Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2012

< Wikipedia:Peer review

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.

Marshall Applewhite edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to take this page to WP:FAC, and would appreciate any feedback on the article. General comments about the FA criteria criteria are sought, but specific things to be looking at include the flow, prose, and understandability. I bring up a lot of concepts to discuss the influences on him, some of which I understand more than most readers. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – A few nit-picks so far, from reading through about half the article.

  • Early life and education: Don't think two University of Colorado links are needed here.
  • Introduction to Nettles and friends: Can the "Around that time" at the start be made a little more specific? The last date mention is similar to this one, and it's slightly confusing.
  • May be helpful to include Raine's first name the first time he is mentioned. This goes for any other authors mentioned too (I notice Lifton is similar).
  • Nomadic lifestyle: "seeing it a record of extraterrestrial contact with humanity." Missing "as"?
  • Housing and control: Second word of "Mother's day" should be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, good comments. I'm not too sure how to handle the intext attribution to academics, in the past I've done things like "Susan Raine of the University of Alberta states that..." but I've been wondering if that's too wordy. Hmm, will think about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nettles' death: First paragraph of this section has a bunch of sentences starting with "He" or similar. Consider rewording a couple of them for more variety.
      • Is "A" lacking at the start of "Relationship with Applewhite was said to be the only way to salvation"?
      • Final exit: Not sure TIME should be capitalized. Our article doesn't use them, for what that's worth.
      • Typo in note 2: "hostpital".
      • Don't notes 3 and 4 need quote marks as quotations? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- A very interesting article and excellently written. Because of this (and for your help in the past) I only managed a couple of small possible quibbles.

  • "He later returned to Texas, where led choruses and served as the chair of the music department at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. He left the University of St. Thomas in 1970, citing emotional turmoil."
Does the University need to be mentioned at the start of the second sentence bearing in mind the first one finishes with it?

*"He married Anne Pearce around that time; they had two children."

This is quite a short sentence. "And" instead of the semicolon seems more natural to use.

*Link to baritone might be useful. *"...described themselves as shepherds tending a flock"

If they described themselves as shepards tending a flock, should this description be in inverts? Is there a quote anywhere?
  • "His attempt to explain her death in the terms of the group's doctrine was successful—only one member left at this time."
It reads like there is a word missing here. Possibly "with" in place of —. Did one person leave as a result of his explaination or was one person left at the time of his explanation? Maybe that would explain my mix up. -- CassiantoTalk 19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* "Jesus had found humanity unready to ascend when He first came to the Earth..."

"He" --> "he"

I may have some of these wrong for which I apologise. This is only a brief set but a result of a thorough read. Congratulations on a great article. -- CassiantoTalk 16:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'm not sure where that capital He came from. (In Christian writing it's not uncommon to capitalize pronouns related to Jesus, but I didn't try to do that here.) I've had two copyeditors go over the article this week and I picked and chose which changes to accept, so some things must have gotten jumbled up in that process. I might keep the emdash you mentioned above, will think about it. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats OK. I have further explained my emdash comment above, so if you do decide to keep it, you may wish to clarify the circumstance. All the best! -- CassiantoTalk 19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhh, I see now, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eisfbnore

  • "He later returned to Texas, where led choruses and served as the chair of the music department at the University of St. Thomas in Houston." – 'where' is not a conjunction; please put a pronoun (presumably 'he') before 'led'.
  • "His father was a minister at a Presbyterian church, and as a child, Applewhite became very religious." – the clauses in this sentence are poorly connected. Also, if I'm being extremely unsympathetic, I could avow that I'm uncertain of whom 'Applewhite' refers to, the son or the father. Perhaps also mention that his exact birth date remains undisclosed/uncertain?
    • I searched again, and turned up a DOB, so that's in the article now. I changed the sentence to "The son of a Presbyterian minister, Applewhite became very religious as a child." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Applewhite attended Corpus Christi High School and Austin College. At Austin College, he was active in several student organizations and was moderately religious." – 'Austin College' is repetitive: nothing but a preposition separates the two mentions of it. I'd use 'the latter school'.
    • Changed, and put a semicolon between the two sentences. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 21:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments, I look forward to the rest. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest, after my laptop suddenly decided to log off to install a software update, without even alerting me...

  • My usual, vexing repetition checker:
  • You have eleven sentences starting with "After", of which seven are para starters, and two have the text "[After] Nettles' death, Applewhite...". Some of these could, perhaps, be replaced by "Following", "Upon", "On", etc.
  • Good point, rephrased and reworded to cut a few out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Applewhite" is written out quite often, though not to a repetitious or boring extent. However, I would change the last "Applewhite" to "he" in the last of these two sentences: "In the early 1990s, Applewhite posted some of his teachings on the Internet, but he was stung by the resulting criticism. That year, Applewhite first spoke of the possibility of suicide as a way to reach the Next Level." Your choice.
  • There are a few to many "taught"s in the article. These could be replaced by "lectured", "educated", etc.
  • Good point, that hadn't occurred to me. Cut about half of them out. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again playing the devil's advocate: "The two quickly became close friends; he later recalled that he felt like he had known her for a long time and concluded that they had met in a past life. She told him that extraterrestrials had visited her and predicted their meeting, persuading him that he had a divine assignment." – Whose meeting did they predict?
  • "Balch and Taylor this departure to another affair with a student." – pardon?
  • "As they traveled throughout the country, their beliefs began to solidify, and they settled on a basic outline by June 1974." – dangling participle: the sentence currently says that their beliefs traveled throughout the country. Replace the first personal pronoun ("they") with their names.
  • "Applewhite and Nettles later explained to their followers that their treatment by the press was a form of assassination and had fulfilled their prophecy." – whose treatment by the press? I'd use "the latter's" or "the former's"
  • "In the late 1970s, the group received a large sum of money, possibly an inheritance received by a member or donations of followers' income." – 'received' is repetitive.

I hope you will profit from these comments. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 09:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good comments, thanks as always. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Members were encouraged to constantly seek Applewhite's advice and to often ask themselves what their leaders would do when making a decision" Is it grammatically correct to say 'to often'? I would imagine it is redundant and could easily be removed
  • "Making Sense of the Heaven's Gate Sucides" spot the spelling mistake
  • "Christ And Comets" shares the same URL has "Secrets Of The Cult" under Magazines – Lemonade51 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, you have a good eye for detail. I think I copied the Newsweek citation since a few of the fields were the same, then forgot to fix the URL. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather it's somewhat conclusive that he was gay. Therefore the article needs an appropriate LGBT category
  • Do you pronounce 'Do' as 'I will do it tomorrow' or 'Doe'? Perhaps you could incorporate that phonology into note a. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coach's Daughter edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have worked this hard to make this article a Good Article. I wonder if it is ready as a Featured Article. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51 comments Do think the article has some way to go before a FA nomination, that said it's not plausible. You may want to consider the article having a copyedit to deal with prose issues; I've only had the time to skim read through however:

  • Ideally you should look at FA’s related to this for inspiration. Squeeze (The X-Files) was passed recently and serves a good account of the series; Lisa the Vegetarian is another well written one as is No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) another.
  • The lead could do with some work, I’m not sure if it provides an adequate summary of the episode. Barely 100 words (which is fine considering the length) but no mention of its ratings, though you state "low viewership at its first airing"
  • Running time should refer to the actual episode length, not including commericals.
  • “In this episode, Coach begins to dislike Roy”, who is Coach? Likewise, who is Roy? They should be wikilinked.
    •   Fixed, but I hope it's complete.
  • reshot and rewritten do not require to be hyphenated
  • "Robert Bianco from The Pittsburgh Press" → "Robert Bianco of The Pittsburgh Press"
  • "including Allyce Beasley and especially the late Nicholas Colasanto" especially is redundant
    •   How so? Both were primarily part of the story. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Ref 2 has several dots next to 'by Ken Levine'?
  • Is it The A.V. Club or the A.V. Club?
  • Any idea where the episode first broadcasted in say, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia to compare? Lemonade51 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can I tell which network it aired in what country? Newspapers are very old, and the search engine couldn't help me narrow down the networks. Also, I cannot tell which day it aired. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what criterion this version fails. --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Moreno edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is already a good article, but being an obscure topic there's not much people that see it. I would want more advises before thinking in further nominations.

