geology, flora, and fauna would be of general interest. Done A climate chart, as in Dundee#Climate, might be nice. I'm not suggesting that the article is too short or too long; compressing here, expanding there for an international audience is more what I have in mind. In addition, it never hurts to proofread line-by-line multiple times for every little nitpicky thing related to prose and the Manual of Style. I elaborate on that a bit below.

Lead

• The lead generally provides a nice summary of the article; however, I would try to include at least a mention of "Education", "Government", and "Transportation" to make the summary complete. You don't need to add a lot, and I would not expand the lead beyond four paragraphs. My rule of thumb with leads is to try to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.  Done

• The prose in the lead is dicey in several small ways. Here's a short list of things that are apt to be red flags at FAC: (1) "east central Scotland" needs a hyphen;  Done (2) "miners who where to work at the Rothes Colliery" does not make sense;  Done (3) "between the 1960s to the 1990s" should be "between ... and" rather than between ... to";  Done (4) "with several major electronics and hi-tech companies establishing a base in the town" uses "with" as a conjunction, which is awkward; it would be better to use a terminal period after "Silicon Glen" and make the second part of this sentence into a stand-alone sentence;  Done (5) "remain to this day" is vague because "to this day" is non-specific;  Done (6)"largest indoor shopping centre - The Kingdom Shopping Centre" should use a comma or unspaced em dash rather than a spaced hyphen;  Done (7) the meaning of "boundaries of the new town are virtually indistinguishable between its neighbouring small towns and villages" is unclear;  Done (8) "Whilst these communities"; "while" is preferable to the archaic "whilst";  Done (9) "with Glenrothes winning awards in the 'Beautiful Scotland' and 'Britain in Bloom' contests" uses "with" as a conjunction.  Done

• Rather than doing a line-by-line examination of the prose in the main text for small things like the ones in the list above, I'll leave that to you. The text generally reads well, but the FA requirement for professional prose means that every sentence needs to be polished. In particular, I would recommend looking for vague time terms like "now", "today", "currently" and replacing them with something more specific. To be honest, I'm seeing a higher density of small problems in the lead than in the main text, so please don't be discouraged by my nine-item list.

History

• "The original town plan was to build a new settlement for a population of 32,000–35,000... " - Ranges like this should be expressed with the word "to" rather than a dash so that it makes sense when read aloud.  Done

• Quoted material such as "to establish a self-contained and balanced community for working and living" should not appear in italics unless the original material is in italics.  Done

• I'd check the whole article for overlinking. Common terms like "farming", "area", and "coal mine" should not be linked since readers of English most likely know what they mean already. Terms like "Silicon Glen" should not be linked twice in the same section. Generally, it's enough to link a term once in the lead and perhaps once on first occurrence in the main text.  Done

• "the development of 15,378 houses, 480,692 square metres (5,174,125 square feet)" - For consistency within the article, the imperial units here should be primary and the metric units secondary. The secondary units are generally abbreviated; i.e., 5,174,125 square feet (480,692 m²). It might be appropriate to round these numbers for ease of reading. It would also be good to add conversions for the quantities in the article that don't have them already.  Done

Geography

• "The road network was upgraded to deal with projected increases in car ownership and new housing estates were developed to the west from Macedonia to Newcastle, to the south from Pitteuchar to Stenton and then to the north from Cadham to Collydean and Balfarg." - Readers from distant lands will probably not find this much detail to be meaningful. Would this be better tightened to "The road network was upgraded to deal with projected increases in car ownership and new housing estates on the town's outskirts"?  Done

• Could something be added here about the geology of the area? What kind of rock does the town sit on? How close do the coal beds come to the edge of town?  Done

Culture and community

• The second and third images in this section create a text sandwich between them, at least on my computer screen. Since there is plenty of room in this section, moving the third image down a half-dozen lines or so would fix the problem. Done

Education

• "Warout Primary in Auchmuty followed and as development of the town progressed westwards further primary schools were developed to serve the central and western precincts such as those in Rimbleton, South Parks, Caskieberran and Newcastle." - Here's another example of what I consider unnecessary detail. Outsiders are apt to have little interest in a complete list of primary schools in any town unless it has only one or is special in some way. Done

Other

• The dab checker at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets. They are Gala and Presiding Officer. Done

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

USS Oklahoma (BB-37)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on what needs to be done before I began work on improving the article. Anything that can be found and pointed out to me would be helpful my eventual plan is to submit this for Good Article states. Thanks, Dcheagle 04:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Do you get any material from Young, Beigel, or Madsen? If so, please cite them. If not, it's better not to mix "Further reading" references in the same end section as the references you rely on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• DANFS is often quite good, and it's allowed, but battleship articles on Wikipedia are generally of a high enough quality that we don't need to be copying our text from someone else's webpage. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Question What is DANFS?--Dcheagle 00:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You, or someone, used a {{DANFS}} template in the Bibliography: This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for the answer.--Dcheagle 00:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Three Medals of Honor, three Navy and Marine Corps Medals and one Navy Cross were awarded to sailors on board the Oklahoma during the attack and one battle star for World War II service. I can see they are both cited but they raise the question why and how as it also says she was sunk within 12 minutes. Is there any detail to expand a bit on this, were the decorations awarded after the sinking when they were aboard Maryland.
2. Father Aloysius Schmitt—was the first American chaplain of any faith to die in World War II. needs a cite
3. Same with Ensign John England had USS England (DE-635) and USS England (DLG-22) named after him.
4. The sections: Presidential escort - Overhauled and re-assigned and Rescuing Americans and refugees in Spain are virtually uncited.
5. The images in the same section are sandwiching the text - suggest moving the Launch on 23 March 1914 image to the construction section.

 Fixed--Dcheagle 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The details in the inf box should be coved in the text and cited. If not cites are require din the inf box (armaments and armour sections)
2. All the citations to Phister, Jeff; Thomas Hone, Paul Goodyear (2008). "1". Battleship Oklahoma BB-37 need page numbers added
3. All the web link citations need access dates added

 Fixed--Dcheagle 11:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good start WP:MILHIST have a project team dealing with battleships. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan who are always glad to help out if required. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is actually on my list to work on eventually; my first FA was Nevada, back in 2008. Let me know if I can help. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• The largest inconsistency problem in this article is the mixing of different citation styles. At present, the inline citations use Chicago, whilst the books listed in 'Bibliography' use APA. I do not know how others feel about this issue, but I'd consider using one citation style, even for different types of citations.
• Be consistent in whether you write a "p." before page numbers or not.
• Ref 2: The Battleship in the United States Navy is not in the bibliography.
• Ref 16 needs a comma after 'Breyer 1973'. Eisfbnore • talk 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Wario

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's still on the bounty board, and I'd like to get it back up to FAC.

Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The lead could use expanding. Also, the other media section could probably use merging or expanding to cover things not yet there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Other media definitely needs work. The lead does need expanding as well. I think it might be ready for FAC or GA when that's done. --Nathan2055^talk 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Luigi

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the previous peer review was over four years ago, and I'd like to improve this article to at least good status.

Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay here's some points I see:

lead

missing info on the other media appearances of Luigi

concept and creation

Of the pallete swap image and the L image, one should be moved. It squeezes the text in there making if difficult to read on smaller screens.

"In accordance with Nintendo's marketing policy of naming and promoting individual characters" - what is that policy? If you can't explain, then there is no reason for that statement.

"In 1988, consequently, a version of Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic" - should be a new paragraph here.

Actor Portrayal

Missing info on the Super Mario Bros. movie actor portrayal. It's mentioned near the bottom, but it should be mentioned here as it is an actor portrayal of Luigi. More in-depth info can be placed in that latter section.

Appearances

There are a lot of missing citations. I marked a few and others have already been marked.

There is also appears to be original research in this section. I've marked one instance (claiming a game is the only one like that would be OR unless you can find a reliable secondary source to back that up).

Reception

Considering the size of the article, the reception section is quite small. As it currently stands too much emphasis is placed on the appearances vs. reception. Even the concept and creation is quite large by comparison. The lack of reception or real-world impact is likely to make it difficult to justify it having a separate article.陣内_Jinnai 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Characteristics" needs to be completely rewritten using good sources and no original research. Also, it could probably be a subsection of "Concept and creation" so it would draw less attention to itself. "Appearances" could use expansion/cleanup. In games where Luigi is prominent and not just a random cameo, then it should tell a bit about what he does in the game, and a bit of the general plot. "Reception" needs expansion. For a character as big as Luigi, there must be more then 3 sources of reception out there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone. Time to get to work! --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Ken Barlow

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we want to nominate it for FA status. I guess it needs an eager eye and someone familiar with FA requirements.

Thanks, RaintheOne ^BAM 22:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I have never seen Coronation Street, so not sure if that makes me the ideal reviewer or not. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on fictional characters at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media - for example Bart Simpson, Bernard Quatermass, Homer Simpson, Jabba the Hutt, Jack Sparrow, and Jason Voorhees are all FAs and may be useful models.
• There is a toolbox on this PR page which finds 4 dead external links here - note that newspaper and print media refs do not have to have a link as the print version is accessible in theory (at a library or archive)

Added Archive URL's to these four refs.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tool also finds that there is one link in the article that is a redirect that points back to the same article (circular link) - see here
• Since he has been on the show for over 50 years, I would give the year of the image in the infobox.

Year and caption included GunGagdin^Moan 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

*I am not sure the lead follows WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of Mike Baldwin in the lead, for example.

• His various wives and the women in his life that each get their own section may be covered by the blanket statement that he has been married several times and had many lovers. However, I think some sort of more detailed summary statement (he has been married five times to four women, has fathered X children, and has Y grandchildren) would help. Not sure if each wife should be named in the lead - probably.
• Biggest concern for an article of this kind is to avoid writing from an in-universe perspective. See WP:IN-U
• I thought the article did a good job of referring to the character as Ken, and the actor as Roache. About the only place I noticed that did not do this was In early 2009 the character was reported to media regulator Ofcom after a series of derogatory comments about Christianity, which also sparked a number of complaints to broadcaster ITV.

I have reworded this to make it more Out of universe.GunGagdin^Moan 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• FAC is about making sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed. One little thing is that refs should be in numerical order, so fix things like Roache was initially offered the role of Ken on a thirteen-episode, six-week contract.[9][6]

I've put the refs in the correct order.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Quotations need to follow WP:LQ - basically punctuation goes outside the quotation marks unless a (nearly) complete sentence is being quoted. So quotes like this will need to be fixed The Guardian columnist Nancy Banks-Smith spoke highly of Ken's affair with Martha Fraser in 2009, calling it "a muted, ingenious storyline."[134]
• Another thing when writing about fiction is to make sure and provide context to the reader. I have never seen the show, and was not sure where it was set (Manchester). Although there is an early reference to Ken attending Manchester University, the fact that Coronation Street is set in Manchester is not explictly stated until the reception section. *Similarly, the Old Trafford scoreboard story makes more sense if it is somehow made clear that this is also in Manchester.
• Avoid needless repetition - the Old Trafford story in in the article three times (in the text of the section on Deirdre, in a photo caption in the feud with Mike, and in the In popular culture section). I think the first two are fine, although the caption is detailed enough to need a ref. The last mention is not needed.

Last mention removed GunGagdin^Moan 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The whole "In popular culture" section needs to go. Such sections are not popular with FAC reviewers and given the subject matter, isn't the whole article "In popular culture"? I would remove the duplicate Old Trafford item, and move the rest to elsewhere in the article. Most of it could probably go to Reception. Perhaps the gift wrap and cards could go to appearances in other media?

Pop culture removed, info merged into other sections GunGagdin^Moan 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who has never seen the show, I was confused in the Storylines section as to what his profession(s) are - these are mentioned in passing in the article, but should probably be made clearer here.
• Similarly for a man who has had 4 wives, a sentence like Ken had a slight antagonistic relationship with his "acid-tongued" mother-in-law Blanche. leaves me more confused than enlightened.
• Is there ever any mention made of his age in the show? Some television shows have the characters age more slowly than real life, others are more realistic. Within the context of the show is he in his 70s now (as the actor who protrays him is)?
• Language is the most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet. The prose is decent, but could use a copy edit to smooth out some rough spots.
• Might want to read User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing and look for examples
• There are a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which interrupt the narrative flow. Where possible, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• Probably good to get someone familair with the show / character to read this - they would catch any omissions or WP:WEIGHT issues.
• Refs look OK.
• Images are OK- fair use rationales seem reasonable. Not sure if the infobox image needs the exact episode it is taken from or not.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Paulo Francis

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it's necessary to discuss it's relevance. The article is about a person who lived mostly of his life abroad yet was virtually unknown outside Brazil. However, he was envolved in various political and cultural controversies of the time, and that perhaps adds him and international relevance. What do reviewers think?

Thanks, Cerme (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

It's interesting that you want to discuss the relevance of the topic; I'm not sure Wikipedia has a relevance policy! Judging by the amount of third-party coverage of the subject, even if many are non-English, it certainly meets notability guidelines. Some further comments:

• The article is over 4000 but the lead is just four lines. You should try to summarise every section of the article within the lead. The headings you have chosen for sections are a good guide to the paragraph of the lead (para 1 covers early life, para 2 covers middle years, etc).
• Your writing has a stylistic flair that is engaging but sometimes lets opinion creep in without attribution, e.g. "[...]although he received an award as a rising star in 1952, he did not pursue the career, allegedly through lack of talent". This opinion is cited to Kucinski. Is it Kucinski's opinion or is he reporting someone else's? Either way, this should be made clear in the text.
• Despite the interesting writing style, I don't feel fully informed from the Early life and career section. I think that the interspersing of quotes and analysis from Francis's biographers in such large measure is detrimental to the section.

More to come. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. What is lacking, I believe, in the Early Life section is something about Francis' place in the sociology of Brazilian intellectuals at his time - the transition from traditional, dependent from the State apparatus and "Frenchfied" Brazilians intellectuals of the Early XXth. Century to the independent, Americanized mid-century intellectuals such as Francis. But then I must find material in the sources that corroborates this view without offering unpublished research. I will wait until I have your complete comment and then roll up my sleeves on the articleCerme (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's definitely a good idea to write about how the young Francis fitted into the Brazil of the time (assuming something has already been written about it). Other points:

• The middle years section is much better formatted; it provides an overview of his career during the time and contextualises his writing and radicalism. This format should be adopted in the early years section as much as possible.
• Another instance of opinion being worked into the text comes in the first paragraph of the later years section: "Shortly afterwards, however, for various and still ill-explained reasons, he made a sharp turn from Trotskyism to conservative views." The nearest citation is Kucinski. Is it Kucinski's opinion that Francis's ideological shift was "ill-explained"? If so, this should be stated in the text.
• The sections themselves are quite large. Presumably no free images are available of Francis to break up the text? Further subheadings may be in order just to break up the wall of words.
• Please also revisit User:Ruhrfisch's comments in the first peer review, as his comments are still relevant to the article as it is now.

Bradley0110 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Shin-Yakushi-ji

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on what needs to be done to get this article up to B-class or more. Thanks, bamse (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'll do a review of the article and give you some ideas for improvement.

• Make sure the lead covers summarizes the entire article per WP:LEAD.
• All measurements should be converted into imperial measurements. You can use the {{convert}} template. It should look like this: 2 kilometres (2,000 m).
• Short one or two-sentence paragraphs should be expanded or combined in other paragraphs.
• Linking to terms should be done once during the article. I see Twelve Heavenly Generals linked at least four times. See WP:OVERLINK for thoughts on this and WP:LINK for general ideas about linking.
• You need to bolster the referencing. There are quite a few unreferenced statements in the article. As a rule of thumb any statement of fact should be supported by a credible reference. See WP:VERIFY for thoughts on referencing.
• Can you translate the titles of refs 4 & 7? This is an English Wikipedia and you shouldn't assume the readers can read Japanese.
• Trivia sections are frowned upon in Wikipedia. See WP:TRIVIA for thoughts on this and what to do with a trivia section.
• I'm not sure what else should be added to the content as I'm not an expert in Japanese architecture but you can look at other Good Articles and Featured Articles that relate to this topic for ideas on additional content. This will help address question of comprehensiveness.
• Why is the image of Haira not a National Treasure?
• Why did you italicize National Treasure? Also not sure National Treasure is a proper noun, it probably does not need to be capitalized.
• I think you're off to a good start, I would work on cutting down on the small paragraphs, try to condense them into longer ones. You need to beef up the sourcing to make the article more credible. I'd give this article some work and then take it to WP:GAC to see if it will pass as a Good Article. That's the next logical step after you've given it some work. Best of luck. If you have specific questions please ping me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the useful comments. I'll work on it. bamse (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Love the Way You Lie

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rewrote and expanded a majority of the article, doing extensive work on it. I am planning to get this article to featured article status. I want the article to comply with all MoS guidelines and to be absolutely perfect. Be as harsh as you please and I am hoping you understand the manual of style completely, if not almost.

Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I would recommend that you replace all bare urls in the references with the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} template wherever applicable. And you don't need the website urls hardcoded, like Billboard.com in some references, simply Billboard would do. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done – I hope I didn't miss any. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Fallout 3

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it looks close to being a good article, (apart from the plot section) and I want to know what I can do to improve this article. I don't have a copy of the game but if anyone else does, I suggest to put sources into the plot/story section, just by playing the game and typing in the quotes necessary for the paragraphs in that section

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

RJH comment:

Well, I think the 'Setting' section needs a lot more development. Per the title, it should be focused on the setting, but instead drifts into a lead-in to the plot. Everything from "The player character (PC) lives..." down to "...and learn why he left" should be moved to the next section. Instead, this section should discuss at a general level the ruins of Washington D.C., building interiors, the subway passages, fallout shelters, the surrounding wilderness, radiation, lighting conditions and the passage of time, plus weather (or lack thereof). In addition to better coverage of the factions, it can also talk about the primary adversaries of the game: the raiders, supermutants, ghouls, humans and robots. Finally, there should be some discussion of the AI, scavenging, general categories of gear (including, importantly, the types of available weapons), the scarcity of ammunition, traders and merchants, radio broadcasts, and social interactions with NPCs.

The 'Setting' section can easily be made as long as the current 'Plot' section. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'll undertake a review of the article. The writing looks good but I will make some copy edits as I go along.

Lead

• This looks good for now, not sure if it's complete until I read through the article. Keep WP:LEAD in mind and make sure every topic in the body is summarized in the lead.
• Now that I've read the article I think you should add a piece about the controversies to the lead section.

Gameplay

• Karma is linked, which is fine, but the link is not the first mention of the word. "Karma" is in the first paragraph and should be linked there instead.
• Along the same lines you talk about Karma in the first paragraph but don't define it until the second. This is awkward, look into ways to introduce Karma in the first para if possible or move discussion of its impact until after you've defined it.
• "Positive karma actions" You're using "karma" as an adjective. I think it's "karmic", though you may want to check that out.
• There's two sources at the end of the Health and weapons section. Are there other sources for the rest of the material in this section? What about a game manual?
• VATS section has no ref this should be remedied.

Plot

• There are a lot of small two-sentence paragraphs in the setting subsection, these should be combined for readability.
• At some points "wasteland" is capitalized and at other points it isn't. This should be consistent. I think if it is a proper noun then it should be capitalized.
• What is "the Enclave"? This hasn't been defined and since I don't have the game or any experience with the game I have no idea what this is.
• There is no source for the story portion of the plot and only one for the setting. I looked at several video game articles that are GAs such as Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos, The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, and Super Mario Bros. 3 (which doesn't have a plot section but combines it into a "Gameplay" section). All of them have sources for their plot sections so this should be added before you take the article to GAC.
• Not knowing the game at all I have no suggestions for additional information other than perhaps discussing side quests that can be undertaken. Also when or how can the character meet the dog? This is inferred but there is no mention of this in the plot section.

Development

• "Bethesda's Fallout 3 however, was developed from scratch, using neither Van Buren code, nor any other materials created by Black Isle Studios." This sentence should be referenced.
• Per WP:OVERLINK terms can be linked once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Bethesda Softworks is linked twice in this section. Liam Neeson is also linked twice, once is enough.
• There is some mixture of topics in this section. You have elements of the release information here in this section. This should be moved to the next section. You also have a review of the audio, which should be placed in the Reception section. More to come in the review. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Marketing and release

• Washington monument is linked multiple times.
• There are some tense agreement issues. In the same sentence you have past and present tense wording. Check throughout.

Downloadable content

• put (DLC) after the first mention of "Downloadable content" if you're doing to use the acronym later.
• "As of September 18, 2009, the Trophies for the additional content were on view if the user had played with Trophies enabled; those that had received a platinum trophy before they were enabled would now have only 53% of the available trophies." Is this a glitch? I'm not sure why this information is here.
• Spell out NXE, linking isn't enough.

Reception

• There are a couple of single sentence paragraphs in the award subsection. These should be either expanded or combined with other paragraphs.

References

• Refs 11, 39, and 82 appear to be dead links, please check. Also 79 has a dead link tag, this should be checked.
• Refs 75, 104 are just urls, put it into the {{cite web}} template and add publisher and accessdate.

Overall

• I think you're well on your way. Fixing this stuff should help you sail through GAC.
• You may want to check the fair use rationale on your images, it seems to be somewhat minimal. I would look at images in some FA video games and see what they have. I could be wrong I'm not an image expert but it's worth checking. This concludes my review, if you have questions please contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. Please consider reviewing an article here or at GAC to help reduce the ever-present backlog. Thanks and best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Jennifer Connelly

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has failed a recent FAC, the article has some issues which are listed here. Help is needed to identify unclear phrasing and close paraphrasing issues, as well as the other problems noted during the FAC.

Thanks, GDuwenTell me! 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I commend you for your work on this article, bringing it to FA is a worthwhile effort don't lose heart. I've had a few articles fall short for just the issues you are asking about so I will get nitpicky and try and give you suggestions at even the most minute levels. It could take a little bit of time so bare with me and we'll get through this. What's tricky about these reviews is that writing is an art as much as a science and what maybe fine to one person is a glaring gaffe to another so we do our best and hope for the best. I'll break down my review by section.

Lead

• First off, one sentence paragraphs are not good, consider expanding or combining.
• You may want to include birth location, isn't that usually in BLPs?
• "As a teenager, Connelly continued her career as a model, at the same time starring in films such as Labyrinth and Career Opportunities." Consider condensing thus: "Connelly continued her career as a model and actress, starring in films such as Labyrinth and Career Opportunities." I don't think you need "as a teenager" and you have three "as" in one sentence.
• In the sentence about her awards for A Beautiful Mind what do you think about condensing the titles of the awards? Perhaps like this: "In 2002, Connelly won an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award and a BAFTA award as a supporting actress this part could be removed for her role as Alicia Nash in Ron Howard's biopic A Beautiful Mind.

Done, I'm not sure that is really necessary to add the birth location in the lead since other FA's as Kirsten Dunst, Katie Holmes or Reese Witherspoon don't mention it.--GDuwenTell me! 03:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Birth and early life

• Ref anchors should be at the end of sentences, not in the middle. It's not a particularly controversial statement so it's fine to put it at the end of the sentence.
• I removed the "first" from "...she was first raised...." She wasn't second raised somewhere else, the first is superfluous. These unnecessary words are land mines at FAC. Check throughout and be merciless regarding them.
• Is there a reason the family moved to Woodstock? If not fine if so it might be a good idea to add a sentence. Just a thought though.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Child modelling

• "She appeared on the cover of the issues of Seventeen magazine of April 1986,[7] August 1986,[8] April 1987,[9] and December 1988." I'm not sure you need the months that she appeared on the cover of Seventeen. Seems a bit detailed to me. If you want to keep it I would rewrite this: "She appeared on the cover of several issues of Seventeen magazine: April 1986..."

Done

• "In a scene of the film..." of → from.

Done

• "During the audition for the role, and without any knowledge of the dance, she made random movements imitating it that finally convinced the director to include her in the cast." Was she making random movement imitating a ballerina? If so then I would rewrite this sentence as the wording is a little awkward: "During the audition for the role, and without any knowledge of the dance, she attempted to imitate a ballerina, which convinced the director to include her in the cast."

Done

• "...followed by the lead in the coming-of-age movie Seven Minutes in Heaven the same year" Add "released" after "Heaven" and before "the".

Done

• I'm not sure about the paragraph regarding her schooling at Yale and Stanford. It covers time from 1988-1990 but the next section goes backwards to 1986 and the Labrynth. It seems out of order chronologically. I can't suggest a better place to put it except perhaps in the next section, where it would fit the timeline.

I moved tha paragraph.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1980's-90's

• "ruled by King Jareth (David Bowie)." Remove as unnecessary detail. If you want to indicate that she was in the same film and Bowie then add it to the beginning of the sentence in something like, "she appeared alongside David Bowie in the science-fiction film..." IMO it's not necessary though.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I like that you include critical comments about her acting. This shows balance in the article.
• You may want to move the paragraph about her schooling into this section as a way to explain why she didn't do a movie for two years after Labrynth.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, the complaints were caused by an ad that showed a scene where Connelly rode a mechanical horse while being looked at by Whaley." This is awkward writing because you don't say who was criticized. The sentence should be rewritten.
• "During the mid-1990s, Connelly demonstrated her ability to handle more mature roles with a 1995 appearance in the role of a collegiate lesbian in John Singleton's Higher Learning." Two uses of the word "role" try to find another term.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Watch out for terms like "renown". This could be construed as a peacock word. If she's in a "supporting role" then isn't she backing those actors rather than them backing her? Seems an odd way to say it if she isn't in the lead role.

I erased "Renown".--GDuwenTell me! 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Early 2000s

• Again there are refs floating in the middle of sentences. Check this throughout, they can easily be put at the end of the sentences.

That's fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Connelly stated that she was interested in the script for the depiction of the addictions of the characters and the impact in the life of their relatives and affections." I would rewrite thus: "Connelly stated that she was interested in the script for the depiction of the addictions and their impact on the lives of the characters' relatives and affections." You have "of the characters" in the sentence before this one. I think the rewrite will remove duplicative wording and liven up the prose a bit.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thus far the only response to Connelly's acting has been quotes from the NY Times. Can you use other sources as well?
• "Other actresses who auditioned for the role included Rachel Weisz, Hilary Swank, Mira Sorvino and Frances O'Connor." This should be referenced.
• "...were auditioned alongside Russell Crowe..." Remove "were".

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...Howard and the other producers..." Reword to "the producers..." You can trim the writing down here.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...and earned Connelly a Golden Globe..." earned → earning.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• What happened between 2001 and 2003? The timeline skips from Beautiful Mind to Hulk.

She took a hiatus--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...was what had sparked her interest in the project..." Remove "had".

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The struggles between Kathy and the foreign colonel intensify throughout the story as the characters enter a downward spiral of events." I don't think this sentence is necessary.
• "The film was generally well-received worldwide and received critical acclaim...

" Remove "generally" unnecessary adverb. Also "received" is used twice in four words, this should be rephrased.

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "She played Dahlia, a frightened young woman traumatized by her past, who moves with her daughter (Ariel Gade) to an apartment on Roosevelt Island in New York City where paranormal happenings take place." The "where paranormal happenings take place" part of this sentence is tagged on to the end awkwardly. Can't think of a good rewrite but this sentence doesn't flow well the way it is written.

2008-2011

• "In 2008, Connelly was named the face of the Balenciaga fashion house's advertisements and appeared in their publicity shots for 2009,[70] as well as becoming the new face of Revlon cosmetics." Not well written consider a rewrite: "Ballenciaga fashion house and Revlon cosmetics signed Connelly to promote their products in 2008."

Done--Gunt50 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Connelly appeared alongside Keanu Reeves in the 2008 remake of the 1951 science fiction film The Day The Earth Stood Still. She played Princeton University astrobiologist Helen Benson." I would combine these sentences like this: "Connelly portrayed astrobiologist Helen Benson alongside Keanu Reeves in the 2008 remake of the 1951 science fiction film The Day The Earth Stood Still."

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Astronomer Seth Shostak helped her understand the requisite professional jargon of her character." I don't think this is a necessary or helpful sentence.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "In 2011, Connelly starred in Ron Howard's comedy The Dilemma, which premiered on January 14 that year." It seems awkward to refer to 2011 as "that year".

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

• "...she married the actor Paul Bettany..." Remove "the"
• "The couple's first child and Connelly's second...." Unnecessary, we know how many kids she's had to this point.
• One sentence paragraph should be expanded or combined.
• Not sure if the paragraph about the sanitation garage is really all that important. Just because celebrities have signed a petition doesn't make it notable.
• Any other personal information? Religious views, political stands, etc.?

Done. I removed the paragraph about the garage, I was not very convinced but it's indeed trivial. About the last item, she has not stated that she follows any particular religion or that she has any political view. Her answers in interviews about those subjects do not make really clear any choice.--GDuwenTell me! 20:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall

• You're real close, the stuff above is nitpicky and intended mostly to clean up the writing.
• I see the FAC nom failed on what appears to be Nikkimaria's oppose. She did a thorough source review, which I have not done. I recommend making sure your sources are accurately supporting your statements.
• Check for format consistency in your references.
• You italicize most of your site publishers, why? For example Yahoo and Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't be italicized. Check WP:CITE for thoughts on using italics in your references.
• You're on the right path. I hope this review helps get you to your destination. Best of luck to you and please consider reviewing an article here to help with the backlog. If you have specific questions please ping me on my talk page. I don't watch review pages. Best of luck to you and keep me posted on how it goes at FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to be so slow in reviewing this, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• According to WP:LEAD, the first sentence The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. Is her career as a child model really worth including in the first sentence? I would include the fact that she won an Academy Award here (much more notable) and put the child modeling career in its own sentence.

Now it's "Jennifer Lynn Connelly (born December 12, 1970) is an award-winning American film actress", the Academy Award and the others as well are detailed below in the lead.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA does not support putting award-winning there, nor is it common practice. Nymf _hideliho! 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lead is a summary of the whole article, so I try to inlcude every section in some way - nothing is said about her personal life, so I would include a sentence on that (probably in the third paragraph, which is a bit short). Perhaps something like "Connelly has been married to actor Paul Bettany since 2003; they have two children together and she has a child from a previous relationship." After all, the article says ...in 2009 [she] cited her family,[3] with whom she lives in TriBeCa, New York City,[92] as the most important thing in her life.[93]

Done. I also added her ambassadorship for Amnesty International.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• A biy clunky: Her family moved to Woodstock, New York in 1976, due that her father suffered from asthma, and the smog of the city affected him.[1] How about something like Her father suffered from asthma, so to family moved to Woodstock, New York in 1976 to escape the big city smog.[1]?

Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would "modeling for print advertisements" sound better? As a result she joined the Ford Modeling Agency and began modelling in print advertisements...?

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think I would use "in" and not "between" She appeared on the cover of several issues of Seventeen between 1986 and 1988.[7][8][9][10]

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I asked this in the previous peer review, but why is World of Goblins capitalized? Should it be in quotes?

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• lamented sounds odd - perhaps "panned" Her portrayal was lamented by the The New York Times:... And why not make it active (not apssive) and slightly tighter? So The New York Times panned her portrayal [performance?]: ... If panned is too slangy, how about "The NYT was especially critical of her performance:..."

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tighten to Criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, the complaints were caused by an ad that showed Whaley watch Connelly ride a mechanical horse.

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not understand the word "cardboard" in the following sentence: The cardboard had written on it the phrase "He's about to have the ride of his life".[6] If this was a print ad, I think I would say something like The complaints were caused by an ad that showed Whaley watch Connelly ride a mechanical horse. The ad was criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, as the caption [voiceover?] was "He's about to have the ride of his life".[6]

Clarified.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• How about In 1995, Connelly demonstrated her ability to handle more mature roles when director John Singleton cast her as a lesbian college student in Higher Learning.[30]

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cast instead of hired? She was hired by the film's producer, Brian Gazer, to portray Alicia Nash...

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would wikilink Academy Award, Golden Globe, and BAFTA

Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tighten (and perhaps need to say in the previous sentence that Kingsley's character is a colonel or at least a former officer) The struggles between Kathy and the foreign colonel intensify throughout the story as the characters participate in a series of events that lead to the story's [a] tragic end.[58] avoids story twice in one sentence

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• tighten ...remake did not feature a love story and instead presented Benson in a troubled relationship between her and [with] her stepson, portrayed by Jaden Smith.[74]

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tighten In 2011, Connelly starred in Ron Howard's comedy The Dilemma, which premiered on January 14 the same year.

Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

---

List of Prime Ministers of Indonesia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to try and improve it to Featured List but am unsure how to improve it. The list portion itself is already complete, and referencing has been done. Free images have been included for almost all of the Prime Ministers except for two (although a search has been done) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this list. Here is a short list of suggestions for further improvement.

Background

• I think "prime minister" generally should appear in lower-case letters, as you have it in the first sentence of the "Background" section. I would capitalize it only when it's being used as a particular person's title; e.g., Prime Minister Wilopo. Ditto for other titles like "president" and "vice president" when used in a generic way.
  • Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Due to the instability of the coalition cabinets" - It might be helpful to say what parties were part of the coalitions and, briefly, what the parties were like or what they generally stood for. Were there only three parties, the ones in the list, or were there others? Did one party dominate? Were some bigger than others? Who did they represent?

• "The presidentially-chosen Prime Minister was tasked with handling routine governing and being in charge of the cabinet... " - Could you give some examples of "routine governing" and to explain what "being in charge of the cabinet" entailed?

• Rather than "presidentially-chosen Prime Minister", I'd incline toward "prime minister, chosen by the president".
  • Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• "due to the inability of the NKIP" - Should this be KNIP?
  • Yes. Oops. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• "After the 30 September Movement and the release of Supersemar... " - I'd elaborate a bit here. Foreigners will probably not know anything about the 30 September Movement or Supersemar. The phrase "release of Supersemar", for example, might be taken to mean the release from prison of someone named Supersemar. Clicking through to the Supersemar article makes the meaning clear, but it would be good to have it more clear in this article without forcing a click-through.
  • Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Would it be helpful to add a bit of Indonesian history to this section? Foreigners may wonder what was special about 1945, how old Indonesia is as a nation-state, and what form(s) of government it had before 1945.

List

• The sort on the first column does not work quite properly because of the parentheses in (8). It might be better to make this column not sortable.
  • Sortability removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• The second column seems to sort by first name. Would it make more sense to arrange the names last name first so the sort is on the last name? Or, since the list is so short, do any of the columns need to be sortable?
  • Removed sortability; Indonesians do not always have family names, so sorting by first name is common. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• In the "Term of Office" column or perhaps in a separate column, would it be possible to list the major accomplishments or legislative actions during each particular term?

Other

• I often get good ideas about how to do things by looking at featured lists or articles on topics similar to the ones I'm working on. List of Prime Ministers of Canada looks interesting as does List of Prime Ministers of Luxembourg, and you will find others at WP:FL#Politics and government.

• Would it be useful to add which of the former prime ministers are still alive as of 2011?
  • They all died prior to 1995. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would consider adding an infobox or a lead image to the upper-right-hand corner of the article.
  • I'll ask you on your talk page what infobox you would suggest. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I've taken a look at Chinese Indonesians, but I will try and help with another one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    

---

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article failed a GA assessment, and I want to hear from someone else about any remaining issues left unchecked from the initial GA review. Rainbow Dash 18:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the DA references are from the show's creator, and thus are considered a reliable source. Rainbow Dash 18:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: ALthough a bit about My Little Pony, I have never seen this show. Thanks for your work on the article; here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are three FAs on animated tv series that may be useful models: Animaniacs (a farily old FA and does not follow all the current criteria as well as the others), The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest and The Simpsons
• There is a toolbox on this PR page - it shows some dead external links. I also noted IMDB is used as a source - it is often not considered a reliable source, so I would be very careful using it.
• The same toolbox finds at least one disambiguation link and a bad redirect
• I would look at both unsuccessful GA reviews and make sure that all of the points raised in them were addressed. They tended to focus on the reliability of sources used, so I think there are some things that would be issues in a future GAN that were not mentioned in these. I also think that the IMDB issue was raised in at least one of the GANs.
• When I look at this article the structure seems unusual, so I looekd at the model FAs. They all start with a background or history section, and given the fact that there have been previous tv shows based on the existing My Little Pony toys, I think that this should too. See provide context to the reader
• The Releases sections are not mentioned in the lead, which 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
• The language is rough in spots - it does not have to be perfect for GA, but in the lead I am really not sure what this run-on sentence means Despite the target demographic of young girls, the show has gained a large following from male teenagers, in combination between Faust's direction and characterization, the animation style created through Flash and themes aimed for an older audience, and a reciprocal response from the creators in response to the fans. I would split this (end the first sentence at "... male teenagers.") I am not sure what the rest of the sentence is trying to say exactly.
• Waych out for writing from an in-universe perspective - many readers will not have seen the show or be familiar with it, so background and context and an out of univers perspective are needed, - see WP:IN-U
• I would also read WP:WAF
• Another sentence that is way too long and awkward For Faust, My Little Pony was one of her favorite toys from her childhood,[6] but was disappointed that the adventures that her own childhood imagination created while she played with the toys were nothing like the animated shows in which the ponies had "endless tea parties, giggled over nothing and defeated villains by either sharing with them or crying".[7] I would get a copy edit.
• Avoid needless repetition Due to intellectual property issues, Hasbro had lost some of the rights on the original pony names, and as such, Faust's show includes a mix of original characters from the toy line and new characters developed for the show.[6] in Development and Applejack and Spike are the only Generation 1 characters to remain, due to Hasbro losing copyright on the other Generation 1 names.[10] in First season
• Avoid use of vague time terms like currently as these can quickly become out of date. The show has been renewed for a second season and is currently in development, with Top Draw Animation animating the second season.[13] During production, Lauren Faust officially stated ...
• Also the MOS says to use the full name of a person on first mention and just the last name after that (except for direct quotes and for people who sahre a last name) so just Faust after the first mention in the lead and perhaps in the body.
• Refs are not all complete. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I know you say "DA" is reliable when quoting Faust, but what makes this a RS? http://www.mylittleponynews.com/2011/03/ticket-master-dvd.html
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Auricularia auricula-judae

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed GAC a while ago, and I've always wanted to see it FAC eventually. I think it looks pretty good, but I was wondering whether there is anything that needs to be done before it's ready to be nominated for featured article status.

Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• The beginning of the Taxonomy and naming is a tad listy, which is not surprising given the content. I think any information which breaks up the name, name, name sequence is good. I will think on this more, and it may be there is no solution to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd de-quote "at least 12 binominals" - is that supposed to be binomials?
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I always thought past tense of "hang" in the death sense was "hanged"..but not sure how strict guideline this is....
  • According to the OED, "In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the pa. tense and pa. pple.; though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England." It doesn't specify which is preferable in the case of suicides, which it lists as a separate meaning. In any case, I've changed it. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are a few other quoted bits that I think will flow better if we de-quote. I was musing on doing this myself but felt discussing first was good.

• Some idea of gross amounts consumed/sold/marketed etc. would be good to source and add.

• The first sentence refers to A. auricula-judae as a mushroom, but this is in fact not the case. A. auricula-judae is a fungus that produces a mushroom fruiting body. I know this is splitting hairs and possibly counter-intuitive to many, but the species name refers to the fungus, not just the fruiting body. Once this has been said once at the start of the article, I think it is then appropriate to to use A. auricula-judae to refer directly to the mushroom as the article does. The systematic history is great! --DeliciousT (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Some preliminary thoughts; I'll be back later with a lit review. Sasata (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• common names in lower case
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• the similar species section could be beefed up. Are those really the only two fungi that other texts suggest might be confused with A. a-j? Nothing from other genera looks similar? How does one distinguish A. fuscosuccinea? Shouldn't Auricularia polytricha be mentioned? Paul Stamets mentions that the two species are easily mistaken, and that the humidity during growth greatly affects the presence or degree of fine hairs on the surface.
• there's only images of single fruit bodies, any chance of a habitat/group shot? (maybe this, this, or File:Auricularia auricula-judae (xndr).jpg?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think that all of the citations in "Pharmacology" must comply with WP:Medmos standards, i.e. using predominantly secondary sources and avoiding primaries unless strictly necessary. There shouldn't be any problem citing each of the sentences in that section to a solid secondary source.
• Cultural depictions section is thin … surely there must be more! Might want to add that Richard Flecknoe wrote about it in 1658, see this Any occult connections?
  • That's a great source! I've added the mention by Marlowe, and will certainly look back at that. I'd like to leave the article closing on the poem, I think it's wonderful, but I'll certainly have a good look at that source. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Added another quote, this one from Thomas Browne, to the naming section. Flecknoe's mention is just of the relationship between Elder and Judas, doesn't actually mention the fungus. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• the url is showing in ref 2 (Linnaeus) became the book title is linked, suggesting unlinking it (it's linked in the article text); also, retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print sources
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• inconsistency with sentence case/title case for book and journal article titles
  • Done, I think. I'll be aware of it. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #10 (Holden)-page #?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• shoudn't use et al. in a shorthand footnote when there's only two authors
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• journals don't need publishers specified
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• give book publisher location for all or none, not some
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "pp" needs a fullstop
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #25 - endash for page range; while I'm here, it would be nice to give Cyberliber links to the 3 Mycologia articles
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #27 needs full page range
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• subscription required template not required when jstor link is given (I was probably the one who put that there initially…)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• make sure the spacing between author initials is consistent throughout
  • Think I'm done with that. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• page #'s for ref #36?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #41 is 22 pages long, so citations should indicate page numbers to ease verification
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #44 - title needs cap
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #47 pp and endash
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• this article has a few details about spore discharge (see p. 578)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• You say that the common name "Jew's ear" originated in the 19th century, but then give a quote from the 17th century using that name.
• "According to a 2010 publication, the annual production of Auricularia species worldwide is the fourth highest among all industrially cultivated culinary and medicinal mushrooms, and in China, the estimated output was roughly 1.655 million tonnes (based on 2003 data), most of which are A. polytricha however (which has by and large replaced A. auricula-judae in international trade)."—together, this sounds odd; you say auricula-judae is very common, and then suddenly backpedal into saying most of that is polytricha. So, is this species the fourth most commonly cultivated mushroom?
  • The details are about the genus, not the species. I gather that those cultivating the mushrooms don't much care as to which particular species (Jew's ears or wood ears- note that, in fact, they're sometimes even known by the same common name) they are getting, but that it's A. polytricha which predominates now. The whole paragraph is really about the two species collectively, as the sources don't differentiate all that much. Does this need to be made clearer? J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Collection of the mushroom for culinary use has also been documented in Nepal, where the mushroom is known as Thalthaley chyau."—there are many languages spoken in Nepal; is this Nepali or some other? In either case, it should be specified.
  • I've removed it- we don't need the name of the species in every language. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• "on mice artificially implanted with Sarcoma 180 tumours"—what does the number mean? And why is "Sarcoma" capitalized?
• Random rodent fact: an undescribed species of Bunomys feeds almost exclusively on Auricularia sp. (doi:10.1206/635.1). I see there's a number of species in the genus, though, and Sulawesi might not be the likeliest place to find A. auricula-judae.

Ucucha 00:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I will look into these soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Charles Boycott

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself and others have been working on it for the past while, and I would like to nominate it for GA or FA. I think it is broad enough for FA, but as I haven't brought an article there before I'd like other editors to take a look over it. What needs to be done to the article before it meets the criteria?

Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have previously worked on this article; most of my work there has been copyediting. I've never been involved in a GA or FA review either, so I don't know much about the current standards at those places. The only major problem that I have noticed related to both FAC and GAC is that the images lack alt text. The prose might need a bit of tightening here and there, but this is best done by someone who has never read the article before. Here is what I've found during a quick read:

• In the section "Life on Achill Island", no year is specified. When did Boycott receive his inheritance? I'd assume around 1853, but I don't know.
  • Marlow mentions both inheritances and clearly connects the first one with the move to Achill, but does not mention a date for either, Boycott, by Charles Arthur Boycott (a relative of his namesake) mentions 1854 as the date of the move to Achill, but does not mention either inheritance. I have previously only used the latter book for non-controversial facts, due to the obvious potential for bias, so I have added 1854 as the date for the move, but have left the inheritances without a date. I will have a look at other sources to see what they say. Quasihuman | Talk 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It sounds fine now. That section needed a year to anchor it. Graham87 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Where did Boycott say that his initial life on the island was difficult? The same question applies to the text "Boycott later said that he had written to Lord Erne about the situation" in the "Social ostracism applied to Boycott" section.

On the first point, that was an error on my part, it was Marlow who said that. On the second point, the only inaccuracy is in the word "later", which isn't in the source, according to Marlow, Boycott did say that (page 136). Quasihuman | Talk 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All good now. Graham87 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe {{Inflation}} can be used to show today's equivalent of the 19th-century prices, but not too often, because many of the numbers speak for themselves. Graham87 02:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this tomorrow, I didn't have time today. Quasihuman | Talk 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the documentation for that template, the template shouldn't be used for government expenses or capital expenses, so the only figure I think it could be used on is the worth of Boycott's crops. The main reason for including the value of the crops is to compare it with the government and others expenses. I'm undecided about including the template for the crops only. Quasihuman | Talk 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that the template shouldn't be used for government or capital expenses. There's probably not much point in using it for the crop values; the raw numbers are illustrative enough. Graham87 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added alt text, can you check if it is satisfactory, I'm not sure how detailed I need to be. Quasihuman | Talk 11:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The alt text should describe the image concisely for people who can't see the image. As a blind person, I benefit from alt text, but at the same time, it's hard for me to advise people on which alt text to use in specific situations. However, I'll give it a go ... in the first image, the alt text should briefly describe how Boycott's features are exaggerated like "Boycott shown with a long nose and big floppy ears" (I'm just making things up, of course). With the church image, a description isn't needed to understand the article, so I'm not too sure what to put in the alt text there (it's probably fine, but the alt text shouldn't re-state the caption). With the house, the alt text should contain a short description of it ... I would assume that it was a fairly grand house for its area. The alt text for the last three images is good; the alt text for the map gives me a general idea of what's going on, and the alt text for the photos doesn't need any more detail than it has. Graham87 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have improved the alt text now. Quasihuman | Talk 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The alt text sounds good now. About the boarding school where he went, should the name be capitalised, or is "Blackheath Boarding School" even the correct name? He definitely didn't go to Blackheath Proprietary School. I'm just wondering if his school has a Wikipedia article. His church doesn't seem to have one, at any rate. Graham87 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, all sources indicate a boarding school in Blackheath, but none are specific about what one, Boycott says that it "may well have had military associations". It definitely wasn't Blackheath Proprietary School, knowing his family's political affiliations, it is likely that the school no longer exists. I think I misinterpreted Boycott as giving Blackheath Boarding School as the name. I have changed that sentence to say "a boarding school in Blackheath", I think that's more accurate. Quasihuman | Talk 10:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's good enough for now, unless something more specific turns up. Graham87 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Djungarian hamster

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review becauuse I want to know how to improve the article so I can nominate it for a GA review. I don't know if it's ready yet.

Thanks, Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Be consistent in whether you use British or American spellings - for example, you use both "grey" and "gray". See WP:ENGVAR. Done
• It's generally good practice to avoid image galleries where possible - see WP:Galleries  Done
• File:Pallas_Peter_Simon_1741-1811.png: source?  Done
• The article is in need of some copy-editing - you might consider asking WP:GOCE to take a look  Done By SuperHamster
• WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same terms more than once, particularly not in close proximity  Done
• Should provide conversions of metric measurements to imperial - you can use {{convert}} for this purpose  Done
• Generally speaking, bulleted lists should be written out as prose  Done
• References should be more complete: book citations need authors, dates, titles, publishers, and page numbers, web citations need publishers and retrieval dates, etc. See WP:CITE  Done

This is a good start, but the article needs some additional work before going for GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

2010–11 Oklahoma City Thunder season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like ot take it to FA review. I think it would be a good exemplar for a professional team's season page moving forward. It should be FA quality now or close.

Thanks, BillTunell (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Wizardman: This article isn't FA-ready yet, and honestly it's not quite at GA quality yet either, but with a bit of work this article can get to that mark. Here are issues that I found:

• The lead needs expansion. For an article this size shoot for 3 paragraph.
• James Harden links to a disambiguation page; have it link to the right person.
• A lot of the NBA.com refs are not working. They are noted in green here. It might be temporary, but if not new URLs will have to be found or the refs replaced. There's also one deadlink in the article.
• The key dates don't really add anything to this article. They were probably nice when the season was progressing, but now that it's over it doesn't seem to fit.
• For the depth chart, I think it's supposed to be 12 active and 3 inactive. You have 13 and 2, looks like one shifted over; fix that.
• A salary of $57,884 doesn't sound right.
• You can take out the 2010s for September 12, August 15, and August 24, as it's already established that it's 2010.
• "Germany did not advance to the elimination-round phase of the comptetiion." competition.
• "As of July, the Thunder had no immediate plans to directly replace Adams." is this still true, or was the addition of Maz Trakh the replacement? if the latter make that clearer.
• Add some structure to both promotion and media sections. Right now it's just a bunch of one-sentence independent paragraphs; they should all be meshed together.
• For the draft acquisitions, converted the second and third grouping of bullet points to prose would be beneficial; the first one is fine as is.
• I'm not a fan of including a preseason game log. It seems like it just takes up space when all the games could probably be summed up in a paragraph. The season one's fine for me, though I'm not sure what FAC's opinion on them currently is.
• "Through December 10, 2010, the Thunder played a schedule which statistically ranked #5 in the NBA" 5th easiest or toughest?
• The season summary is a bit overpeppered with adjectives (i.e. strong/energetic performances, "Despite a frustrating series against the Dallas Mavericks to end the season, community spirit surrounding the Thunder remained high after the season", etc.). It's not overly bad, but limit them. A good rule of them on that is just to use it if the reference goes out of its way to note it as well.
• The records section is blank, so just remove it.
• A lot of stuff in the transactions section is stuff you already noted in the article in the appropriate sections, mainly the offseason. They should be noted throughout the prose with the section either being nonexistent or moved after the offseason stuff.

I know I'm throwing a lot at you here, so if you have any questions let me know. Once all these is looked through the article should at least be close to GA quality. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

History of hip-hop dance

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on any information that may be missing. I think the history of the dance is thorough but there may have been something that I missed or forgot to add. Feedback on the grammar is also appreciated. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, can someone please rate this article. I rated it myself months ago but I suppose since I wrote it that makes it bias. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

• There's been quite a lot of information added to this article since the first peer review, and a lot of User:Ruhrfisch's comments have been incorporated. However, I think that you should state in the body text that it is Afrika Bambaataa who traces breaking to James Brown, rather than the current wording.  Done
• Certain statements should be referenced to reliable publications, e.g. "the young innovators at the time had no frame of reference about capeoira to draw from."  Done sort'of. I removed the sentence.
• Second paragraph of Funk Styles and the California renaissance, television show titles should be italicised.  Done
• "RSC performs for the Queen of England at the Royal Variety Performance." England and the United Kingdom are not interchangeable.  Done
• Some dates in references are formated at YYYY-MM-DD and others as Month Day, Year.  Done
• I think as far as the early history of the dancing is concerned, this article is complete. However, I think it is lacking in information about modern history -- the table summarising worldwide exposure seems limited compared to the detail presented earlier in the article. Are there any other information sources you could tap?

Bradley0110 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bradley0110, thank you for your feedback. Yes, there are several sources I could tap but all that information is in the larger hip-hop dance article under the "impact" section. Both these articles use to be one but, as you may already know, "Hip-hop dance" was getting too big so I split off the history portion and created the article you just reviewed. Do you think it would be better if I moved the worldwide exposure table to the hip-hop dance article? I suppose that would keep this article more focused on the earlier history of the dance and the other article concerned with the modern portion. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Selena singles discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article to pass at WP:FLC. All comments welcomed :)

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jester comments:

General

1. Make sure nothing is plagiarized (this is just a general thing that I say in all my PRs)
2. Take a look at other FLs similar to this one (Mariah Carey singles discography, Madonna singles discography)
3. For the chart used, is there anyway to simplify their name? It looks doesn't look too great with four/five words in a column like that. I know for Canadian Hot 100 you can use CAN. For Spanish Top 50 songs, you can use SPA, or something similar. Also, is Hot 100 Airplay a notable chart that should be listed here? It's a component of the Hot 100 so I don't really think it should be listed here (keep it if I'm wrong).

I fix them. I was only going to say "USA", "MEX" and "SPA" but there's multiple charts from those countries listed. So instead I just went with the country name "USA" and the chart "USA Latin". Hope that's ok. I'm going to see if the problem arise at the second FLC, just in case.

1. Has Selena charted outside of the US, Mexico, and Spain? Any of the [dutchcharts.nl Hung Medien websites] can help you look for European countries and [chartstats.com Chart Stats] or [theofficialcharts.com The Official Charts] can look for UK charts. Another good website is [acharts.us Acharts.us]

No :( most of her peak positions were removed. Even on Billboard! However, all I have to rely are magazines, newspapers, documentaries and the 1997 movie that JLO played in.

1. Certifications need citations. Look at {{cite certification}}

Those won't work since none of her certifications are availble through the internet, unless I can use fansites lolz jk.

OK, well either way, if you want this to be a FL, certifications will need citations.

Lead

1. The opening sentence should state "The singles discography of Selena consist of..." or something similar.
2. How come there is nothing about her first album? You just jump right into her second studio album.
3. There is no need for awards/nominations.

Hmm you mean Grammy Awards for Live!?

Yeah.

1. "After Selena's death over nineteen posthumous singles were released, many of them impacting music charts in the United States and internationally. To date, Selena has sold around 4,435,500 singles worldwide." Both of these two sentences need citations.

Featured singles

1. For the featured singles, it should say "As featured artist" or something similar.
2. "Donde Quiera Que Estes" is missing the "(" underneath it.

Singles released from Selena y Los Dinos

1. Selena y Los Dinos should not be in italics.
2. Are the singles from Selena y Los Dios necessary? I know she was apart of the band, but this is the singles discography for just Selena, not her band. Once again, if I'm wrong, keep it here.

Will be placed in Selena y Los Dinos discography once I get around to it.

See also

1. Selena albums discography and Selena y Los Dinos discography link to the same thing. Take away the latter.

References

1. You don't need an accessdate parameter when citing a book.
2. Check your references. Most of them are incorrect. Some examples are ref 2. The title should be "Buenos Amigos – Selena", the work should be Billboard, the publisher should be Prometheus Global Media.
3. Only wikilink an item one time (i.e. Billboard, Prometheus Global Media)

Just to let you know, you can strike-thru my comments if you want to, but make sure you have done it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for your review! AJona1992 (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Second look through Here are some more comments my second time around:

General

1. Picture needs WP:ALT.
2. <strikeThe infobox has 22 promotional singles, but there is no section for it in the article.

• No need for it. Most of her singles were promotional ones.

Lead

1. The first sentence should say how many singles, promotional singles, etc there are in her discography. I would also say who Selena is ([...]Selena, a Mexican American singer-songwriter,[...]"
2. "(1985-95)" should use an en-dash ("–")
3. ""Contigo Quiero Estar" ("With You, I Want To Be") was the only title track off of Selena's self-titled debut album to impact any music chart." This is wordy. I would say something like ""Contigo Quiero Estar" ("With You, I Want To Be") was the only song from Selena's self-titled debut album to chart." or something similar.
4. When talking about a music chart for the first time, state which country it is. For example: "US Hot Latin Tracks".
5. "Also released from her third studio album, Entre a Mi Mundo (1992), "La Carcacha" ("The Jalopy") and "¿Qué Creias?" ("What Did You Think?") became mainstream hits, as it helped Selena to be booked in cities across Mexico" needs a citation.
6. ¿Qué Creias? needs a translation.
7. "it had spawned three singles, which were in the top five in the Hot Latin Tracks chart." needs a citation.
8. The sentence "The four singles, "Amor Prohibido" ("Forbidden Love"), "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom", "No Me Queda Más" ("There's Nothing Left For Me") and "Fotos y Recuerdos" ("Photos and Memories") boost[ed] Selena's fan base and bookings, as she toured in her Amor Prohibido Tour (1994-95) in Puerto Rico, South America and North-eastern United States, where she wasn't once recognized." is very, very wordy and sounds weird. I would change it somehow. Also, Northeastern shouldn't be hyphened. Plus it needs citations.

• What do you mean about Northeastern?

1. Needs a citation that she was murdered.
2. "After Selena's death over nineteen posthumous singles were released" don't user "over", just say the specific amount.

Singles

1. Change "USA" to "US"
2. According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, the charts should be in alphabetical order, with the artist's home country first.
3. References should be in numerical order.

• I am not an expert on table uses on discographies. I'll ask another editor to do it as a favor. I'll just end up frustrated lolz.

1. Certifications still need citations. I know you said {{Cite certification}} did not work, but that's false. I found her US certifications by using it.
2. Quick question, are you sure she did not chart in Argentina? It's hard for an artist not to chart in a country with a certification.
3. For the US Rhythmic, why are there two refs if there is only one song that charted there?

• I'll check is she did. The two magazines didn't state it though, but I'll look on google.new or google.books to make sure.

1. Footer should expand all the way throughout the chart.

• I'll ask an editor to do it. Not sure how to.

Other charted songs

1. Abbreviate the charts.
2. Charts should be in a difference order.
3. Refs should be in numerical order.

As featured artist

1. Abbreviate the charts.
2. Charts should be in a difference order.
3. Refs should be in numerical order.
4. Certifications need citations.

See also

1. Billboard should be in italics.

Further reading

1. ISBNs should have dashes in them. (X-XXXX-XXXX-X)

References

1. I noticed some dates are in DD-MM-YYYY and some are in MM-DD-YYYY. Pick one and be consistent with it.
2. Use en-dashes "–", not dashes.
3. Ref 1 – Take out the "Inc." in publisher field
4. Ref 3 – Billboard should be in italics, publisher needed.
5. Ref 4 – Instead of page, just use "p."
6. Ref 5 – ISBN should be formatted "0-7876-2945-6"
7. Ref 6 – Take out "Inc."
8. Ref 7 – Author should be formatted Last, First
9. Ref 10 – Incorrect title, work should just be Allmusic, publisher is Rovi Corporation
10. Ref 11 – Billboard should be in italics, publisher needed.
11. Ref 13 – Billboard should be in italics, publisher needed.
12. Ref 15 – Billboard should be in italics, publisher needed.
13. Ref 17 – ISBN should be "9-781-8875-9901-6".
14. Ref 18 – Incorrect title, Billboard should be in italics, publisher needed.
15. Ref 21 – Incorrect title, Billboard should be in italics, publisher needed.

External links

1. I would add an external links to her allmusic overview using {{Allmusic}} and her official website (if she has one) using {{Official website}}.

I hope this helps and I might do a third look through if I'm not too busy.
—Michael Jester (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Fixed what I am able to do. I'll ask an editor who is more knowledgeable on tables do the rest. I'll just be frustrated and give up easily. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

African elephant

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently improved as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive.

This is my first request for peer review.

Thanks, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62 · Talk:

1. The Distribution and habitat section desperately needs to be expanded. See, for example, Lion.
2. The Teeth section should be a subsection of Description.
3. The first paragraph of Teeth needs references.
4. Question that should be answered somewhere in the article (and also the lead): Do any critters eat African elephants?
5. The Feeding section needs to be expanded. What types of vegetation do these critters eat? Do they ever eat meat? Does the type of food vary between adults and young elephants?
6. The Behavior section needs more information about breeding.
7. The Intelligence section needs to be expanded. If there is an entire daughter article devoted to the subject, surely there is more to be written about it here than one measly sentence.
8. Acronyms, such as ICZN and IUCN, should be spelled out upon first usage.

I've taken the liberty of numbering your suggestions; for which, thank you. 2=done 7=done 8=done More to follow. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Coat of arms of Ireland

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have substantially worked on the article over the last week with a mind to eventually nominating it for GA. The article is lacking — references are sparse in places, and I will work on adding these — but I feel it is far along the road to GA (albeit it a relatively short GA). I'd appreciate a good eye to identify where it can be improved with a mind to achieving that goal.

Thanks, RA (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

I know you've already identified the article as lacking references, but I'll point those instances out here so as to offer a complete review. I'm slightly worried that the prose has come before the references - have you already worked from sources and are just yet to add the citations or do you intend to try to find sources that just match what you've written?

• History
  • The first and third paragraphs are unreferenced.
  • Some language in the section seems too informal; "Whatever it[s] origins" should be maybe become "Regardless of/Despite its uncertain origins"? The "whatever" stands out at the head of the paragraph as "what-everrrrr"!
  • "Consequently a uniquely Irish coat of arms temporarily disappeared from official use." Considering the possible foreign influences on the arms described in para. 2, it seems strange to then describe it as "uniquely Irish".
  • I expected to read a bit more about the use of the arms in Northern Ireland but the paragraph then quickly changed direction. Is there any further information on this, as it seems like an interesting cultural use to explore.
• Previous arms of Ireland
  • "It is believed that the three crowns[...]" Believed by who?
• Achievements
  • References lacking in paras. 3 and 4.
• Supporters and motto
  • No references.
• Green flag of Ireland
  • No references.

Bradley0110 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley, thanks.

I've worked mainly from references, but simply have not added the citations. Other places, I can find sources to match the statements. I'll add refs to the places you identify this week.

I'll also work on the improvements you recommend. --RA (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Mir

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi everybody, I'd like to request that this article be peer reviewed both as part of an ongoing push to Featured Article standards and also as I'd like to record a Spoken version of the article and I'd like to iron out any issues before I do. Any and all comments are much appreciated! Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that WikiProject Spaceflight is aware of the external link issues with the Astronautix references - a discussion is ongoing here. Colds7ream (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Astronautix refs have been  linked to archived web pages via the Wayback Machine, so they shouldn't be a concern. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this important and interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• In the lead watch out for things that are not repeated in the article body. So With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, Mir was the first of the third generation of space stations... but there is not really anything on three generations of space stations in the article (just about the Salyut program). This may be clearer to space buffs, but not the average reader
• Watch for places where the language could be tightened. FOr example in the lead the owrd station twice in this sentence The cost of the station was estimated by former General Director of the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos Yuri Koptev in 2001 as $4.2 billion over the lifetime of the station, including its development, assembly and orbital operation.[14] - could it just be "over its lifetime"?
• MOS says to provide English units along with metric (20 tonnes)
• MOS also says to avoid beginning a sentence with a number so 1100 of 2500 cables required rework based on the results of tests to the ground test model at Khrunichev. needs to be fixed
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - the terms Space SHuttle and Atlantis are both linked several times.
• References should be in numerical order, so fix things like fact that the node was equipped with only two Konus drogues, required for dockings, meant that, prior to the arrival of each new module, the node would have to be depressurised, allowing spacewalking cosmonauts to manually relocate the drogue to the next port to be occupied removing one of four outer hatches.[15][6]
• Use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (except for a quote within a quote). So fix things like Attitude control was maintained by a combination of two mechanisms; in order to hold a set attitude, a system of twelve control moment gyroscopes (CMGs, or 'gyrodynes')...
• Many reviewers at FAC dislike bullet point lists in most cases - can the people in "International cooperation" be turned into a table or tables? Perhaps list the length of their stay in the table too?
• FAC also checks for internal consistency on names etc. So as one example is it Shuttle–Mir programme or Shuttle–Mir Program? Since it was an American program, I would use Am. English
• Avoid needless repetition - having listed all international visitors already in "International cooperation", does "Early existence" really need This period also saw the first international visitors to the station, Muhammed Faris (Syria), Abdul Ahad Mohmand (Afghanistan) and Jean-Loup Chrétien (France). If they should be included, the MOS says it is usually the case to only use last names once someone's full name has been used once.
• The collision with Progress M34 is mentioned in several places - should it also be in a header (Shuttle–Mir and collision?)
• MOS says not to use amepersands in place of "and" especially in headers
• Article feels a bit repetitive to me - some is unavoidable, but the M34 collision is mentioned often, as is the Mir-Shuttle program, and other things
• A copyedit would be a very good idea,
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Money No Enough

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a 1998 Singaporean movie about three friends with various financial troubles, that had a significant impact on cultural expression in Singapore, including its film industry. In my quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia, I am seeking GA status for this article. Please point out any and all issues (such as prose issues) that prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria. I hope you enjoy reviewing this article as much as I enjoyed writing it (despite the scarcity of referenced information on Singaporean topics).

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some nitpicking - the Production section generally goes after the Cast section. And I'd remove the red links in the introduction and plot. The referencing seems good, but I'd recommend using one of the reference templates like {{Cite web}}. Anyways, it sounds like an interesting movie--GroovySandwich 02:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved the Production section to after the Cast section. Also removed the two redlinks in the lead, as Tay and JSP may not be notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia articles. However, I did not unlink bai jin, which is a feature of Chinese funerals and thus notable (our coverage of Chinese culture is quite poor). For several reasons, I made a stylistic choice not to use reference templates. Thanks for the comments and I am glad you think the movie is interesting. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil

• "about three friends with financial problems who start starting a car" – who is only used to refer to the subject immediately prior, in this case, "financial problems".

  Done Thanks for explaining that nuance of English grammar! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Released in cinemas" replace released with premiered? Changed my mind.

  Clarification needed Could you explain why the use of "premiered" is preferable? Starting a sentence with "Premiered in cinemas" sounds very awkward. Or would native speakers think otherwise? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Not done since you changed your mind. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "S$5.8 million" conversion to US dollar?

  Clarification needed Would such a conversion be useful, considering inflation and changes in exchange rates over the past thirteen years? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe; try these templates {{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|r=2}}}} {{Inflation-fn|US}}

  Considering Need to examine these templates in greater detail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "installments" isn't there supposed to be one "l"?

  Clarificastion needed Could that be a difference between British English (which this article uses) and American English? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'd prefer if this movie stick to Her Majesty's English, which would put instalment as the standard spelling. See installment

  Done I mistakenly thought "installments" was the British English term. Thanks for letting me know that the reverse is the case! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "forty thousand Singapore dollars" I prefer numbers than words in this case.

  Done I was unsure whether to spell it out or use numbers, but I guess I agree with you now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "two week" hyphenate.

  Done Thanks for catching that! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Ong flees to Johor Bahru, Malaysia."

  Done Indeed, many non-Singaporean readers would not know that Johor Bahru is in Malaysia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "three rich older" I'd replace rich with wealthy.

  Done Perhaps you could elaborate on the nuances of the two words and their differences? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Rich, to me, is a peacock and informal term.

  Thanks for the explanation! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "medical bills respectively" what purpose does respectively serve? Which are the subjects the word is referring to?

  Clarification The purpose of "respectively" is to match "Ong" with "loan sharks" and "Hui" with "medical bills". Is there a better way of doing that? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "of bai jin" italicise since it's a foreign term.

  Done By the way, the foreign language is Chinese, specifically Mandarin. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "S$50,000", "S$42,000, "S$5.8 million" conversion to US dollar?

  See earlier comment about currency conversion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• where are the URLs for some of the references? Where are the access dates?Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Clarification needed What access dates? Most of the references are from newspapers, not websites. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  An access date, or retrieval date, is the date when a particular website is accessed by a reader. It is helpful if the website goes offline, when using the Wayback Machine is appropriate.

  Done Added "Last accessed 30 July 2011" to all the online references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Techno Cumbia

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I know that I only can have four (4) open reviews, so this my last one, for now lolz.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would also like this song to be a GA

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Lead

• Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article. The lead for this article is too long. An article of this length should have a two to three paragraph lead. I haven't read through the entire article yet but my guess is that you are either bringing up subjects in the lead that arent' covered in the article or you are going into too much detail in the lead.
• There are parts of the lead that are too detailed:

• The information about the influences can be trimmed.
• Quotes in the lead aren't necessary.
• The recording process could be trimmed down and remove details like backup singers and who did the rap part.
• These are suggestions more should be trimmed.

• Abbreviations need to be spelled out, I'm looking at the agencies that certified her song as Gold and Platinum.
• Is it Brain "Red" Moore or Brian "Red" Moore? I know it says Brain all the way through so if it is that's fine I just wanted to bring it up to make sure. This is all I can get to right now. I'll review more as I have time in the next day or so. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Its more "overly detailed", sorry about that :/ and its "Brian "Red" Moore" lolz. Thanks for reviewing, AJona1992 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Try to avoid using people's first names when discussing that they do. For example: "A.B., later wanted it to be a Cumbia song mixed with Techno." In this example the name is an abbreviation, which is confusing in itself but also using people's first names gives the article too much of a familiar feel. Like you're writing a biography. This isn't a biography, it is an encyclopedia and should sound more formal. That's my opinion though, I can't point to any guideline for support.
• Refs should be at the end of sentences, there really isn't a reason to have them floating in the middle of sentences.
• I've been doing some edits to tighten up the prose. If your final goal for this article is GA then a cursory copy edit should catch all the issues for GAC, but if you do want to pursue FA status then you're going to need a very thorough and nitpicky copy edit.
• Per WP:LINK link the first mention of the term in the article. I see the cumbia is linked in the Composition section but not in the Background section. This should be checked throughout. Don't fall into the trap of overlinking either. Each term gets linked once in the article and once in the lead.

Composition

• "According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by EMI Music Publishing..." As far as I know you don't need to attribute the publisher in the body of the article. Do it in the reference though.
• I'm reading almost verbatim copy from the lead. This is probably why the lead is so long. The lead should be a summary of the article not a word-for-word copy of text within the article.
• There are a few grammatical and prose issues with this section, especially the lyric walk-through. A copy edit would fix these.

Live performances

• Of the three paragraphs in this section the only one that really has to do with the performance of the song is the last one. You give undo weight (IMO) to aspects of her performances that have nothing to do with the song. For example:

• What difference does it make if it was the 8th song sung at the Denver concert (seems like unnecessary information)
• Why does it matter in this article that she didn't sing Ya No in a couple of her concernts.
• Did she perform it at her final concert at the Calle Ocho Festival? The article is not clear. If not then her final performance, when it was and how many people attended has no place in this article.
• Who cares what she wore (as it pertains to this song)? I understand the fascination with what she wore, especially the outfit she was buried in, but that has nothing to do with this song. Keep your focus on the song not on her final performances, tributes, or anything else related to her life and untimely death.

• IMO I don't think there's enough information here solely about the song to justify having the section. If you can expand it and talk about some notable performances of the song then perhaps otherwise I say take it out. I'm reading a lot of little details that seem to be included for sentimentality than because they pertain to the song. This section is an example. I know there's a strong temptation to put in stuff about her life and death and it is a tragic story but you have to be impartial here and focus on the song and on details that only pertain to the song. Does that make sense?

Release

• Writing is a little rough here.
• Again please spell out the abbreviations first so that people know what you're referring to, IMO linking isn't enough.
• What does the sentence about the maid seeing a ghost of Selena singing the song have to do with Critical reception? I'm having a hard time seeing how it applies anywhere in an encyclopedic article but I'm not the one who will give it a quality rating so I'll leave it alone.
• Were there any critical reviews? I don't remember reading any. For a song that didn't sell well it's odd that there aren't any criticisms of is out there.
• "...but lost to "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom" another single that was released from Amor Prohibido." Earlier in the paragraph you state that Bidi Bidi Bom Bom was from Amor Prohibido. No need to say it again.

Music video

• Most of the songs mentioned in the first couple of sentences are linked in the previous section. They don't need to be linked again, watch overlinking.
• "...while casting calls were done simultaneously after the music video for "I'm Getting Used To You" was completed." Not sure what you're trying to say here. "Simultaneously" means while something else is going on at the same time. But here "simultaneously" is followed by "after the music video for 'I'm Getting Used To You' was completed", so it doesn't make sense. Perhaps there's a better word than "simultaneously".
• There's some unnecessary detail here as well: Like the use of chroma key digital effects and what the back-up dancers were doing. Doesn't seem relevant or noteworthy.

Chart performance

• I've done a few reviews of songs and usually it's sufficient to say where the song peaked in each of the charts. It isn't necessary to give a breakdown of the movement of the song on the various charts. The writing gets cumbersome and it drags the article down IMO.

Referencess

• These look ok, credible and formatted properly.