Thanks, Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Comments

  • "achieved the first military victories" -> "its first"
  • "His brother considered that he was poisoned" -> "His brother alleged that he was poisoned" or "thought" or "considered it a likely poisining"
  • "a poor family with fourteen children" -> "poor parents with fourteen children"
  • "He met influential people within the literary field, which meant he could" -> "He met influential people within the literary field who helped him"
  • "They edited a bilingual English–Spanish newspaper" Who's they? The British? A country can't edit something, but it could "publish" a newspaper.
  • What's "social usages"? I think this should be explained or excised.
  • This needs citation: "This report, as well as Moreno's prestige in the colonial society, helped him gain the confidence of Cisneros. Yet secretly, Moreno supported the plan to dismiss the Viceroy."
  • I'm having some trouble fully comprehending the article. It's not that it isn't written well; the prose is good. It's more a question of flow and clarity, I think. The Birth and studies and First political activities sections read well, but from there on out I'm getting lost in places. One issue, I think, is that people are sometimes introduced without being fully described. For example, we talk about Manuel Belgrano and Juan Jose Castelli supporting the viceroy; it's not clear in the text why these people were important in the context at hand or, indeed, who they were. We hear about the mayor Martin de Alzaga, but it's not clear what he's the mayor of. Why did his joining of Alzaga allow him to serve as a legal adviser of the Cabildo? Also Santiago de Liniers is dealt with confusingly after the lead; he first appears as "viceroy Liniers" and later as "Viceroy Santiago de Liniers". I'd like to know more about him, what his powers were, who supported him and why. What are the forces at play and why did they clash? Was the fundamental divide one of loyalty to the Spanish crown or independence? And how did Moreno align himself within this political dynamic? A lot of this is already here, but I think it could be explained more clearly. As a first step, I would advise going through the article and seeing if there aren't ways to make things cohere better. You could also make sure that people and movements and events are clearly and fully described in the text when they're introduced. Readers are able to do some research of their own through the wikilinks, but wikilinks are no substitute for an article standing on its own as a comprehensive and accurate account.--Batard0 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Hill edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently nominated at WP:FAC but was not listed as it received only two substantive responses– one supporting and the other recommending a final WP:PR. In light of the latter, I am requesting a fourth PR, prior to re-nominating for feature article. Any comments or suggestions which would help see this article finally make FA status would be extremely welcome. Thanks, Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd consider taking "formerly a village" out of the first sentence, since that strikes me as not absolutely crucial to Sheriff Hill's definition.
  • "The Industrial Revolution brought heavy industry, so it was once the centre of pottery making and site of a coal mine." "and" instead of "so"
  • "was bi-annually visited" -> "was visited bi-annually"
  • "provides the settlement's name" -> "provided"
  • "economically disadvantaged, compared to other areas" comma not needed.
  • "Sheriff's Highway, its major road attains a height" needs a comma after "road"
  • "Gateshead Fell; in the ancient county of Durham" semicolon not needed.
  • "consisted of some 1,300 acres of land consisting of" redundant "consisting of" - rephrase. Perhaps: "including" or "and included"
  • I think you should more quickly describe Sheriff Hill's precise association with Gateshead Fell, which we only learn in the second sentence of that section. Viz: "Before 1809, Sheriff Hill was a heath within Gateshead Fell in the ancient county of Durham"
  • "By the middle of the 18th century, Gateshead Fell was a place of notoriety, for its bleakness and the criminality undertaken upon it" -> "By the middle of the 18th century, Gateshead Fell was known for its bleakness and criminality." You're already describing why it's notorious, so "notoriety" is redundant. Also recommend a full stop after this bit, with next sentence starting "When theologian..."
  • "New roads were built on Blue Quarries Road, Church Road and Windy Nook Road" doesn't make sense to me. You can't build a road on a road, no? Are we trying to say these roads were improved or refurbished in some way? More to come.--Batard0 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "Sheriff's March" described the bi-annual procession of the Sheriff of Northumberland to meet the traveling Crown judges" -> "was a bi-annual"
  • Would be good to describe when the Sheriff's March took place and what its significance was to Sheriff Hill in the first sentence of the section or as a short second sentence. "The procession took place between the 13th and 19th centuries and passed through Gateshead Fell."
  • "It is as a direct result of the "Sheriff's March" that the area around Ye Olde Cannon and the old turnpike road became known as Sheriff Hill" -> "As a result of the "Sheriff's March", the area around Ye Olde Cannon and the old turnpike road became known as Sheriff Hill" (conciseness)
  • It's now unclear to me if Sheriff Hill actually existed formally as part of Gateshead Fell before 1809; should the Gateshead Fell section say "the area now known as Sheriff Hill was part of Gateshead Fell..."?
  • "The major road is Sheriff's Highway, the B1296 or old Great North Road which was made into a turnpike road" Is it the major road through Sheriff Hill? If so, that should be in there.
  • "itself flourishing as the Industrial Revolution began to take hold" when? In the 19th century?
  • "Sodhouse Bank remains is now Sheriff's Highway" Is it "remains" or "is now"? Can't be both.
  • "incumbent Ian Mearns MP, represents the Labour party" -> "incumbent, Ian Mearns MP, is a member of the Labour party"
  • "newly-formed" -> "newly formed" (adverbs aren't hyphenated when modifying adjectives)
  • "Joyce Quin was returned with a majority of 53.3%" Where's the full stop?
  • "Mearns was elected with a majority of 12,549 votes over Frank Hindle" How can 12,548 votes be cast in an area with a population of 8,952? Are these different areas?
  • Suggest spelling out numbers nine and under: "two square kilometres", "two miles".
  • "the centre of Gateshead town centre" -> "Gateshead town centre"
  • "an "historic route from Durham to the north". which lies 255 miles (410 km) from London" Errant full stop.
  • "two or more A-Level's" -> A-Levels
  • The article could use a thorough copyedit. It's not bad, but there are some clear mistakes. You might try WP:GOCE.
  • The History section to me isn't comprehensive enough for FA. As an exercise, I would suggest trying to rewrite it following a strict chronology, including dates wherever we have them. This will sound dry, but it will form the backbone of a solid history section. At that point, add necessary details. The way it's organized now strikes me as a bit awkward and unclear.--Batard0 (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider moving material from the Economy section into the History section. The Economy section should ideally discuss Sheriff Hill's present economy, not its historical economy (although this should be discussed briefly, of course). The heavy industry stuff to me is more appropriate as part of its history.--Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent– thanks! I've spent this morning trying to reorder things to make the history section more substantive and I agree with your suggestion re: the history/economy sections and have made changes accordingly. I have to head out for the rest of the day but will go through your other suggestions tomorrow. Again, thanks for taking the time to look at this :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hinde edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to raise this article the GA status and improve the overall quality of the article. Also, this article is still listed as Stub class, but it has been greatly expanded since that initial ranking.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • It's a good start, but it's not quite ready for a GA review. The main issue is citations.
  • Early life is entirely uncited.
    • Changed
  • Section headings take lowercase after the initial caps, so: "Early life"
    • Changed
  • Sections shouldn't start with "The", so "Death of General Wolfe"
    • Changed
  • "It was his good fortune to be attached" sounds POV. Might just say "He was attached"
    • Changed
  • It reads like the general died twice: once in the Battle of Quebec and "later" in Hinde's arms.
    • Changed
  • The Physician to Patrick Henry section is almost entirely uncited.
    • Changed. Cited and added more information. Also reorganized for better narrative flow.
  • You've got some wikitext in the following: ",{{quotation|"At another"
    • Changed.
  • The Additional information section should be incorporated elsewhere and removed.
    • Changed.
  • This statement in the lead isn't adequately supported by the article's content: "many of his children, grandchildren, and other descendants became prominent historical figures". Who, other than Thomas S. Hinde, does this apply to?
    • Changed. There were links in the info box to other family members.
  • The article is substantially underdeveloped; it should contain a lot more detail and context about Hinde, written in an encyclopedic manner. Citations are lacking in many sections, which prevents readers from checking the information. I would suggest going back to the sources and adding a lot more material. Focus on providing depth and context while keeping the prose simple and sticking to a chronological account. Once those building blocks are in place, you can strategize about how to improve the article further. I wouldn't submit it for GA until it's fully cited, at the very least. As it stands, it would probably be failed quickly on the basis of missing citations alone, not to mention that it does not yet cover the subject in an adequately comprehensive way. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your review. I did an overhaul of the much of the article thanks to your helpful comments above. The article now contains more citations and is better organized.

Kanye West discography edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that after much renovation and work on the article, it may be up to FL status. I'd welcome any tips for the page's improvement before I go ahead and nominate the article for FL-listing.