Overall

• There are a few issues with this article:

• Undo weight on things that have nothing to do with the song.
• Information that is too detailed.
• The lead is too long and is not really a summary of the article.
• Writing is rough in places and check spelling throughout.
• Watch sentimentality, there's a place for it in her biographical article but not here.

• The article is well on its way, if anything there's too much detail here. Trim it up and you'll be fine at GAC. That concludes my review please consider reviewing someone else's work to relieve some of the backlog. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I will be fixing the article today. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Liverpool F.C.

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the article is finally close to featured standard. The article has recently been copyedited by a member of the GOCE and I feel that has significantly improved the prose, which was the main problem in previous FAC nominations. I feel the article needs a peer review to just pick out any issues that still exist with the article before it goes to FAC. Cheers NapHit (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

At least from a football point of view (or 1b and 1c in FACspeak) this looks ready for FAC. My comments are generally nitpicks.

• The "second most-successful club" bit from the lead probably ought to state exactly by what measure, otherwise its open to the type of argument that fills many a football forum. Personally I'd stick to second most successful by league titles and most successful in European competition since both are indisputable. I mean, I wouldn't call the Charity Shield a major honour, even though I've got a ticket for one in my pocket.
• Soon after Liverpool lost 2–1 to non-league Worcester City F.C. in the 1958–59 FA Cup, Bill Shankly was appointed manager and released 24 players. - could do with splitting up, it sounds a bit like releasing players was a direct result of the FA Cup defeat.
• Is Dalglish resigning because of Hillsborough covered by one of the references later in the paragraph?
• At least according to the style guide I usually use (The Guardian), it should be Stadiums rather than Stadia. Good to see that the section keeps the bulk of material about Anfield, not the endless Stanley Park saga.
• During the 2009–10 season, Liverpool had the fourth-highest average League attendance for an English club: 44,392, which is 94.4% of available capacity. The reference for this now points to a blank table for the upcoming season. Also, the reference date in the ref is 2008 for something referring to the 2009–10 season.
• Having AFC Liverpool as the second thing mentioned in the Support section seems undue weight.
• Liverpool's rivalry with Manchester United is seen by many Liverpool supporters as even more intense than the rivalry with Everton, and many Manchester United supporters feel likewise about their rivalry with Liverpool compared to that with their own local rivals Manchester City. - needs a reference.
• As was raised in the last peer review, the Ownership and finances section has an element of recentism. When something similar was happening in Manchester City F.C., I decided to create Manchester City F.C. ownership and finances and implement summary style. That could be an option here.
• Liverpool have one of the largest global followings in football, particularly Asia. This could be mentioned somewhere, even if it is only one line.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

50 Cent discography

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've made vast improvements to the discography, such as improving the references, design and lead section, and I feel it is now worthy of featured article status. Although it was downgraded from this status sometime ago, after my alterations I feel it it far more worthy. I would therefore appreciate a peer review to really see how good the page is.

Thanks, Sufur222 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The Emancipation of Mimi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to soon take it to FA. I believe it is very broad in its coverage, and very extensive. I would appreciate all types of recommendations, regarding, well pretty much anything :) If there are ref issues, prose issues or any (hopefully not) larger scale issues, then please comment here. Thanks to all!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Initial thoughts about the article:

• The credits and personnel section probably needs expansion. Allmusic is a good source, but we probably shouldn't limit the section to the incomplete list they provide. I own a copy of the album, and the liner notes lists a multitude of mixers, engineers, recorders and musicians (keyboardists, bass players etc etc), and background singers for each track, that this section completely overlooks. You can probably look into that if you are able to.

• • Okay, this is the only thing I did not address. I don't have a physical copy of the CD, so I'm not sure how to approach this one :S--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are a lot of inconsistencies in the sourcing/formatting, and there is a certain FAC reviewer who is revered (feared lol) for her ability to spot even the most minute inconsistency. Some examples: Some news sources use the cite news template (eg ref 24), while other news sources do not (Washington Post, Boston Herald etc etc). And even then, refs 24 and 104 are from the same publication (USA Today) but use different citation templates. (For the record, {{citenews}} gives the publisher in parenthesis while {{cite web}} does not. Generally, newspaper sources, even when they're online, will take the former, while regular websites/webzines and the like will use the latter.) If I remember correctly, you need to list the location of the paper's publishing if it's not included in the title: The Guardian may need the "location" parameter of the "cite news" template filled, while The New York Times does not. Also, as per the template guidelines, you're supposed to write out the month to avoid ambiguity (i.e. June 21, 2011 and not 6-21-2011). Also, the Rolling Stone references are a bit inconsistent: ref 22 is not wikilinked, but ref 76 and 132 are. Either link on first occurrence, or all the time, or not at all. This goes for other sources as well. Small detail, but trust me, you will get called out for it. For ref 190, is it a book? If so, your pagination is missing. For the allmedia sources, there are times when the publisher is listed "Allmusic. All media guide. rovi corporation" and times when it's "all music, rovi corporation. all media guide"-- needs consistency.

• • Okay, I went through every reference and believe all of these issues were fixed. Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Locations, pagination, and writing out of the dates haven't been addressed. Ref 59 has incorrect publisher, ref 95 uses cite web when it should use cite news. Ref 70 is confusing. Is it Billboard or Allmusic? Ref 8 and 114 uses citenews then citeweb, even though they're the same publication. I know I'm being picky, but let's not give anyone anything to complain about when it gets to FAC, and IMO in a featured article, everything needs to be done to the letter. Orane (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Prose wise, there is inconsistency in the intro. The second sentence reads "The album was a complete musical departure from her previous effort, Charmbracelet (2002), which was heavily influenced by pop and adult contemporary music genres" while a sentence in the second paragraph reads "[TEOM] continued Carey's calculated mixture of pop ballads and R&B beats". And further down wrote how songs revived her reputation as a balladeer. I get what you're saying, but if they're both heavily pop-influenced with some ballads, I wouldn't make the general conclusion that the album was a "complete departure" from Charmbracelet. Also, titling and development is a bit repetitive in the sense that you incorporated a quote within the text in the first paragraph, but repeated the same quote in it's entirety in the second paragraph. Probably just a matter of personal taste, but slightly repetitive nonetheless. The three block quotes in the "music and lyrics" section strike me as a bit much, but they're informative, so you may not need to worry about them; I don't know how others may feel.

• Other than those concerns, beautiful prose, amazing and comprehensive article. I'm very proud :). Orane (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed the redundant blockquote, and think I've resolved these inconsistent prose issues. Thanks for your comments thus far Orane, they have been a great help :) So far, I think I've done them all except the first.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• I strongly recommend that you heed Orane's excellent advice about source formatting ;-)
  • Thanks again for stopping by Nikki :) Funny how he mentioned you without knowing I already invited you (you are more feared than you knew :P)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Don't use contractions outside of quotes
  • I checked, I don't think there are any now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• The article's a bit on the long side - it might help to be slightly more focused on the essential elements that you want to convey to the reader
  • I tried to remove an extra blockquote, but I hope the length won't be an issue. I know its long and extensive, but I really tried to not wander off too much.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times, particularly not in close proximity. Also check for other manual of style issues
  • Okay, so I under-liked and made sure nothing is over-linked twice in the same section or close proximity. I noticed before two things in the lead were linked on paragraph apart :S lol--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Some phrasings are a bit unclear or awkward - for example, "They complimented its broader vision, which incorporated a variety of genus and beats, unlike her previous release that harbored on slower and more contemporary melodies". You might try reading the article out loud and changing any phrase you stumble on
  • Okay, this one is fixed. I read on and don't think there are more of these.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• File:TEOM_cover.jpg: FUR should mention that the image is used in the main infobox. In general, your FURs could be better developed. Also, sound samples should note the length of the original song to aid verification of the <10% rule
  • I added a better FUR for the music samples (I believe). I'm not sure though what you mean about the album cover.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Captions should meet similar standards for prose and sourcing as article text
  • Okay, so I've expanded the captions for the music samples, and added refs where needed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Make sure all sources used can be considered high-quality reliable sources, and that you are prepared to justify any that may be borderline.
  • I know you don't like About.com and the Yahoo blog (In FAC, we do not even speak your name ;P), but its written by Paul Grein, editor of Billboard. Aside from those two, I think all the others are high-quality (try me ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. I've got this review watchlisted, so feel free to ask questions here if there's something that's unclear. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• • It helped a lot Nikki. thanks for your comments thus far. Both you and Orane have helped a lot! I think everything is addressed, forgive me if I missed something. Please feel free to come back and take another look :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nikki. I have a preemptive question, one which I would like to clear up before the FAC. Are the sources used for the Release dates an issue? Am I going to get issues from those? Also, Can you see if an sources don't look good? I think they are all up to par :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In general there are still issues with citation formatting, but I'm guessing you're asking about reliability? If so, notwithstanding your note above, here are the sources I would question if/when they appear at FAC: [2], [3], [4]. For the Release dates section: it would be better if you can find non-commercial sources to support the information, but if that is not possible you should prefer major retailers (like Amazon or iTunes) to lesser-known ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay Nikki. Even though I know you've been explained the authenticity of the first two sources, I've switched them for RS and Billboard. Now the last one, InfoDisc. I don't know which Wikipedia page, maybe you know, but on the page where it lists all the countries and their reliable/usable/official certification/charting websites are listed. InfoDisc (100% sure) is listed there for France. That is the only one still there. As for the Release Dates, I've removed the ones that didn't have iTunes or Amazon as a source (4 countries). Aside from that, can you tell me some formatting issues that are still present? Thanks :) BTW, how do the FURs and captions look now?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't know what page you're talking about for InfoDisc, but you could try searching WP:RSN or music FACs to see if you can find a link. (As for the other two sources: with good justification and reasoning here or at FAC, you can include the Yahoo source if you want to. I'm much more reluctant about the About source, but I wouldn't oppose over that issue.) From a quick look at images: captions are better but a couple still have grammar issues; purpose of use for cover image should mention it's used in the main infobox; samples are too long based on the numbers given - samples should be no longer than 10% of the complete song. Some examples of citation formatting issues: NBCUniversal is wikilinked in FN 116 but not 114 (and why is it in parentheses when for example CBC is not?); Slant Magazine should be italicized, as should Stylus; FN 31 appears to be malformatted; a bunch of Allmusic refs in the 140s footnote range have bracketing issues; CD titles shouldn't be bolded; FNs 152 and 155 don't have the same formatting as earlier references to the same root source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for those. So yes, my friend fixed some chart positions etc. and didn't format them correctly, those were all done yesterday. All have been fixed. Also, I switched the InfoDisc source for the official SNEP one. Lastly, I reduced the samples to 23 seconds each, around 7 seconds shorter :) I think we are getting there Nikki :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments from Sarastro

I've had a look at the lead only and there are several points I would pick out if this were at FAC. I don't really have time for a full review at the moment, but I may be able to comment further. I would recommend a good copy-edit from someone familiar with FACs. This is what I noticed in the lead:

• "The album was a musical departure from her previous effort, Charmbracelet (2002), which was heavily influenced by pop and adult contemporary music genres. The Emancipation of Mimi, while incorporating similar vocal and production styles, focused on several R&B-related genres, ranging from 1970s retro gospel to soul.": I think much of this is over detailed for the lead and I find it a little meaningless. Cut it right back, for example: "The album shared similar vocal and production styles to her previous release, Chamrbracelet (2002), but had significant R&B influences, including gospel and soul." I don't think the point about a departure needs making here as it is made in the following paragraph and it doesn't need labouring.
• "Additionally" is used four times in the lead alone.
• Incorporating/incorporated used 3 times in the lead.
• "Additionally, the album features various heavy beat-driven tracks, even being dubbed a "party record"": I'm not sure this sentence is necessary as the general reader will not really understand what this means. Most tracks of any kind of music are "beat driven" to some extend. And who dubbed it a party record? This needs attributing in the text. Using "even" here does not follow as the two clauses of the sentence are not obviously connected.
• "Musically, the album became one of Carey's most diverse bodies of work, structured to be a celebratory album, and more dance-oriented than any of her previous releases.": Long, run-on sentence. What does "diverse bodies of work" mean? It may seem obvious to you but spell it out. How can an album be structured to be a celebration? Maybe rephrase to something like: "Musically, the album contains a wider range of genres than much of Carey's work but is heavily dance-oriented. "
• "Additionally, it continued Carey's calculated mixture of pop ballads and R&B beats, however incorporating other genres, such as in "Fly Like a Bird", where she fused gospel and soul, alongside religious and God-yearning lyrics." This is a muddled sounding sentence. The "however" is ungrammatical and should go. What is a "calculated mixture"? I assume you mean she deliberately included contrasting styles in the songs, but you need to spell it out clearly. I really dislike the use of "beats" like this because it does not sound like an encyclopaedia. I'm not sure what God-yearning lyrics are and I suspect "religious" would work fine, but I don't think so much detail about one track is merited here. What about: "It continued Carey's trend of mixing pop and R&B influences/genres/styles [not sure which would work best], but included other influences/genres/styles such as gospel and soul." Although, as the point about gospel and soul was already made in the first paragraph, I might leave out the end of this sentence from "but" onwards.
• "On the album, secondary musical talents lent their vocals on several tracks, appearing as featured artists; of them were Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista and Nelly, who also served as a writer on "To the Floor".": Maybe: "On the album, other artists contributed vocals on some tracks, appearing as featured artists; these included Dupri, Snoop Dogg, Twista and Nelly, who also served as a writer on "To the Floor"."
• "The album received generally positive reception": Missing "a" after received.
• "...with some critics calling..." This is not good prose; using a noun followed by an -ing verb is usually frowned upon and I would recommend looking at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing and any of the prose exercises on User:Tony1's user page.
• The album received generally positive reception, with some critics calling it Carey's return to form, as well as the return of "the voice".: The last part of the sentence is kind of meaningless; what is "the voice"? And if it is a return to form, it may be worth saying here if she had been criticised in her recent work and why.
• "complimented its broader vision, which incorporated a variety of genres and beats, unlike her previous release that harbored on slower ballads. " I think we get the idea by now that there is greater variety in this album and it doesn't need saying for a third time.
• "Several singles were commissioned from the record, some serving as worldwide releases, while others as airplay-only and in certain territories." Something missing here; at least one verb is missing from the last part of the sentence after "while".
• "in several worldwide markets": Does this not just mean in several countries? If so, keep it simple and say just that!
• "Additionally, it received generally positive critical response, a feat that was not frequent with Carey's singles at the time." A bit convoluted; what about "The song received a generally positive critical response, unusual at the time for Carey's singles."
• "staying there for fourteen non-consecutive weeks": I appreciate the precision of this, but it is a little clumsy and you may need to find a better way of saying it.
• "and achieved strong international charting" I'm not a fan of using "chart" as a verb, but if you want to use it, maybe "it charted strongly throughout the world" (avoiding two words ending -ly with internationally).
• I haven't read the rest of the article, and would echo the comments above about length. However, I notice the use of reviews looks quite strong and there is a wide variety of sources used; I know I've raised this issue before and that looks good here (without looking in depth). I also think the level of research and content is very comprehensive. I think the main points to work on are tightening the prose, particularly to remove unnecessary words and phrases and to make the meaning clearer. I hope this helps! Good luck --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Can we possibly separate our comments by adding subheaders? This is getting lengthy and its a bit hard to browse through. --Efe (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Efe

Disclaimer: I have not read the foregoing comments, therefore mine might be repetitive.

• The lead might be a bit too huge. Remove unnecessary facts like those details re performance of its singles. Overemphasis like "which they described as airy, thin and damaged"
• Missing "summaries" on the critical side of the album, which gave Mariah a myriad of awards.
• The lead doesn't flow logically and smoothly. For example, the first two paras go this way: music -> production -> music -> production. Probably you could re-arrange the facts.
• There are a repetition of facts in the first two paras. Perhaps you could trim them down.
• There are redundant terms / phrasing (other editors might feel these clumsy): as several critics had criticized and questioned Carey; other artists contributed vocals on some tracks, appearing as featured artists, etc.
• Overlinking; gospel and R&B are linked twice in the lead.
• Beware of POVish terms like "high profile", "heralded", "pivotal", etc.

That's all for now. I'll be back the soonest I can. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments by Efe

• Carey wrote and produced the entire album alongside a number of songwriters and record producers such as Jermaine Dupri, Johnta Austin and James Wright. I get the impression that it was Carey who who really wrote and produced the tracks, and she just got help from mainstream producers. In pop music, its the reverse. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• That is how I want it to read, because its exactly how it goes. Carey makes up most of the process, in fact I ca even explain to you her songwriting process in detail. She has a large part in it, ranging from production and lyrics, to composing ad arranging melodies.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• To date, The Emancipation of Mimi has sold over 12 million copies worldwide. An example of an "outdated" date. You may specify the date the figure was released. And IMO, this might get challenged, so better add a citation from a reliable source. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• The figure is referenced by a reliable source in the body.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Carey had experienced a year of critical, commercial, and personal troubles What do you mean by this statement? Personal trouble could go well, but critical trouble and commercial trouble are not so fine. Consider rephrasing this important intro sentence. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it is explained in detail further into the section, but I gave a little taste as you asked.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• With her consequent release in 1999, Rainbow, Carey continued this trend What trend are you referring to? --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Clarified.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Meyer of CBS News is heavily referenced in the first paragraph. Try balancing the point of views by adding commentaries of other critics. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I noticed that too. I added two more critical commentaries and removed some of his.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in the placement of quotation marks. Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• CBS News should not be written in italics. Please see Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_face. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see where it is.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry. I have fixed it myself. --Efe (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, there's an imbalance in the bulk of info per section. The two-paragraph "Writing and Recording" seems odds considering the bulk of information in the preceding and following paragraphs. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly do what I can with what information is available Efe. Those sections, unless you have a biography book are the most troubling to write. However, tried to add a bit more details :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Music and lyrics. IMO, its bad to start a paragraph (or a section) with a critic's comment. Try it with a sentence that summarizes perhaps the whole paragraph (like a lead/topic sentence does). --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tried to fix.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Music and lyrics. That organization is fine, like following the tracklist of the album itself. However, considering the theme the album supposed to impress, the commentaries regarding it is drowned by the mixture of "music and lyrics", per se. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I completely understand you here?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Music and lyrics. There are unnecessary information like Cinquemani wrote that it would "blow the talent show competition away." Save them for the single/song's separate article. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Singles, (one paragraph) Ultra Platinum Edition, and Promotion sections are illogically placed in the article, breaking the flow of the prose. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't quit understand what you mean here either.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• A section might be missing in this article. What happened after her comeback? What legacy, impact the album did to Carey's career? --Efe (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly feel any type section would be repetative over what was said throughout the article. I'm not sure its necessary IMO.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Critical reviews: I can't see in the prose a review from Rolling Stone. Can you possibly add commentaries from UK perhaps? Anything that's outside her country. Just to give it a "worldwide scope". --Efe (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Added something from BBC News :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks very much Efe! So far you've been very helpful! I'm going to have another editor help me get the lead straightened out. Come back out the fixes I made :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    

---

Rude Boy (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know if anything needs to be expanded, or mentioned in more detail, for eventual GAN.

Thanks, Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 00:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Ending-start

I may do a formal review of this if I find time. Just wanted to point out what the hell is this (Rated R: Remixed) is supposed to be? ℥^nding·start 05:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, seems as if you've got 2 suspicious links here. ℥^nding·start 05:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed #57, but #60 is fine and works. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone continue this please? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Flight Unlimited

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just passed its GAN, and I'm looking to take it to FAC before too long. I plan to expand the article a little—nothing too major; just a few paragraphs—but I thought I'd get feedback now on what it needs to stand a chance at FAC. Comments on prose, content, images and citations are all welcome, but, if you see something else, feel free to bring that up as well. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Kurt Hummel

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously not promoted to FA status during it's candidacy. I would eventually like to take it back there at some point, but I'm going to need a peer review before doing so. It's received numerous copy-edit's.

Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I have never seen Glee. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I would treat the FAC as a detailed peer review and make sure that the issues raised there have been addressed. The two issues I saw were references and prose. I did not check the references as closely as they would be in a new FAC, but they looked pretty good to me. That said, at FAC every i needs to be dotted and every t crossed.
• I do think the prose still needs work. Again it is not bad, but the standard for FAC is "it is (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; - see WP:WIAFA
• I will try to point out some examples where the prose could be improved, but I also note that the MOS says if at all possible images should be laid out so that they face into the page. They should not be laid out to draw the reader's eyes out of the page. The image of Ryan Murphy should be right justified (not left).
• Ditto with the image in the Accolades section
• Since the actor protraying Kurt has been nominated for a supporting actor Emmy, I would mention that in the lead (as it seems to have more bearing on the character)
• The first sentence just seems not to flow as well as it could Kurt Hummel is a fictional character, one of the male leads in the Fox musical comedy-drama series Glee. what about Kurt Hummel is a fictional character and one of the male leads in the Fox musical comedy-drama series Glee.?
• Again, the second sentence is decent, but not brilliant prose. He is portrayed by Chris Colfer and has appeared in Glee beginning with its pilot episode, first broadcast on May 19, 2009. I would try to avoid passive voice wherever possible. How about instead Chris Colfer portrays Kurt, who has appeared in Glee since the May 19, 2009 broadcast of its pilot episode. ?
• Avoid unneeded repeptition - why does Ohio need to be in this sentence twice? Glee follows the trials of an Ohio-based glee club, called "New Directions", at the fictional William McKinley High School in the town of Lima, Ohio. Tighten to Glee follows the trials of the "New Directions" glee club at the fictional William McKinley High School in Lima, Ohio.
• Another problem sentence - it is not clear what the antecedent of the phrase "near the bottom of the school's social hierarchy" is, for example. Throughout the first season, Kurt is a member of the glee club, which is the show's primary musical group, and near the bottom of the school's social hierarchy. So perhaps In the first season, Kurt is near the bottom of the school's social hierarchy and is a member of the glee club, the show's primary musical group.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on fictional characters at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media which may be useful models. Bernard Quatermass is on a character portrayed by a real person (also several on animated characters)
• I would look at the model FAs to see how they deal with tense - since the two seasons of Glee are done (or soon will be), I expected the description of them to be in the past tense (and not in the present tense)
• I am not sure what "leaned on" means in this sentence: Initially Glee's creators leaned on Kurt being overly flamboyant, but Colfer said he had not wanted to take that approach "because it's so overdone. Does it mean that they depended on it initially, or that they did not want to do it or what?
• Peer review is not a place to fix or even point out every problem in an article. This needs a copyedit - WP:GOCE or WP:PR/V are places to look / ask for help.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Carly Foulkes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of new content has been added. Maybe it will go to GAC in the future.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

• No source has been provided for her birthdate.
  • The only source I see is IMDb.com. The date was added by an IP and the original creation by Gerardw (talk · contribs) included the year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Then, after high school, she moved to New York model for agents." "to model for agents"?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• "She began modeling in the Toronto area at age 13. Then, after high school, she moved to New York model for agents. Subsequently, she found modelling work in Singapore and Europe. After returning to New York to model, she began to pursue acting." What is the source for all of this? None of the three sources in this paragraph mention Singapore and Europe. The Ask Stacy Q&A says "She reportedly hopes to break into acting" which isn't the same thing as "she began to pursue acting".
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• "It is speculated that if the AT&T-T-Mobile merger gets approved that the T-Mobile advertising budget will be cut." You should probably mention how this relates to Foulkes (e.g. "BNET writer Jim Edwards speculated that AT&T-T-Mobile merger is approved, the T-Mobile advertising budget will be cut, possible meaning the end of Foulkes' appearances in the commercials.")
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bradley0110 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The Princess and the Frog

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is worthy of Good Article status but would like input from others in regards to what else may need to be done to improve the article before putting it up as a Good Article candidate--GroovySandwich 21:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I would like to see this movie, but have not yet. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Disambiguation links that need to be fixed can be found here
• At least four dead external links here will need to be fixed before GAN.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many animation FAs at Category:FA-Class Animation articles though only a few are on films.
• Per 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see several of the sections mentioned in the lead - Home media, for example.
• I also think the lead should focus on this film - what does the Great Mouse Detective have to do with this work, and why should it be mentioned in the lead?
• I would also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Guidelines which says plot summaries should be concise - this seems too long. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary might also be helpful. I note that Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works also says not to include every single plot twist in the summary.
• Cast and characters section has a lot of information that belongs in Production - again model articles are useful, but listing the animotors for a given character seems to me like it does not belong in this section.
• Avoid needless repetition - the Plot section already says Tia(na) dreams of opening her own restaurant, so the Cast section doesn't really need to repeat it.
• Avoid contractions (except for direct quotations). Fix things like John Lasseter personally asked Ron Clements and John Musker, who'd left the company in 2005, to return to Disney to direct and write the film, and had let them choose the style of animation (traditional or CGI) they wanted to use.[12]
• WP:MOS says to use full name on first use and last name only after that (for people, characters are OK with first name only if that is how they are known)(and if more than one person has the same last name, the full name may be used). Anyway, in the preceding quoted sentence it should be Clements and Musker.
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they interrupt the narrative flow of the article. Wherever possible, combine these with others, or perhaps expand them.
• Any free images possible - perhaps of the directors or some of the actors?
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

List of colleges and universities in Alabama

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on submitting it for FLC. I've patterned it after similar FLs List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire and List of colleges and universities in Vermont. I would appreciate any feedback and comments.

Thanks, —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this list. Here are a few suggestions:

• Older FLs like the two you mention above, although excellent, sometimes did not include tags that make the tables accessible to non-sighted readers. A general explanation appears at WP:ACCESS#Tables. However, it may be easier to imitate the patterns in recent FLs than to try to figure out how the tag explanations apply in this particular case. Those recent FLs can be located via WP:TFL. The first one in the list at Today's Featured List (TFL) at the moment is Dickin Medal. If you look at Dickin Medal in edit mode, you will see how and where to add tags like ! scope="col" | and ! scope="row" |. You may need to add these row and column tags to meet the current accessibility requirements for FL.

• The lead has an awful lot of blue in it, and in some cases the links are run together so that they look like one link when they are actually multiple links. It's better to recast to avoid link bumping, and you might also eliminate links of least importance. I would consider unlinking "public" in the sequence "public University of North Alabama", for example. Most readers already understand the difference between public and private schools. In the sequence, "smallest institution is Selma University, a Baptist seminary in Selma," I'd probably delete "in Selma" since Selma is contained in the university name, and I might re-write to say "smallest institution is Selma University, a seminary run by the Baptist Church" or something else that would separate the remaining bumped links. I think I'd unlink "medical school" and "law school" on grounds that the links are unnecessary and therefore distracting.

• Even though links in the table lead to explanations of the meanings of "Type" categories, it would probably be helpful to foreign readers to include a brief definition of each type in the lead. Terms like "Associate's college" and "Master's university" may be less familiar than terms like "law school".

• The Manual of Style recommends "and" instead of "&". Several ampersands appear in the big table.

• Citation 7 returns a "Bad Request" error and will need to be fixed somehow.

• Most of the "Notes" end in terminal periods, but some don't. Note H is a complete sentence, so the existing pattern is not determined by "complete sentence" vs. "sentence fragment". This is a truly minor observation, but I think I'd go with "full sentence gets a period" and "fragments do not".

• I'd probably end each item in the "Out-of-state institutions" list with a period rather than a comma.

• The "Out-of-state institutions" list needs a source.

• Citation templates must all be from the same family. Citation 5 is from the "citation" family and is therefore out of sync with the first four citations. There may be other nonconforming refs. I didn't check them all closely. I spotted citation 5 because of the telltale punctuation and little "r" on "retrieved". Writing this, I see that citation 6 and 7 are like citation 5 but different from the majority of other refs in the article. You are free to choose either style (or other styles), but you need to choose just one style, not multiple styles.

• Citations 6 and 7 lack access dates. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, URL, date of publication, and accessdate if all of those are available. Access dates are always available. You should check all of the citations to make sure they are as complete as possible. At a quick glance, it looks like most are OK.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Metallica (album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having been working on improving and expanding this very good article for days, I felt like it's gonna be listed as one of the arts good articles by this month, or the next month maybe, of this year 2011. So Metallica (album) has been listed for peer review because of that reason. My username is A\/\₉3r-(0la by the way. Any comments on improving the article further? A\/\₉3r-(0la 09:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, all references aren't bare links. A\/\₉3r-(0la 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Metallica (album), an article about heavy metal music band Metallica's best-selling 1991 album, is 58KB long. It has 92 references, with some of them from Allmusic. I had a big fucking time mending it to that size, so User:Martarius fixed some of the problems contained in the article shortly after I got this article to PR. A\/\₉3r-(0la 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Blaguymonkey also improved the article. Again, any comments on improving the article further? A\/\₉3r-(0la 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This peer review recieved no feedback within four (or possibly five) days. A\/\₉3r-(0la 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This peer review recieved no feedback within a week (seven days). A\/\₉3r-(0la 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Efe (talk · contribs) comments

• Tour is part of promotion? --Efe (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could merge that two subsections under critical response.
• "[Bob] Rock's preeminent speed-metal cyclone," as opposed to "[Bob] Rock's preeminent speed-metal cyclone", Try Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside.
• Metallica debuted at number one at the Billboard 200,[38] the UK Albums Chart,[39] the ARIA Charts,[40] Switzerland,[41] the Netherlands,[42] Sweden,[43] Norway,[44] the Canadian Albums Chart,[45] Germany,[46] and New Zealand. You're mixing charts with countries (although you're referring to music charts of that particular country). --Efe (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could organize the commercial performance section by country / region / continent.
• Be careful of stray punctuation marks: [7][8]"
• Album chart. Perhaps you provide position for each chart. WP:Record Charts.
• Consistency: US Billboard 200 as opposed to Billboard 200.
• Might also need a good copy edit.

That's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All concerns fixed. Ready for WP:GAN. A\/\₉3r-(0la 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Glazer ownership of Manchester United

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is on the verge of Good Article status, if not Featured Article status. Because of this, I would like a few opinions about how it could be improved in order to push it over the edge towards achieving those goals. I'm mostly looking for people to point out places where the language isn't quite clear enough from a non-business and non-football perspective, and where the article isn't quite referenced well enough. I'm pretty confident that it meets all of the other requirements for GA or FA, but comments about any other areas would be equally welcome.

Thanks, – PeeJay 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your desire to improve this article for GA and/or FA consideration. It's a noble task. In my experience the gap between GA and FA is a wide one so don't get discouraged if you succeed at the first and fail at the second. Perseverance has its rewards. I'll review the article based the GA criteria, I recommend getting it passed through GA and then going to FAC.

Lead

• The lead should have a picture, this helps grab people's attention. Is there a picture of Glazer? He's the subject of the article and yet there is no picture of him. Seems odd to have a photo of someone (Murdoch) who did not bid on the team and not have a picture of the person who actually owns it. Perhaps there isn't a free use option and if not then so be it but it would be nice.
  • I have hunted high and low for a free use image of Malcolm Glazer or any of his children, but unfortunately I can't find a single one. I would add a non-free image, but I doubt its Fair Use rationale would be acceptable. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what is meant by the "Red football" vehicle. This is unclear though it may be spelled out in the article, which is fine.
  • I've replaced the word "vehicle" with "parent company", although "vehicle" is a term that is commonly used – at least in the British media – when referring to the Red Football organisation. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• A word like "However" isn't a good way to start a paragraph. It isn't necessary given the context and should be removed.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• I recommend spelling out the first instance of PIK. Abbreviations should be spelled out first with the abbreviation in parentheses.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Watch for unencyclopedic writing: "...the club was in debt to the tune of over £2,500..." "to the tune of" is an example of what I'm talking about.
  • Reworded to "...the club was in over £2,500 of debt..." – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• What is a "winding up" order? I speak American English so perhaps I'm not familiar with the term. Does it have to do with bankruptcy, like an order to liquidate assets and close the doors?
  • Yes, "winding-up" is the same as liquidation, and I have added a link to that subject, piped to "winding-up". – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "...but they were bailed out..." Another example of unencyclopedic writing.
  • Reworded. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The first two paragraphs in this section are unsourced and should have references.
  • Good point. I'll get started on those and get back to you. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Intial acquisition

• The £ is linked in this section but not in its first appearance in the previous section. Per WP:LINK it should be linked in the Background section.
  • Already done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaining control

• Write out abbreviations the first time used, in this case PLC.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The valuation of the club at the time of Glazer's take over should be referenced. In fact the first paragraph in this section is not referenced and it should be.
  • Not sure why that one escaped my own review. I'll get that referenced when I get back on my other PC. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the two small sections about Glazer's take over could be combined into one. I don't see a need for two sections when both of them are basically about his aqcuisition of stakes in the club.
  • I've merged the small sections. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• What does the formation of another Manchester club have to do with Glazer ownership? Did it affect the team at all? I'm not seeing the connection other than that it was prompted by people upset with Glazer.
  • The formation of FC United was big news in the UK, and since it stemmed from the Glazer buyout, it seemed appropriate to mention it in this article. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "which, coincidentally, had a large stake in a hedge fund company that helped to fund Glazer's takeover of the club" I would remove the "coincidentally", because we all know it wasn't coincidence and the word makes the tone sound sarcastic, which verges on violating WP:NPOV.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The tense switches from past tense to present tense (the sentence about the TV deal and Nike sponsorship) then back to past tense. This should be corrected.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• One sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Consider combining or expanding.
  • Merged into the previous paragraph, although now I am concerned about the length of that paragraph. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Refinancing

• This section isn't clear. The first paragraph should start with why the club needed to refinance at all. I'm sure this is complex issue that shouldn't be fully explained here but the readers should no at the beginning why the Glazers needed to refinance.
  • It is a complex issue, and I'm in the process of re-writing this section. I really need to re-examine the sources to properly understand the financing of the buyout and the refinancing. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think there should be an explanation of Red Football. What is Red Football? Perhaps Manchester fans know this but I'm not familiar with this company. Does Red Football carry the debt? In the first paragraph its £660m, in the second it's up to £716.5. So ManU refinanced twice? Once in 2006 and again in 2010?
  • Red Football is the parent company formed by the Glazers to control the ownership of Manchester United. And yes, the debt was refinanced at least twice, first with the hedge funds and second with the bond issue. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The information in the third paragraph of the lead is about the financing and refinancing of the clubs debt. This doesn't mesh fully with what is in this section. Can you summarize where the debt currently stands at the end of this section? ManU owes roughly £500m in bonds and roughly £200 in PIK loans. Is that right? But it isn't all owed by ManU right part of it is owed by Glazer personally or is it Red Football? Do you see my confusion? Perhaps it's my lack of knowledge on this subject combined with the complexity of the financing but I'm not really following this completely.
  • Again, I'll need to review the references in order to sort this out. Sorry it wasn't clear to begin with. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• That and the information in the lead should be a summary of what's in the article and it appears as though there is information in the lead on this topic that does not appear in this section or anywhere else that I can tell. Specifically the status of the PIK loans and the fact that the Glazers didn't pay them down in the first 5 years.
  • See above. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Red knights takeover

• "A non-violent protest was organised by the club's supporters groups, following up on the "Love United Hate Glazer" campaign that had existed since 2005, and encouraging match-going fans to wear green and gold, the colours of Manchester United's precursor club, Newton Heath." The writing in this sentence isn't very good. Start with the Love United Hate Glazer campaign since this had been going on since 2005, then discuss the protest and green and gold initiative. Perhaps two sentences rather than one.
  • I am in the process of re-writing this section, but it's hard to jump back to the start of the LUHG movement in 2005 and then return to the apex of the protests in 2010. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Does ref 32 cover all the information at the beginning of that paragraph? If it does not you may want to sprinkle in a few more refs.
  • I will re-do this when I go through the rest of the article and add more references. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "They also reported an increase in pre-tax profits of £9.6 million to £6.9 million..." Is this supposed to be a profit range? If so then the smaller number should be first.
  • I've reworded the section to make it more intelligible. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "...after making a loss of £2.7 million the previous year." Don't "make" a loss, "take" a loss would be a better word there.
  • I understand that "take a loss" is an example of American English, so I'm going to stick with "make a loss" in order to maintain the use of British English throughout the article. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The green and gold scarf campaign sentence is in present tense with the rest of the paragraph in past tense. Check tense agreement.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

References

• Refs look good, formatting is consistent, and sources are credible.
  • Thank you. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall

• You asked about the clarity of the writing and to me the refinancing section is not clear. I listed my concerns above. One missing part is the explanation of the role of "Red Football". This isn't clear to someone who has not followed this issue. Who holds the debt, how much is the debt worth, what are plans to repay the debt if any? I think these questions are answered but just not clearly. Try to focus on the here and now rather than five years ago. It's ok to say what the debt was back in 2006 but the real focus should be on how deeply in debt Glazer and the club is right now and perhaps how that is affecting their ability to compete (if it's affecting it at all).
  • I totally agree. I think I need to go over my sources again and re-examine the exact way in which the buyout was originally conducted and subsequently refinanced. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The referencing is ok, I suggested a few spots where refs are non-existent or the referencing is light.
  • Thank you. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The writing is good, watch small strays into non-neutral point of view.
  • Thank you. If you could point out any more areas where I've deviated from NPOV, that'd be helpful. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• You have a ways to go to get to FAC but I think a little clean up would get it to GA quality. I'd recommend getting it through GAC and then bringing it back here for a nit picky review prior to a run at FAC. This concludes my review, best of luck to you. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. Please consider doing a review here or at GAC to help with the ever-present backlog. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. I've responded as best I can. Hopefully you'll have a few more comments to make with a re-read. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    

---

Bidi Bidi Bom Bom

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a WP:GA article soon. I already fixed all concerns that were brought up in the first nomination of GAN. I also subsequently expanded the article with sources. Before [5] and now after.

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Death of Selena

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is in a dying need of a c/e and I know that cannot be done here as there are a lot of articles to review. However, I was sent back to here (for this article) to be peer reviewed while I asked for a question on WT:FAC to see if the article is ready for at FAC. But as you may know, my English isn't very good even though I am a native speaker born in America. So if there are any changes, fixes or concerns please state them

Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum You obviously realise that you need to recruit a good copyeditor to help with the prose, so I won't dwell on that aspect of the article. A few other observations:

• I think the level of detail sometimes borders on the trivial. For instance we're told that "While on tour in Japan, David Byrne read of the murder in the International Herald Tribune." So what?

David Bryne had done a duet with Selena. I'll remove if its still trivia

• There's a lot of overciting throughout the article. Take the first paragraph of the Early 1994-1995 section for instance, in which the same citation appears three times consecutively. As the entire paragraph is cited to a single source it would be less distracting just to cite the paragraph at the end, not after every sentence.

I had a lot of peer reviews and FAC articles that users were asking for a source, even if the whole sentence is from one source

• There seem to be a few gaps in the story. For instance, I'm not clear why Selena and her husband visited Saldívar in her motel room at midnight. Was the meeting pre-arranged or did they just turn up out of the blue?

• "Saldivar persuaded Selena to meet with her secretly. The next morning, Selena went back to the Days Inn motel." The chronology seems a little strange there. When did Salvidar and Selena agree to this secret meeting? Why would Selena have agreed to a secret meeting anyway, and how could it be secret if it took place in a motel room? Also, why is she called Salvidar here but Saldívar elsewhere in the article?

• "Selena told Saldívar that she could not be trusted anymore and removed the egg ring that Saldivar had bought her." What's an egg ring? Removed it from where?

I will be fixing the above issues. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Ariel (The Little Mermaid)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article a lot recently with the intention of getting it to Good Article status. I'd like some input from others as to what more needs to be done to get it there.

Thanks, GroovySandwich 06:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum You've brought together an impressive amount of material in this character, and I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get this through GAN after a bit of tidying up. I'll comment section by section as I read through over the next day or so:

Lead

• "Ariel is voiced by Jodi Benson in all the above animated material and merchandise". You should try to avoid, whenever possible, referring to other material by its position in the text, as you have no control over that.

• "She is the fourth official Disney Princess and the only Disney Princess to become a mother." Why "official"? as opposed to "unofficial"?

• "In the context of the films and television series, Ariel is the youngest daughter of King Triton and Queen Athena." What other context is there for this fictional character?

• "She marries Prince Eric and they have a daughter, Melody." Prince Eric is introduced rather abruptly here. I think you need to say just a little about Eric, perhaps something like "She marries Prince Eric, whom she had saved from drowning, and together they have a daughter, Melody".

• "... some reviewers such as Time criticize her for being too devoted to being with her man whereas other reviewers, such as Empire, praise the character for her personality and for being more modern than previous Disney Princesses." You've got three "being"s in that sentence, which is two too many. Also, Time isn't a reviewer, it's a publication

Development

• "Co-director Ron Clements stated that Benson's voice had 'sweetness' and 'youthfulness' ...". Already introduced Clements as the co-director in the immediately preceding paragraph.

• "... Benson asked that the lights in the studio be dimmed, so to create the feeling of being deep under the sea."

• "... which is referred to by Disney crew as the 'I Want' song ...". Who is Disney Crew?

• "[The song] was originally going to be cut from the final film, due to the claim that it slowed the story down ...". That reads rather oddly. Who made the claim? Who is Howard Ashman, who fought to retain it in the film?

• "It [Ariel's appearance] was also based on actress Alyssa Milano, who was 16 at the time, and female model Sherri Stoner". Is it really necessary to say that she was a female?

• "In an interview, Jodi Benson stated that for Ariel's Beginning, the writers revised the script multiple times to make sure Ariel retained her relevance in a more modern context." What is this "more modern context"?

Characteristics

• "Ariel is the youngest daughter of King Triton and Queen Athena". What kingdom do they rule over?

• "She is often seen in the company of Flounder, her best friend, and Sebastian, her father's advisor and her caretaker". Caretaker is almost certainly the wrong word here.

• "... Ariel has a fascination with the human world and often goes off to find human artifacts that she would display in a secret grotto." Awkward tense clash there between "goes off" and "would display".

• "The filmmakers described her as being a typical teenager ...". I'm not sure that "filmmaker" is a proper word is it? And is it really necessary to wikilink "teenager"?

• "Ariel is protective of her daughter, as Triton was of her in the first film, as seen after Morgana threatens Melody, Ariel refuses to let Melody in the ocean." That sentence is rather confused, needs a bit of clarification.

• "Ariel's Beginning depicts her similar to the original film ...". Depicts her similar what?

• "Ariel retains her rebellious personality from the first film". Judging by the context that should be "regains", not "retains".

The Little Mermaid

• "Unbeknownst to Ariel, this agreement is part of Ursula's bigger plan". "Unbeknownst" is rather archaic.

• "Ariel almost manages to win the agreement by getting the 'kiss of true love', but is stopped by Ursula's underhanded tactics". What agreement?

• "After learning from Scuttle that the woman is Ursula in disguise ...". Who is Scuttle?

• "Triton trades himself for Ariel, enabling Ursula to claim the trident". What trident?

• "At the end of the film, Ariel is permanently transformed into a human by King Triton's magical trident and she leaves to live with Eric". It wasn't exactly permanent, as she re-adopted her mermaid form in The Little Mermaid II.

Television series

• "The series, set an unspecified time before the first film, depicts Ariel's adventures as a mermaid living under the sea with her father, Sebastian and Flounder." What happened to her mother?

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea

• "The wall separating the kingdom from the sea is torn down and humans and merfolk are allowed to coexist". The opening paragraph said that the wall separated Eric's castle from the sea, not his kingdom.

• At what point in this film does Ariel resume her human form? Presumably at the end, after King Triton regains his trident? How did she manage to resume her mermaid form? Was that also the trident's doing?

The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

• "In The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning (2008), an opening prologue shows Ariel as a five-year-old young mermaid". All prologues appear at the opening, otherwise they'd be epilogues.

• "Ariel breaks the band out of prison and runs away with them." You need to say that were put into prison before it makes sense to talk about their jailbreak. Also need to say a bit more about Sebastian's role in this affair. Was it his club or his band that Ariel sang with? At the start of the article we were told that he was Ariel's caretaker, but now we're told that it was Marina.

• "... they are caught thanks to Marina, their caretaker". Same as the point above. Although the word has a specific social services meaning it's generally applied only to those who look after places or things, not people.

In other media

• "The character of Ariel for the stage adaptation was originated by Sierra Boggess, and later by Chelsea Morgan Stock". By definition, only one of them could have originated it.

• "The character of Ariel for the stage adaptation was originated by Sierra Boggess, and later by Chelsea Morgan Stock who previously played Andrina as one of her sisters and by famous broadway actress Michelle Lookadoo who previously played Adella, another of her sisters." You need to break this sentence up into comprehensible chunks; it goes on and on and on ...

• "Ariel makes regular appearances in the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, having a special location called Ariel's Grotto at most of them, but has since been torn down at Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom." Why "since"? Since when? What's been torn down, her regular appearances?
  

---

List of reptiles of Minnesota

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'll be nominating it for featured list status, but would like a review before I list it. Albacore (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Albacore (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Worthwhile list, nice images. Here are a few suggestions from a non-biologist:

Infobox and lead

• The Manual of Style says to use words rather than digits to start sentences. The opening line should begin "Twenty-nine species... ".

• I would consider expanding the lead in at least three ways: (1) I'd mention the names of the two venomous snake species; (2) I'd add material about the state reptile debate. Who proposed Blanding's turtle? Who gets to decide? Why was the proposal not adopted? (3) What has endangered the Blanding's turtles and Wood turtles of Minnesota?

• Be careful to use the same spelling and capitalization throughout the article for specific terms. For example, the existing lead says "Blanding's Turtle", but the infobox says "Blanding's turtle". Decide which is correct and stick with it.

Lists

• The Manual of Style advises generally against double-bolding. In some cases, it may be necessary, but it doesn't seem to be necessary in the first column. The links alone to the individual reptile articles will make the items in this column bold, which draws sufficient attention to them without a second layer of bolding.

• Since only two of the snakes are venomous, column 4 of the snake list seems unnecessary. It fills space without providing information easily imparted by a single sentence in the lead.

• I would consider adding a non-sortable "Images" column with an image of every reptile on the list. They are most interesting to see, and all of the individual reptile articles that I checked by clicking the links have nice images that you could use here.

• I would consider adding a non-sortable column with a brief description of significant aspects of each reptile. For the poisonous snakes, this could include the fact that they are venomous, for example. With the turtles, it might be something about their shells or the way they move or retract their heads. With any of them, it might be something about their habitats; that is, that they are usually found around lakes or under houses or in the woods. I don't know what the particulars might be, so I am just making up possible examples.

• Looking at the featured lists at WP:FL#Biology might give you other useful ideas for improvement.

References

• Book citations should include the place of publication. If you don't have this information handy, you can usually find it via WorldCat here.

• ISBNs should include the hyphens; e.g. 0816605734 should be converted to 0-8166-0573-4. There's a handy conversion tool here for doing this.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some further comments you might like to consider. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• The headings to the tables are probably not necessary, given the existing section headings.
• Spell out "S. c. catenatus" in full.
• Don't set the widths of the tables or their columns.
• It probably makes more sense to divide the lengths in the lizard table the other way. Instead of listing total length in inches and body length in inches together in one cell, and total length in centimetres and body length in centimetres in another cell, have one column for body length, and one for body length, and use {{convert}} templates in each.
• On a related point, why are sizes only included for some groups here?
• It's "Blanding's turtle", not "the Blanding's turtle".
• It is important with lists like this to know how you have determined what species to include. Whose authority are you using for occurrence within the state of Minnesota? I am assuming that that's what the "General references" are for, but they might be better placed as inline references for the opening sentence if so.
• "one of three species of lizards in Minnesota" should read "one of three species of lizard in Minnesota" (lizards => lizard).
• A more general point, to which there may be no answer. You have told us that there are 17 snakes, 9 lizards and 3 turtles: is this a lot? How does it compare with other states? If Minnesota is particularly rich (or poor) in reptiles, why is that? If nobody has discussed this in the literature, you won't be able to include it, but any material you can find will be a useful addition. I can think of potential explanations either way (large area, topographic diversity, and the unglaciated Driftless Area could all serve to increase biodiversity, while the high latitudes and otherwise almost complete glaciation might tend to reduce biodiversity).
  

---

The King's Speech

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in making this article FA status.

Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 03:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I have seen and enjoyed the film, and here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs on films at Category:FA-Class film articles.
• The most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. The writing here is good, but there are some rough spots. I will try to point these out, though I will not be able to show all of them here..

Agree entirely, I'm going to print if off and read over the weekend. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• In general. avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as these interrupt the narrative flow. The Awards and nominations section has a lot of these and they should be combined or perhaps expanded.

Yes, it seems like a list in prose. I'll try to find a synthetical source or else make it a bit more exciting. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

*Awkward sentence - perhaps split it into two Seidler began researching George VI's life after overcoming his own stammer during his youth, and started writing about the men's relationship as early as the 1980s, but postponed work at the Queen Mother's wishes until her death in 2002 Fixed. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) *I would make sure if something is linked in the body of the article it is also linked in the lead - Elland Road is the example I noticed. Linked--Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) *Problem sentence Principal photography took place on location in London and around Britain, including the opening scenes in Elland Stadium, Leeds, (for the since demolished Wembley Stadium), Lancaster House (Buckingham Palace interiors), and Ely Cathedral for Westminster Abbey, in December 2009 and January 2010. The article says filming ran from Nov to Jan., not Dec to Jan. I would also move the time frame earlier in the sentence (after "around Britain"). Agree with both, para has been rewritten. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid links that go to other sections within the article - box office in the lead, for example.

Hmmm, any particular reason? I'm neither hard for or against but I think it could be useful to certain readers. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

*MOS says once a person's full name is used, just to use the last name afterwards (unless there are two or more people with the same last name). So once Geoffrey Rush's name is spelled out in the lead, he should just be Rush in the rest of the lead. It is Ok to use the full name on first use in the body, then last name only. Right you are, I've changed the case you mention. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I prefer the parentheses formula for winners of awards Best Director (Hooper)

Me too, ;)--Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

*Avoid similar constructions in a short space - three sentences in one paragraph opf the lead start with "The film..." *Plot synopsis (could this just be "Plot"?) seems a bit long / overly detailed Cut some details, still more flab. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) *The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} or box quotes instead. Someone changed this a while ago, didn't feel like a fight. Changed back to lovely box. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) *Paragraph on Academy Awards needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Good rule of thumb, but shouldn't be applied to harshly, that info is verified in the list and not controversial. Though a link has been added.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Refs need to provide consistent information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

This info is there for the most part, there are always some oversights though. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

*What makes this a reliable source? http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwood100/sets/72157622887893230/ See WP:RS Deleted. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Not that I'm aware of, and I've written text in every paragraph of this article. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ruhrfisch. They are useful and confirm thins I've felt for a while but didn't want to admit! I'll go through ecah item in the next few days. How would you assess the overral quality of the article? Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely GA, close to FA, but not quite there yet. FAC wants every i dotted and every t crossed - look at a few recent FAs for ideas on what issues arise. I think this owuld benefit from a light copyedit or waiting a while and reading the article out loud slowly - either way the prose would be polished. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, A-Class then, ;) ? Thanks again for the review. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on the unresolved dispute regarding the conversion of revenues to British Sterling? That would be really useful. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Glen P. Robinson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some advice before running it through FAC.

Thanks, —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to provide feedback on this article over the next few days to give suggestions for a smoother FAC. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from § Music Sorter § (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• On behalf of all Wikipedia readers I want to thank you for all the hard work you have put into this article. You have done a fine job overall and it shows a lot of effort on your part. I hope my comments are not viewed negatively, but rather a desire to make it even better with your help. It is probably more than you wanted, but maybe it will help the FAC go more smoothly for you. I will continue to watch the article in case you have questions on my comments. I hope they help.

• Introductory section: I think it is a nice summary of the current article

• I think this sentence Robinson would work at the Georgia Tech... might be confusing to some secondary English readers. What about Robinson worked at the Georgia Tech... and the follow-on sentence also uses would in a way some might not translate properly, so how about Later in life, he founded and invested in...

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• A number of the Red links are listed in the Later career section, but first appear in the Lead paragraph. Unless I am missing a style guide entry for lead, the first occurrence of a topic to be links should be wikilinked possibly to the exclusion of the subsequent entries of the same topic.

• The redlinks in this section, so I don't have to search for them: AirExcel, LaserCraft, Public Safety Equipment, C2 Biofuels. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• The comment about patents is not listed elsewhere in the article, but might work well in the legacy section. Source #14 says he had 35 patents ranging from solar energy devices to antenna systems. Source #4 says it is up to 39 now. I think that would add interest to the article. You can say "at least 39" in the sentence you decide to use.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph references Georgia Tech, but some readers may not recognize this is a shortened name for Georgia Institute of Technology in the second paragraph. Maybe add it above like you would for an acronym on first use.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe it is required for Intro section paragraphs, but you might consider adding at least one of your footnotes on the third paragraph (which you do have much further down in the article). Again I don't think it is required, but I typically see most FA entries with footnotes on at least each paragraph.

• Done. My first few times through FAC, they wanted zero references in the lead. I'm not sure when the standard changed, but I'm happy that it did. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Early life and education: The content of this section sounds more like Education and early career

• First sentence references Georgia Institute of Technology as the long name which you already created a shortened name Georgia Tech which I would consider using throughout after the first occurrence.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The first sentence sounds like the ; should be separated into two sentences to flow better.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• ...prestigious secret society, the ANAK Society. might flow better with ...prestigious and secret ANAK Society. to eliminate the redundant society.

• That doesn't really flow well to me, as "secret society" is a common term... I'll wikilink it, maybe that will look better. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• ...started a radio repair service to additional income while... is missing a word, possibly ..to provide additional income....

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• When you say ...Larry was dating his future wife Anne Rosselot... it is not clear whose wife she would eventually become, Larry or Glen. I see the source eventually confirms this is Larry's wife. So now I ask why Larry's wife is significant. She is not further covered in the article and if she was Gerald's daughter or some other connection, it is not mentioned. I don't think it is relevant to the article.

• Good point, that's not important to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Robinson's professor, Jim Boyd... sounds like he only had one. What about One of Robinson's professors, Jim Boyd...

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do we know (even an estimate) when Jim Boyd convinced him to give up the radio business? Maybe he was still a student or possibly already graduated?
• After hours at EES... sounds like something happened after a few hours. What about Working after hours at EES...

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the Rosselot source for the TV supports that he built one, but I understand the point of the claim for the first one in Georgia. What about ...Robinson built a television set in the lab, which he claimed was the first to be built in the state of Georgia.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• On the topic of the first TV, source #14 is a commencement program where the 2003 Georgia Tech president Dr. Wayne Clough claimed he built the first TV in the state of Georgia. Maybe you should say ...which he and others claim was the first... and add it as a source to that statement.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The last sentence on Oak Ridge comes and goes pretty sharply. Maybe you can expand it into two or three sentences and carve it into its own paragraph. Source #3 says he also owned a Dairy Queen franchise not mentioned in your article. I think it adds to Glen's diversity of making money. It also says it he left for Tennessee after his Master's degree so we know the time is about 1948.

• I haven't found any more than a mention that he was there. A couple sources say he was went to Oak Ridge in 1950, and we know the date that Scientific Atlanta was founded (October 1951) so we're only dealing with a year or two. I think the current coverage is okay given those two factors, although if I had more to say about it, I would gladly do so. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check out your source #7, second page. There is a bit more commentary that would give that one sentence some more color. Maybe In 1950, there were discussions among the radar branch members to possibly start a company, but instead Robinson decided to take his newly obtained masters degree in physics and head to Tennessee to work in nuclear engineering for Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the next two years.#3, #7, #12 (drop #11 since there is nothing on Tennessee) Then you can add to the opening of the next section something about Jim Boyd going to Oak Ridge and convincing Glen to come back to Atlanta to join the group about to start Scientific Atlanta. (source also #7)

• Early career: The content of this section sounds more like Scientific Atlanta career

• From the last paragraph there is no transition to the story. I think source #3 gives a little color to Jim Boyd convincing Glen to come back to Atlanta from Tennessee and that would help the transition to this paragraph.
• The second sentence might flow better replacing the ; with two separate sentences.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• ...Robinson bought out the other investors and paid back their original investment. might sound better as ...Robinson bought out the other investors and paid them each back their original investment$100. to remove the redundant sounding investors/investment.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The second paragraph wikilinks EES when it was already identified as the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the Early life and education section. I don't think it should be linked per WP:REPEATLINK. Same for Scientific Atlanta and Gerald Rosselot in that same sentence.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The ; in that same sentence is not necessary. It makes the single sentence much too large. It would be better split at that point instead.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think there is a timeline problem between Glen buying out the other investors after the loss the first year and the statements in the same source #9 saying that Gerald Rosselot and Cherry Emerson were disputing the conflict of interest. The first two paragraphs read as though Rosselot was bought out. Maybe source #9 meant that 5 of the 6 "other" investors were bought out by Glen and that left Rosselot as the only other investor who dropped out during the dispute?

• Done. I took care of the timeline with a serious reorg of the section, and figured out that Boyd was the remaining investor. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Later career

• I think the first paragraph of this section should go into the prior section since that section is all about his Scientific Atlanta career.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• To help the mental timeline I think you should add the year to After leaving Scientific Atlanta in 1979, Robinson founded E-Tech...

• I removed the After leaving Scientific Atlanta because it doesn't fit the timeline (he started E-Tech in 1978, and left Scientific Atlanta's board in 1979). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• That same sentence sites #14 twice for two contiguous sentences. I believe you can drop the first one since there are no others between the two of them.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are a lot of companies listed in this section (which is fine). I don't understand why some of the companies are Red linked and many others are not. Is there some logic behind which ones were linked? I certainly do not propose linking more to non-existent articles.

• I'm just unlinking them. I was sort of hopeful that at least one of those companies would have some sort of article, but no such luck. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Your source #9 says there was only $600 invested by six Georgia Tech staffers and source #7 says there were 6 people including Glen, but source #6 claims it was 7.

• I know what you mean - but I'm fairly certain that it's $700 including $100 from Robinson. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, the worth $x today additions in this section are a little overkill with numbers. I think it is appropriate in the Early career section because it makes you think about how little money they had to start the company based on today's value. You cannot even buy a car for that money. This section shows company growth based on revenues of the company over time. I believe that stands fine on its own.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• October 31, 1951 should have a comma following the year.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The April 1963 source #9 says Sci Atl had $3.1M in sales last year... so that would be 1962, unless they were talking about fiscal years and you know the company fiscal year ended in calendar year 1963.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The final sentence of this section has 8 citations. That is overkill. Consider not exceeding 4 citations.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Legacy

• The TV comment is worded less carefully than previously noting that it is claimed that this is the first TV produced in Georgia.

• I actually didn't write/know that this paragraph was here. I've cleaned it up and moved it to the Scientific Atlanta section, where it fills a pretty big time gap. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The final paragraph has many opportunities for wikilinks like: NASA, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, John Glenn, Satellite communications, cable television, Ted Turner, Super Station, HBO, The Thrilla in Manilla, Mohammed Ali, and Joe Frazier.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the final paragraph the company Scientific-Atlanta shows a dash in two locations, but not anywhere else.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Other comments

• I see you are also struggling to find a source on his birthday. It appears to be a significant hole in the article on the man. If would be good if a source can be found.
• I think there are too many WP:RED for a FA if that is your goal. You might want to consider either 1) creating redirects for them to link to other relevant articles until someone creates the full articles, 2) start at least a stub with sufficient useful information for that article, or 3) remove the link if you don't necessarily believe there will be an article created for it (especially if this is the only article with that link.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Source #7 has some interesting facts about Glen I did not see covered in the article:

1. Joseph Mayo Pettit Alumni Distinguished Service Award
2. As of 2006, he and his wife, Jan, have five children and 12 grandchildren and live in Atlanta. This might be a nice ending to the Legacy section as a last sentence.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Source #3 and #31 are the same URL, but different source notations in the reference data.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The source by Robert McMath is only used two places as #12 and #13. It would be more consistent to list that entry with the same format as all other citations and just reference pp. 262-263 for all three uses of that source, then remove the Works cited section.

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The wiki markup text in the article is identifying the {{formatnum:xxxxxx}} as having a format problem itself. I am not sure what it does not like about the text in the article.
• Infobox scientist - known-for = co-founding Scientific Atlanta

• Done. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say that I like your suggested names for the sections, which is something I struggled with. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Parks and Recreation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to bring it to WP:FAC and was hoping for a thorough copy edit first. I've been following this show for two years and have worked all the individual season and episode articles to GA, and now I'm hoping the series article itself is nearly ready for FA. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I can't, I'm afraid, offer a full copyedit, though I have tweaked the prose here and there. I do have a few observations that I hope will help you to improve the article which, I believe, is in pretty good shape.

• Terminology: I see this as the parent for various daughter articles dealing with individual series etc, yet these subarticles are referred to in each case as the "main" article. I suggest you alter the templates to ead, for example:
  Further information: [[:Parks and Recreation (season 1)]]
• We should be told, in each season summary, how many episodes the series contained and the length of the episodes
• Images - Fair use rationales: The group cast pic is worth a punt, but as written the rationale does not read very convincingly. Can it be strengthened?
• Footnotes: these are intended as a means of including brief incidental information without interrupting the flow of the main text. Your footnotes are mini-essays, typically 120–150 words long, which I believe is excessive. If the information is important it ought to be in the text. If it is incidental, you need to consider whether you need to include it at all, and whethet it can be drastically summarised.
• A "construction pit", to British readers, suggests a trench or hole in the ground. I imagine that it suggests something different to American readers, but we Brits (the show is not aired over here) will wonder how a hole can become a park. Is there any form of wording whereby this misunderstanding might be overcome?
• The word "horrible" is a not really encyclopaedic as the description of a person or character.
• The British TV series The Office was created by Gervais and Stephen Merchant
• The word "starting" is overused throughout the article. In some instances it is redundant, e.g. "Deedle-Dee Productions and Universal Media Studios produced Parks and Recreation starting with the first season,[25] and the production companies Fremulon and 3 Arts Entertainment also became involved with the show starting with the second season" could easily become "Deedle-Dee Productions and Universal Media Studios produced the first season of Parks and Recreation,[25] and were joined by the production companies Fremulon and 3 Arts Entertainment for the second and third seasons". Look for other examples of repetitive wording and see if you can adjust.
• Some more general comments
  • Try to avoid overlong sentences such as "Toward the end of production on the second season, Poehler became pregnant again and the producers of the show were forced to go into production on season three early and film an additional six episodes to accommodate not only Poehler's pregnancy, but also a projected September 2010 air date". Two "ands", and far too much information for a single sentence.
  • I thought parts of the article, in particular the "Writing" and "Filming" sections, were rather overdetailed, and could be shortened without detriment to the comprehensiveness of the article.
  • Other parts of the article have a very messy appearance due to an over-prevalence of links and citations. I am thinking particularly of the final paragraph of the Cast section. Is it really necessary to name every guest artist who has appeared in the show? Why not just a few of the (better-known) names as examples? The subarticle on the cast is surely the place for this level of detail.
  • The word "several" means a small number, probably four or five at most. In the second paragraph of the "Reviews" section (which would probbly be better named as "Critical reception") you have: "...with several publications declaring it among the best shows of 2009 including..." followed by 13 titles. 13 is not "several". Again, why do you need such a long list? Give a few examples.
  • I can't make sense of the caption for the Pawnee town hall picture

I don't have any more time, but I hope you will find thes suggestions helpful in your quest for FA status. As I am not able to watch individual PR pages, please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise any issues with me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Love Always

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a WP:GA eventually. I have used My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and Taylor Swift as help. I know a criterion for GA is the use of images, but I cannot seem to find any on google images / flickr. Any comments are appreciated!

Thanks, Michael Jester (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

I can see you've put a lot of work into this, and there's a lot of good information here already. You've used a lot of reliable sources to back up the content. I would say tha the main thing at the moment that will hold it back from being listed as a good article is the prose. Some of it reads quite awkwardly. I have made some changes and will make some suggestions here, but many of the issues are repeated throughout. I recommend either going through with a fine toothed comb yourself, or asking someone who has not worked on the article, who you trust to write well, to copyedit it. You can try the guilde of copyeditors, although I believe the results can vary. It can be hard sometimes to see issues in your own work when you've spent hours looking at it! I'll note some issues/queries/suggestions as I go through each section. Lead

• "American R&B duo and brothers K-Ci & JoJo" sounds slightly awkward - maybe just call them a duo and then mention that they are brothers afterwards, perhaps when you mention that they were part of Jodeci.

Done

• Is it necessary to describe Jodeci as "platinum selling" in the lead, since this article is not about a work by that band?

Done

• "Production was handled by JoJo ..." handled sounds a bit informal
• try to be consistent with how you say the chart position, eg. "number six", "number-one"

Fixed

• "It achieved respectable international charting..." - I know that this is backed up later in terms of chart positions, but I'm not sure that the word "respectable" isn't really a matter of opinion. Who says which chart positions are considered respectable?

Okay, I removed it.

• "Every single would peak ..." - this is an example of the main thing that jumped out at me - the overuse of the word would. Why use this tense so often? Why not "Every single peaked..."? I would go out on a limb and change every single one of these to a simple past tense. (There are close to 20 instances). In some cases, it's a matter of personal opinion/style and I must admit, I just don't like it. On the other hand, it does sound awkward and might even be confusing if a reader is expecting you to be talking about the past.

As you can tell, I'm not the best when it comes to grammar. I fixed all the instances except for one.

Background

• "Beforehand, K-Ci & JoJo..." - before what? Remember that the lead acts as a summary for the article (which you've done a good job of), not just an intro, so the first section after the table of contents should really be starting from the beginning. I have no idea what "beforehand" is referring to here.

Fixed

• I'm not sure if there might be a bit too much information about Jodeci. It is important to give some background and set the scene, but there seems to be more focus on the previous group than the one that released this album.

What do you think I should condense it to?

• "K-Ci & JoJo would eventually show a sign of independence" - this is a little vague. Did Jodeci break up? Did the other two carry on under the name? Did K-Ci & JoJo stay in the band but do separate work at the same time?

Fixed

• "...most notably "How Do U Want It"" - most notably according to whom?

Added citation

• "The duo would record their first songs..." - as a duo? Presumably they weren't their first recordings ever

Fixed

Recording and production

• Not sure if you need to include all the recording locations. Usually, it would be relevant info but I'm just worried that there are so many, readers' eyes might just glaze over a bit. I don't know, but have a think about it.

I was thinking the same thing. This was pretty much the only thing I could find on recording. I'll still look it over though.

• "Production and writing mainly came from...", "Engineering came from..." - bit of repetition there, and also quite a lot of passive voice throughout. (eg. "Production was done by X" rather than "X produced". try to mix this up a bit.

I tried to mix it up.

Release

• Citation missing for final sentence?

Singles

• Citation for Snoop Dogg reference?

Added citation

• Citation for final chart mentioned?

Added citation

• (note that inline citations are not necessarily required throughout to meet the GA criteria but the reviewer will need to be able to verify the info presented. Inline citations are the easiest way to ensure that.)

Reception

• "The album attained respectable international charting" - same comment as for the lead

Changed

• Is this Larry Flynt? If so, link his name. If not, is the publication notable?

I believe that is him. I linked his name.

Production

• There seem to be some typos in this list, but I'm not sure what all of them should be eg. "Vocal Arround)", "nsky – Guitar"

I just copied and pasted it from Allmusic. I will go over it and fix all errors.

Charts and certifications

• Shouldn't year end chart positions be labelled as "position" rather than "peak position"? It's just one position right, so they can't peak?

That's true. Fixed.

References

• Make sure you check all links are active here

Images

• I know you mentioned images and it would be nice to have some free ones, but there is no requirement for images at GA. Many album articles are listed that just have the album cover, providing it is appropriately licensed with rationale

Oh okay. Sweet.

General

• A GA reviewer should do spot-checks to make sure references support what they claim to, and also to make sure there are no copyright violations or close parahrasing/plagiarism issues. It might be worth doing a final check for these issues before nominating

Overall, I think that if you fix up the prose, it could be quite close to GA-standard. I hope this review is of some use.--BelovedFreak 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I appreciate all of the comments. I will be working on them now.
—Michael Jester (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed most of the changes and I will try to get someone to copy edit the article. I appreciate all of the comments!
—Michael Jester (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Born This Way

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This album happens to be one of my favorites at the moment, and I would like to see this article become a GA article and eventually an FA article. I have recently put some work into the article for a few days, but I'm sure that the article still needs some improvements. A number of users have also given contributions to the article, including User:Theologiae, User:Legolas2186, and User:Dan56. Like I said, I'm sure the article still needs some improvements, and some feedback would be much appreciated so that I can make those improvements.

Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011

• Comment - There are a couple cite-errors in the reflist and a random external link is just chilling there too--GroovySandwich 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed it. DAP388 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011

• Comments about references - —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Several references (as seen in this revision) are either not formatted, or have no retrieve date. I am not sure how this will affect a GA review, but it is still important: 1, 26, 28, 29, 31, 3, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 138, 162, 180, 188, 210, 237, 241, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250.

 Done

• Also, there is an inconsistency between date formats used in the references (not listed here). Some are 2011-03-25 while some are 25 March 2011. Be consistent. I don't know which one are you going to go with, but keep it that way for all of them.

 Done

• Reference 72 uses Gaga Daily as a source. That has been dismissed several times as a reliable source. That will affect GA reviews.

 Done

• Reference 70 says the info is taken from Gaga Daily but is from a games blog. Plus blogs are not reliable sources; I don't know if this one is or not though.

 Done

• References 30, 49, 185, 194, 217 and 246 have red links.

 Done

• More comments on the way.

Okie dokie. DAP388 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011

• Comments for this revision below. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Refs [1], [2], [13] and [15] use the publisher parameter twice: |publisher=MTV|publisher=[[Viacom]] I suggest you put Viacom in parentheses after MTV like this: |publisher=MTV ([[Viacom]]).

 Done

• A lot of references put MTV Networks as the company instead of Viacom. Unless this is an exception, be consistent.

 Done

• There is also an inconsistency I'm seeing with the MTV references. The article cites MTV as the publisher in some, and MTV Networks in others. It should be either one for the whole article.

 Done

• Some MTV references do not state the company (Viacom). Make sure this is fixed.

 Done

• Ref [9] Rolling Stone should be in italics.

 Done

• Ref [17], it's not Metroweekly.com, it's Metro Weekly, and put it in the work parameter. Same thing for ref [19] and [21]. Not Popeater.com or Premixmag.com.

 Done

• Ref [26], MTV is not in italics. Put it in the publisher parameter with Viacom in parentheses.

 Done

• Ref [30], again, change publisher=Rolling Stone to work=Rolling Stone. That will also be the answer to why Rolling Stone isn't even showing up.

 Done

• Ref [31], [33], [34], [40], [45], [49]: same issue as [26].

 Done

• Ref [42], remove those two apostrophes after "Billboard]]": [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]''|publisher=.... Everything is turning out in italics.

 Done

• Ref [55] same issue as [17]

 Done

• Ref [57], forgot a pipe maybe?

 Done

• Ref [62], specify publisher (Time Inc)

 Done

• Good thing you withdrew the GAN, hehe. That's just the first column of references. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG, I didn't think that the references were that sloppy. Hehe, keep them coming. DAP388 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Gay Nigger Association of America

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have decided to task myself at an attempt to bring Wikipedia's most controversial article to GA status. Obviously, it won't be easy, but hopefully a peer review will point me in the right direction. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The article has two major cleanup banners, one of which is "underconstruction", the other concerning questions of neutrality. The request for a peer review should be deferred until the current reconstruction phase is complete and the issue of NPOV is resolved. This review page should meantime be closed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Horn (instrument)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to get a significant amount of feedback on what needs fixing on this article. Obviously, a lot needs to be done in order to upgrade this article to featured article status, and I am planning on doing a major revision of this article, including the addition of a lot more sources, in order to get it much closer to FA status. In order to do that, I would like input from people who do not have a conflict of interest as I do, being a horn player myself.