Thanks, Holiday56 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sufur222

Very small points:

  • The caption under the infobox image shouldn't have a full stop.
  • "It spawned two Grammy Award-winning singles" --> Might want a reference for that.
  • "West's fourth album went in a controversially new direction, with him singing rather than rapping." --> Ditto.
  • The Collaborative albums table doesn't need a legend at the bottom, as all of the cells are currently filled.
  • See here for formatting ref 179.
  • Refs 173, 191 and 194 need en-dashes, as do all of the The Official Charts Company refs.
  • What makes refs 9, 159, 165 and 217 reliable? I've never heard of them.

Apart from that, this looks great. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article. I've taken a look at your points, and I've made the necessary changes.
"The caption under the infobox image shouldn't have a full stop."  Y
"It spawned two Grammy Award-winning singles" – I've changed this sentence to make it instead talk about the total number of singles released from the album.
"West's fourth album went in a controversially new direction, with him singing rather than rapping." – I've removed this sentence. This information is probably better explained in the 808s & Heartbreak article itself.
"The Collaborative albums table doesn't need a legend at the bottom, as all of the cells are currently filled." Removed.  Y
Reference 179 has been properly formatted.
En dashes added for the references mentioned.
References 9, 159, 165 and 217 have been changed to more reliable sources.
Are there any more changes to be made? I think I've taken care of the points you've brought up. Holiday56 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only a couple of other things I've noticed on a further read through: careful of overusing the word "spawned" in the lead, and ref 156 needs an en-dash. Apart from that, this looks ready to take to FLC. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. I've made the necessary changes. Holiday56 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born Villain edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want too find out what flaws this article has so it can be fixed befor being taken to GAC and, eventually, FAC.

Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone recently pointed this out to me, and it seemed like a good idea: try to limit how often you start sentences with stuff like "On July 17, 2012, blah blah blah happened." Put the date of whatever it was at the end of the sentence or phrase.
  • Look for ways to trim extra words and make things more concise. A good example is right at the beginning of the Background section:
In November 2010, bassist Twiggy Ramirez was quoted as saying "We've got a new album [that we're working on]. It's almost done. It'll probably be out next year. [...] It's our best record yet, I think. I mean, everyone always says that, but I think this is our best work so far... It's kind of like a little more of a punk rock Mechanical Animals without sounding too pretentious."
I'd rewrite that as:
In November 2010, bassist Twiggy Ramirez said the band was working on a new album for 2011, adding: "It's our best record yet.... everyone always says that, but I think this is our best work so far... a punk rock Mechanical Animals without sounding too pretentious." We don't need to quote his fillers.
You do something similar at the beginning of the Production and development section. To me, it seems too wordy. Try to compress the language more.
  • "Born Villain, a short film directed by actor Shia LaBeouf, was a promotional "trailer" released concomitantly for the then-upcoming album." That sentence is pretty confusing, because you don't tell us when it was released, and calling the album "then-upcoming" is throwing us up and down the timeline, and it's not until the next paragraph that we find out when it was produced at least. Simplify the language:
"An eponymous short film directed by actor Shia LeBeouf was released to promote the album in/on (insert date here)."
  • The Music and lyrics section needs a major cut. Those two giants quotes from Manson are not going to work. You'll need to paraphrase and summarize them, as they're loaded with filler text that doesn't tell the reader much.
  • You also need to go through and fix all your verb tenses and update the chronology. The article still says things like "The album is set to be released in May 2012, according to LA Weekly."
  • Neither the photo shoot nor the part about playing the Revolver Golden Gods Awards with Johnny Depp has anything to do with the album. They should be cut.
  • I don't think we need all the details about the day the artwork was announced or first appeared on Amazon. That's trivial information.
  • The critical reception area is pretty wall of text-y. Try breaking it up a little to make it more readable.
  • For chart positions, you're inconsistent, using both "#" and "number". Per WP:MOS, those should all be "No.", but I wonder if you need to have both prose and a table for the same information.

I hope this helps! —Torchiest talkedits 03:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the input -Red marquis (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil parishes in Cornwall edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is now complete and want to nominate it for a recognised status. A point I'd like clarified is what form of recognised content path this article should take; either the GA/FA path or the FL path? (This article was moved from List of civil parishes in Cornwall to Civil parishes in Cornwall after an upgrade and assessed as such). All comments welcomed.

Cheers, Zangar (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Nice article.
  • "there were 501,267 people living in the, now, 218 parishes" is clunky. Plus, you've already mentioned the 218 figure. Recommend simplifying to "living in the parishes"
    •   Done - I added the word "current" as well, just to distinguish that at the time the 2001 census was taken 4 parishes had not been created. Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "100.0% of the" -> "100% of the" or better: "all of the" or "the whole of the"
  • "on 1 April 2009, to" no comma necessary.
  • "with Penzance having the largest population of 21,168" see WP:PLUSING and rephrase.
    •   Done Thanks for pointing that out! Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Isles of Scilly having their own unitary authority": Same.
  • "purely ecclesiastical divisions." -> "purely ecclesiastical" (redundancy)
  • Is "rate" understood as a tax? Is "rate" the appropriate British term? Excuse my ignorance.
    • "rate" is fairly well understood as being a type of property tax in the UK, it's been wikilinked, so hopefully should be clear to the reader. Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider replacing semicolons with full stops in the fourth and last part of the fifth paragraphs of the History section. These only appear to be adding to the length of sentences without introducing useful meaning or juxtaposition.
  • The prose is mostly good, but I think it could use some reworking for clarity and conciseness. Sentences are occasionally overly long and convoluted. Better to get things across as efficiently and clearly as possible.
    • Thanks - I've split some of the longer sentences where I felt they could be. So hopefully that fixes that. Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider moving this and making it a list of the parishes rather than an article. It seems to me that it's mainly a list of the parishes, with some prefatory (but good) information re: the legal status and history of parishes.--Batard0 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your review! Some good spots and advice. I'll put this up for a Requested move, as I think you're right about the list side. Thanks again! Zangar (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of American football teams in the United Kingdom edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to have some further scrutiny before possibly submitting this as a Featured List Candidate.

Thanks, ~~ Bettia ~~ talk 11:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image caption in the lead links one team but not the other, why?
  • "crew from USS Idaho defeated " normally we'd italicse the name, e.g. "USS Idaho".
    • Done
  • "During World War II, matches ..." sentence is too long, I'd suggest splitting in two.
    • Done
  • "championship a total of thirteen times " no need for "a total of".
    • Done
  • Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes, for screen-readers.
    • scope="col" added to all tables, no row headers have been used
  • Avoid linking common geographical terms like London.
    • Done
  • Don't put spaces between text and references.
    • Done
  • West Essex Showboat row is missing the last cell.
    • Done
  • Sortable tables should link items on every occurence as there's no guarantee that the linked item comes first after being resorted.
  • Clacton -> Clacton-on-Sea.
    • Done
  • Use en-dashes in the ref titles, not spaced hyphens.
  • Check all refs have publication information, e.g. ref 28.
  • Don't mix accessdate formats in the refs.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
  • Avoid bare URLs in the refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sellers edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because following a recent re-vamp, which has included a new chronological layout; new material and sources being used; and a re-write throughout, the article is now at the stage where it would be appropriate for a further examination for GAC. The ultimate aim for this is to raise it to an FAC. Much editing has been done by Cassianto and an excellent copyedit has been undertaken by Rothorpe. Thanks for any comments or suggestions you may have, SchroCat (^ • @) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This list of points may look long, but many of them are quite trivial. On the whole this is a very praiseworthy article.

Lead
  • As you say "Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)", you should perhaps add "now Myanmar" to "Burma".
  • "...his parents always called him Peter, after his elder stillborn brother; aside from his stillborn sibling, Sellers was an only child." This clunks a bit; try "...his parents always called him Peter, after an elder stillborn brother, aside from whom Sellers was an only child."
  • "aged two weeks" → "two weeks old"? (sounds less American)
  • Dickie Henderson was less than 3 years old when Sellers was 2 weeks old; if this is the right Henderson I think that fact should be mentioned.
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schooling
  • I would prefer to see this section divided between "Schooling" and "Religios background", since these are separate topics. On the question of religion, did he receive any guidance from his "good C of E" father? Was his mother observant? It reads at present as though they didn't much care about how Peter resolved the problems arising from his mixed background.
  • Let me have a think about this: it was a religious school, so it sort of became an issue, but I can appreciate the dichotomy of the section needs to be addressed. I'm not sure his parent's religions were pressed too much, but I need to check the sources again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • "As the Second World War broke out in Europe, Sellers continued to develop his drumming skills, and he joined the bands of..." etc. This needs rephrasing. The Second World War started in September 1939, when Sellers was still at school. According to the previous section, he started drumming when working backstage at the Ilfracombe Victoria Palace, probably a couple or so years after the outbreak of war.
  • When you say he "joined the bands" of Rabin, Hall etc, I think you probably mean he "played with" these bands when they were engaged at the theatre. He could hardly have joined them all full-time.
  • Can you give a date when Sellers joined ENSA?
  • Not unless we can find other sources. Sadly, none of the major biographies cover it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More clumsy prose: "and auditioned for Ralph Reader to become a member of his Gang Shows". Suggest simplify: "...and auditioned for Ralph Reader's Gang Show." You might also like to amplify on how a serving airman, in wartime, was allowed to alleviate his boredom in this way. Presumably he sought and got permission from the RAF?
  • " before being transferred to India" Clarify: "before being posted by the RAF to India"? In the next sentence, "his tour of duty".
  • "described his role..." → "described his role in the show..."
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early post-war career
  • Maybe try and clarify Sellers' post-war movements before demobilisation. In te previous section: "He also served in Germany and France after the war" and now "At the end of the war, Sellers was posted back to England to work at the Air Ministry". These are not necessarily contradictory, but it would help if there could be more indications of chronology.
  • "Sellers had difficulty in finding bookings and work was sporadic." Preface this with "On resuming his theatrical career..." or some such.
  • I wonder whether the Measuringworth comparison adds anything useful? These theoretical updates are prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and often cause arguments. For example, £30 a week was at least 5 times the average weekly wage in 1946, whereas £800 a week today is less than twice average weekly earnings. You are under no obligation to provide these comparisons, and in my view, they are best avoided.
  • I think you are "auditioned" rather than "receive an audition"
  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1950s
  • "Sellers had his first inclusion in a film in 1950..." Stiff, non-idiomatic phrasing. Perhaps: "Sellars was first involved in film work in 1950, when he dubbed..." etc
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against the wishes of the Goons themselves". You have not at this point established who "the Goons themselves" are. You need to go back to the previous sentence: "it was not until 3 February 1951 that, as "the Goons", they made a trial tape..."
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has a tendency towards over-short paragraphs, and these could be combined. In any event, pronouns should not be used to introduce the subject at the start of a fresh paragraph.
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He continued with his attempts to move into film with a number of small roles, before being offered a role in the 1955 Ealing Comedy The Ladykillers" I suggest: "He continued his attempts to move into films, taking a number of small parts before being offered a bigger role in the 1955 Ealing Comedy The Ladykillers"
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sellers' difficulties in his career and life..." At this point, it seems his career was going pretty well, and you haven't referred to any difficulties in his personal life, so I wonder what is the problem here?
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sellers released his first album in 1958, The Best of Sellers..." We really need some background before this information. When did he start singing, what stuff did he sing, etc? Did he sing on stage, or just in the recording studio?
I need to go back to the sources on this point - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eleven minute" should be "eleven-minute", or perhaps "11-minute"
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Songs For Swinging Sellers, which reached number 3 in the UK Albums Chart" Perhaps you should observe the coincidence - his first album also reached no. 3.
Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • "directional"? I think the word is "directorial"
Done. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it's audiences" → "its audiences" (pronoun, not verb)
Done. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was soon offered" - I'd delete "soon"
Deleted. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards' last minute offer for the role of Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau..." You have not at this stage said who "Edwards" is.
Now mentioned. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including" shouldn't appear twice in one sentence.
Deleted. Slight elaboration. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an adaptation of a stage play by Harry Kurnitz adapted from the French play..." Too much repetition there
Now at one mention. The English adaption was redundant IMO. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the night of 5 April 1964, Sellers suffered a series of eight heart attacks over the course of three hours after visiting Disneyland with his family" I would rearrange this: "On the night of 5 April 1964, after visiting Disneyland with his family, Sellers suffered a series of eight heart attacks over the course of three hours." I would guess that, individually, these were relatively minor attacks.
Done. Added "minor" into text. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concerned that his heart attack..." Singular?
Now a plural.-- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another paragraph beginning with "He..."
Replaced pronoun. The section was stubby anyway and naturally moved into the following paragraph so I have merged. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a point of accuracy, CBEs are appointed, not "made".
Changed. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its presentation" → "the investiture"
Swapped. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was formally finished" → "it was finalised"
Swapped. -- CassiantoTalk 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1970s
  • As "Lothario" is a proper name, it requires a capital. If it was misprinted in the quote it should be followed by [sic].
SchroCat, can you confirm this in the source? -- CassiantoTalk 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The return to the Pink Panther films was a move that reinvigorated Sellers' career and made him a millionaire". That must be wrong, given the length of his career and appearances in many successful films, just one of which paid him a fee of $1 million!
Again here? -- CassiantoTalk 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The full info from the source is "which renovated his career and made him a millionaire". I could turn it into a direct quote to make it a little firmer? - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1980
  • Being there → Being There
Fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also using his long-time friend..." Delete "also"
Deleted. -- CassiantoTalk 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spike Milligan later noted that his heart condition had lasted fifteen years..." Needs to be "Sellers' heart condition"
Corrected. -- CassiantoTalk 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Playboy cover is dated April 1964, so why is it in this section?
Moved to 1960s. -- CassiantoTalk 00:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Death
  • "His body was cremated and he was interred..." That should be "his ashes were"
Changed. -- CassiantoTalk 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of stuff in this section other than Sellers' death – later family history etc – which suggests that the section name should be extended
SchroCat what shall we rename it? -- CassiantoTalk 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed. -- CassiantoTalk 10:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy and influence
  • Some of the people mentioned here need to be explained rather than just linked: Stephen Mangan, Alan Carr and Rob Brydon are probably not international names. Conan O'Brien is almost unknown in the UK.
I have elaborated on Mangan, Carr and Brydon. After realising Conan O'Brien wasn't this, I sourced and replaced. :-) -- CassiantoTalk 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked out the images, but I'd say that the magazine cover is much too marginal to justify non-free use. Also, an image that is free under Swedish copyright law may not be free in the US. The licencing on some of the others looks dodgy; for example if PD-Pre1978 is used, as with the lead image, it is necessary to specify when/where publication took place. I would recommend that, before taking this to FAC, you get all the images checked by an editor who is knowledgeabble in this field.

All in all, a thoroughly-prepared and engrossing account of the life of an important figure in comedy history. As I find it difficult to watch individual review pages, please ping my talkpage if you wish to discuss or query any of the points raised in this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A great set of comments Brian. Thanks for taking the time it is much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 00:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good set of edits Cass - thanks for picking up on a stack of these. I've addressed all the others, except where I've specifically noted. There are a couple of bits I'll have to go back to the sources for, but today is a bit pushed for me! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been asked to take a look at the images:

  • File:Sellers-signed.jpg- The source link is dead, and I can see no evidence of US publication, let alone US publication without a copyright notice.
  • Replaced with the Warren image and another Warren image used in the same location lower in article - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary rationale in place, although we need to re-draft - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better rationale in place, although it may still not be enough at FAC - so feel free to comment or tweak further. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sellers pinkpanther7.jpg- Useless, copy-paste rationale. There may be a call for a non-free image of the character if we feel that the appearance [which, as an aside, you spell as "appearence in the article] of the character is a significant part of the history of Sellars, and we are certain that free images of the character do not exist. If this is the case (and I'm not saying that it is, necessarily), better sourcing and copyright information and a more detailed rationale would be necessary; further, the image should really be moved to alongside the description of the character, and the caption should tie it to the text/the rationale, mentioning the iconic appearance of the character.
  • A better rationale in place and image now alongside the main PP text - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to accept the Strangelove screenshots.
  • File:Britt Ekland and Peter Sellers 1964 crop.jpg- This needs a tag explaining why it is in the public domain in the US. If it is not, it should be deleted from Commons.
  • File:Playboy April 1964.jpg- Needs to be removed. The appearance hasn't even been mentioned in the article itself; even if it was, unless the way the cover looked was in some way significant (as opposed to the mere fact that he was on it) a non-free image would not be needed.
  • I've put the question to the uploader, Wikiwatcher1, who has indicated that they will complete the information. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now shown as the lede image. A much better choice as far as I am concerned. -- CassiantoTalk 10:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so critical, but this would not have a chance at FAC with the current image issues. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, J Milburn. Slightly sobering and disappointing, but all extremely useful and something else for us to work on: thank you for your time and effort on this - it is much appreciated. I'll put a rationale on the Goons image: in the UK it's one of the main points for which he is still remembered and I'd like to try and keep it if we can. We'll have to work our way through the others and see what we can do for them individually - even if that means deletion. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot JM, that's exactly why I asked. I knew you would give a thorough and frank review. Best we have it here than at FAC. Thank you for your assistance in this. -- CassiantoTalk 22:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lobo comments

Right, I've read through the article! It's very good, congratulations. Here are my comments (not many, considering its length). And I have to add that my best friend works at his old school, St. Aloysius! I had no idea he went there before reading this, it's really near where I live.