Thanks, Nat682 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

Hi there! Are you planning on going through good article before trying for featured article? That might help you get more feedback. In any event, here are some points:

• Article needs many many more citations in general. A good rule of thumb is a minimum of one citation per paragraph; most FAs have more
• Check out WP:GALLERIES for some guidance on using galleries
• Headings should generally avoid repeating the article title, and should have only the first word capitalized unless using proper nouns. For example, "Types of Horns" should be "Types of horns", or even better just "Types"
• Be consistent in whether you use British or American spellings - see WP:ENGVAR
• Don't sandwich text between images, and don't include the same image more than once
• File:French-horn.png: check licensing
• Suggest creating a section about construction, including manufacturing, materials, components, etc
• You might also want a section on Acoustics
• Is the horn used in genres other than classical and jazz? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The horn is almost never used for jazz. But thanks, I will take your comments into account. --Nat682 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Love, Loss, and What I Wore

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

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Tony, this is your second PR nom for 20 July. I'll treat this as for 21 July, but please note that PR rules stipulate one nom per day. Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'm not sure of your ultimate goal for the article so I'll aim at GA and hope that's correct.

Lead

• I don't think the lead fully summarizes all aspects of the article namely the themes of the play (you talk about what the play does but not really about the themes of the play, I think there's a difference - see below), and what the play was originally intended to benefit.
• Refs aren't necessary in the lead assuming they are included in the body of the article. Leave them if you wish it's not a hard and fast rule as I'm sure you're aware.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

History

• The writing here is rough but meets GA standards. If this were prepping for FA I'd have more to say regarding the writing but I assume that isn't the plan for now.
  • Correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• I can't look over this sentence though, "Chenoweth was replaced in the last of the first three 4-week runs by Finneran." "the last of the first", when you think about it you can get it but there has to be a better way to put it.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's fine, I understand what you're saying and I can't think of a better way to say it so absent a better suggestion it looks good. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Are there stats for how much was raised for Dress of Success?
  • I have not seen any, but it continues to sponsor the organization.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Bummer that would be a nice piece to add. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Roth was the producer and Alexander Fraser was the co-producer." Who is Roth? I see "Daryl Roth" later on but the first mention of the name should be both first and last, with last name used after that.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Development

• More could be added here.

• Is there info on inspiration for the play?
• Why did the Ephrons take it on?
• Is there information on why the particular actors were chosen?

• I think the point of the rotating cast is that particular actors is not important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I know that the production is very minimalist but I think more on the development than just what the monolgues were based on is warranted. Why did the Ephrons add four more characters beyond the single character in Beckerman's book.

• Since the play revolves around clothing, what were the costumes? What significance do they bear on the play?
  • The article says that they were all dressed in black and discribes the play as miniimalist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Images are decorative, which I don't have a problem with per se. It would be better if more topical images could be found.
  • If you are asking about images of the performance, I would love to add some if they were available. I may ask around when the show comes here to Chicago, but make no promises.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem I don't spend money on WP, I figure my time is enough. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Themes

• Are there some central themes to the play? What I mean is this section talks about the contents of the monologues and the women's memories but not about themes like love, loss, self-esteem, hope, I don't know I'm just throwing things out there since I've never seen the play. I like the quote about the purse, that applies to this section but the rest isn't really themes it's content that should reveal the theme. I think taking that extra step to reveal the themes will improve this section.
  • I am not a literature guy. I could use some help here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• BTW I see some themes in the first couple of sentences in the Plot section, that should be moved up here.
  • Again, if you could help me out by saying which things you feel are themes, that would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not having any experience with this play I'll go by what I read here and the sources; some of the themes I can see are sadness, self-esteem, regret, control. I've reread the Theme section and it's a lot better, more on theme and less on plot elements. I think it's good enough for GA passage. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot

• What does the info about who originated the Gingy role have to do with the plot? Also the fact that Daly originated the role in NY is duplicated from a sentence in the History section. Not necessary here.
  • Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Beckerman's memoir takes as its departure the clothing worn at pivotal times of her life (and by O'Donnell and the author's other friends)..." I thought O'Donnell was a friend of the Ephrons not Beckerman. Check facts here against info in the Development section.
  • I don't understand the issue here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • From the Development section: "The Ephron's weaved together a collection of derivatives from the book with recollections of friends, including O'Donnell." From the Theme (previously Plot) section: "Beckerman's memoir takes as its departure the clothing worn at pivotal times of her life (and by O'Donnell and the author's other friends) and serves as the foundation for the show." Am I miss reading something? It seems like the two sentences are saying O'Donnell was friends to both the Ephrons and Beckerman? Is this the case?
      • Fixed now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Seems like the first para in the Plot section fits better in other sections including the Theme and Development sections. It does nothing really to illuminate the plot IMO.
  • Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• "One character serves as the vixen, another plays a vulnerable gang member from Chicago, a third portrays a brave cancer patient, and the last serves as a mature woman pierced by vivid memories.[2] A character named Heather..." Which one is Heather? Is she the vixen, gang member etc? the writing almost makes it sound like she's another character beyond those already described.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Better, it would help to identify which character Heather is, if that isn't available then it's fine as is. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• "A character named Heather chooses conservative "think" shoes over high heels in her youth, but at a later stage in life shows a preference for high heels.[11] The gang member likes insignias that are prominent on sweaters and their creator." Why did you pick these particular snippets to highlight? What is the significance of these two sentences? There's no tie in with the rest of the play. Also I'm confused by the phrase, "insignias that are prominent on sweaters and their creator". I don't get what that means. Maybe I'm just dense.
  • These are two notable stories according to the sources. I don't know how they tie in to the broader work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you want me to clarify about the insignias. The source is clear. You can check it out there and maybe suggest how I might make it more clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Among the 28 stories, the other notable ones are one about the influence of Madonna..." Not good writing here, perhaps "other notable tales include one about..." Can you vary your terminology from using the term "one" repeatedly?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • P.S. one is used here to facilitate parallel structure grammatically.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• The para about the NYT noting three particularly poignent stories. What was emotional about them? What messages were conveyed? Also there's a fourth story in the para, which is counterintuitive to the subject sentence that says three stories were particularly emotional.
  • The source does not really provide what you are looking for. I have reedited the paragraph to accommodate the fourth story.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ok so several of the stories are mentioned with a blurb describing what they are about, my question is how does it all tie together? Or does it all tie together? Where is the plot moving? How does the play conclude? This isn't spelled out here and I think it should.
  • I am not working from a script. I can not tell you how it ends or fits together. If I am really lucky maybe I will get to see the show while it is here in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Critical reaction

• You link purse here, if you think it should be linked then link it in the first mention of it rather than here per WP:LINK.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• I see two brief sentences that provide a negative reaction. Were there other negative opinions? That would give this section more balance.

Overall

• It's a fine succinct article that is missing some key features, which I've noted above.
• I note that it may be difficult to find reliable sourcing for some of what I've suggested here. I hope you are successful in finding some that will work. Keep in mind the sourcing requirements in the GA criteria. No where is there a demand that every sentence and every fact be referenced. I'm a stickler for references don't get me wrong but the GA criteria are pretty clear on what should be referenced to meet the standards. Just a thought. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do you have an opinion on Love,_Loss,_and_What_I_Wore#Off-Broadway_cast_history. Should that content be removed? I was thinking it should be WP:PRESERVEd. Is it really trivia?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed this list, it strikes me as a bit too detailed and may go beyond WP:SS. But it's a judgment call, I think an argument could be made for inclusion. Watch WP:LIST as well, not sure how it could be made into prose but since it is one of the MOS items listed in the GA Criteria I figured I'd mention it.
    • If you don't want to make a call one way or another, I'll let the GAC reviewer decide.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • As a peer reviewer I don't think it's my call to make. See what the GAC reviewer says, when I review GA noms I look for a cogent argument from the nominating editor that stays w/in the confines of the criteria, if one exists I usually go with it, since the criteria are pretty broad. That's just me though and I'm sure you've had plenty of hard nosed GA reviewers who would disagree with my way of thinking. IMO FAC is the place to be hard nosed and tight on the rules, GAC gives a lot more wiggle room. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I also saw an expansion tag in the background and development section but nothing in the talk page about this tag or the one in the cast history subsection. Do you know what more needs to be added to the background/development section? I wonder how it can be expanded. I may remove the tag after I give it some thought. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    

---

WWE Backlash

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is slowly progressing towards featured article status. I believe that it still needs to be improved so helping me and others with advice on where to expand and detail it further would be greatly appreciated. Would love for it to become a FA!

Thanks, Masmarkg (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall, while this article is a ways from FA yet, it's on a pretty good road to GA. Here are some general issues I noticed:

• The references start off well, but get very sporadic later in the article; at least one citation per paragraph is needed.
• Address all citation needed tags.
• Adding a section on its reception or its intent as a PPV would be beneficial, if you can find that. For example, what were the typical buyrates? Was its main purpose to take what happened at WrestleMania and continue storylines/start new ones? Stuff like this may be hard to find sources for, but would make the article that much better.
• There's a lot of deadlinks that need fixing. WWE seems to redirect their site a lot, so finding archive urls may be better.

Here are some specifics as well:

• The second paragraph in the lead is really about professional wrestling in general rather than Backlash, so it seems misplaced. The second and third paragraphs should be a summary of the events later in the article.
• "Each Backlash event has been held in an indoor arena, with nine events taking place in the United States and one event taking place in Canada." this doesn't seem that important in and of itself, since most PPVs are indoors; i'd just remove it.
• "with guest referee as Shane McMahon." with Shane McMahon as guest referee sounds better, or just remove as.
• "In addition to the main event, the undercard featured a Boiler Room Brawl between Mankind and Paul Wight," I'm pretty sure he went by Big Show in that match.
• "The match was between reigning champion, Triple H, and challenger The Rock with guest referee Shane McMahon." Shane guest ref'd two backlash main events in a row? Just making sure that's right.
• "Also Kurt Angle defeated Edge in a singles match." this just seems kinda tacked on. any stipulations to the match? either way, have it mesh with the preceding stuff a bit better.
• "Other matches that were scheduled on the event card included a No Holds Barred match between the team of father and son, Vince McMahon and Shane McMahon facing Shawn Michaels and "God". " this is a bit confusing. Was there a wrestler going by God at that time, or is there something else involved there?
• Several spots in the 2009 section have periods without a space afterwards.
• Not sure if there's a good way around it, but the prose feels rather repetitive throughout the article. It's noting each year's matches so it's naturally going to be like that, but having a copyeditor fine tune the prose at GOCE would be very beneficial.

The article's in pretty decent shape; I wish I had a good article that could be used as a guide, but a PPV summary article seems to be new territory. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Xiaxue

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a highly successful, but also highly controversial, Singaporean celebrity blogger. In my quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia, I am seeking GA status for this article. Please point out any and all issues (such as prose or BLP issues) that prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria. I hope you enjoy reviewing this article as much as I enjoyed writing it (despite the scarcity of referenced information on Singaporean topics).

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

• Be careful with how you write. Describing her as a "celebrity" blogger doesn't seem to ad much more than saying she is a blogger. Similarly, calling her awards "prestigious" runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK.

  Partially done, clarification needed I described her as a celebrity blogger to assert and give context to her notability, since it is unusual for bloggers to be celebrities and her notability is as much as a celebrity as a blogger. Is there a better way of communicating that? As for the word "prestigious", perhaps I was too influenced by Singaporean culture, which places great emphasis on whether a school, award, etc. is prestigious; I have removed the word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is she described as a celebrity blogger in any sources? That would be my main issue here. I personally feel that if she is on wikipedia she can be assumed to be notable. The phrase seems to be used a lot around wikipedia though, so it may not be an issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sources do describe her as a celebrity blogger, so is that description fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It'd be good per WP:LEAD if you could place that in the body somewhere, but if an external source backs this then it probably is fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Replace the picture with Template:Infobox person.

  Clarification needed Another editor added that image and, to be honest, I think the article could do without it. I generally avoid unneeded use of complicated templates in my GAs and I doubt an infobox would be useful, since few of the fields would be relevant for her, a blogger. (Someone added Template:Infobox actor, which I removed, as she is not an actor!) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I always liked biography infoboxes due to their quick information on birth date, nationality, etc. Of course, some of this is in the lead, and it's up to your discretion. Anyway, some images are useful, images being criteria 6 of WP:WIAGA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The "but" in the last sentence of the lead doesn't seem to make sense.

  Clarification needed Perhaps you could explain why and suggest a better word? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The two statements included together in this sentence do not seem immediately related, and the word but implies a contradiction which I do not see. I would actually suggest simply splitting the sentence, and quickly expand on why she is controversial. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Split the sentence into two and added a brief elaboration of why she is controversial. Perhaps you could recheck the prose of the lead section? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead section now a good summary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• When was her paper diary thrown out?

  Not done Sources do not mention exactly when, except that it was during a Chinese New Year spring cleaning. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is this first sentence of the blog section related to the last sentence in that section? If so they should be placed together.

  Done albeit differently After some consideration, I have merged the last sentence into the second sentence, where it seems to fit better. Perhaps the explanation of her pseudonym could be placed within brackets to improve flow? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience brackets usually aren't the best ways to improve flow, although it could work. If you can find out why she named it Xiaxue, I'd actually recommend making it a new sentence placed after the one it is currently in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, if only I could find out why she chose that pseudonym! Sadly, I cannot, so I am leaving the sentence as it is. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a reason for specifying the nasty taxi drivers as a topic?

  It was an example used in the source. I included it to give readers a better idea of what issues she rants about, which also reveals more about Singaporean culture. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking done then. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The title "achievements" for a section is quite vague. When I think of achievements, I think of awards, but only one of the sentences there fits that. I would remove this section, merging the first paragraph with the Blog section and the second with the Personal Life section.

  Considering I need to give this further thought. Her sponsorships and appearances in other media were achieved due to her blogging. Perhaps I could have a "Beyond blogging" section with two subsections for "Other media/achievements" and "Personal life"?

If you wish to do that, I'm sure it would be fine.` Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed After further consideration, I realised that the section title "Achievements" may seem vague simply because what constitutes an achievement varies from field to field. For a blogger, achievements would include awards, sponsorship deals and appearances in other media, while for a chess player, tournament victories and titles are important, but contributions to the theory of an opening or endgame may be even more significant. The Achievements and Controversy sections balance each other; I am concerned that splitting the Achievements section may make the article look less NPOV. Do you still think I should split the section and if so, do you have any additional reasons? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the balance between sections. If as you say an achievement for a blogger is appearing in other media (I'm not a blogging expert), then perhaps make both achievements and controversy subsections of the Blog section? That would make it obvious it's achievements due to her blog, rather than anything else. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Remove "She has been involved in a few other incidents." It's redundant and unnecessary.

  Done I thought topic sentences need not have references, as they are used to link paragraphs? Listing all incidents in chronological order does not seem to make sense, because the controversies arising from posts she made are quite different from the other two (the hacking, which was not her fault, and the allegations of impersonation). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't always need to, but this topic sentence didn't give a difference. It just said that there were other incidents, which is blatantly obvious to anyone reading the text. It reads much better to simply start discussing the next incident, especially as it is in a section where incidents are already known to be the topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Was there any controversy about her appearance on other shows?

  Not to my knowledge. The sources did not mention any such controversies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Personal life section should be expanded.

  Doing Rereading my references to find more information about her personal life, but I must be careful to avoid BLP violations in my expansion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the information there sourced to decent sources, which is an important part of BLP. At the moment the article suffers from it's small size. Most of the references are offline, but if you have access to them make sure you get all the information you can out of them. I'd advise including more controversies and possibly the dates of the controversies. Dates for when she worked on other shows/columns would also be very useful. See if you can obtain more information about her life, even if from her own blogs. A two line personal life section isn't that great. Also, see if you can contact Xiaxue and ask her to release her images under a free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details. More images would vastly improve the article. Perhaps a better one of her, maybe one of her and her husband, and a screenshot of one of her blogs? That would be very useful. Thanks for trying to develop articles about people not from the western world, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Yeah 3x

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a GA article. I've spent the last few days making improvements to the article in a sandbox, but I would like some feedback. Thanks, Ozurbanmusic (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from —Andrew_stalk

Background and recording

• "On September 2, 2010, Brown tweeted that his new Polow da Don-produced single titled "Calypso" would be released soon as the follow-up to "Deuces"" - this implies that "Calypso" was released as a single at some point. Try 'On September 2, 2010, Brown tweeted that the Polow da Don-produced song titled "Calypso" would be released soon as the follow-up single to "Deuces"'
  •  Done Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Link urban contemporary
  •  Done Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• When you break quotes with ellipses (...) add non-breaking spaces before and after them, ie text ... blah
• " Brown said they wrote the song in 15 minutes"→ Brown said that the song was written in 15 minutes
  •  Done Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• MOS:QUOTE#Quotations within quotations "start with double quote marks outermost, and, working inward, alternate single with double quote marks" - "Forever" should be in single quote marks ie 'Forever'
  •  Done Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Composition

• Don't link chords in [[Synthesizer|synth chords]]; it's a bit WP:EASTEREGG. Just link synth
  •  Done Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Try not to link inside of quotes, but link before the quote or paraphrase the quote
  •  Done Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• With About.com, you must check the reliability of the "guide" - just being published at About.com does not make the author reliable. Bill Lamb has been deemed unreliable due to his lack of notable publishings.
  • I've noticed anyone can add a review on that site if they're a member. Should the source be removed then? Oz ^talk 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

—Andrew_stalk 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • Articles written by Bill Lamb are unreliable. The R&B guide, Mark Edward Nero, is reliable because he has previously written for significant newspapers. You must judge each About.com author on his/her resume. —Andrew_stalk 05:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance

• "In New Zealand, "Yeah 3x" reached number one on January 10, 2011, where it remained for one week.[38] It Brown's sixth number-one in the country." - missing word (it was' Brown's). Also, I think you should merge these two sentences.
  •  Done Oz ^talk 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Live performances

• State that Brown performed the song along with BP (and any others)
  •  Done Oz ^talk 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Charts and certifications

• Some of these tables have WP:ACCESS features, while others don't. I recommend that you add the table parameters to those that do not, or remove the accessibility features from all of them.
  •  Done Oz ^talk 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• The prose seems to be of OK quality for GA, but if you plan on taking the article to FAC (or you just want to improve it further) I suggest you read the exercises at WP:1a.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. I am watching this PR, so don't hesitate to request clarification on any points. Please consider reviewing an article from the backlog at WP:PR. —Andrew_stalk 05:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

List of Santos FC seasons

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it only needs a few tweaks to become a FL. I have been searching for other users to review the list and give opinions about it to no avail. I managed to stumble upon this and I hope that I receive great imput.

Thanks, Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

As I'm sure you are aware, there are many featured lists for this type of article, and looking how those are structured may be beneficial.

• Hardcoded HTML font color elements should not be used. This is particularly important for redlinks, which are red for a reason. While many HTML elements are compatible with wiki markup, in general they should be avoided in tables, as certain HTML table elements don't work.
• The spacing between rows in the national championship era makes sense, but is redundant in the Paulista-only table.
• If every single top scorer is Brazilian, we gain no information from having flags.
• The bright colours used for 1st/2nd/3rd places could well cause accessibility issues. A pastel-coloured background would be preferable.
• How can there be a top scorer in seasons where no competitive football was played?
• In order to facilitate comparisons between different seasons, the "three points for a win" system was used for every season, including those seasons in which Brazil originally used a system that awarded 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, before switching to the three points for a win system in 1995. This should absolutely not be done. Statistics should be listed as the rules were at the time, anything else is a falsehood.
• One of the categories is a redlink.
• The source at [6] appears to be a wiki. user-generated sites are not generally acceptable as sources.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All right...

• Fixed.
• Eliminated
• We must assume that we could have a foreign season top scorer. We have had an italian playing in the club for a while and he might be it this season
• Pastel-coloured backgrounds have been implemented
• The club still played friendly matches in those seasons. In the first one in 1912, for example, Santos obviously couldn't play anything since they were created after the state championship started. They played their first match (the only one in 1912) against Santos Athletic Clube, a club from Santos that had British and Irish foreigners in its ranks. The "Brazilian" one beat the "European" one 3-2 with Arnaldo Silveira scoring two goals. That's why he is the top scorer and the club has it stated in its official site.
• I reverted everything before 1995 to the 2-points for a win system
• I eliminated it
• I have resourced it to the official site.

Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Calaway Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
So basically, this article just failed GA. I've addressed a number of the concerns, regarding sourcing. There is a citation needed tag remaining, with regards to safety, but I'm working on that.

That said, the reviewer (who offered further help, but is in the midst of getting married, so I'm turning to here) suggested two options I'm not entirely keen on.

• They suggest that the text is too tedious, "and parts of it read like they are the legal documents themselves, rather than an encyclopedic description thereof." The issue is, I've simplified the whole thing down from what it was in a score of scatter newspaper articles. I really don't know where to iron out further.
  • Should this section be split off from the main Calaway Park article? There's scores of information available about their financial difficulties, difficulties dealing with the people of the area and municipal governments, etc., but then afterwards, nothing much at all. The Calgary Herald treated them as if they didn't exist, most seasons in the 1980s and 1990s. Does anyone agree that the first few years were so negative, that the sections cloud the rest of the article? I'm only willing to summarize and simplify further, if there's a split, and the existing content exists elsewhere.
• They suggested a prose approach to the ride listings. Thing is, Calaway Park doesn't have sections like Idlewild and Soak Zone, the only existing theme park FA, so how would you order the prose? And unlike The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, one of the few GAs about theme parks, there's no narrative to the rides at Calaway. It's a thrill park with live shows, not a theme park.

I'd love to hear what others have to think about these points, for or against. Thanks, Zanimum (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the rides section, what if it were a table, as is the case with Playland (Vancouver), Galaxyland, La Ronde (amusement park), etc? Perhaps name, generic ride format, any remaining freeform description... maybe? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Here are a few suggestions:

• The "History" section, which includes much more detail than necessary, could be improved by compression. Parts of it remind me of newspaper reports of small-town planning-commission meetings. I think much of the "Tied up with development appeals" subsection, for example, could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs that summarize the main points.

• I would not advise making the lists into tables. Rather, I would suggest de-listing the article by turning these lists into prose. One way to do that would be to choose a ride or two within each subsection, describe those rides in some detail, and then add a sentence or two about the other rides in the same category. For example, it might be possible to elaborate a bit on the Hilltop Runway and the SuperJet Rollercoaster and then add a couple of sentences such as "Rides for children also include three related to boats, "Freddie Fireboat", "Theodore Tugboat", and "Yachts for Tots", as well as... ". Readers might not need a complete list, though they would no doubt want to know in general what to expect.

• Parts of the article lack citations. For example, the entire "Children's rides" subsection lacks a source. What reliable source says the height limit for children using the "Ball Crawl" is 54 inches? My rule of thumb is to include a reliable source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every paragraph.

• I'd set the lead image slightly bigger, 300px. I'd rearrange the other images in such a way that they did not overlap section boundaries, and I'd try to figure out some way to use at least one image in the upper sections.

• When all other changes are done, the lead will need to be rewritten so that it is a summary of the entire article. This would involve summarizing the "History", for example, as well as the other sections. It might mean adding a "Location" section to the main text. The lead should not include any important information that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has more information.

• I notice some smaller problems that would probably be caught by a copyeditor. For example, the lead says the park has 33 rides, but the infobox says 32. For another example, the alternative bolded name for the park should appear in the first sentence of the lead rather than lower down in the article. A third example are the numbers in "that development beyond the initial 60 acres (of a total 143 acres)", which need metric conversions. Volunteer copyeditors may be available through WP:GOCE/REQ.

• "By opening day, the boom in Calgary had passed." - Maybe I'm missing it, but when was opening day? The infobox says 1982, but I don't see the date in the main text.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

London, Brighton and South Coast Railway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been updated many times since the last review was carried out several years ago and all the previous comments addressed

Thanks, Das48 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I'm fond of railroads, though I can't pretend to be an expert. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• Many parts of the article lack proper citations to reliable sources and do not meet WP:V. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every claim that is unusual, and every direct quotation. Every paragraph needs at least one source; if one source supports all of the claims in a paragraph, put the citation at the end of the paragraph. If a paragraph has a citation to a claim in the middle of the paragraph, you may need to add sources for other parts of the paragraph. It's quite a big job to track down reliable sources for an article as long and complex as this one, but that is the first thing that should be done. Verifiability is a basic requirement.

• The article has far too many extremely short sections and subsections, which give it a choppy look and feel. I'd recommend finding ways to merge many of them to make larger sections and subsections.

• Heads and subheads should be telegraphic. Generally, this means they should not start with "The". For example, "The Quarry line" should be truncated to "Quarry line".

• The Manual of Style suggests writing in straight prose rather than lists where feasible. Something like the short list in the "Electric traction" subsection would be easy to render in ordinary prose.

• After the article is properly sourced and sections merged in a smooth way, the lead will need to be rewritten as a true summary of the entire article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main topics in each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has more information about leads.

• The dab finder in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds 11 links in the article that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

• I find it helpful to look at featured articles on whatever topic I'm writing about that I think has the potential for an eventual GA or FA. You will find featured articles about railways listed at WP:FA#Transport. Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway is an example.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Dota 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review due to the sudden spike in information available for Dota 2, a fact that has not been realized for approximately ten months now. Despite the lack of information thus far, this page has sustained a high level of traffic and quality, with a C rating. Mind you, this was achieved with virtually nothing to work with, aside from official releases and testimony. Since I created this page, I have been eagerly looking at how to improve its quality, always asking for input from senior editors and the community for direction. Things have become quite a bit more complicated, however, as I am finding some difficulty in conveying the new material into a form that I feel comfortable with.

I believe this page will not only have the opportunity to become a GA, but a FA, much like the original Defense of the Ancients. Please share your input, what is needed and what can be improved. Thanks. DarthBotto _talk•cont 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to also add that I have an image from the game play prepared, as it's standard for good articles to have that, but I'm just clearing something up. DarthBotto _talk•cont 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've incorporated the elements you fellows requested. Could you tell me what more I need for it to be a FA? I'm going to nominate it for a GA soon enough, but I want to know what will be needed for the final milestone. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe my questions have been answered and this page's flaws have been sorted out, so I'm closing this review request. Thank you. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• The anonymity thing prolly isn't that important to put in the lead; Steam, Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X could probably use explanatory text (operating system, content delivery service, whatever) to make it clearer to non-game fans what they are (yeah, they really should know what Windows is but hey, make it accessible.)
• The second paragraph doesn't really flow well as a description of the game; rather than focusing on "Dota 2 is like DotA but", you should probably treat it more as a standalone game so it's more accessible; explain what the objective is, how players control heroes, use items, etc, and what basic modes are available.
• File:Dota 2 Game.jpg could probably be a bit larger, since we can't figure out anything from such a small shot. Although we might have to wait for better screenshots anyhow.
• Going off the above, the details about how the heroes and scenarios are based off what exists in the current map might be better put in a development section, leaving a more straightforward gameplay description. There's already some of that in that section, but we don't need to do a game-guidish blow-by-blow of "what's different".
• I'm not sure the trademark concerns deserve their own section (also the "there has been a lot of criticism"-ish start seems weasely.)
• You should prolly think about replacing the refs from GosuGamers.net and Joystiq with more ironclad reliable sources.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Mr. V

Lead

• Inlines are unnecessary in the lead.
• This is naggy but you might get dinged later: for wikilinks, best to link once in the lead for each one (the first time it appears), once again in the body (also the first time it appears) and once in the infobox if necessary.

Gameplay

• What's an Ancient Fortress?
• The Radiant and the Dire - do they mean anything more than geographic starting location?
• There's one source for the entire section. It's early in development but there's quite a bit there from one source.
• Link the gaming terms, such as "level". You may have readers who have no idea what these terms mean.

Development

• Looks good overall, but make sure that the trademark section doesn't turn into a "he said, she said" type deal.

Sources

• The sources here don't look bad (although I've never heard of "GosuGamers"), but an article can crash and burn at FAR if the sources are not perfect. Make sure they're all reliable. Check the video game source page for more info. More sources will appear as the game gets closer to release.

Image

• More details in the caption. Not sure what the image is illustrating exactly.
• Can you make it bigger?

Not too far away from GAN. — Mr. V (t – c) 05:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Prenton Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because ... it has recently undergone a big rewrite. Its sister article History of Tranmere Rovers F.C. recently achieved GA status, and I would appreciate any advice as to how to get this to the same standard.

Thanks! U+003F^? 17:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I'm not well up on the GA criteria lately, but I'll review it as if I were hoping it to become excellent, if that helps.
• We tend to accentuate _association_ football rather than just football for clarity (particularly with a large US audience).  Done
• Would expand the lead a little to perhaps note the highest attendance, so your lead will then adequately "summarise" the article.  Done
• "when the football arms of two" I get it, but possibly confusing when people aren't aware that cricket and football clubs were one-and-the-same... ✗ Not done

This comment and the next refer to a confusing sentence that I decided to just chop out. U+003F^? 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "came together" what do you mean? Did they merge as a football-only club? ✗ Not done
• Ref 4 specifies only a single page but uses the pp. as pages. Suspect if you're using the template, you're using pages=94 rather than page=94. ✗ Not done

I did actually mean pages here (it's a short book). U+003F^? 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, the parameter doesn't mean number of pages at all. U+003F^? 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "of a suggestions in the" grammar fail.  Done
• "a school and housing" reads a bit odd that way round for me, prefer "housing and a school".  Done
• Often as not, I've been asked to refer to stands as "bleachers", or at least link to Bleacher (this means more to the US readers than us, but is a good description, particularly of the early day stands).  Done

I went with "stands (also known as bleachers)". What do you think? U+003F^? 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems a shame you can't use File:Prenton Park 1986, Birkenhead - geograph.org.uk - 265798.jpg for some context for what the ground was like in 1986?  Done
• "of all occurred during" try "took place" rather than "occurred", so it's a bit more "active" sounding.  Done
• "Capacity in the ground increased..." this is very unusual following the Taylor Report. I thought most grounds capacity decreased quite a bit after being forced into all-seater configuration?  Done

It's because they built entirely new stands rather than the usual response of just sticking some seats in the terraces. I've rearranged to try to make this more clear. U+003F^? 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A two tier stand, it is generally divided into 3 main " 3-> three.  Done
• "capacity 1150" -> 1,150.  Done
• "The future of the Main stand is under discussion..." still? the reference provided is 3.5 years old.  Done
• "Main stand " v "Main Stand" - be consistent.  Done
• "5,696[5]. " move the ref to the right of the full stop. Check others.  Done
• Most of Kop section unreferenced.  Done
• "the home of the more vocal home fans" home ... home... repetitive.  Done
• "the football league" I think you probably mean "The Football League" don't you?  Done
• "Their was an average of 6,000..." There.  Done
• "was called off for" would prefer "was suspended as a result of..."  Done
• "of just under 17,000" not really, about 500 short of 17,000.  Done
• Prenton Park ever hosted anything else other than football? Concerts? Religious get-togethers? Other sports? ✗ Not done

I don't know ... U+003F^? 18:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Success in the 1990s improved and Tranmere's support" don't understand this.  Done
• "ground almost filled" full.  Done
• Not sure about "key games". This is a highly subjective section of the article. What neutral reliable source has said these are key games for Prenton Park? I think perhaps you could go for a "Ground records" or something similar which has the first European game, the highest scoring game etc, instead of this subjectively named section.  Done

I went with "Records". Better? U+003F^? 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• With "F.C." in the publisher field, I usually pipelink it as follows "Ipswich Town F.C" (without the last .) as the template provides that, and you therefore avoid the double .. you've got.  Done
• Ref 9 needs the hyphens between A-Z and 54-55 to be replaced with an en-dash (–).  Done
• Refs 1 and 3 have the same publisher, so why different names for it? ✗ Not done

Not quite. www.tranmere-rovers.co.uk is the fan site and www.tranmererovers.co.uk the official site. U+003F^?

Fair point, well made! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 12, The Indpendent is a work so it should use that parameter in the template, which ensures it'll be in italics.  Done
• Ref 12 is also missing the author.  Done
• Time to create a {{Tranmere Rovers F.C.}} navbox...!  Done

Hope these help. Feel free to give me a shout if you need any further advice or explanation on what I'm banging on about. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice. I'll work through these and get back to you soon. U+003F^? 12:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. I've made some changes as suggested; do you have any further tips as to get it up to GA (or thereabouts)? U+003F^? 18:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a couple of tiny changes, but I can't see what would hold this back from GA right now. Feel free to ping me if you need any further comments, should the nom not pan out as planned! Good luck, all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

I've just reviewed Hampden Park; some of the suggestions there may well also be useful for this article.

• Not sure Liverpool reserves merit mention in the lead, given they typically have attendances of a few hundred at most. Per WP:LEAD, anything mentioned in the lead also needs to be included in the body.  Done
• Granted, it wasn't a period known for improvements in football grounds, but something must have changed between 1912 and 1968.  Done
• The practice in the 80s / early 90s of hosting matches on a Friday night could be mentioned (while it has no place in the article, I feel obliged to mention how this was immortalised by Half Man Half Biscuit)  Done

I held back on the HMHB reference, though I was sorely tempted ... U+003F^? 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Finally, the Inglis test – no article on a British stadium can truly be considered comprehensive unless it cites a book by Inglis. If you want me to email some material from the relevant pages of The Football Grounds of Great Britain, pop a note on my talk page.  Done

What a great book! I've just ordered a copy online that was give or take free U+003F^? 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Very much so, thanks (yet again) for the pointers. U+003F^? 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

---

List of Major League Baseball players from Australia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to get this to Featured Article status. I've put a bit of work into updating and expanding it recently, so any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,  Afaber012  (talk)  10:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is in pretty good shape, and should not have too much trouble at FLC once what's below is fixed. Here are the issues I noticed:

• The two later images could do with some better captions besides just the name.

 Done

• Position could be spelled out in the table rather than having "pos".

 Done

• The article feels like it's missing a couple introductory sentences; it just jumps right in to noting how many Australian players have played. Not sure exactly what could be added here though.

 Done

• The paragraph on players may be better off merged into the lead.

 Done

• I'm not sure if having a separate section for all-stars is needed, since there's only the one. Moving the sentence to the lead and highlighting the name in the original players section could be a better idea.

 Done

• The postseason is something that you may need to be careful on. For example, I know Peter Moylan pitched in the NLDS last year, but he's omitted; there may he other people that were missed as well.

 Done - I've double checked this now so should be ok.

• For the B-R refs, add Sports Reference, LLC as the publisher and have Baseball-Reference (.com if desired) as the work.

 Done

• There should at least be one non-BR ref to help solidify notability.

 Done

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had more of a chance to look at this now, but it turned out not to be the case. I'll get through those things soon. Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.  Afaber012  (talk)  12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed each of those issues you brought up, except for that missing intro point. The only thing I can think of to introduce is a brief history of baseball in Australia, such as: "Baseball was introduced to Australia in..." and "A national tournament was first held in...". How does that sound?  Afaber012  (talk)  11:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Epsilon Eridani

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This topic is interesting because this is the nearest star to us that is known to (probably) have a planet. In fact there may be three or more planets, along with an asteroid belt or two. The fact that it is also a Sun-like star makes it of interest as a potential interstellar travel destination and for the possibility it may host an Earth-like planet.

Review history: This article has previously gone through PR and is a GA. It was submitted for FAC, but I withdrew it in order to update the page with the results of an expect review. There were several supports and no objections, but it did generate quite a few comments. Most of these have been resolved. The lingering concern is about the need for an image of the star, which is hindered by the lack of suitable licenses.

Please take a look and post a few comments if you have an interest. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have time to do a proper review (and did the GA in any case), but in terms of images you could use a crop of File:Orion above the VLT .png; I think eps Eri is visible on the left of that image. Leaving enough of the image to show where Orion is in relation might help readers understand where this star is, and how bright it is. Modest Genius ^talk 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  Yes I think you're right. Thanks for the suggestion. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty ready for FAC to me, here are some pretty nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

• Dab finder tool on this PR page finds one circular redirect
  • That was being caused by a NavBox. I've fixed it for the moment, but there's no guarantee it won't be re-introduced.
• In the lead, I would cut the word stories here (not just sf stories, movies and tv too). As one of the nearest Sun-like stars and a system that may harbor life,[22] Epsilon Eridani regularly appears as a target of SETI searches and proposed interstellar travel, as well as in science fiction stories.[23]
  • Fixed, I hope.
• Missing word? From 1881 to 1883, American astronomer William L. Elkin used a heliometer at the Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to repeatedly compare [the?] position of this star with two nearby stars.
  • Fixed.
• I would add "magentic" here for clarity Although there is a high level of noise in the radial velocity data due to magnetic activity in the star's photosphere,[38] any periodicity caused by this [magnetic] activity is expected to show a strong correlation with variations in emission lines of ionized calcium (the Ca II H and K lines).
  • Okay.
• I would specifically say the proposed second planet is Epsilon Eridani c (in Circumstellar discoveries)
  • Done.
• The abbreviation "pc" for parsec needs to be spelled out explicitly
  • Okay, I tried to do this consistently.
• Do Kelvin temperatures need conversion to Fahrenheit?
  • This is covered by WP:UNITS. In short, the answer is no, because this is a scientific article. RJH (talk)
• To me Ca II sounds like it is doubly ionized (Ca 2+) The K-type classification of this star indicates that the spectrum displays relatively weak absorption lines from energy absorbed by hydrogen, plus strong lines of neutral atoms and singly ionized calcium (Ca II).
  • I know the nomenclature is a little confusing, but that is the convention in astronomy. An H II region, for example, is a region where many of the hydrogen atoms have lost their sole electrons. RJH (talk)
    • Thanks - I have a friend who is an astronomer who calls any star with lots of any element above He "metal rich" (or is it any element above H?)
      • (See metallicity.) Yes, but I'm not sure the phrase is rigorously defined. It just seems very vague to me, so I was avoiding its use.
        • 'Metal rich' would normally refer to any star with metallicity above solar. Unless you meant metallicity itself? That's certainly well defined, with Z being the fraction (by mass) of all elements heavier than Helium (X is used for H fraction, and Y for He fraction). It's almost always normalised to the solar value, in the same way as mass and luminosity. Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I've also seen 'metal rich' being used when describing Population 1 stars like the Sun (vs. 'metal poor' for Population 2). Perhaps that's the source of my ambivalence. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Would it help to indicate that this star's field strength is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than the sun? The average magnetic field strength of this star across the entire surface is (1.65 ± 0.30) × 10−2 T,[55] compared to (5–40) × 10−5 T in the Sun's photosphere.[56]
  • I included a comparison.
• Magnetic activity section uses "this star" eight times, which seems a bit much
  • Addressed.
• I owuld at least mention the science fiction uses of the star in a sentence or two in the Potential habitability section. It is in the lead and See also, but I think a sentence or two could be added here.
  • I wasn't sure how to make a useful generalization about the science fiction topic, other than to say the star was used.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working pretty hard on it on and off for a while and feel as if it's almost ready for a GA nomination, but it's not quite there yet. I'd really appreciate your comments on improvements that can be made.

Thanks you! ℥^nding·start 05:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am aware there are several dead links. I am working on finding replacements for them. ℥^nding·start 05:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

HJ comments

Right, I've glanced over this and made a few edits. While I've posted a few specific concerns below, I don't think I can make much progress in copy-editing until there is some copy to edit. The article as it is is just one long daisy chain of quotes, strung together with the odd connective or sentence fragment. I hate to be so negative but, as it is, the prose isn't even up to GA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Opening sentences of the background section need re-writing. I copy-edited them to the extent that they make sense, but it's not good prose atm.
• During the same period,—during what period?
• Who is Andre Recke?
• "I want to do this so bad"—can we paraphrase this instead of including such an inarticulate quote?
• who was popular with preteens at the time because of her role in the popular Disney Channel original series Lizzie McGuire—you need to elaborate on her acting earlier
• Don't space emdashes.
  

---

Manchester Ship Canal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on and off at this (more off than on, admittedly) for what seems like forever now, and I'd really like to finish it off by steering it through FAC if at all possible. It's not the most exciting topic in Wikipedia, but it was a truly staggering feat of Victorian engineering that I think deserves the best treatment we can give it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Owen 1988 or 1983? Willan 1997 or 1977?
• Missing bibliographic info for King 2006
• No citations to Dickson 1994, Fisher 2009
• Probably don't need to wikilink common terms like warehouse
• File:Queen_Victoria_opening_the_Manchester_Ship_Canal.jpg: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think I got all those except for the licensing of the image, which I'll look into or just remove. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've removed the image. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Malleus, can you include a link to this review on the article's talkpage? This is missing at the moment. Meanwhile I will review the prose. As a Liverpudlian, I have some memories of this canal, though we had a slightly different name for it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. For some reason I thought that happened automatically. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are my observations on the first half or so. The rest will follow later, probably tomorrow:-

Lead

• I see that you have converted the 1894 £15 million to a present-day value of £1.27 billion. Although this is uncited, it is clear from later conversions that you are using the RPI basis from MeasuringWorth.com. MW specifically states (see Choosing the Best Indicator to Measure Relative Worth) that the current value of major engineering projects such as this should be ascertained not on the RPI basis you have used, but on the GDP deflater basis, whereby the 1894 £15m becomes £1.59 billion. As MW is your authority, I think you need to follow its principles. Because use of MW has in the past caused wrangles at FAC, I'd advise that you add to the initial conversion a footnote stating the conversion method you have used, adding that "other measures exist".
• Some of the prose isn't as smooth as it could be. In the second paragraph, second sentence, "the canal's route" reads better as "its route". In the same sentence the second "and" could be "that is". The first sentence of the third paragraph needs to read "despite its being" to be grammatically correct.
• Do you need to say "privately owned" rather than just "owned"?

Early history

• "not always sufficient draft for a fully laden boat." I believe that the term "draft" is the measurement of the underwater part of a ship's hull, not a general term meaning a depth of water. "Not always sufficient depth of water for a fully laden boat" might be clearer.
• "In 1825 an application had been made to Parliament for an Act to allow the construction of a ship canal between the mouth of the River Dee and Manchester..." Who made this application? You also need to be a bit more specific about what is meant by a "ship canal" in this context.
• I'm a bit confused by the end of the first paragraph. It was stated earlier that the canal was suitable only for boats "of moderate size", yet here we are told that it was open to "larger" boats, albeit for only parts of the year. Maybe "larger" is used in a relative sense, but perhaps a different choice of words would avoid confusion.
• Who "perceived" the dues and rail charges to be excessive?
• "Liverpool to Manchester railways" → "Liverpool-to-Manchester railways"
• "The idea of a canal was championed..." → "The idea of a ship canal was championed..."
• "...fierce opposition from the city of Liverpool" - not sure what you mean by "the city" in this context. Corporation? Business community?

Finance

• "underwritten": Pipe link to underwriting
• "...the company appealed for funds to Manchester Corporation, which set up a Ship Canal Committee" - you have referred to a committee of that name in the previous paragraph, so some way of distinguishing between the two similarly-named committees is necessary.
• Please clarify: "In return the corporation appointed five of the fifteen members of the board of directors". Was this a permanent right to appoint? (it appears from subsequent text that it was intended to be, so I'd rephrase: "In return the corporation was given the right to appoint five..." etc)
• "Manchester Corporation" and "Manchester City Council" - same body?
• The last paragraph of this section seems out of place, since it jumps forward 100 years. Maybe resite it in the "Present day" section?

Construction

• "finally completely" - consecutive adverbs not good.
• "4½d" needs explaining to any Brit under about 55, and to non-Brits of any age. And I am personally unconvinced, whatever Mr Officer's formula may say, that a wage of three shillings and ninepence a day in 1894 equates to a contemporary wage of £70 per day.
• How do you raise a canal's water level? Do you mean that a further 2 feet of depth was excavated?

Operational history

• Per lead comment, "despite being" → "despite its being"
• There's a gap in the Operational history text of about 70 years. Information about levels of activity is given in the following table, but I believe that the two paragraphs of text need to be linked by a couple of sentences, perhaps briefly commenting on the table.

Route

• We need some sort of map. It's very difficult, otherwise, to make much sense of the "Geography" section unless you happen to know where these places are in relation to each other.

To be concluded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Replies.

Lead

• I've removed the conversion from the lead, as I'd prefer to deal with that issue in the body of the text, which now uses the GDP deflater method of calculation with an explanatory note added.
• The prose issues are fixed I think, although I hate that "despite its being".
• I think "privately owned" is important, as almost all canals in the UK are in public ownership.

Early History

• Changed to "not always sufficient depth of water for a fully laden boat" as per your suggestion.
• I'm not sure who made the application in 1825; I'll need to check and come back to this.
• "Larger" was indeed being used in a relative sense, the larger of the boats able to navigate the canal. I've switched the sentence around to try and make that clearer; it now says "and was closed to all but the smaller boats for 264 out of 311 working days".
• Manchester's businessmen, who had to pay the dues. I've elaborated by saying "were perceived to be excessive by Manchester's business community".
• I'm really unhappy with the hyphenation in "Liverpool-to-Manchester railways". Hyphenation exists to resolve ambiguity, but I don't see any ambiguity there.
• Changed "canal" to "ship canal".
• I mean opposition from the city of Liverpool across the board. The corporation, merchants, and local press. That's why it doesn't say "City of Liverpool".

Financing

• Added link to underwriting.
• There were two Ship Canal Committees, one set up by Adamson at the start of the project and another by Manchester Corporation when it got into financial difficulties. I'm not sure what I can do about that.
• I don't know whether it was intended to be a permanent right to appoint or not, but the arrangement only lasted for little more than a year before Manchester Corporation took a majority of the seats on the board anyway. I've changed it to "In return the corporation was allowed to appoint five of the fifteen members of the board of directors". One thing your observation has reminded me of though is that I need to say something about the effect the corporation's investment in the ship canal had on local rates.
• Manchester Corporation and Manchester City Council are the same body, yes, Perhaps a note might be in order to explain that?

• I've added a note.

• I've moved the last paragraph to the Present day section and shuffled that material to hopefully integrate better.

Construction

• Changed "finally completely" to "completely".
• as you say, they dug out a bit more canal, now changed to: "In 1909 the depth of the canal was increased by 2 feet".

Route.

• There is a map, but it was moved to the References section, perhaps because it was felt to be too big. Now moved to the Geography section.

Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I had in mind a geographic map, along the lines of this, from the Panama Canal article. The schematic diagram doesn't help us to understand the geographical location of the canal. If a pre-1923 map doesn't exist (I suspect one does), maybe one of our clever mapmakers could make up something based on this, say

I'll see what I can dig up. That's probably something Parrot of Doom could do if he has time, as he produced this map for the Moors murders; I'll ask. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Review continues...

Geography

• re my earlier comments, an alternative to a geographical map might be to expand this section, giving more details of the course of the canal and relating it to the diagram now alongside. This diagram, incidentally, should indicate clearly that the top is the Liverpool end of the canal, so that the reader is able to orientate more quickly.

Locks

• Clarify that by "terminal docks" you mean those at the Manchester end

Docks and wharfs

• There's a punc problem with "Pomona Docks have also been filled in, and remain largely derelict except for the still intact No. 3 Dock,..." To get the sense I believe you want, the comma needs to be relocated after "derelict"
  • That sentence has been bothering me for some time: Changed to "Pomona Docks except for the still intact No. 3 Dock have also been filled in, and are largely derelict ...". Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Are the graving docks still active?

Trafford Park

• Tidy up some stuff after [nb4] and [35]
• Grammar: "Close to Manchester and at the end of the canal, Hooley intended to develop the site as an exclusive housing estate..." Needs to be something like: "Hooley intended to develop the site, which was close to Manchester and at the end of the canal, as an exclusive housing estate,..."
• "came to see" → "saw"?
• "Within five years Trafford Park, Europe's largest industrial estate, was home to forty firms" Largest in what sense - area, turnover, number of businesses? Was it Europe's largest by 1902? And why "forty" not 40? (also "fifteen" not "15" later?)

Other features on the banks

• Some brief description of the nature and scope of Salford Quays would be helpful

Manchester Ship Canal Railway

• "and connected to" → "and was connected to"? Transitive or intransitive, I dunno.
• The section seems a bit inconclusive. Does the railway still function? If not, when did it cease? If it is still running, an indication of its current scale of operation would be useful.
  • The railway isn't still functioning. I've added its closure date, which I was surprised to find was only a couple of years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Present day

• The Panama Canal was completed in 1914, which I think is more than "a few years" after the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal
• Last line: 8,000 not 8000.
  • The modern mathematical convention, as I learned a little while ago, is not to use delimiters for numbers under 10,000. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That concludes my comments. The article is informative, well-illustrated, and in general clearly written. After a little further work this will make a fine FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the effort you've put into this review Brian, it's much appreciated. I'll try and address all your outstanding points over the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Brunette Coleman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Here's a corner of the poet Philip Larkin's life that he kept pretty well concealed from public view in his lifetime. Then his biographer, Andrew Motion, spilled the beans; Larkin wrote racy girls' school stories under a feminine pseudonym! Shock, horror, outrage! Well, not really. Some find the stories funny and clever, some merely creepy. Others purport to find interesting links between these yarns and Larkin's mature verses. It's an amusing insight into what lay behind that po-faced exterior, of which, regrettably, no non-copyright images appear to exist. So if you know of one, let me know. Otherwise I'd be pleased if you would just review the article. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

• Why is the opening "Brunette Coleman" between quotation marks?

• "Larkin's Oxford years had been a period of confused sexuality". Confused sexuality for whom? The period of for Larkin?

• "The manuscripts had been stored in the Brynmor Jones Library at the University of Hull, where Larkin was chief librarian between 1955 and 1985." I'm a bit uncomfortable about the tense there; I'd probably prefer "were stored" over "had been stored".

• above three points all addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Thereafter Larkin's career as a prose writer declined; despite repeated attempts, no further novels were published." Is it really fair to say that his career as a prose writer declined, rather than that he increasingly turned his attention to poetry? Despite repeated attempts at what? Writing or publication? It looks like it's publication that's being referred to, but my understanding is that Larkin failed to complete any further novels after A Girl in Winter, not that he failed to get them published.

• I think it is fair to say that his career as a prose writer declined, in view of his repeated and unsuccessful attempts to write novels which continued into the mid-1950s. But I agree that "completed" rather than "published" is a better summary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Origins

• "From 1942 the character of much of Larkin's "secret" writing changed, as a result of his friendship with his fellow-undergraduate from St John's ...". Should "fellow-undergraduate" really by hyphenated?

• "After Amis's departure into the army ...". How can you depart into? Departure for the army?

Trouble at Willow Gables

Synopsis

• "The third paragraph begins by telling us that "Marie's absence is discovered", but the second paragraph has already told us that Hilary catches Margaret on a night expedition in pursuit of Marie, therefore at least Hilary must already have discovered that Marie was missing.

No, Hilary was in pursuit of Mary, who has just been mentioned as the object of her lustful desires. It's a pity Larkin didn't anticipate the possible Marie-Mary confusion, but there we are. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I must admit I mixed up Mary and Marie several times, and had to keep re-reading to make sense of it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Marie is exonerated, and her £5 returned to her." I'm not fond of that "her ... her".

Commentary

• "The presence of a publisher's inkstamp on the typescript's containing wallet, indicate that the story may have been submitted by Larkin for publication. I'm afraid I don't follow that at all; is that the wallet containing the typescript? In what way does the presence of a publisher's inkstamp indicate the Larkin submitted it for publication? And finally the apparent subject (presence) is obviously singular, so it ought to be "indicates that the story ..." anyway.

• I have changed the clumsy wording. I think it is reasonable, as does the source, to infer from a publisher's stamp that the script might have been sent for publication, and returned to Larkin, though there is no further evidence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The surnmanes of the characters, which were changed in Trouble at Willow Gables, are unaltered". Surnames?

Influences

• "Richard Canning suggests that the influence of these early works persists not only Larkin's attempts at novel-writing but in his poetry". I don't think that "novel-writing" should be hyphenated?

Sugar and Spice: A Sheaf of Poems

• "They are an early demonstrations of Larkin's talent for finding depths in ordinariness ...".

"What Are We Writing For?"

• "'Brunette' is pleading for what she calls 'the Classic Unities': Unity of Place, which is the school and its inhabitants ...". Why is Brunette in italics? "She's" called Coleman in the following paragraph anyway.

• I think you mean quotes not italics. I thought I had got rid of the quotes for all but the initial mention of the name in the main text, but I'll recheck. In the sources, "Brunette" and "Coleman" are used interchangeably. think I've more or less standardised it to Coleman, but again I'll check. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "They are not even valid pornography". Whose opinion is that? Diski's? The same with "Unlike serious pornographers ...". I presume that all of this material is Diski's opinion, but it perhaps ought to be made clearer.

• "In a similar vein, Richard Canning in The Independent found the Willow Gables fiction vibrant". Shouldn't Willows Gables"" be in italics?

Influences

• "The effects of Larkin's Coleman phase are clearly evident in his first novel, Jill, in which he makes copious use of Willow Gables material". As above, shouldn't Willows Gables be italicised?

• "He imagines her at Willow Gables School, and writes her long letters to her there".

• "It received better reviews than Jill, and moderately good sales". I don't think you receive sales?

• "When Marie, having broken away from the school ...". "Broken away from" seems slightly odd phrasing.

... more to follow when I've read the article properly. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Malleus. I have dealt with the minor issues, and replied, above, to your more substantial points. I look forward to the rest of the review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm done now, looks like a great article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, one more, from the Writing section: "the adoption of a female persona was in line with the pose of 'girlish narcissism' that Larkin was affecting at this time". When is "at this time"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• All fixes done now. Thanks again, and also for your useful edits. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tim riley comments

• Lead
  • "Poet and writer" – to be Beckmesserish about it, isn't a poet a writer?

• Yes, "writer" is inclusive. But somehow, to call Larkin a "writer" seems imprecise, and to call him "a poet" neglects his fiction and his copious literary and jazz reviewing. In the circumstances I feel that the slight tautology is allowable.

• Origins
  • A bit of a tease to tell us he failed his medical without telling us why. (I see the main Larkin article doesn't mention this.)

I haven't any of the books to hand, but IIRC the reason has always been a bit vague - I got the impression that his poor eyesight was a given reason, but that a nebulous sense of unsuitability clung to him (Hence my not giving a specific reason when writing the biog section of the main article) I'm sure Motion will give as much info as he can almost-instinct 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion is quite explicit: "A letter came by special delivery telling him that he had failed his army medical. His eyes had been graded four; he would not be called up" (p. 72) I've added the detail to this article, and will do the same for the Larkin biography. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible bit of fanciful false memory on my part. Sorry for that almost-instinct 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Writing
  • "was rapidly abandoned and never resumed, but the Coleman name was taken up" – rather effortful passives here: could be turned into active voice to advantage, perhaps.
• Trouble at Willow Gables
  • "the Sugar and Spice poetry collection" – this is the first mention of Sugar and Spice, and would benefit from a word or two here to put it in context
  • "the story follows the parameters of schoolgirl fiction" – I take an austere view of "parameters", but I see the OED has sold the pass: "Any distinguishing or defining characteristic or feature, esp. one that may be measured or quantified; an element or aspect of something; (more widely) a boundary or limit." Heigh ho!
• Sugar and Spice
  • "Ballade des Dames du Tems Jadis" – "temps", I assume
  • "Femmes Damnées" or (unlikely, second mention) "Femme Damnées"?
• Critical reception
  • "Before his death in 1985 Larkin had instructed his companion" – séances apart, it would indeed have been before. Perhaps "the year before", "some months before" or whatever it was?
  • "that broke the writing block that had afflicted" – "which" for the second "that", possibly? (even Fowler allows that)
  • "prelude to 'intensest time'" – definite article lacking here, one feels

Those are my few gleanings. A most unexpected and distinctly strange article. One can't imagine it being better done. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I have made the fixes you suggest, with the exception as noted. Thanks also for your helpful edits. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I notice that the Lead says, "Larkin's Oxford years had been for him a period of confused sexuality and limited literary output." But he destroyed five completed novels; so "limited ... output" might be qualified by a footnote: He was very productive, he just didn't try to publish them. If he had not destroyed them, they would have been published after he became famous. Just a thought. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give me the sources for the destruction of five completed novels written by Larkin at Oxford? I can't find any mention in Motion's biography. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I find the claim that he wrote five novels during his three years studying at Oxford to be highly implausible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. I don't think he could possibly have written five novels in his three Oxford years, as well as the stuff we know he wrote there, and on top of that, getting first-class honours with his degree. Also, if by some miracle he had written these novels, he would surely not have destroyed them all; he was a great keeper of his unpublished stuff. But above all, why would Motion not mention these works? I'd really like to know where this information comes from. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

Origins

• "A prolific writer since his schooldays... " - Maybe add a clarifying adjective before "schooldays" since he's still technically in school at Oxford. Or perhaps something like "since age 5" or since childhood?

• In the UK we don't consider university years as part of "schooldays", but to avoid possible confusion for my hordes of transatlantic readers I've made it "childhood". Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "a pastiche of sentimental woman's-magazine prose... " - "Women's" rather than "woman's"?

Writing

• "In his letters to Amis, Larkin maintained a straight-faced pretence that Coleman was a veritable person... " - Maybe just plain "real" instead of "veritable"?

• Could be; I'll think about it. I rather like "veritable", though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "a veritable person: in one letter he wrote... " - This is the third colon in this section. I'd consider a semi-colon, or am I just being tetchy?

• "Nevertheless, a week later Amis is told that Brunette was helping Larkin write a novel... " - The passive voice causes a bit of a lurch because the reader briefly wonders "told by whom"? It might be better to say "Nevertheless, a week later he tells Amis that Brunette is helping him (Larkin) write a novel... ".

Synopsis

• "She means to leave Willow Grange for good... " - Willow Gables rather than Willow Grange?

Commentary

• "Booth argues that, whatever Larkin's motive in writing it was, the story follows the parameters of schoolgirl fiction with some fidelity." - Delete "it was"?

  Certainly delete "was", but I think "it" has to stay"

Synopsis

• "Mary's ambition to play in the college hockey team... " - "In" sounds strange to these Yankee ears. Would "for" be better?

Commentary

• "Miriam was an acquaintance of Larkin's... " - This seems to be how we say it, but isn't "of Larkin's" a double possessive?

  I was uncertain about this when I wrote it. I've now resolved it by a complete rephrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Motion suggests that the loss of erotic impetus, and Larkin's evident loss of interest, are the main reasons why the story peters out. - In this context, "peters out" is funny, so maybe it is just right. If "peters out" was intentional, OK. If not, maybe "Fades out?"

  "peters out" is a common English (UK) expression meaning dwindling to nothing. "Fades out" has a slightly different meaning. "Dries up" might be OK, but I'd really prefer to leave it unless it will cause problems for the aforementioned hordes. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Peters out" has that meaning here too, and everybody will understand it. What amuses my naughty self is "peter" 's vulgar secondary meaning, "penis". However, the more I think about "peters out", the better I like it. Unless Puritans begin to shout, "Put that thing away!", it should be fine. Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we must definitely keep it in! I'm tempted to changed the article's title to "Peters Out"...(well, maybe not). Brianboulton (talk)@

Critical reception

• "Shortly before his death in 1985 Larkin had instructed his companion Monica Jones to burn his diaries. His instructions did not cover other writings, therefore the Coleman material remained in the archives of the Brynmor Jones Library at the University of Hull, where Larkin worked as chief librarian since 1955." - I'd like the verbs better if "had instructed" were changed to "instructed" and "worked" to "had worked".

• "when Larkin's Selected Letters were published... " - "Was published" since the collection is singular?

• in his 1999 essay "Unreal Girls: Lesbian fantasy in Early Larkin" - Cap F on Fantasy?

Notes and references

• "of the 1975 Faber & Faber paperback edition" - The main text says "Faber and Faber", which seems to be what the company calls itself here.

• The notes include two more references to "Willow Grange". Should they be "Willow Gables"?

Images

• Should the date on the license page of File:Schoolgirl01.jpg be 1918 rather than 1980?

Fine article, well-illustrated. Hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, most helpful. If I have not commented it means I have followed your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

Addressed Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede

• "... a fragment of pseudo-autobiography, and a ..."

  :... a fragment of pseudo-autobiography; and a ..."?

• "The adoption of a female persona evidently released him from his creative inhibitions, ..."

  "Evidently" seems redundant.

• These are fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Origins

• "However, the articles and poems that he wrote for publications such as Cherwell and Oxford Poetry were matched by material that he kept to himself, or shared only with a few close friends."

  The sentence does not seem quite clear here; is my assumption that the unpublished material did not see the light of day so as to speak because Larkin and his friends consider them unfit for public consumption?

• A reasonable assumption, though not meade explicit in the sources. I have rephrased the sentence for greater clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Writing

• "'All literary inspiration has deserted me', he informs Amis on 13 August."

  "'All literary inspiration has deserted me', he informed Amis on 13 August."?

• "Nevertheless, a week later Amis is told that Brunette was helping Larkin write a novel, ..."

  "Nevertheless, a week later Amis was told that Brunette was helping Larkin write a novel, ..."?

• "As late as 19 October he tells Amis that ..."

  "As late as 19 October he told Amis that ..."?

• All fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ante Meridian"

• "Larkin's biographer Richard Bradford ..."

  How many biographers did Larkin have? If there were more than two, then should they not be mentioned as "one of Larkin's biographers"?

• He had two: Motion and Bradford. Of course other biographical material exists, but these are the two full-length works

Trouble at Willow Gables: Synopsis

• "... but she protests her innocence despite a savage beating from Miss Holden, assisted by two burly school prefects."

  "... but she protests her innocence despite a savage beating from Miss Holden, who was assisted by two burly school prefects."

• "... and predatory lesbian, ..."

  I understand that a plot summary is generally understood to be cited to the source, but is this characteristic ("predatory") explicitly mentioned or supported in the story? If not, it should be sourced to a reliable source's commentary on Hilary.

• First point fixed. Second point: yes, her predatory behaviour towards Mary and to a lesser extent Margaret, is a major part of the Willow Gables narrative. The word itself is not used, but see Michaelmas Term note, below. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Trouble at Willow Gables: Commentary

• "... the original names evidently belonged to Larkin's real-life acquaintances at Oxford."

  I think again "evidently" seems redundant.

• Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Michaelmas Term at St Brides: Synopsis

• "Although Hilary has kept her roving lesbian eye, she has lost most of her predatory instincts, ..."

  Same issue as in the synopsis for the completed novel

• The precise wording in the story is: "Hilary's attitude was urbane and gentle, and entirely free from predatory tendencies..." Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Michaelmas Term at St Brides: Commentary

• "Motion suggests that the loss of erotic impetus, and Larkin's evident loss of interest, are the main reasons why the story peters out."

  I think the commas are unnecessary.

• I think it's a matter of stylistic choice rather than the rules of punctuation. It reads better to me with the commas in place. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sugar and Spice: A Sheaf of Poems

• Why is the subtitle "A Sheaf of Poems" not in italics? If it is a subtitle, perhaps it should be removed to have the header consistent with the others?
• "... Larkin's Collected Poems" published in ..."

  There seems to be a missing opening or an unnecessary closing quotation mark.

• Both fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"What Are We Writing For"

• "Coleman is pleading for what she calls "the Classic Unities": ..."

  If I am not wrong, the article did not posit Coleman as an individual until this point (earlier mentions were of "her" as Larkin, or merely "Coleman works"). This sentence as phrased seems a bit disconcerting to me in that the article suddenly presents Coleman as a person, not Larkin's pen name.

• Rephrased and clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Influences

• "The effects of Larkin's Coleman phase are clearly evident in his first novel, Jill, ..."

  Did Booth present this statement in his own view or was collating from a multitude of sources? If the former, it might be better to state that this is his opinion.

• Sorry, I omitted the citation for this sentence, which is Bradford, p. 57. The Motion citation at the end of the paragraph covers the brief plot summary for Jill. The Booth citation only covers the information in the first footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

References

• The Observer piece, "How the young Philip Larkin courted Trouble at Willow Gables", is by Emma Hartley and Vanessa Thorpe; their names seem to be missing here. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• I believe the "accessdate=" parameters should be filled when the source was accessed online (applicable for Soester, Canning, Rowe, Woolcock, Potts, Castle, and Hartley and Thorpe)? Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have added the authors' names to The Observer source. Re accessdates, my understanding is that if the source is a newspaper or journal article, it is not necessary to include an accessdate for the link to the online version. Some editors choose to do this, and that's OK if they so wish, but it isn't mandatory. All my recent FAs have been prepared on this principle. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Diski's review is available here and was reprinted in London Review of Books] (where Booth even replied)... Is it worth to link to either one for the reference?

• Well, since the LRB version of Diski's article is a subscription item, and Booth's reply doesn't touch on Brunette Coleman, I see no real advantage in adding it to sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• "accessdate=" for Cooper and Rowe per above

Images

• File:Schoolgirl01.jpg: Did you scan the image yourself or was it taken from here?
• File:St John's College tower and flag.jpg: I am not too impressed with this photograph to show Larkin's school. I think File:St John's College quad 2.jpg, File:St John's College quad.jpg, or File:St johns college oxford SP5106.jpg give a better image of the premises where Larkin would be walking around, studying and interacting with his fellow students.
• File:BrazilGirls1918.jpg: Was the image taken from here?

Images

• Using the cover of Philip Larkin: Trouble at Willow Gables and Other Fictions as a lede image: I can see arguments for and against doing this. Firstly, all the writings of Larkin as Coleman are compiled in this book and the article describes them; however, the primary focus of this article seems at first glance (based on the title) to be the persona adopted by Larkin and not the published material. It might be semantics (change title of article to "Writings of Brunette Coleman" or "Philip Larkin: Trouble at Willow Gables and Other Fictions"?), since the material covering the persona and the writings are pretty much closely interleaved with each other.

Just the above. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I have addressed all your general points, and will deal with the images issues shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Re images: I agree that your images for St John's College are all much better than the tower, which I lazily took from the college's WP article. I have replaced it with File:St johns college oxford SP5106.jpg. I have added the Project Gutenberg links to the two pics you mention. On the cover, if its fair use can only be justified by a change of title such as you suggest, I don't think it's worth it. As you seem to accept, the persona and the writings are really one and the same, and I can't see the justification becoming stronger by adopting one of what I think are manifestly weaker titles ("Writings of Brunette Coleman" is diminished by her non-existence, the other doesn't mention Brunette Coleman). For the time being I will leave things as they are. For the benefit of other reviewers who may have a view, this is the book cover in question. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Jacques Offenbach

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article with a view to getting it up to FAC level. All contributions gratefully received, on prose (as always) and on the balance between life and works, and in re the latter, the balance (?) between the operettas and everything else. And anything else, really. Tim riley (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Heart of Midlothian F.C.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I Have listed this article for peer review as looking to get all Scottish Premier League up to GA Standard.

Thanks, Warburton1368 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

I'm afraid there's an awful lot of work to be done before this article would be ready for a GA nomination.

• First an foremost, the article is very under-referenced, with whole sections lacking a single reference. Any statement that a sceptical reader could question needs a reference. In practice this means more or less anything that would not be common knowledge to a reader unfamiliar with the topic.
• Pretty much every paragraph is in its own subsection. This makes for a very disjointed read – imagine how jarring it would be reading a chapter of a book where there was a title above every new paragraph. There shouldn't be any need for subsections within the history section.
• The lead does not adequately summarise the article as a whole, see WP:LEAD or look at any of the featured articles about football clubs.
• The last 20 years have almost as much coverage as the preceding 120. This should be balanced out.
• Remove the list of kit sponsors, it is needless trivia
  • Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• The table of cup final results seems superfluous given that titles and runner-up are listed in the Honours section immediately above it. Any of the cup final results that are of particular note should be covered in the History section.
  • Removed. I have also removed the list of third places in the league, as I really don't see in what way that could construed to be an honour. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• As an outsider to Scottish football, I've always known Hearts as part of what might be considered a "second tier" of Scottish clubs, after the Old Firm. Hearts are usually among the clubs playing for third place, and occasionally seeking to take advantage of any dips by the Old Firm. I don't really get a sense of this when reading the article, so something helping to put across Hearts' standing within Scottish football would be useful.
• The Club culture section reads more like a list of trivia than a coherent section, again not helped by unnecessary headings.
  • Moved colours / badge to a separate section and rewrote the rest into a supporters / culture section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• The following clubs are affiliated with Hearts - how, exactly?
  • Commonality of ownership and transfers between the clubs (particularly FBK Kaunas to Hearts). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• For lists of staff, my own personal rule of thumb is that those not notable enough for their own article should not be included.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Look at me Now (Chris Brown song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GA status. Any comments and suggestions on how to improve the article would be great.

Thanks, Ozurbanmusic (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I see some large scale issues, so to give you an idea, I'll explain. First off, the article has a lot of short and choppy sentences: "The song's production was also praised. However, some critics criticized Brown's rapping skills." Also, there is absolutely no real background information on the song, its inspiration, recording etc. I'm sure you can find something. Next, the two images fail rational. What purpose do they serve? That he is wearing a red cap? Those are some main issues I would work with before giving small nitpicks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've found more background information and have removed the image. Are there any more suggestions/issues? Ozurbanmusic (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay. I'm back. Now I know I told you before to remove the music video screenshots because they were not helpful to the article, but you should add one maybe showing Brown in mid-dance and with those lights. You could add that critics complimented his dancing and the colorful imagery. If you cannot find an image online that fits the criteria, I can upload one for you, as I can crop images directly from the video. Next, the references look good, but you are missing one thing. When citing a newspaper, 9, 11, 15, you must use the "Cite news" not "Cite web", so that the publishers automatically come up in brackets. Other than that, dates are inconsistent (some are spelled out and some are in numeric format). Some, like 9 and the Rap-Up sources are missing publishers, and some like 31 are missing accessdates. Content wise, its a pretty good sized article with a song with only coverage in the US. The prose can use a bit of tightening, but are passable with through GAN after the editor posts issues. As of now, with this, I'd say your good with nominating.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok I've fixed the references. "You could add that critics complimented his dancing and the colorful imagery." – do you mean in the lead or music video section? And yes could you please upload the image just in case I get it wrong :) Oz ^talk 10:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Done! Tell me what you think :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Great image! Thanks for reviewing :) Oz ^talk 12:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
            

---

WMAQ (AM)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
While surveying the 5s range in Google News Archive's links (on LinkSearch), I came across this good-looking page on a Chicago radio station. I recall having spotted a similar topic early in 2007—and look how that one turned out! This time out, how far will the handiwork go?

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for you work and interest on this - I used to listen to WMAQ occasionally and did not know it was off the air. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and suggestions to follow - you already note the FA on the Mutual Broadcast system, which seems like a reasonable model (I would look at all FAs to see if other model FAs on stations exist - I know there is one on a British newspaper which may be useful too - see Sunderland Echo
• As currently structured, the article is all history. The MBS model FA has sections on programming by decade and on Legacy - I would think something like this could be done here too - Amos and Andy and Fibber McGee and Molly were two very well known radio shows.
• There also seemed to be little or no information on ratings, though there is some on the business side (sponsors)
• The lead is too short and is not really a good summary of the article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way Please see WP:LEAD
• Toolbox on the PR page finds several dab links that need to be fixed
• Article is WP:OVERLINKed
• Prose is OK, but would not pass FAC. For example It would be a few years (1927[21]) before the Daily News could buy out WQJ to make the 670 frequency a clear channel one;[22] Rainbo was one of the country's top ballrooms and Calumet's broadcasts brought the company much publicity.[23][24] First off, why not just say It would be 1927 before the Daily News could buy out WQJ to make the 670 frequency a clear channel.[21][22] Tighter and flows better.
• Second, a semicolon should be used when there is some sort of logical linkage between the two parts of the sentence connected by the ";" - I am mot sure what that connection is here. How does a clear channel flow into the Rainbo or how does the Rainbo follow logically from the purchase of WQJ? If there is a logical flow, it needs to be made clearer.
• Similarly in the lead, I would give the history in chronological order as it is easier to follow.
• Captions are one thing many readers look at before the rest of the article. Some are good, others are less than helpful - when I saw The former home of WMAQ and the Chicago Daily News. in the 1930s section I did not know what the building was and the photo file name and description also do not clarify this.
• Some things need refs like Sister station WMAQ-TV went on the air in 1948 and moved from an experimental station to a television pioneer. The call sign for the TV station was WNBQ a close match to the New York NBC TV station WNBC.
• Also needs a ref WMAQ eventually added more long-form news programming and some assorted call-in shows in the late 1990s.The highest rated long form show was Cameron and Langford – a nightly talk show with City Hall reporter Bill Cameron and WMAQ police beat reporter Larry Langford who grew up covering crime and politics in the 1960s. The two had a good mix of conservative versus liberal views and city versus suburbs.
• Make sure refs are from reliable sources - what makes this a RS?
• Or what makes Tom Gootee a reliable hsitorian of WMAQ?
• 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
• Avoid vague time terms like today in It was shipped to Chicago and became the acting main antenna until the original main antenna was rebuilt; it stands today at Bloomingdale.[2][58] "as of YEAR" works better
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

---

History of St. Louis, Missouri

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate for GA and eventually FA. I have done extensive rewriting and expanding, and there are multiple series articles with more detailed information. My main concern that there has been only one single-volume full-length text in the last century on the history of the city, so perhaps I have relied on it too heavily (and other authors of more specific monographs also rely on it). Also, I would like feedback on prose and scope, and anything else you care to share that you notice. Thanks for your help, poroubalous (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. History of the Australian Capital Territory is a FA and may be a useful model.