  • Possibly a bit too much information in the second para of the lead?
  • "He died as a result of heart disease in 1980" - I'd add on his age of death.
Added. -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sellers' performances—either as an individual or as a member of The Goons—" I personally don't think this "either" part is needed.
  • Do you mean delete "either as an individual" or just "either". I opted for the latter until I know different. -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine the anecdote about him starting a detective agency is added because his most famous role turned out to be a detective, but I still wonder if it should be included...it does seem a wee bit trivial. I won't push this point though, I do understand why it's a nice touch.
  • "Spike Milligan later noted that Sellers was very proficient on the drums and "might well have stayed a jazz drummer" .." I think that would be better paraphrased, no need for the direct quotation.
  • "He was demobilisation later the same year." > Surely that should be demobilised?
Well spotted. Changed. -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not very keen on the 2 sentence paragraph in "Early post-war career"...Personally I would lump it onto the previous or following paragraph. It would work fine like that.
  • It's not clear to me why we need so much information about Third Division?
  • trimmed to show the important element - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Goon Show image not next to the text about the show?
Moved. -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Goon Show is one of the main things he is known for, we need some mention of the show's reception and popularity.
  • Partially done - will complete shortly - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the short paragraph about his first marriage would be far better positioned at the end of the previous section. Also, who was this Anne Howe? What did she do, how did they meet?
  • Info moved and her details filled out a little - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we need more information about how he decided to release an album; it comes out of nowhere. We've not heard of him doing any singing before this point.
  • I'm struggling to find anything concrete on this, partly becuase details of his early acts have not been recorded. It should be noted that his album is largely comedy sketches with some comedy songs (mostly done in character voices), rather than proper singing. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now referred to in a previous section, as well as relating to the record itself. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of very short paragraphs at the start of the "1960s" section, which I think could very easily be merged together. This looks more professional and stops the text from feeling slightly disjointed.
I have combined a couple. Obviously i have tried to make sure the text is related to the next. Does this look any better? -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1961, after an interview with Sellers, film critic Kenneth Tynan noted that with Sellers, one of the main "motive forces" for his ambition as an actor was "his hatred of anti-Semitism."" > I find this sentence very awkward, suggest rephrasing. I actually question the importance of the whole paragraph, if I'm honest. I don't think the article would lose much from its omission. Perhaps the comments about religion would be better included in a footnote in the "Schooling" section?
  • I've trimmed it back and footnoted it - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any comments about Kubrick admiring Sellers, and how that led to him being cast in Lolita? Anything like that? It would be a nice addition, I think.
  • I would attribute the quote beginning "indulged in his liking for setting himself problems, encouraged by Kubrick..." (ie, "according to biographer..")
  • Can we have something on the reception to Lolita? A review praising his performance? Would be nice to have a review for The Pink Panther as well.
  • I don't think we need to know about the screenwriters of Casino Royale, do we? And there is no mention of Orson Welles being in the film until this sentence: "A poor working relationship quickly developed between Sellers and Welles.."
  • His character in Being There is not only "simple-minded", is he? That just makes him sound very laid back, where as surely he actually has special needs? It's a while since I saw the film but I don't think this accurately represents the character.
  • "The film was considered by some critics to be the "crowning triumph of Peter Sellers's remarkable career"..." > Some critics, or "one critic"? We have this again lower down. If they are quotes from specific critics, you need to say "one critic" (or actually name them).
  • We get no mention of the reaction to his death. Are there any quotes you can add?
  • Now done - a fair selection in there from the great and good. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to see "Legacy" come after "Acting preparation".
Moved. -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first paragraph of "Legacy" would be better suited as the last paragraph. At the least, the second paragraph should definitely come first (IMO).
Moved. -- CassiantoTalk 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

  • I think it would be nice, if possible, to make the later subheadings of "Career" more descriptive (rather than just "1950s", "1960s"...) Even if they just highlighted his important roles in those periods, it would still give the reader a bit more and prepare them for what is in that section.
  • And it's a bit weird to have the first section be "Biography" but then stop it at the mid-40s and change to "Career". Since the whole thing is a chronological biography, I would put everything under that heading, or change the first one to "Early life" or similar. "Career" may be a bit problematic as well, since many readers may assume this to be *only* his career (when actually, it also incorporates his personal life). I think you're just best off putting all the biographical content under one heading (Maybe "Life and career").
  • Yes sorry, that was me. I will change it. -- CassiantoTalk 14:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions that he was affected by substance abuse, but I didn't really get a sense of this in the main text. It needs to be made clearer.
  • I've taken it out of the lead as I think it has too much prominance there. Sellers took drugs (he was a film start in the 60s and 70s, after all) but he never really had any major problems with them, except where connected to his health. I'll added in a reference to poppers and his heart attack shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is far off FA, are you sure you want to bother with the GA process? It can take so long to get reviewed (I waited 3 months for my last one), I think you may as well just carry on perfecting the article then take it straight to FAC. That's up to you though, of course. :) --Lobo (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Lobo512 - your help and comments are very much appreciated. A number have been covered already and we'll go back to the sources for the rest. Thanks again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A brilliant review as always Lobo. Feel free to come knocking when Charlie Chaplin has his PR :-) -- CassiantoTalk 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think that may be some time off (I've kind of stalled now I've got to the 1940s - it gets really trick to write now!) but thanks. :) I actually thought of one more comment for this article. The lack of commentary on The Party is a rather big omission. It is one of Sellers' best known films ([1]) and I think it needs a passing mention at the very least. Great work done over the last 24 hours by the way! --Lobo (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Lobo: I'll start on something straight away on this. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now added - and thanks for moving and correcting it - I stupidly only glanced at the date! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

I haven't got a great deal in the way of comment. The article is looking in splendid shape, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. One minor spelling point: the OED allows the spelling "ukelele", but prefers "ukulele", which I notice is the spelling of the Wikipedia article on that instrument. You use both spellings in the article, and I suggest you standardise on the second. I see you use the American form of the possessive in Sellers's name, which seems inappropriate for an Englishman. See the Penelope Gilliatt quote in the last para of the "Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce" section.

Very true: it is now "Sellers's ukulele" throughout, I hope. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My few quibbles and queries – all very minor:

  • Lead
    • "during his infant years" is a bit wordy. Why not be precise?
  • Family background and early life (1925–1935)
    • I had got it into my head that the WP preferred form for year ranges was "1925–35" rather than "1925–1935", but I can't now find anything to that effect in the manual of style. You may like to double check.
      • You're correct - now done. (Cass, can you run through to make sure I've not missed any?) - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "aside from whom" – an Americanism; I'd use the English form, "apart from whom".
    • The mention of Dickie Henderson doesn't square with the WP article on him. He was hardly older than Sellers, and was certainly not topping any bill in 1925. I rather think this is Dickie's father, Dick Henderson. You might like to clarify.
      • I was wrong-footed on this one: it was Dick (Dickie's father) and I've pointed to the more appropriate reference who makes the distinction. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "say later "I really…" – you need a comma before opening the direct speech
    • "According to Sellers' biographer, Roger Lewis, Sellers was intrigued" – you might make the first "Sellers'" "his".
  • Early experiences of performance (1935–1939)
    • "ambivalent feelings" – as a believer in Plain Words I prefer "mixed feelings"
    • "His father lacked confidence in Peter's abilities to ever become much…" – a bit wordy; perhaps something like "His father doubted that Peter would achieve much…"?
    • "and may have remained" – "and might have remained" would be better, I think.
  • Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–1955)
    • "the Windmill Theatre in London which predominantly staged variety and revue acts" – I don't know that this description quite sums up the Windmill. The second half of your sentence is more to the point.
    • "the BBC, then based at Alexandra Palace" – is the location relevant enough to warrant a mention?
    • "KOGVOS (King of Goons and Voice of Sanity)" – I thought it was "Keeper of the Goons and Voice of Sanity", but I can't find my copy of Wilmut and Grafton's Goon Show Companion. Later: Found it. Yes, on p. 15, "Keeper of Goons and Voice of Sanity". As Grafton is co-author I think that must be correct.
      • It's one of those where there are multiple definitions, depending on who you ask, so I've put in a note to give a couple of the others too - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm All Right Jack and early years in film (1956–1959)
    • this was seen to be his "first good role" – this quote is rather left dangling because you don't attribute it in the text.
  • The Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce (1960–1963)
    • "number 22 in UK chart" – missing a "the", I think.
    • "firework performance, funny malicious" – missing a comma after "funny"?
      • Indeed it was - now replaced - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • why is "license" in inverted commas, and why is it given an American spelling?
      • Because of my stupidity - now replaced - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sellers first" – missing an apostrophe
  • Dr. Strangelove, health problems, a second marriage and Casino Royale (1964–1969)
    • "uninspiring, so the producers" – being pedantic, "so" is not a conjunction. I'd replace it with a semicolon.
    • "alongside Peter O'Toole and Capucine" – I suggest you move her blue link to her first mention, in the previous section
  • Death and subsequent family issues
    • "a massive heart attack" – heart attacks are described as "massive" so often that it's something of a cliché. The fact that it killed him rather speaks for itself.
    • "Golders Green Crematorium" is linked at second mention rather than at first (in the line above).
      • Done - it's linked in a paragraph or so above - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the ashes of his former widow" – not sure about the "former"
  • Acting technique and preparation
    • The Boultings are given a second blue link here, as is Dilys Powell.
    • The quotation from Sellers beginning "I set out to play Clouseau with great dignity …" is almost, but not quite, the same as the one beginning "I'll play Clouseau with great dignity…" in the "Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce" section. Casual readers will think you are repeating yourself and careful readers will, I think, be nonplussed by the discrepancies between the two versions.
      • I'll come back to this one: I'd like to keep both in there, but I appreciate what you are saying. I'll dig around the sources to see if there is a way I can do something with the dating to differentiate between them. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy and influence
    • "Peter Sellers "as the most seminal force" – is the "as" intended to be part of the quotation?
  • Notes
    • Something has gone awry with the page numbering for Note 35
      • Only my clumsiness: now sorted - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography
    • You have a duplicate authorlink to Michael Sellers
      • No longer!