• Thanks for the model -- I have been looking at a few city histories as examples, but they were all pretty old (e.g. History of Miami). poroubalous (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are multiple dab links that will need to be fixed

• Fixed these. poroubalous (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The section headers do not always follow WP:HEAD which says not to repeat the article name or parts of it unless absolutely needed. So "St. Louis in the American Revolution" could just be "In the American Revolution" or perhaps even "American Revolution"

• Fixed this on several headers. poroubalous (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I know you want GA first, but at FAC language is the most difficult criteria for most articles to meet. One examples At the end of the 1800s, St. Louis was home to ragtime and blues composers, and at the start of the 1900s, it hosted the 1904 World's Fair and the 1904 Summer Olympics. 1800s is confusing - is it the century or the first decade? Try 19th century instead. I also think since years are given that "...and at the start of the 1900s, it hosted the 1904 World's Fair..." could be tightened to just "...and later hosted the 1904 World's Fair..."

• Fixed this; the blues and ragtime people lived there in the early 20th century, so I just tightened the whole thing. poroubalous (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• First sentence of "Exploration and Louisiana before 1762" needs some sort of time reference - when did the Mississippian culture (roughly) begin in the area?

• Added date and citation. poroubalous (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rivers have confluences, not sites Explorer Louis Joliet and Jesuit priest Jacques Marquette traveled the Mississippi River in June 1673, going past the confluence of the future site of St. Louis to the mouth of the Arkansas River.[3]

• Not sure why the prose was sloppy there; I rewrote the sentence and clarified what happened. poroubalous (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• What is the significane of 1762? This section never mentions that year and needs to

• I rewrote the end of this section and the start of the next in an attempt to clarify this. poroubalous (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is an image with the caption "The first Catholic church in St. Louis" but no mention of the church in the sections near the image. If it is worth an image, I would at least mention it in the text, or at the very least put the year in the caption.

• I added the date that's in the text to the caption and changed "chapel" to "church" in the sentences near the image to make this clearer. poroubalous (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Wikilinks are best when useful to the average reader and when they help people understand the article better. I would link the Missouri River (and other major rivers), but am not sure that I would link things like Flag of Spain or Flag of France

• Linked rivers, unlinked flags; will evaluate other links. poroubalous (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also make sure to provide context to the reader - you know a lot about St Louis and the area, so sometimes it is hard to realize readers from elsewhere in the world might not know basics about the area. As one example I would mention very early on that the Missouri River enters the Mississippi River a short distance north of what became St Louis. This could be done in conjunction with the Missouria tribe - mention they gave their name to the river which...
• Makes no sense St. Louis after the Louisiana Purchase initially was governed by a territorial governor from the Indiana Territory, and its organizational law forbade the foreign slave trade and reduced the influence of St. Louis.[32] If it starts as "The Louisiana Purchase was initially governed..." that is much clearer.

• I rewrote these sentences and linked to the district; hopefully made it better. poroubalous (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think I would mention slavery earlier - I know the Missouri Compromise is wikilinked, but non-US readers are not likely to know what it involved. The admission as a slave state is only mentioned two sections later.

• I added information on it to the city founding and early history section and tweaked the MO compromise part for clarity. poroubalous (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• General comment - these points are typically one example of several, so please look for more cases and correct as needed (as was done with the headers, thanks)
• Try to make sure useful information is presented where it does the most good, usually as early as possible. For example, I read As a result, Catholics in St. Louis no longer had a resident priest until the arrival of Louis William Valentine Dubourg.[47] and wondered when he arrived in St. Louis. I clicked on the link and looked at his article, then went back to this one. Two sentences later it says he arrived in 1818. I would move that to this sentence.

• Fixed. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also think specifics help - US Census data should be available for every decade after the Louisiana Purchase (starting in 1810). So instead of general sentences on population expansion like The population increase also stirred interest in statehood for Missouri, and in 1820, Congress passed the Missouri Compromise, authorizing the admission of Missouri as a slave state.[41] There should be some sort of data for increase in population from 1810 to 1820 (at least for the territory, and hopefully for St Louis itself).

• I pulled the census data table from the article as it was a little long, but I am not opposed to reinsertion, or at the very least, more mention of specific population figures. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was surprised Lewis and Clark are not mentioned except for a See also.

• I noticed that now, and concur that they need more treatment -- LC deserve some more love in this article and I'll see what I can do. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Headers are usuallly as telegraphic (concise) as possible - could it be "World War I and after" for example?

• I agree that concise headers are good, but I feel like "and after" indicates something related to WWI, whereas the interbellum period is more inclusive of the 1920s and the 1930s. I'm open to a change on it though to make it more clear. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• The unemployment table in this section seems like it must have an error. Total unemployment in St Louis in 1933 is given as 30%, but the figures for both whites and blacks are higher (35% and 80%). Was there really a large enough third group with such a lower rate of unemployment that it lowered the city's rate below that of whites?

• I am trying to track down accurate figures here; there is a problem. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would also provide years for more things, like the start of Prohibition and WWII (Europeans think of it as starting in 1939, not 1941)
• This is generally cited nicely throughout, but there are a few places where one or more sentences without ref(s) follow a ref. These will typically need refs too (especially for FAC). One example is The rise in automobile ownership and new highway construction enabled further suburbanization. The city reached its peak population at the 1950 census, and as suburban development increased, there was a steady decline in the city's population during the next several decades.

• I cited the second part, still looking for causal information about suburban development. poroubalous (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• You mention the reliance on one source in the intor to this PR. I agree that could be a concern at GAN and especially FAC. One thing that might help is to use other sources where possible - so for things before the 20th century, couldn't multiple citations be used (to older sources as well as the most modern one)?
• Similarly, there are a lot of sources listed under "Further reading" and it seems like they could be used more in this article. One example is the first on the Irish - there are 8 mentions of the Irish in the article, and it seems as if this source should useful in citing at least soem of those.

• Did this for Van Ravenswaay and for Faherty; I will keep it up with a few others. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also notice one source is listed in both the References and the Further reading, which is a no no (Zimmer, Keith B. Caulaty List)

• I checked this, and it's actually two separate sources (the references is for WWII, while the further reading is for WWI). poroubalous (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Where more than one ref is identical, they should be combined with the use of the "ref name = " tag. So for example, there are identical refs to 23.^ Drumm (1931), 643. 24.^ Drumm (1931), 643. which should be combined. I would also look at combining small page ranges in other sources - could Primm pages 1-5 be one ref, for example?

• I considered combining ref tags, but decided against it so that readers could see exactly where a statement was made; I did fix the 643 twice thing. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are probably other sources out there which may be useful - a history of the state of Missouri should have much of the broad material.

• There are -- I'm requesting them through ILL and a few other places. poroubalous (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Images are nice.
• Writing is pretty good - I think this owuld pass GA without too much trouble, but might have some issues at FAC (where a professional level of English is often the most difficult criterion for articles to meet).
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

• In the lede, does "Mound builders" have to have the "M" capitalized?

• Hmm. I thought so, but in retrospect, I have no idea. I'll look into this issue. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also, does "Prohibition" have to be capitalized? I've seen it both ways, not sure which is more preferred, if there is one.

• When it refers to the period of prohibiting alcohol in the US, it's capitalized. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Like Ruhrfisch above, I think a mention of Lewis and Clark's expedition is warranted somewhere in the article.

• I concur (see above). poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• (slightly unrelated note: History of St. Louis, Missouri (1866–1904) and History of St. Louis, Missouri (1981–present) are missing the references for the books)
• Maybe expand the "Suburbanization and population loss" a little—there were other causes behind the white flight, I'm sure.

• Ruhrfisch noted this area needs greater citation; I'm in the process of looking at a source that goes into more detail on the issue. Good point. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I added demographic information about 1960s population declines, but haven't found a lot that points to causation. Still working on this. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, racial divides, etc. could be elaborated on more. There's certainly been a lot of racial tension and controversy in St. Louis, e.g., housing complexes, workers during the arch's construction. Immigration in more recent years could also be discussed (e.g., most of St. Louis' Bosnian population, about 70,000 people, arrived in the 1990s and early 2000s—[7]).

• I concur, and I've been mulling an "African Americans in St. Louis, Missouri" article for a while now, but I'm having issues with sources. Immigration should be addressed, too -- good source. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's definitely a lot of information out there for such an article (e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), but Borders is out of them (stupid liquidation sales) and I'm not sure my library has all of them, either. I'll see if I can dig anything up. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I added some info about the Bosnian community and recent immigration in general. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also just noticed the article History of the Jews in St. Louis, Missouri, so something about the growth of the Jewish population in St. Louis. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a good source for Jewish history, and the article you linked isn't well-sourced either. I'm going to hold off on adding a lot until I can track down good stuff. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Pruitt–Igoe" has an endash, not a hyphen.

• Fixed. poroubalous (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in more artistic and cultural history. For example, the Wainwright Building was one of the first skyscrapers every constructed, and the architecture of St. Louis, Missouri article probably provides more on architectural history. For beautification, projects like Citygarden could be mentioned; there's also very little discussion of Forest Park and its assorted museums/institutions; and no significant discussion of the development of universities/colleges in St. Louis. Sports history also deserves a bit more attention (the St. Louis Rams aren't mentioned), and I've yet to see the Fox Theatre or St. Louis Symphony Orchestra mentioned.

• All valid points. poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I added Fox Theatre info and early SLU and WashU info; I have a source for SLSO history; I don't have a good source yet for Rams, but that won't be hard to get I think. The article already has info on the origins of the St. Louis Art Museum and the St. Louis Zoo in Forest Park, but needs to mention the St. Louis Science Center and Missouri History Museum. poroubalous (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Very picky, I know, but if you're going to split the article into subarticles, you can fit more good stuff in! :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• The issue I have is trying to keep it within WP:SIZERULE. I've had to cut and remove information several times into the subarticles, but I'll keep working at it. Thanks for the review! poroubalous (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• One possibility, and this should probably be considered after you've finished up everything so you know how big the article actually ends up to be, is to re-order the sections by subject rather than time (e.g., start with early history, but then go on to cultural/art/architecture, religion, industrial, race, education, recent developments, etc.). But I do like the chronological ordering, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  

---

James Tod

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

• I am not 100% sure that the organisation is optimal, since some points are introduced in one place but discussed more deeply in another
• There is quite a complex backstory to the subject, in terms of his worldview, and I would appreciate feedback regarding the depth of coverage in this regard
• Just a general check prior to a GAN run. Three admins (therefore, s/b experienced!) have commented positively but it has been significantly expanded in the last two or three days. Subject to my second point, I do not anticipate further expansion.

Thanks, Sitush (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thank you for your work on this most interesting article. I find the "Worldview" section especially interesting in that it explains to me a kind of imperial thinking that I'd not read about before. I have limited knowledge of India and its history, and I find this account fascinating. Here are my suggestions:

Infobox

• I'd suggest adding an infobox, either {{infobox person}} or another from the list of possibilities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes.

Map

• Readers unfamiliar with the geography of early 18th-century India would probably find a map quite helpful. For example, where is the Sindia mentioned in "who had been appointed as Envoy and Resident to a royal court in Sindia"? Or, rather, where did the peripatetic court usually reside? What did Tod mean by "central India"? Would it be possible to find, scan, and upload his topographic map from a book no longer protected by copyright? Where was Marwar? Rajputana? Where were Mughal and Maratha in relation to Rajputana?

• Tried & cannot find a PD copy, which seems bizarre to me. Have appealed on the India project talk page. It is printed in Freitag's biography but I am wary of copyright (specifically, derivative). - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Thinking about the map made me want to know a bit more about Tod's educational background. What did he study, and where? How did he know how to make maps that included geology as well as topography? Where did his ideas about nation-states come from? Was romantic nationalism taught in school? Was it something that would have been reinforced during his military training? Where did he learn how to do research and how to write? He was largely self-taught in some areas such as philology, it seems, but what did his early formal studies include? Who reviewed his work before publication? Did he collaborate with other historians and scholars?

• There is no extant knowledge regarding his education, beyond that already stated. I have added a note to this effect. Annals was apparently self-published but I need to confirm this before adding. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "died in 1835 aged 44" - His birth and death dates in the first sentence are separated by 53 years. Something's amiss with the numbers.

• D'oh, an inherited statement. Fixed, per ODNB. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Tod's major literary works have been criticised, both in contemporary and modern literature, as containing inaccuracies and bias." - "Contemporary" is vague, I think, because it can mean contemporary then, or it can mean "modern".

• Yes, it was confusing, Now fixed by simply removing it. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• "However, they are highly regarded in some areas of India, with the Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation naming an award after him in 1997, and it was for some time widely read by British colonial officials in India." - In this sentence, "it" is ambiguous. It does not refer to "award", and it does not echo "they", which in turn refers to "works".

• Yes, it was confusing, Now fixed. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Worldview

• "the Rajputs had merely swapped the onerous overlordship of one government by that of... ". - Shouldn't that be "for that of" rather than "by that of"?

• Fixed. Spotted this while you were reviewing. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• "saw the system as one one that prevented achievement of true nationhood". _ "one one" is a typo.

• Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reputation

• A minor point: nothing should be linked from within a direct quotation. "Philology" should be unlinked in the phrase "excursions into philology".

• Will do. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Another minor point: ISBNs should include the hyphens. A handy ISBN converter lives here.

• Done. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Books should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. That kind of information as well as ISBN and OCLC numbers and other data can often be found via WorldCat.

• Done. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

• Was already aware. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Winter Olympic Games

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am in the end stages of FAC prep and I need another set of eyes to make sure I'm not missing something nit picky. It's failed at FAC twice and I'd really love for it to pass this time. Thanks, H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies: This somehow fell off my worklist. I will get to it tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, that's the beauty of this thing, there are no deadlines. Take your time. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I've done the history; the rest will have to wait until tomorrow. It's an impressively thorough article, which I am enjoying reading. Mostly my comments relate to minor prose issues, but there are a few general points as well.

General points

• The lead is perhaps two overdetailed. The article's first paagraph is not really the place for listing details of changes in events over the years
• I don't think the sentence about Pyeongchang warrants mention in the lead.
• Early years: Every fourth year after 1905 takes us to 1925 not 1926
• "The Olympic Flame was lit in the fireplace..." What is meant by "the fireplace"?
• Sondre Nordheim died in 1897, so I doubt he actually lit the 1952 flame!
• "Miracle on the Ice" should be explained, rather than requiring use of a link. Likewise "Baltic States"
• What is the "super-g"?
• As a matter of interest, was there any action taken against the judges after the 2002 pairs figure skating competition?

Prose issues

• First line: "ocurring" → "which occurs"
• Try to avoid close repetition of "every four years" in second lead paragraph (e.g. "at four-yearly intervals")
• Avoid verbosity, such as in "It created an income stream, via the sale of broadcast rights and advertising, which has become lucrative for the IOC." which could become "It created for the IOC a lucrative income stream, via the sale of broadcast rights and advertising". Check for similar instances where simplification is possible.
• The nest sentence ("This allowed...") looks to me as though it needs a "however".
• "In 2014 Sochi will be the first Russian city to host the Winter Olympics" could be simplified to "In 2014 Sochi will be the first Russian host city".
• Early years section: "abandoned and officially cancelled" seems overdoing it. Why not just "abandoned" or "cancelled"?
• "noteworthy" isn't hyphenated.
• 1948 to 1960: "After not being able to host the Games in 1944, Cortina d'Ampezzo was selected to organise the 1956 Winter Olympics". Not sure that "after" works here. The sense is: "Because it had been unable to host the Games in 1944..." etc
• 1964 to 1980: lapse into sports report jargon - "sweeping all four..."
• Be consistent with "Winter Olympics was" and "Winter Olympics were" (both occur)
• You can't hold things "on" a date range (February 6–16).
• 1984 to 1998: "At 16 years old..." → "At 16 years of age..." ?
• "Johann Olav Koss of Norway won three gold medals coming first in all of the distance speed skating events". Surely "coming first" is not necessary? "...won gold medals in each of the three..."
• 2002 to present: "to ever host" → "ever to host"
• Give year of Salt Lake City games
  • Perfect, this is exactly what I needed, thank you also for making edits as you move through the article. I'll wait to work on it until your review is finished. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing:-

Controversy

• I've copyedited the end of the first paragraph. Can you check that I haven't changed your intended meaning, in particular: "... with ceilings imposed on the value of gifts IOC members could accept from bid cities".

Host city legacy

• "Turino". Don't you mean "Torino" (the Italian form), or "Turin", the anglicised equivalent? (I note you use "Turin" later)
• The information about the "Turino" costs should perhaps be a parenthetical note, since the focus is not so much on this particular comparison but on the massive Nagano spend.

Commercialisation

• "By the Grenoble Games" → "By the time of the Grenoble Games" ?
• "Brundage's concerns proved prophetic." You should not make judgmental statements, unless they can be cited to a source.
• "This has been done to boost ratings, which were slowly declining until the 2010 Games" Clumsily expressed, and I'd recommend a rephrasing along the lines: "Their concern has been to boost ratings, which were in slow decline before the increase registered at the 2010 Games".
• The information in the last paragraph of this section largely repeats details given earlier, and could be edited down.

Cold war

• "The successful Soviet athlete was feted and honoured..." Sounds like there was only one. Suggest: "Successful Soviet athletes..." etc
• "In 1978 the United States Congress responded to these measures by passing legislation that reorganised the United States Olympic Committee". Doesn't tell us much; how was this a respose to the Soviet practice of rewarding successful athletes?

Boycott

• Again, some of the information has already been given - see the "1964 to 1980" section

Demonstration events

• Petty, I know, but the first two sentences each begin "Demonstration sports..."
• "Bandy; described as ice hockey with a ball, is a sport popular in the Nordic countries and Russia, which was demonstrated at the Oslo Games". Needs some atttention - grammar dubious at present.

That's me done. You will see that I have made a few edits as well, so you had better check these. As I said before, a most impressive article; please let me know if/when you propose to take it to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I have a lot to work on and you've given me confidence that perhaps these runs at FAC are not a total waste of time. I'll poke you on your talk page when/if I am back at FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Portrait of an American Family

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA status. All the feedback will be very well received. Thanks, Ls883 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

You have a nice article here and I commend you for your work to bring this to WP:GAC. I'll give feedback based on the GA Criteria.

Lead

• The lead needs to comply with WP:LEAD. Make sure all the topics on the body of the article are summarized in the lead. I don't see anything about the original dissatisfaction with Manson Family Album recording, which spawned Reznor's involvement. This should be in the lead.
• I'd like to see a summary of the album themes in the lead as well. Paraphrasing the quote is fine.
• I think the final two paras in the lead can be combined. Just an opinion though.
• I don't see a mention of the Hot Topic store release or fan's reaction in the body of the article. This should be addressed.

Background

• The writing is a little rough but will meet GA quality.
• Take a look at WP:LIST. This is another WP:MOS requirement in the GA Criteria. Whenever possible try to make lists into prose. I'm looking at the list of differences between the two albums. I think this list could be expanded into prose, which would better conform to the MOS.
• There are no references in the "track listing" or "differences" subsection, not that this is an absolute requirement but it would strengthen this portion of the article.

Themes

• Can more be found here? Are there third party interpretations of the album and its themes that could be incorporated?

Music

• Why are some of the songs not outlined in this section?
• There is very little sourcing here, which needs to be addressed. Where are you getting the information?
• Per WP:LAYOUT, try to avoid one and two-sentence paragraphs, combine or expand whenever possible.
• The section entitled "samples" features a list of American cultural references. The section name doesn't really seem to fit the subject matter.
• See my previous comments about the list, I think this list could also be made into prose.
• No references in the Samples section either.

Promotion

• Is there anything else that can be added here? A one-sentence section is frowned upon.
• No references here.

Release

• No references here.

Tour

• How did the tour do? Did it help Manson's career or spawn further recordings?
• No references here.

References

• Ref 1 needs to be expanded. Try using a template like {{cite web}}. This will help make the references uniform. All refs should have a minimum of a title, publisher, url (unless it's a source that isn't online) and accessdate.
• Ref 8 is a dead link and should be repaired.

Overall

• The biggest weakness with the article is the lack of referencing. This needs to be beefed up before taking it to GAC.
• A couple of MOS compliance issues with the lead and the use of a couple of lists that could be prose.
• There could be a little more put in, like descriptions of all the songs and the promotion of the album.
• Put in information about the Hot Topic release.
• You're well on your way, the sourcing will take the longest but once you address that issue and the MOS stuff you should be fine. If you have questions or concerns please poke me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is looking decent (much better than it looked during its GAN a few years ago) but I'm sure that more work needs to be done. I know that the prose needs tweaking in some areas and I often notice grammatical errors as I scan the article. A thorough copy-edit would likely help. Anyways, some constructive criticism would be appreciated.

Thanks, GroovySandwich 23:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tintor2

• The lead does not require references per WP:Lead making sure everything within it is sourced in the article's body.
• Considering the body's length, the lead could be expanded to three or four paragraphs to cover more subjects (the maximum amount is four paragraphs).

I've expanded the lead somewhat but I'm not sure if it's sufficient. Writing leads is not exactly something I'm great at and I ended up just rehashing plot points--GroovySandwich 02:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The file Three Super Saiyan Stages of Son Goku.PNG does not seem very useful now that infobox image also features Goku's transformations. Nevertheless, the infobox image also shows other characters besides Goku, so that could be a trouble.

I've been thinking of replacing it with a singular image of the character. Will get to that soon--GroovySandwich 02:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Infobox image replaced by image that depicts Goku's most common appearance--GroovySandwich 08:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The voice acting section needs formatted references rather than the current ones.
• I don't think that the abilities section would a problem with GA goals, but with FA it may be.
• Appearances and Appearances in other media are very separate from each other. Maybe they could be joined with their respective subsection titles.

 Done Combined, with the latter now a sub-section--GroovySandwich 02:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Considering the character's popularity, critical reception could be expanded, but I think it's okay for a GA.

Anyway, the article is looking very good. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!--GroovySandwich 02:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am trying to get this article up to FA quality. It went through a first peer review last month, and I think I've addressed the issues brought up at that time, and I would like to have it checked again now to see if it's ready, or if other changes need to be made.

Thanks, Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting and timely article. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• "The citizenship status of Wong (a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1870) was challenged[1] because of a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens,[2] but the Supreme Court ruled that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress." - This sentence is perhaps slightly too complicated for comfort. I might break it up something like this: "The citizenship status of Wong, a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1870, was challenged[1] based on a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.[2] Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress."

• "but no such proposal so far has ever succeeded" - Tighten by deleting "so far" and "ever"?

Background

• I think it would be helpful to include a bit more about the original reasoning behind the Chinese Exclusion Act as well as the original reasoning behind the citizenship clause. Readers can find out about these things by clicking through to other articles, but it would be much handier for them to be able to get a sense of these things without having to leave the page. Foreigners in particular will not know who the citizenship clause was meant to protect or from what. They also might have no idea why Congress would want to exclude the Chinese. These things are all partly explained in the "Dissent" subsection, but that might be a bit too late.

Opinion of the Court

• "The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause... " - Here it is 14th, but earlier it is Fourteenth. I'm not sure which is correct. The Associated Press uses 14th, and generally Wikipedia uses digits, unless they start a sentence, for numbers bigger than nine. However, this might be an exception. In any case, I'd make them consistent within the article.

• "The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth – namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[26][27])—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act)." - Too complex. I'd rewrite this as two or three separate sentences.

Dissent

• "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not". - Generally, nothing should be linked from within a direct quotation since the links were not part of the original. WP:MOS#Linking has details.

Criticisms... "

• "introduced as H.R. 1868" - I'd spell out and abbreviate H.R. on first use: House Resolution (H.R.) 1868. Otherwise, foreigners will have no idea what it stands for. Ditto for S.J.Res. 6.

References

• ISBNs should include the hyphens. I see only a couple without hyphens in the reference section. A handy conversion tool lives here.

• Citation 3 and the others with the "text" link should include access dates.

• References to books should include the place of publication. See citation 16, for example.

Other

• It would be interesting to know if any ethnic groups other than American Indians and Chinese have ever been legally excluded from U.S. citizenship even though born in the United States after passage of the 14th Amendment. For example, U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry who were locked up during World War II temporarily lost at least some of their Constitutional rights; were they still considered citizens?

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Dr. No (film)

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

This isn't just a good article: this is a very good article! I would like to see it as a contender for FA status and any thoughts on improving it to reach that standard would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, SchroCat! (^ • @) 14:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Thus far I have only worked through the first few sections. Here are my comments; I have also made a few edits to deal with a few issues I found with the prose.

Lead

• You should mention somewhere that the first Bond film of all was Casino Royale (Climax!) in 1954

✗ Not done Not sure it's classified as a film: it's a one hour TV show only. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• The "However" sentence is too detailed for the lead and could be omitted

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Parts of this section lack clarity, as noted below. I'm also surprised that the plot avoids any mention of a couple of characters, Sylvia Trench and Miss Moneypenny, who are quite significant.

✗ Not done Neither Trench nor Moneypenny are significant in terms of the plot - maybe in terms of the series as a whole, but certainly not integral to the plot. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "During his investigation Bond sees a picture of a boatman named Quarrel with Strangways." Obscurely put: "During his investigation" is too vague; by "picture" do you mean photograph? How does he know the boatman is "Quarrel"? I think you need to extend and rephrase the sentence.

 Done (I think! - let me know if it's still vague!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Bond recognises Quarrel as the driver of the car that "chased him from the airport". Then, "the fight is interrupted by the man from the airport who has been following Bond". So he was "chased" and "followed" (earlier you said he was "shadowed") from the airport by two different people?

 Done (again, let me know if it's still vague!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "After finding a receipt in Strangways' house about mysterious rocks naming, Professor R.J. Dent, Bond meets ..." I can't work out what this means

 Done (again, let me know if it's still vague!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Link "assayed"

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cast section

• Rather too much information here that has already been given in the plot section. A few words of identifying information per character would suffice.

I'll look over this section again tomorrow when I'm less tired! - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Now  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also avoid descriptions such as "crafty goon".

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

• Most of the information in the final paragraph is not "Background". Rather it is production and post-production detail.

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also in the final paragraph, one costing and conversion is given in US$, another in £ sterling. These should be standardised in a single currency.

Not sure Any idea where to get a £->$ conversion at 1964 rates? Will do it if you know where we can work it out accurately - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Writing

• This sentence seems particularly tortured: "It was followed by Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather working on Maibaum's script,[35] with Harwood in particular being described as a script doctor who helped put elements more in tune with a British character, given Maibaum is American." There must be a simpler and shorter way og getting this information over.

Again, I'll look over this in the morning when I have a clearer head... - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Now  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• "would remain substantially true" → "have remained substantially true

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is surely not necessary to say that the film "has many similarities to the novel" - it would be most odd if it did not. Suggest: "Dr. No follows the novel's basic plot, but there are some notable omissions".

✗ Not done Actually a number of the Bond films differ greatly to the novels - only On Her Majesty's Secret Service really sticks to the book, whereas Moonraker the film has almost nothing from Moonraker the novel. See Differences between James Bond novels and films for more examples. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• The final paragraph of this section is overdetailed for an encyclopaedic summary article. I believe it could be beneficially dropped (it has little to do with "writing", anyhow)

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and finish this tomorrow or the next day - I am a little overstretched at present. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing this: It's looking much better already and I'll go over the other parts very shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Brian's points above. Thanks for your work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many film FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
• The (1962) in the first sentence of the lead seems awkward to me  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• 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 see no mention of the soundtrack or comic book in the lead.  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Try to avoid vague time terms like "curently" - The film was followed by a successful series with currently 22 films and a 23rd planned for release in 2012. Perhaps something like The film was the first of a successful series of 22 Bond films; a 23rd is planned for release in 2012.  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think I would put the gun barrel sequence into just one sentence in the lead - as it is this seems needlessly repetitive: Many of the iconic aspects of a typical James Bond film were established in Dr. No, beginning with what is known as the gun barrel sequence. The film begins with an introduction to the character through the view of a gun barrel, and a highly stylised main title sequence, both created by Maurice Binder. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The plot seems like it could be tightened in places - two examples follow
  • He also tells about the island of Crab Key, owned by the reclusive Dr. No, who operates a bauxite mine which is rigorously protected against trespassers by an armed security force and low-scan radar. could be something like These include Crab Key, owned by the reclusive Dr. No, who operates a bauxite mine protected by an armed security force and radar. (is low-scan important? Also is the mine on the Key - this is not clear to me (I think it is but it is a while since I saw the film)  Done (I think this is now better, but please let me know if it could do with a further tweak) - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Whilst searching Strangways' house, Bond had found a receipt concerning rock samples; the receipt had been signed by Professor R.J. Dent. Note that many FAC reviewers do not like "whilst". This could be tightened to Bond found a receipt in Strangways' house signed by Professor R.J. Dent, which concerned rock samples.  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• I will repeat the point made above - the Cast section should not repeat most of the information already covered in the plot (or in detail elsewhere). So Sean Connery as James Bond: A British MI6 agent, number 007, is sent to Jamaica to investigate the disappearance of the local MI6 station chief and its possible connection to an ongoing joint investigation with the CIA. (See also the process which resulted in the selection of Connery as Bond.)
• Also I owuld make the Cast section just a short description of the actors and characters the portray. Information on the Casting process should probably be in its own section, similar to model FAs and what is already there on the selecting an actor to play Bond (this could be a subsection of Casting). For example this material The producers chose Andress just two weeks before filming begun, after seeing a picture of her taken by her then-husband John Derek. To appear more convincing as a Jamaican, Andress had a tan painted on her and ultimately had her voice dubbed over due to her heavy accent.[3] I would note she had a Swiss German accent too. Similar info on casting Dr. No etc. could be in the Casting section.  Doing... - will take a little more time to do this bit properly as it's an important and possibly major edit. It's interesting the variants across the various FA articles from names only (such as The Lord of the Rings) to 4 or 5 lines on each character (such as Richard III or The Mummy). I'll endeavour to strike the appropriate balance on this – and possibly on a more ‘beefed-up’ casting section too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - slimmed down cast section with details worked into a narrative and placed in the Casting section, with Connery's casting as separate sub-section. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be careful with links - make sure to link on the first occasion (The Blind Mice is linked on second appearance), or Crab Key is linked only after many appearances.  Done (Crab Key link removed as it re-directs to the Dr. No Novel only) - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure what this means - did Fleming visit the set? If so, say so. They shot a few yards from Fleming's Goldeneye estate, and the author would regularly visit with friends.[50]  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The article on the bikini says sales of bikinis took off after the film - could be included in Legacy. Not sure - Do you mean the BBC article by Kathryn Westcott? I can't see where it says the bikini took off after Dr. No... If I've missed it or got the wrong article, please let me know. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:See also says to generally avoid links already in the article.  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)  Done Should be okay - we were very thorough when writing that we put the right things in quotation marks and paraphrased correctly - all to a high academic standard. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:36, 25 August 2011 (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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Liverpool F.C. in Europe

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has recently achieved GA status, but I would eventually like to get it to Featured status. So I was wondering where the article could be improved and if there is anything that needs adding. Cheers NapHit (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I have to admit I am not much of a football fan and not very knowledgable, so perhaps that makes me a good reviewer in terms of things that need to be explained to an interested reader with little knowledge beyond the basics of the sport. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are no FAs on football clubs in Europe, but there are quite a few "History of ________ F.C." featured articles that may be useful models. See History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966), History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present), History of Bradford City A.F.C., History of Gillingham F.C., History of Ipswich Town F.C., History of Norwich City F.C., and History of Stoke City F.C.
• I think this sentence would benefit from being more specific Since being reaccepted in 1991, Liverpool has qualified for either the Champions League or the UEFA Cup in most seasons to date. so perhaps Since being reaccepted in 1991, Liverpool has qualified for the Champions League X times and the UEFA Cup Y times as of 2011.
• I am a big believer in providing context to the reader - see WP:PCR - and think that this article would benefit from clearly stating the number of European competitions possible in the lead - I am pretty sure there are only two: the oldest and best is the UEFA Champions League (European Cup) and the second olest and second best is the UEFA Europa League (UEFA Cup). The problem for me as someone who knows very little about European football is that I thought at first the qualifiers for these cups were also somehow European competitions.
• Similarly I think it would be useful to start the body of the article a breif paragraph (before the Shankly years) The paragraph could have a sentence on the history of the European Cup (founded in 1955 and when English teams first competed), followed by a sentence on the history of Liverpool FC (founded in 1892, first played in the European Cup in 1964), and last a sentence on the start of what is now the UEFA Cup in 1971.
• Article should be consistent on identifying nationality of teams played - I knew Reykjavik was in Iceland already, but was not sure where Anderlecht was (thought it was in the Netherlands).
• Can all red strip be linked - assume it is their uniforms but thought that was called kit The next round against Anderlecht was the first time that the club wore their all-red strip.
• Now I see there is also a UEFA Cup Winner's Cup - this should also be made clearer in the lead and in the intro paragraph - I thought it was just the old name for the second highest cup.
• And now I see there is also the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup - the problem is that there is this zoo of various European competitions and someone who does not know all the names and histories of the various cups is hopelessly confused by the end of the Shankly era (if not earlier).
• Along the same lines, it might help to identify ENglish or British leagues and competitions as such on first mention
• Language is good, nice images
• Generally well cited but this needs a ref Liverpool's victory over Sunderland in the 1992 FA Cup Final qualified them for the 1992–93 European Cup Winners' Cup, but the campaign was short-lived, and they were eliminated in the second round by Spartak Moscow. Liverpool finished no higher than sixth in the Premier League during the next two seasons and thus failed to qualify for European competition again until the 1995–96 season when they entered the UEFA Cup, but again progressed no further than the second round.
• as does this In the next two seasons, Liverpool played in the UEFA Cup but were eliminated in the early rounds, first by Strasbourg and then by Celta de Vigo. A seventh-place finish in the 1998–99 FA Premier League meant Liverpool did not qualify for Europe in 1999–2000.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think some sort of "European competition" section at the start would help. This could explain the histories of the various cups, the names they go by, and how a team can qualify to play for them. I think there should also be some sort of ranking of the cups - which is the best, which is runner up, and which are less prestigious. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PS If there is a section on European competition, then I would still have one sentence on Liverpool FC at the start of the Shankly section (They were founded in 1892, perhaps their number of British championships before appearing in their first European match). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Popotan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I believe I have finally found a source that I was looking for that could possibly stand up at an FAC review linking the game to the caramelldansen meme. The article had been languishing at GA-status for a while, but with this I would like to have it checked out. There may be a bit more info in the official handbook, but I have to go over it carefully since its in Japanese and my skill level with that is relatively limited. Barring that info (most likely it would be development or character info), I'm seeing what is good and what could be improved.

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 00:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is all just basic observations. I haven't taken time to read the article in any detail.

• I'm pretty sure that it is bad form to have singular subheading/subsection under a parent heading/section. There should be at least two sections under a parent sections if there are any subsection to begin with. Considered combining the subsections into its parent section or further spiting the parent section into additional subsections. For example, combine "Development" and its subsection "Release information" into a singular "Development and release" section. "Anime series" similarly needs to be addressed, probably by giving the first part of the section its own subheading.
• There is an excessive amount of references. A statement generally needs one reference to fulfill WP:V. However, several statements have up to four references. Having that many references disrupts the reader's ability to read and ultimately comprehend the content. Consider removing redundant references unless they are absolutely needed (such as the first reference not fully support the statement) or switching to Harvard style referencing similar to what is used on Manga.
• A {{clearleft}} should be added at the end of "Gameplay". This will prevent the next section from wrapping around the the image in and unsightly way on wider screens. In fact, it is generally a good idea to add a {{clear}} or one if its variants to any section with a floating object where you don't want the next section to wrap around the object.
• One other issue I spotted is that the date format in the reference section is not consistent. Just as with dates in the article, the dates in the reference section should have a consistent format, either matching the format used in the body or YYYY-MM-DD (MOS:DATEUNIFY). I generally prefer the former over the latter. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. —Farix (t | c) 12:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I reduced some referencing. I'll tackle the dates later. I tried to use {{clearleft}}, but it just made the page look worse with huge whitespace (because of the large caption).陣内_Jinnai 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• initial comments and impressions, more to come, prolly:
  • "The title Popotan is meant to reflect the prominence of dandelions, spelled tanpopo (たんぽぽ?) in Japanese;[n 1] "Popotan" is a nonsensical word, comparable to saying "liondandy" in English.[1][2][3] It also uses the flipped "-tan" to call the dandelions by name." — Is this really that important? It doesn't spell out where or how dandelions are prominent, and giving us a language lesson in the middle of the lead seems odd and undue weight for the matter.
  • "The game uses character position and size to show the characters' relative relation to the protagonist. Ai (left) is closer while Mii (right) is off to the side of the room further away." — This caption seems odd; why is describing a basic principle of perspective relevant to the game?
  • "A special music mini-game commences at certain points in Mii's scenario." Who's Mii? This hasn't been introduced.
  • "Finishing Ai's scenario unlocks a new story featuring Unagi. " — Same as above. Should the character/synopsis setting come before this?
  • "...though certain explicit scenes were removed." — Source?
  • "Various sculptures and buildings feature a flower motif, and every scene contains actual vegetation or floral symbols." That last part seems like it needs a citation.
  • A lot of the "characters" section is redundant with story information given in the next subsection.
  • "The first release of Popotan on CD-ROM suffered critical errors, such as memory problems and the inability to get certain girls despite following their path correctly. " This means what, exactly?
  • "Petite Ferret issued a hot fix on January 10, 2003" — a "hot" fix?
  • For the chart rankings, just using numerals instead of spelling out rankings would make it a lot easier to read.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • As for the name, knowing the name is probably somewhat key to understanding it as it plays a central role in both the visual novel and moreso the anime. There is one point in the first episode of the anime where they actually have one of the characters ask "Aren't those dandelions? (Tanpopo in the Japanese language version)" and they respond in the negative reaffirming that they are "Popotan". As for the lesson itself, it could be removed I suppose, but it should be made clear that it is still a nonsensical word based on Tanpopo aka dandelion.
    • The first screenshot has the caption because the text mentions that character position zooms in-and-out and back-and-forth based on their relative position to the player so mentioning that in the screenshot shows the relative positions of the characters. I guess maybe a second screenshot would help clarify it? Although I'd hate to add too many fair-use images.
    • Video game articles are structured to have gameplay before plot and characters because (i guess) its generally viewed as more important. If visual novels are going to be an exception, I'd have to bring that up at Visual novel task force and perhaps the main video game wikiproject. I can wikilink to the characters and mention maybe a 2-word objective description in gameplay, but anything more would be radial departure from the standard layout.
    • "...though certain explicit scenes were removed." — Source? - The source is the game itself. I have both copies and it is general Sony policy to not allow Adult-rated material for PS2 games. I can remove the word "explicit" or "certain explicit" if that is the problematic word, but i'm. using the video games as general sources (i'd use more specific, but {{cite video game}} is missing some key elements that core has not implemented (in spite several attempts to ask them to) that are needed for a proper non-linear format.

      I'm not sure otherwise how to explain something where one would expect to explain that the storyline differs in each version, but only with specific content. The websites don't mention this nor do the games and they are both rated CERO18, but it is considered common knowledge that PS2 games could not contain explicit sex scenes.

    • Character section - I'll have to look at that.
    • "The first release of Popotan on CD-ROM suffered critical errors, such as memory problems and the inability to get certain girls despite following their path correctly. " This means what, exactly? - I don't remember the memory problems (I don't know if those were detailed, but I could check) and the latter meant that if you played the game properly (like following a walkthrough) you could still not "win", ie get the romantic ending/sex scenes with certain girls. I don't know what happened exactly to stop that nor which girls; the details were not mentioned in their patch.
    • hot fix - I'll rephase it. It's essentially an urgent patch to fix critical aspects that make a program unplayable or unbeatable. I'll see what others have used here.
    • I think I did, but some indy copyeditors I asked must have spelled things out.陣内_Jinnai 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I would say that given that explicit is a variable definition and you cannot attribute citation to graphic elements within a video game that it really needs a better source as material likely to be challenged. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay well I recently found out they re-rated the game for the PS2 as CERO D. If I could find something similar for the PC game as CERO Z, would that suffice given that its verifiable both from primary and secondary sources that the game is sexually explicit? The lower grading for D was created specifically for games that weren't quite as explicit sexually or violently.陣内_Jinnai 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
          

---

SHPS

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

This article recently was gutted by an editor whose IP Aderess is that of the subject company. It seems to have lost any neutrality and refrences removed. Feed back on improving this article would be appreciated. Thanks, Reviewer872 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Peer review is not appropriate at this point. WP:PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate". This article looks as though it needs to be reconsidered from scratch. At the moment it reads like a company blurb. I think that the fitst question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of this article supposed to be? If it is to gain publicity for the company, then this is the wrong track entirely. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Troilus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been a GA for some time and I'm wanting to gauge how much work is needed to bring it to FA. Thanks, Peter cohen (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting and important article. It appears to be comprehensive, and the prose, often a problem at FAC, is professional. The article is nicely illustrated. On the other hand, I think the level of detail here may overwhelm many readers. It's always tough to decide how much is enough, but I would say that the article in its existing form probably includes unnecessary detail. I would think about ways to summarize more succinctly for a largely non-academic readership. Here are some other suggestions:

• The heads and subheads should be telegraphic and shouldn't start with "the", "an" or "a". For example, "The standard myth: the beautiful youth murdered" would be better if compressed to "Standard myth: beautiful youth murdered".

• While much of the text seems reliably sourced, other parts lack inline citations to sources. Paragraph 2 of "The story in the ancient world" is an example, as is most of "The standard myth: the beautiful youth murdered" and the third paragraph of "The story in the medieval and Renaissance eras". To meet FA standards, you will need to comb the article for claims without sources and either find reliable sources or delete the claims. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual (not common knowledge), as well as every paragraph.

• Some of the sections have too many extremely short subsections, which makes the layout choppy and makes it difficult to add images without violating the layout guidelines of the Manual of Style. The sub-subsections of "Other written sources" are examples of this. I'd think about merging the shorties to make longer sections into which images fit nicely without displacing heads or edit buttons and without overlapping sections.

• The images and their licenses should all be in tip-top condition. I didn't check them all by any means, but I see that the lead image is a GIF, which is only used on Wikipedia for animated files. Since this one is a photograph, it should be uploaded as a JPG. See WP:IUP#FORMAT. The license for File:Achilles seizing Troilus.jpg is incomplete because it lacks a publication date in its summary section and because there's confusion about who the author is. In this case, I would add the date of the photograph (which can be found in the camera details at the bottom of the license page) to the summary, and in the "Author" line I would say, "Anonymous. Photograph by User:Haiduc." The idea is to make every license as clear, complete, and correct as possible and to make it easy for fact-checkers to verify the licenses.

• No links to external sites should be embedded in the text. The first of these appears in "Ancient art and artifact sources". Use inline citations instead; the links will then appear in the Reference section. The text will need to be changed too from "Occasionally, as on the vase picture at [40]..." to perhaps a textual description of the vase.

• Use bold sparingly, as per WP:MOSBOLD. Instead of bolding individual words like pursuit in the main text, you might use italics.

• I'm repeating myself here. The article appears to be comprehensive, but it might contain unnecessary detail. Most readers are not academics, and I doubt that many will want to consider the quotations in the "Description in medieval texts" section, for example. Could this and other material be summarized succinctly to greater effect, perhaps, with the general reader? It's a question of audience.

Other

• The dab checker at the top of this review page finds four links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• Page ranges and date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. I ran a script that found and fixed a large number of these, but the script did not quite catch them all. They will need to be fixed by hand. There's still one in the caption of the lead image, for example.

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

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Turban Head eagle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA in due course. Sorry about the fuzzy images, I did the best I could but it was difficult.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a long wait but I will do it this weekend) Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Not many issues here; the usual professional job, and of course the now expected inconvenient deaths which seem to haunt every generation of US coinage history. Most of these points can be easily fixed.

Lead

• "The number of stars on the obverse was initially intended to track the number of states in the Union, but that idea was eventually abandoned in favor of using 13 stars in honor of the original states." There are 15 stars on the illustrated obverse. I understand why, but readers may wonder about this; is "eventually abandoned" a little vague?

Inception

• "Coinage of eagles followed shortly afterwards, although the exact date is uncertain." Are we talking here about the Turban Head Eagle, or some predecessor? If is indeed the Turban Head, shouldn't this information be given in the Production rather than the Inception setion? We need to read about Design issues before details of their production, or about Washington's supposed hoard.

Design

• "They are identical to designs used on other silver and gold coins of the period, the more so since..." Identical is identical; there can't be any "the more so".

Thoughts on a rephrase? Modern coins say their value, the 10p coin in your pocket says what it is. The Turban Head gold coins have identical designs, and do not say their value (this was added after 1804; they kept striking the smaller pieces.

• "In support of that position"; I'd say: "In support of his argument..."

Production

• "it struck few eagles then, giving priority to more popular coins". Can you clarify "then", e.g. "in those years"?
• "The eagle was especially desired by exporters, as the larger size and value made it more convenient to handle." How does this reconcile with the statement earlier in the section: "The eagle ... was too high in value for many transactions, and rapidly became unpopular."?

It was unpopular as a spending coin, yes. However, it was very popular as a coin to be melted. It takes half the time to count them than for half eagles of the same value.

1894 issues

• "Although the Mint coined 1803-dated eagles into 1804..." The "into" is a little confusing Perhaps "in", or "after the start of"
• What is "Fine-12" condition?

We have a very brief explanation of coin grading at Mint state, but it is already linked in that sentence.

• The sudden mention of the "Plain 4 pieces" had me scurrying back to see if I had missed something. I gather, however, that you are referring to the four that were minted as gifts to foreign rulers. This needs to be clarified, together with an explanation of this name.
• What is the basis for Albanese's belief goiven in the final sentence?

Hearsay and rumour, from his experience as a coin dealer who has dealt with this series.

That is all. Sorry to have taken so long. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You have my admiration for doing so many reviews, my resolutions to do more expire regularly. Probably United States Bicentennial coinage will be next. Unhappily, while the Bicentennial coins were a mixed bag, successes and failures on different levels, they are not really very exciting, so I am hopeful I will find more sources. I intend to let the coin area lie for a while after the ones I have in process, I should go back and finish work on the R&H series. That will take some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get the article to featured article status. It recently passed the Good article review and I'd like to identify any potental issues or things to improve before submitting it to FAC. Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Step One: Go through every single reference and make sure they work and change the access date to the current date...external links here are mostly sound.--MONGO 03:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Before I submitted the article to WP:GA review, I ran the article through webchecklinks and fixed all the broken links. I just ran it again, and there are no dead links, but there are a few redirects. I can look into those, but do you really think it's necessary to update all the access dates? There are nearly 300 links in the article. Should I check each one manually or does running webchecklinks count? Manually checking each one is going to take a lot of time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
    • quick observation based on reading fac, check them all, cause someone else will and will make a stink about it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Have a think about WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and how the article would be viewed by those using a screen-reader. If you don't supply alt text for an image, a screen-reader is likely to announce the filename in its place. For some filenames that can be very annoying, and you can give much better information to visually-impaired readers with well-chosen alt text. Remember the caption is announced immediately afterwards, so pick your alt text to complement the caption, not repeat it. There's a tutorial on improving the accessibility of data tables that's worth a read. For example, the table in the article would benefit functionally from changing the first row "Deaths (excluding hijackers)" into a caption – although you may not find the way it is rendered as aesthetically pleasing, it is worth it for the benefit it brings to the visually-impaired. Hope that helps, on behalf of the "entourage", --RexxS (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm not familiar with WP:ACCESSIBILITY, but I'll read through it and work on it over the weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lead section should not contain any references. Instead, these references should be transferred to the article's body, unless they are redundant.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not accurate, read WP:LEADCITE. Information in the lead that is not general and is likely to be challenged may still need a citation. The MOS further advises that complex, current or controversial subjects may require many citations in the lead, and 9/11 is arguably all three. If the lead contains a statement that is not repeated in the article body then that needs a citation regardless. Hut 8.5 10:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For a non-featured article, that's true. A featured article, however, should have a perfect lead section, and a perfect lead section does not contain any content that is not included in the text's body. In many cases, the disputes that have occured are not about any specific content was supported by some reliable source, but about whether the source is up-to-date, whether the words used in the source are encyclopedic, what the majority of sources say. In many cases, the sources that are actually being used in the lead have not played a central role in bringing these discussions forward.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Again that's not accurate. WP:LEAD says that "this does not mean that everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text", and it is not correct to say that "a perfect lead section does not contain any content that is not included in the text's body". It's not a case of "remove all citations from the lead", they have to be considered on a case-by-case basis and evaluated by editors. Hut 8.5 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I took a look at the last 4 featured articles that appeared on Wikipedia's main page (Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia, Oort cloud, Kylfings, HMS Lion (1910)) and 3 have cites in their lede and 1 doesn't (although for one of the articles, they only have 2 cites in their lede). But there doesn't seem to be any rule against having cites in the lede so I would think what we have now is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity regarding citing leads in FA's, but I think it should either have many or none...I also think that since this has been at peer review for almost 3 weeks and there have been few issues discussed, it needs to be taken on to featured article candidates.--MONGO 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm a fan of formulaic 'rules' to determine issues like citations in leads. I rather think rational analysis should guide us. The best lead sections should serve to define and introduce a subject, and then summarise the rest of the article. I can see little value in citing the summary part of the lead, since it will already be cited in the relevant part of the body of the article. But surely where the definition and introduction bring up a claim that is likely to be challenged, we ought to be citing that? Such claims are most likely not repeated and cited elsewhere in the article.

Having said that, I agree with Mongo, you've probably got as much as you can from peer review, and the article looks in pretty good shape to me (at least once you've finished the alt text), so why not move on to FAC? --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I just finished adding alt text, so if there are no more suggestions being made (after over two weeks in PR), it's time to get it to FAC. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

List of Rihanna songs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done to make the article/list become a Featured List.

Thanks, Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note have you list her unreleased (confirmed), live covers and soundtrack songs? Just a general note. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  She hasn't done/released any of those three. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone continue this please? I feel like because it's at the bottom of the PR article no one really knows it is here waiting to be reviewed, and it really wouldn't take long. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MarcusBritish

• Fix the References, they current use 3 date styles - Retrieved on 2009-11-29, Retrieved 25 December 2010, Retrieved February 15, 2009 - including the word "on" in one of those. Needs to be consistent: pick one wording and style, change them all to it. Possibly not your fault, but previous editors, either way a clean-up won't take 2 mins. Can't say much else, I don't how FLA criteria relates to music articles. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 01:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Bradley0110

• If you want this to become a featured list, you need to look at the Featured List criteria and ensure the list adheres to every point. For example, does it have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria"? I'd say no; the lead is a single sentence of 12 words. Hardly engaging. Does it "make suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour"? No again; a table format would suit this list as a way of dividing up song titles, year of release, album and featured artists. Those are just examples. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  Okay thanks. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Belovedfreak

To be honest, there's not a great deal here for peer reviewers to comment on. The article is still very much under development and the amount of prose is very small. Presumably you're aware of the FL criteria, so what exactly do you want reviewers to comment on? You seem to be frustrated by a lcak of in-depth reviews, but PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". If you're looking more for help with actually writing or structuring the article, perhaps contact a relevant wikiproject or editors who have created similar lists? (By the way, you have a dab link in the lead, and just a suggestion - I would personally use "Barbadian" rather than "Bajan" as the latter is apparently a shortened form of the former.)--BelovedFreak 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I've never edited for intention of taking a list to FLC, and the criteria is just something to go by, so if people could explain what needs to be done to make it an FL, it would be highly resourceful. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Sheriff Hill

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi folks. I've been working at this article for over a year now and would like to see it progress from GA to FA. If someone could have a review and offer any suggestions for any changes/amendments which might help prepare the article for a FA nomination I'd be most grateful...

Cheers, Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, this article went through quite a thorough peer review when it was nominated for GA, so if I were you I would just go for FA; FAC is a horrible process, but whatever the outcome, it will definitely be more of a peer "review" than waiting months at peer review. Bob talk 17:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bob...I'll give this a few more days and, failing anything substantive, I'll take your advice Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This article was reviewed by Ruhrfisch in March 2011. That review contains no acknowledgement or details of your responses. It would be very helpful to have a summary of how you have responded to Ruhrfisch's points, in particular the important one about copyright violations.

 Done All of the material at issue related to William Clarke; an industrialist who lived in Sheriff Hill. There is very little written about Clarke, so I simply took everything out Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that this article is ready for FAC, where it will be judged against much sterner criteria than at GA. My first reaction on looking at it was surprise at its length, for a small town with just 5000 people (8720 words). The article is longer than those for Newcastle (8041), Manchester (8547) and Birmingham (7733), and more than twice that of Durham (4213). The amount of information you have is impressive, but perhaps overdetailed. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries rather than exhaustive repositories of minutiae.

I am open to suggestions as to what might be removed. Prior to GA I removed a lot of material after an earlier, similar comment but from here I am honestly loathe to remove material simply because the article is longer than some others. What information do you think is superflous? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the lead, and found a few issues:-

• Are the names listed in the first paragraph all towns/villages?

They are all villages Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• "City of Durham" or "city of Durham"?

The former is preferred by convention in academic texts Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The 2001 census is 10 years in the past, so "had" rather than "has"

 Done Had is better, I agree. Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that "pottery" would be better than "potting"; I had to use the link to check on what "potting" meant

✗ Not done Not sure I agree with this- the correct term is potting and I have linked the word in the article to assist those who do not know what it means Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• "A regular haunt of bishops and judges..." Hmmm. Bishops aren't that numerous a species, and in those days, travelling around was not easy, so it's hard to envisage how a group of bishops could fetch up at a local country inn. Also, you don't mention bishops in the main text. Another point: if the town's name ultimately derives from the marches of the judges and bishops, what was it previously called?

Both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Durham are mentioned in the history section of the text under the section 'Sheriff's March'. Whilst you might find it hard to envisage that these chaps 'fetched up at a local country inn', there are reliable sources (cited in the text) to demonstrate that this was so and was why the village was named 'Sheriff Hill'. The village was one half of Gateshead Fell prior to it's official naming. I had included details on this originally but took them out and placed them in a new, seperate article instead to reduce the length of the article Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• "principle landmark" → "principal landmark"

 Done Indeed... Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Once the site of one of Gateshead's largest boarding schools, Sheriff Hill is now served by Glywood Primary School." This wording suggests that the latter replaced the former, but of course they are two entirely different kinds of school.

 Done The former was demolished and replaced, on the same site, with the latter, but the point is valid and I have reworded this slightly.

• The word "entire" towards the end is unnecessary.

 Done Removed

Looking a little further down the article:-

• Ruhrfisch's point: you need to say clearly what "Gateshead Fell" was, rather than forcing readers to use the link.

 DoneI've added some extra detail which (I hope) remedies this issue Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another Ruhrfisch point - lack of date information in the History section. The Sheriff's march and Sodhouse Bank/Sheriff's Highway sections are particularly short of years, so the historical scale is difficult to grasp.

✗ Not doneThe 'Sheriff's March' section contains a starting date, an end-date and confirms that the march took place bi-annually. I'm not sure what other dates are required? As for the 'Sodhouse Bank' section, I presume you want a date for the name change but I am afraid I do not have one: there is no reliable source to state when this happened so far as I can tell! Anicdotal evidence from residents gives me an idea of when the name changed but this is certainly not reliable for WP purposes, whilst the change is evidenced on OS Maps but as these were not taken annually I cannot provide an exact date Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Governance section: here is a clear example of what I meant by overdetailing: "The 2010 council election turnout was 50.5%, an improvement on the lowly 27.7% turnout at the 2008 election which was achieved in spite the introduction of postal voting in an attempt to increase voter turnout. The British National Party polled over 10% of the vote in 2008,[18] but their vote fell to 7.6% by 2010.[19] Likewise: "The present incumbent is Ian Mearns MP, who lives in nearby Saltwell, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. Mearns was selected by the party in March 2010 to contest the newly formed Gateshead seat in place of David Clelland, formerly the Labour MP for the now defunct constituency of Tyne Bridge who stepped down in January 2010". I really don't see how this level of detail is necessary in a summary encyclopedia article about Sherrif Hill.

 Done Okay, I have removed the superflous material Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am not an images expert, and I think you will need to check the licencing of each image carefully with someone who is. One I looked at was File:QE foundation stone.jpg; I can't see how this is going to be PD in the United States.

All of the images are either mine or are Gateshead Council PD images. They are available online and are available for use on WP as UK crown PD images Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look through any more, but to summarise, my chief concerns are (1) length/overdetailing and (2) lack of specific responses to the last peer review, and evidence that some points raised there have not been addressed. I'll be happy to look again, when you have given some consideration to these points. Please ping my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is very helpful: I'll have a good look at the points raised over the next day or so... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Toxic (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it from GA to FA.

Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

• Background
  • " it was announced by MTV News" Is that important?
    • How is it not? Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That it is Spears' favourite song would be better in the Legacy section.
    •  Done
• Composition: Some of the critical reviews don't quite gel with the other text, and look like they've just been slapped in there; the Spin quote works as does the Nick Southall analysis of the lyrics, but I don't see why the IGN quote is there.
  •  Done
• Critical reception: This section reads like a series of endless quotes lined up together. You should structure the section by theme, e.g critics' opinions on lyrics, style, relation to artist's other work. Only use quotes where you can't recast the opinion into your own words (otherwise you just wind up with "so-and-so of Blah magazine said this, so-and-so from Bluh website said that").
  • That's the standard for song articles though? I based it on 4 Minutes (Madonna song).
• Chart performance: This is good but the sales figures should be "as of".
  •  Done
• Music video development: This section is quite informal and anecdotal. You can recast it to focus more on the making of the video rather than the opinions of Joseph Kahn with just a couple of word changes. For example, instead of "He explained that he was marveled at how she approached him with a fully formed idea for the video, down to the smallest detail, exemplifing the scene in which she drips water in the passenger's lap." have "Spears approached Kahn with a fully formed and detailed idea for the video, exemplifying the moment she drips water into the passenger's lap." Try this in the rest of the subsection.
  •  Done. Also expanded it.
• Synopsis: This is good. The comparisons to other videos and to films are well placed.
• Release and reception
  • "The music video premiered on MTV's Making the Video on January 13, 2004.[53] The following day, Spears appeared on TRL to premiere the video." It premiered twice?
    •  Done
  • I know there's a link to it but a short reference to "Janet Jackson's Superbowl incident" would help readers. Placing "in which Jackson's breast was exposed on live television," after the comma should be enough.
    •  Done
  • "Critics at the time received the video as Spears's answer to her ex-boyfriend Justin Timberlake[...]" This is quite a weak sentence and the citations don't quite fit; what form does this "answer" take? Do you mean like an answer song? Callahan and Farber say "Rumors are swirling that the erotic kissoff is her stab at revenge on former squeeze Justin Timberlake, who is now with actress Cameron Diaz." which isn't their own opinion, rather it is reported rumour. The Vineyard article makes reference to "Cry Me A River", although you've only quoted from the article title, which could have been written by a subeditor rather than Vineyard herself.
    •  Done
• Cover versions: Again, a good section, but hampered by the laundry list format.
• Legacy: Good first paragraph but are all the uses in television/film in the second paragraph necessary? I think it dilutes the rest of the section's accounts of the influence the track has had.
  • Moved it up to the Cover versions section.

Bradley0110 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Whitby

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article was recently the subject of a co-operative improvement effort by WikiProject:Yorkshire. We would like to get it to WP:GA standard.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Lead

• Is there a reason North Yorkshire is linked, but not England?
  • England is not linked per WP:OVERLINKING. personally I would link on first occurrence but they say not to link countries. North Yorkshire is linked as it is not expected that people would generally know where that is and is useful for background information on the area involved. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• As the information about distance from York and Whitby's relation to the River Esk seem unrelated, they should probably not be included in the same sentence.
  • Split sentences--Harkey (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• I was slightly confused by the sentence from the coast, but understood what it is trying to say after looking at the map. Could you clarify the coast is the coast of Great Britain?
  • Done--Harkey (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Instead of "The settlement", it might be good to change to "A settlement", especially as the settlement was apparently destroyed by the vikings at one point.
• Don't just say "Whitby is known for its ammonite fossils", instead explain why. Are they particularly common or of good quality?
  • Done--Harkey (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• In popular culture sections are often discouraged from articles; it's very surprising to see information about such a thing in the lead, and if a mention of Dracula remains in the lead more context should be given.
  • Whitby's strong cultural and historical heritage are an important feature both physically and economically.--Harkey (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• It's suggested that the lead should contain information from every section, even if just a word or a phrase.

History

• The sentence relating to Caedmon needs to be rewritten. Words like "miraculously" sound quite WP:Peacocky, and the sentence doesn't explain much in the way of context.
  • Added quotes. It was considered by contemporaries to be a miracle.--Harkey (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the Abbey section is almost all unsourced.
  • Added sources.--Harkey (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• In town, explain who the burgesses are and explain what the dissolution was.
  • Linked--Harkey (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• How is the Resolution an important ship?
  • Linked
• The first paragraph of 19th century is too short to be a standalone paragraph.
  • Joined up.--Harkey (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Change "the railway" to "a railway".
  • Done. Keith D (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• The third paragraph needs sourcing. In addition, it's probably too small to be a standalone paragraph.
• Combine the first two paragraphs of 20th century and source them.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Add a comma between "fishing fleet" and "however".
  • Done. Keith D (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Governance

• It would be good if you could explain what "Ratepayers" are, either in the history section or here.
  • Done--Harkey (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Source the first paragraph and combine it with the second.
  • Done--Harkey (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• The start of the second paragraph seems out of place chronologically.
  • Done--Harkey (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Can more information be added about services provided by each level of government?
  • Done--Harkey (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography and geology

• Reword the first sentence, it seems like it just runs on.
• The second paragraph seems fairly unrelated to geography and geology. Although information about land reclamation may be pertinent, the information about companies etc. seems like it would be better located elsewhere.
• Is the Rotunda Museum notable enough to get its own mention here?
• Link geographical fault to Fault (geology)
  • Linked. Keith D (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove "As part of the United Kingdom" from Climate. Whitby's being in the UK does not create its weather.
  • Text removed. Keith D (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• I would remove the climate header, as if only one paragraph of information can be gathered it hardly seems like it should have its own section.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, more information on geology would be useful, as it seems incomplete somehow.

Demographics

• Be prepared for a 2011 update!
  • First information will be released in October 2012.--Harkey (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This will probably affect every UK location article so it will be a major change when the information is released. Keith D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• The whole second paragraph seems to be better suited to the Economy section than here.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• I would suggest moving some other sections, possibly Religion and Education, under the demographics section. In addition, information on other aspects, ethnic makeup/ancestry, immigration, etc. is needed.

Economy

• What's in this section is good, but somehow it seems like more could be added. There's a lack of statistics, surprising as it is an Economy section. Are there really no industries within the town itself? Perhaps a note of when previous industries mentioned in history shut down would be useful.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Transport

• Make sure each item in this section is sourced. The sources do not appear to cover everything included in the text.
• Spell out "deadweight tonnage"
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• It may be good to note the location of the nearest airport.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Are there any ferry services?
  • Sadly, no.--Harkey (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Public Services

• As I mentioned above, Public Services sounds to me like something that should be subsectioned under governance. The small amount of information included in governance (street lighting etc.) should be moved into here.
• Does the Yorkshire Ambulance Service apply just to the Whitby Community Hospital? What level of care can this hospital provide?
  • Done, linked.--Harkey (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Landmarks

• The sentence "The stone steps are around 200 years old and were completely renovated between 2005 and 2006" should be located before its current preceding sentence.
  • Re-arranged, somewhat.--Harkey (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• What is the elevation of the East Cliff?
• The fourth and fifth paragraphs need sourcing. So does the last sentence of the final paragraph.
  • Done, sources added--Harkey (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Education

• Could any more information be provided on these schools? Their size as well as how they are funded seem to be the most needed information.

Religion

• Don't say there were no Hindus, there is no point mentioning just 1 religion of which there were no practitioners.
  • I have removed Hindus and reordered list largest to smallest as seemed random order. Keith D (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Details on St. Mary's Church should be in the Landmarks section, with this section just covering its religious affiliation and the number of practitioners.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sport

• Is there a special reason the Red Arrows were singled out for mention? They shouldn't be described as a "spectacle" anyway; not a very neutral tone.

Culture

• What is Pannett Park?
  • Linked as Public park.--Harkey (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• The picture here is of the Whitby Pavilion, yet this phrase is not mentioned explicitly in the text. Perhaps expand the caption slightly?
• Another picture here would compliment this section nicely.
• I would make literature, and perhaps Sports, a subsection of Culture.
  • Section combined as "Culture, media and sport."--Harkey (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Literature

• It may help readers if you indent the quotes slightly.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if a list of works which reference Whitby is helpful. For a start, it's unsourced.*Done, sourced and list trimmed. --Harkey (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)I would also say if the relevance of Whitby to the work is no more than a simple passing mention, and not enough to even earn it a sentence on this article, it shouldn't be mentioned on this article.

People/Twin Cities

• Make Category:People from Whitby a see also somewhere else, I'd suggest Demographics.
• Sources needed for two of the twin cities.
  • Done.--Harkey (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot fo work that's been put into this article, and it shows a very high level of local knowledge. However, this is detrimental in some areas, notably history, where the article assumes too much knowledge from the reader. When editing, place yourself in the mind of someone who has never heard of Whitby, and perhaps someone who knows nothing about the UK. Make sure any words which are specific to the UK are explained. Anyway, I enjoyed reading this. All the comments above are suggestions, you may take them, adapt them, or leave them as you please. I ahve this page watchlisted in case there are any questions. Good luck with GAN, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Sulfur

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Why?

Here's why this article is here. Despite the article failing the B-class criterion, there are sufficient references to prevent a cleanup tag from being inserted. I think that this is a nice article, just waiting for references and some occasional content gaps to be filled.

Important: Check whether the article meets WP:B? during the duration of this review, and update related pages if so.

FREYWA 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by stone

• Where does the sulfur in Sicily come from? The salt dome deposits are well explained and the volcanic sources are also clear, but why sicily?
  •  Done FREYWA 03:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• The possibility to produce sulfuric acid also from pyrite should be mentioned and that that method was historic the more important one until sulfur became cheap by using the Frash extraction method. The price spike in the last years lead to the start of sulfur production from pyrite I read somewhere?
  •  Done FREYWA 09:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Now the text says that pyrite was a source for sulfur which is wrong. pyrite was the main source for sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid production shifted to sulfur as starting material after it became cheaper to produce from sulfur than from pyrite.--Stone (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The article deals with sulfur, not sulfuric acid. Stay on track. FREYWA 03:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Pyrite was never a source for sulfur via sulfuric acid. The text now is wrong. Stay with the facts.--Stone (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Look here! FREYWA 02:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Where? In the book I find no mentioning of large scale production of sulfur from sulfuric acid. Or does the sentence say, that pyrite was a main source for sulfuric acid a sulfur compound?--Stone (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Page 43. Sulfur, not sulfuric acid. FREYWA 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• The history section deals with the use in furniture decoration. Was this the only important use in Modern times?
  •  Done FREYWA 03:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Fungicide and pesticide says "Some livestock owners set out a sulfur salt block as a salt lick." So they use it to kill fungi and pest within the livestock?
  • I don't know who did it, but it's  Done. FREYWA 08:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Characteristics Physical
  • The ionization energies and the most stable oxidation states can easily go into the chemistry section.
    •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the fact that it is an isolator also responsible that it is was used to produce static electricity?
    •  Not done Please be more specific. FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Characteristics Chemical
  • This section is way too short.
    •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Characteristics Allotropes and Polymeric sulfur
  • Is the polymer an allotrope?
    •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Natural occurrence
  • The transformation of sulfides to sulfates during weathering when in contact with the oxygen containing atmosphere might be worth mentioning.

• Production
  • Sulfur block storage of sulfur in Kazakhstan and Canada due to the low price.
  • Sulfur concrete as a sink for the unwanted sulfur.
    •  Done FREYWA 08:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The prize shock in the 2000s due to a very short phase in which more sulfur was consumed than the producers could deliver. (The million tonnes of stored sulfur were not available fast enough.)
    • Oh, you mean the 2000s commodities boom?  Doing... FREYWA 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Not really the price rose from 2007 to 2008 700% [14] with an average price of $262.32 in 2008 and an average price of $1.73 in 2009. The peeking at $618.50 and the free fall to 0$ in the following year make a nice story.--Stone (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Fixed it, but it's a bit shaky.  Done FREYWA 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The major consumer of sulfur the sulfuric acid production can shift to pyrite as source if necessary, but only if they have time to do costly modifications of their factories.
    •  Not done FREYWA 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Applications Sulfuric acid
  • Is ther newer production number?
  • Is a catalyst needed for the process? contact process (DCDA) or the wet sulfuric acid process
  •  Not done: this is about sulfur, not sulfuric acid, like I said earlier. That info would go to the sulfuric acid article. FREYWA 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• History
  • The 1840 sulfur conflict between France and Great Britain.--Stone (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC) doi:10.1177/026569149502500201
    •  Done FREYWA 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Then powdered sulfur is put on top of the sulfur deposit and ignited. As the sulfur burns, the heat melts the sulfur deposits, causing the molten sulfur to flow down the sloping hillside." - sulfur is used to extract sulfur? Bulwersator (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And 5x sulfur in two sentences is a bit strange Bulwersator (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done FREYWA 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by RJH

• Several sections lack citations.
• A number of sections seem too short.
• These don't quite make sense to me:
  • "...leads to its negatives charge..."
  • "with more respect to +4 and +6 states"
    •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• "...mentioned for its uses in ancient Greece, China and Egypt": I'd use either historical or alphabetical order for this list.
• Some of the wording seems a little awakward and could benefit from judicious editing:
  • "...with this name still used in several nonscientific terms"
  • "because of the relatively high requirement of plants for it"
  • "with height of the figures caused due to electron orbital transfer"
    •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• "the radioactive isotopes of sulfur are all short lived" is vague. Perhaps mention the longest-lived unstable isotope as a particular example.\
  •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• "...is created in extremely large and hot (>2.5×10^9 K) stars". It should state this is the temperature of the fusion region. I've addressed this. RJH (talk)
• I understand that sulfur is an important component of the Earth's core; about 12% by mass. Likewise for other planets. Hence it is important in computer models of planetary interiors. That could be discussed in the 'Natural occurrence' section.
• The 'Metal sulfides' section could mention that sulfur is a contaminant that significantly weakens iron and steel; a well known fact in metallurgy and hence the reason for "upgrading" the ores.
• Why is "The Sicilian process was used in ancient times..." in the 'Modern times' section?\
  •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• The 'Spelling and etymology' section lacks an origin for the word.[15]
  •  Done FREYWA 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Sulfur is increasingly used as..." is WP:DATED.
• Since this article discusses notable sulfur compounds, it should have a sentence about mustard gas—an important chemical warfare agent.
  •  Done FREYWA 06:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk)

---