That's my lot. Nothing of any great moment. I think you have the layout and balance pretty well spot-on, and the article was a pleasure to read. An absorbing insight into somebody one admired but is quite glad not to have met! – Tim riley (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Thanks so much for your thoughts and suggestions. I've made the appropriate alterations and will have another read-through to make sure I've not made any further errors with the edits. A brilliant review for us: thank you so much - it really is much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been discussing this PR over email with SchroCat. IMO, we have had the best PR any editor(s) could have. We have had the cream of FAC visit us and Sellers has improved tenfold as a resuit. Tim, your comments have been, as always, invaluable. Congrats to my co-nom on his quick reply's and commendable resilience during this brilliant PR. -- CassiantoTalk 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane edit

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

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

I have done extensive work on the article and would like to pave the way to FA candidacy. Thanks for your help!

Thanks, CapeVerdeWave 05:13 UTC

Mostly, it needs more aftermath (long-term effects, aid, rebuilding). Nice work! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giant anteater edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed GA and I hope to make it my next FAC. An peer review might make it more likely to pass.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick opening thoughts- I'm too tired to do justice to the whole thing. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The giant anteater is grouped with the semi-arboreal northern and southern tamandua in the family Myrmecophagidae, which in turn is grouped with the family Cyclopedidae, whose only extant member is the arboreal silky anteater, in the suborder Vermilingua." I'm assuming that this is covered by the next reference, but could that be confirmed with a footnote, please?
Will look. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph three of the taxonomy section feels like it wanders off-topic a little.
I don't understand? LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eras with descriptors seem to use unwarranted caps- ("Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene", for instance)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rely heavily on this source; how reliable is this? It doesn't look great for a featured article.
The amount and quailty of information it contains and sources it uses. Maybe your right. I'll look for a better source.

LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here some information on the author. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cryptic C62
  • Some of the section titles are a bit wonky. I've never seen the phrase Life history in the context of taxonomy (or any other subject, for that matter). What about "ecology"? I assume that Activies is supposed to be "Activities", but even this is not a particularly clear description of the section's contents.
Changed "life history" to "ecology". What do you suggest for a new name for "Activities"? LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the subsection doesn't seem to really focus on any particular type of behavior, it's just Behavior minus Spacing, Foraging, and Reproduction. Perhaps this section shouldn't be a subsection at all, but should instead serve as the first few paragraphs of the Behavior section.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in Distribution and status is problematic. It's too short to exist as its own paragraph, and new paragraphs should not begin with transition words such as "however". I suggest either merging this with the previous paragraph, or expanding it and removing "however".
Done LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2010, the total population had declined by 30 percent over the past ten years." Do we have any stats or estimates on how many anteaters were alive in 2000 and 2010? I think that would be more informative than the percent difference. Also, if such numbers aren't available, a much more natural phrasing would be: "Between 2000 and 2010, the total population had declined by 30 percent."
Couldn't find any stats so changed to suggested sentence. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giant anteaters live in home ranges" What is a home range? A link or short description would be useful.
Linked. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In other parts of Brazil, anteaters may need at least 9 km2" In what sense do these animals "need" this much space?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of Reproduction, there are three consecutive sentences that start with "During". I suggest finding alternative phrasings to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have survived up to 16 years in captivity." Why is this in the Reproduction subsection?
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may not be anything in the literature which can answer this, but one question that is not addressed in Reproduction: How many pups does a mother raise in her lifetime?
Will check. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not found. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how large are the pups when they are first born?
Will check. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the mythology and folklore of the Amazon Basin" Shouldn't this mention the people of the Amazon Basin? Perhaps this is what was meant: "In the mythology and folklore of the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Basin".
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly in a Yarabar myth" I'm not seeing anything on Wikipedia or Google that mentions the Yarabar people. I suggest reviewing the source to make sure that this is spelled correctly.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Kayapo people have masks ... during naming and initiation ceremonies." This should probably say one of the following:
    • "The Kayapo people wear masks ...during naming and initiation ceremonies."
    • "The Kayapo people have masks ... which they wear during naming and initiation ceremonies".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released during the Phoney War, the film may have referenced France’s Maginot Line." Was this a reference or an allusion? There's a difference.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Flash cartoon Happy Tree Friends features a nerdy blue-gray anteater named Sniffles." Citation?
I don't think the existence of a cartoon character on a show with its own wiki article needs a cite but I removed the "nerdy blue-gray" part. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lin edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…i want to know what needs to be improved from this article from someone else perspective.

Thanks, Greg Heffley 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd un-bold Linsanity in the lead. It's not a nickname.
  • "He is known for his public expression of the Christian faith": I'm not sure the citation backs this up. In fact it says his Christian faith is "less well-known"
  • "They are dual nationals of both Taiwan and the U.S.": "Both" here is redundant.
  • "three days after the Eagles": It's not clear who the Eagles are, but I assume that's Boston. Might clarify this.
  • "Frank Hughes of Sports Illustrated wrote that he talked with the occasional": For clarity's sake, probably best to say "Lin" instead of "he" here. And I think "spoke" is slightly better than "talked"
  • "Lin was a good scorer for himself": remove "for himself"
  • "He scored many offensive fouls": "He committed"
  • "He increased his body weight from 200 pounds (91 kg) to 212 (96)—including 15 pounds (6.8 kg) of muscle": How can he gain 12 pounds overall but put on 15 pounds of muscle?
  • "On January 28, Davis suffered a setback that postponed his Knicks debut": Can we be more specific about what this setback was?
  • "career-highs" doesn't need a hyphen because it isn't being used as a compound adjective here.
  • "After the game, D'Antoni said Lin has a point-guard mentality": "had"
  • "rid[e Lin] like freakin' Secretariat.": I recommend playing it thus: ride Lin "like freakin' Secretariat" (awkward brackets)
  • "I do think (my ethnicity) did affect": "my ethnicity" in brackets.
  • "in honor or Lin" --> "of"

It looks very good to me. I think it meets all the GA criteria, for example. I could only find a few relatively minor issues. You might consider expanding the lead a little bit, maybe to three paragraphs. You also might consider describing Linsanity in the second sentence, since that seems to be relatively important to who he is and what he's known for. Imagine if you were reading this article and had no idea who Lin was. You'd probably be surprised to hear about all the excitement surrounding him when you reached the last part of the second paragraph. Until then, all we know is that he's a pro basketball player who went undrafted out of college. Anyhow, I think you could move Linsanity into the first paragraph, then go on in the second one to describe his early life and college career, and in the third talk about the NBA and perhaps his personal life. I think the problematic way in which the media dealt with his race may be worth at least a passing mention in the lead. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Desha edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another of my Kentucky governor articles. Significant expansion was made possible by the availabilty of new sources, including articles from the Filson Club Historical Quarterly that were recently placed online, publication of a relevant book by Matthew Schoenbachler, and my securing a copy of The Critical Court Struggle in Kentucky (1929) as a Father's Day gift. All that adds up to an expanded article which is hopefully ready to make the leap from GA to FA. Please review as though this were an FAC, which is its next stop. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This is an excellent article.
  • I would advise a brief in-text description of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (in the body, not the lead), something like: "the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which reinstated state-sanctioned persecution of Huguenots." That's not the best phrasing, but something of this nature may worth including.
  • "Between the ages of fifteen and twenty-two": should this be "15 and 22"? What's the article's numbering style? It seems usually one through nine are spelled out, and the rest are numeralized.
    • My reading of WP:MOSNUM suggest that it can go either way in this case, but I have no problem changing it, which I have done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably fine either way as long as it's internally consistent.--Batard0 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The couple had thirteen children" seems somewhat out of place in the Early life and career section, given that they clearly didn't have all these children in his early life.
    • Yes, but unfortunately, I don't have birth dates for any of them (although I'm sure I could locate one for the infamous son Isaac), and sprinkling "In such-and-such year, another child was born" thirteen different times throughout the narrative doesn't strike me as prudent. Although it may not be entirely congruent with the "Early life" section title, it has usually been my practice to mention the births of all children there unless the birth (or death) of a child affected something specifically for the subject. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. You might consider moving this to the later life and death section, given the circumstances. Ideally you would be able to say something like, "The couple had the first of 13 children in XXX year," but that doesn't seem possible here. It's all right as is, but I'd suggest it's slightly awkward to go from him marrying in 1789 --> the couple had 13 children --> they moved to Mason County in 1792. I at first interpreted this sequence to mean they had 13 children between 1789 and 1792 before realizing of course that was impossible. It might be somewhat clearer if it were phrased as "The couple had 13 children in their XXX-year marriage" or an alternative that would set it in the logical context.--Batard0 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Early life and career section, it isn't entirely clear to me what made him decide to enter politics or what got him into the military. What role did he serve in the military (outside his formal positions)?
    • I, too, was disappointed with the scanty available details about his military service. I've asked another editor familiar with the time period to see if he could locate anything else. Generally, life on the frontier included skirmishes with the natives almost by default, and one source mentioned that, after Desha's two brothers were killed, he was especially zealous in participating in combat against them. As for his decision to enter politics, I don't really know about that, other than to say that an honorable military career was frequently a prelude to a successful political career in early Kentucky. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, perhaps we could build some brief additional context around his military service without directly ascribing motives to him (assuming the sources don't contain this). Maybe something like: "several military campaigns against the Indians, with whom settlers of the area had long been in conflict over territorial rights" if in fact this is the case.--Batard0 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Desha's old friend William Whitley die in the Battle of the Thames?
    • Yes. I had hoped that calling it a premonition would be sufficient to convey that. Calling it an "accurate premonition" seems a little awkward. How would you suggest conveying that the premonition was indeed accurate? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The easiest way, I think, would be simply to write a sentence after this saying, "Whitley died in the battle."--Batard0 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was disappointed to at the decision" Excise "to"
  • It might be worth describing the Panic of 1819 as "the first major financial crisis in the United States" or something like that within the text, obviating the need to follow the wikilink.
  • "Despite the fact that Desha" -> "Despite that Desha"
    • See if my alternative works. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. My logic is that there are usually more economical ways to say "despite the fact that".--Batard0 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider elaborating on the debt relief issue a little more when it is introduced. Who were the winners and losers in this debate? Was debt relief aimed primarily at farmers who took on large amounts of debt to finance their land and equipment? Was the merchant class generally opposed? It would be nice to get some of the social context of the debate in there.
    • Sometimes I get lazy about this both because it is a very complex issue and because you cannot write about any Kentucky politician from this era without talking about them viz a viz the Old Court-New Court controversy, so I've written about it in a lot of different articles. How is it now? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is much clearer. One quibble: I'd suggest replacing "large tracts of land" with "large parcels" or some such, since it's shorter.--Batard0 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kentucky historian Thomas D. Clark recorded that "Desha made..." -> "Kentucky historian Thomas D. Clark wrote that Desha "made..."
  • Can we have a very brief description of the Green v. Biddle case here: "recent decision in the case of Green v. Biddle, which XYZ"
    • It's a little awkward to express succinctly. See how I did. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's indeed a bit complex. It seems the point was that the decision invalidated land claims granted to some Kentuckians. It'd be nice if it could be simplified, but I thought about it and I'm not yet sure exactly how you'd do it.--Batard0 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how this flows from what comes before it: "Relief partisans set about removing the offending judges on the Court of Appeals". It think it'd be good to have a little more preamble and context before introducing this (I know we've discussed the appeals court's actions two sections before, but it would be good to set this more firmly in context by saying Relief partisans set about removing Court of Appeals judges who struck down earlier legislation, etc.).
  • Avoid starting sentences with "Despite the fact that": there are almost always more concise alternatives.
  • That's about it. Overall, it's a very good article. I think it should pass FA without much fuss. The references are very good, the writing is clear and engaging and it covers the subject in an adequately comprehensive way.--Batard0 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I'll be happy to support this once it's an FA nomination; let me know when the time comes.--Batard0 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always glad to have this offer from a reviewer. My FACs move through the process "like molasses in December", as they say where I'm from. Apparently, Kentucky governors aren't all that interesting in the grand scheme of things. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Crow Dog edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare this article for a FAC review, and it has been two years since the last peer review.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 03:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "lived on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. The Rosebud reservation is located in south central South Dakota on that state's border with Nebraska." can be more succinctly put with "lived on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in south-central South Dakota on its border with Nebraska."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States, once gold was discovered" is better phrased as "Once gold was discovered WHEN?, the United States..." etc.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crow Dog was among the fighters who fought in this war" can be more succinct: "Crow Dog fought in this war"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crow Dog shot and killed Spotted Tail,[fn 4] who was the uncle of Oglala Lakota war leader Crazy Horse": We need to say when this happened.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which hurt him in the view of many of the tribe": Hurt him how? Did it give rise to questions about his legitimacy?
Cited to source stating that it hurt him. It was based on the schism between traditionalist and accommodationist members of the tribe. GregJackP Boomer! 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the man he later killed, Spotted Tail, did not." needs citation.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, Crow Dog was a "traditionalist" and although he had been a captain in the tribal police, he was fired by Spotted Tail sometime after a July 4, 1881, confrontation during which Crow Dog pointed a rifle at Spotted Tail." Needs citation.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to most reports": Recommend removal and simply citing this sentence saying he had not been chosen as chief.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was believed that the killing itself occurred that day": Who believed this? Who asserts it? Also, "itself" can be excised.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the result of two upset men meeting" is better as "as the result of the two men meeting"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was a later conflict with the Indian Agent that forced the disbanding of the tribal police and Crow Dog's loss of his position." can be more clearly put as "A later conflict with the Indian Agent forced the tribal police to disband, and Crow Dog lost his position."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about the killing needs to be better cited. It's not entirely clear where these different versions of events come from.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matthews then looked at the law dealing with Indians, specifically Revised Statute § 2145 (laws on federal crimes apply to Indian reservations)[16] and § 2146 (exceptions)": I think you can deal with these statutes in a less technical way, saying something like: "statutes on the application of laws and federal crimes to Indian reservations and the exceptions to those rules." Then in the citations or footnotes, note the specific statutes involved. Same goes for the earlier reference to §5339. When you cite the §2146 later, you can simply shorten it as "statute covering exceptions." This sentence also lacks a period.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a suggestion: First say: "Matthews noted that Crow Dog was indicted for murder under a statute prohibiting murder on federal land." Then say: "Matthews then looked at the law dealing with Indians, including a statute that applied the prohibition on murder to Indian reservations and another covering exceptions to prosecution." Then cite the specific statutes and their numbers in the footnotes/refs.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crow Dog had a tremendous impact on tribal sovereignty." Cite.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a nice article. If you want to get it to FA, you might consider expanding the lead, doing some more research on the murder and expanding a bit on where this fits in the Supreme Court's dealings with Native American rights. A lot of this is already there, but could perhaps use some elaboration.--Batard0 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These all look good to me. It's a well-written article. I'd just reiterate that you might consider a slight expansion of the lead as well as additional context about how this fits in with the Supreme Court's treatment of Native American rights. If that can be accomplished, I'd be delighted to support it in FA, if that's where you want to go with it.--Batard0 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corona Australis edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure how much depth to go into each subtopic. Main one is discussion on the Corona Australis Nebula, which is the star-forming region that covers part of the constellation. Also not thrilled about the history bit - all input appreciated (I feel like a bit of a neophyte with this subject matter still). Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Here are a few observations to start with.
  • In the lead, "2nd-century astronomer" (2nd century is a compound adjective and takes a hyphen)
  • Suggest "its regular arc of stars renders it distinctive in appearance." -> "its regular arc of stars renders it distinctive."
  • "It contains one of the closest star-forming regions": Closest to what? Earth?
  • "dusty dark nebula": wikilink "dark nebula", not just "nebula".
  • "Corona Australis Nebula" -> redlink this?
  • "about 430 light years away": again, from earth?
  • "which varies correspondingly in brightness with them": Remove "correspondigly" (redundant)
  • "The recommended three-letter abbreviation": Remove "recommended"? How is this a recommendation?
  • "Not a bright constellation" -> "While not a bright constellation"
  • "It is a blue-white main sequence star located 130 light years away" from Earth? From other stars?
  • "spectral type A2Va": wikilink "spectral type"?
done down to here (leaving this as a placeholder really, though I do wonder about having to put "from Earth/our Solar System" after every "light year away" entry.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beta Coronae Australis is an orange giant located 510 light years distant" from what?
  • wikilink "double stars"
  • I think you should say somewhere in the lead that it's made up of six stars.
I was contemplating removing that as if you type in Corona Australis into google images, then a varying number of stars are linked in a pattern, and it looks best when it is 8 or more as it starts to make a nice circle then. The number of six seems pretty arbitrary and I only found it in one source. I'll make a firmer decision once I find some more info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a pair of yellowish white stars 58 light years away, which orbit each other every 122 years" Away from each other?
agreed - that one is confusing... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they are splittable with a 100 mm aperture": No idea what this means.
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both components are F8V dwarf stars" wikilink "dwarf stars"
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it lies 98 light years away" "and are 1700 and 490 light years away respectively" etc.
  • The notable features section reads like a list rather than a narrative prose description. Instead of summarizing and touching on the key points, it's essentially a listing of the stars and their various properties. It doesn't make for engaging reading. I'd consider shortening this or finding some other way to summarize. You might move some of the material into the list of stars article.
  • Στεφάνοι is Greek to me. What's it mean?
  • "second century AD" -> 2nd century (consistency)
agreed/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history is the best part of the article; in fact, you might consider expanding it if you want to get to FA status with this. I could see multiple sections on the various traditions. So Corona Australis in Greek culture/astronomy/whatever, in Chinese, in European etc. Or perhaps even better, you could make this chronological, describing how the constellation evolved in various mythoologies around the world. This would take a good amount of additional research, I imagine...best to find some books that go into depth on the subject.--Batard0 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that! I'll get cracking.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RJH Comments – The prose looks good and there is some interesting material. Here are a few issues:

  • The visual appeal of this arcing pattern of stars is only mentioned briefly in the lead. There's a few sources that mention it. Is there anything that can be added?
  • Beta Coronae Borealis has the name Nusakan,[2] which contradicts the statement about the alpha star being the only one with a name.
errr. wrong Corona constellation ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm always a little iffy about terms like "blue-white ... star", because the color is subjective. But in the particular instance of α CrA, the color of an A-type star is usually described as white.[3]
duly whitened Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kappa Coronae Australis ... the blue white components": the classes are B9V and A0III; pretty close I guess, but probably more white than blue white.
gah! I'll leave it out and write about each separately. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambda Coronae Australis is another A-type star, but is described as blue white.
duly whitened Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • R Corona Australis is a Herbig Ae star.[4] You might mention that.
  • Epsilon Coronae Australis is a contact binary of the W Ursae Majoris-type. Worth a mention, I think.
agreed and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paragraphs are pretty brief. Can they be expanded a bit?
  • In the history section, some individuals are identified by their nationality and profession while others are not. It would be good to better identify Ptolemy and Jérôme Lalande.
agreed and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some instances of the redundant text 'also'.
subtracted Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the SIMBAD references, the full name is the "SIMBAD Astronomical Database" and the publisher is "Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg".
A fleshier ref definitely makes me feel more comfortable Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it suggests you do so before listing articles for featured article candidacy. I believe it meets the featured article criteria.

Thanks, Hyacinth (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak edit

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

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

I have done lots of work on improving this article and it has come along way since I found it way back in October'11.

Thanks, United States Man (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Awake) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am very interesting in seeing this article at FA. I'd like to see the article at FA ASAP.

Thanks, TBrandley 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romansh language edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have expanded this article over the past few months to the point where it seems to exhaust all relevant topics. Of course, it could still use some copy editing and proofreading and I'll probably continue tweaking a few things here and there, but I would now like to get some feedback from other editors. In particular, I would like to know whether there is some crucial topic that still needs to be covered, if things are clear and concise enough (especially in the Language Structure section), and whether or not the article goes into excessive detail in some sections.

Thanks, Terfili (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked it over quickly.

  • The sample table giving different translations of The Fox and the Crow doesn't really work on brownsers that aren't maximized, or on cell phone/smartphone browsers. At the very least, the widths of the colums should be made absolute, rather than percentages, but it might be better to have them sequential.
  • There were quite a number of statements without inline citations, e.g. "About 10% of all Romansh speakers reside in parts of Grisons outside the traditional Romansh language area.", "Other classifications group Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, and Surmiran together as Rhenish varieties. Surmiran in particular often forms a transition zone between the dialects of the Engadine and the Rhine valley."
  • The duplicate links could be cut down---e.g. Durich Chiampell (a redlink) is linked in two consecutive pararaphs in the Origins and development until modern times section. See WP:OVERLINK, where it recommends link words only once per article (although personally I think it's fine in separate sections, as people often don't read article sections sequentially).

Without being familiar with the subject, the article does seem to me to be well-organized and comprehensive. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! I've tried cutting down on the links a bit, but I also think that it's fine to have them in separate sections. Especially since many links are to regions or towns most English-speakers will not be familiar with. I'll add more inline citations; usually I simply didn't bother putting in the same citation after each statement, so the source is often the previous or next citation. Pretty much all the statistical info comes from Furer 2005 for instance, who is the prime source for data from the Swiss census. --Terfili (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an inline citation for each section. If a citation applies to the following statement(s), then just put it after all the statements in a paragraph to which it applies. A single citation at the end of a paragraph is perfectly fine. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me... I'm making copyedits as I read the article.  Sandstein  12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Hinde edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has had a substantial overhaul in the past few months, and just received an excellent copy-edit. The article is still ranked as start class and low importance, but it seems that those classifications no longer apply. The goal is to reach FA article status, and I would be grateful for any recommendations or nominations for this article. Thank you in advance. Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC):Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas S. Hinde/archive2.[reply]

Tripura edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a small state nestled in the north-east corner of India. Geographically isolated and economically backward, the state is noted for its biodiversity and ethnic diversity. Except the "culture" section, all other sections are, IMO, well developed, with appropriate references. The culture section is getting improved, too.

Any reviews are welcome. Specifically, prose can be a major focus (like many other India-related articles). Of note, there are many red wikilkinks, especially in geography and flora and fauna sections. Any help creating articles from those red wikilinks will be great!

Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It is indeed a well-developed article. I think you should consider submitting it for GA, and then bringing it back to PR or else going straight for FA once improvements are made to the prose and in other places.
  • I wouldn't worry too much about redlinks. They're fine even in FAs. It's up to the community to create these pages.
  • I'd recommend looking at other FAs as models for this one. I thought Gangtok may be particularly relevant.
  • What about a climate box and a separate climate section, as Gangtok has?
  • How about a Media section at the end (after Education)?
  • Specific suggestions follow. First in the lead:
  • "third smallest" -> "third-smallest" (compound adjective takes hyphen)
  • "several north-south laid parallel hill ranges" -> "several north-south hill ranges" (if they all run north-south, they must be parallel, no?)
  • "by the Tripura Merger Agreement" -> "with the"
  • "led to tension" -> "has led to tension"
  • "remains peaceful" -> "remained peaceful" as of 2012?
  • "with only one major highway connecting it with the rest of India" see WP:PLUSING and rephrase.
  • "most of the residents" -> "most residents"
  • "although service sector contribute the most to the gross state domestic product" -> "although the service sector is the biggest contributor to the state's gross domestic product"
  • "also source of livelihood" -> "also a source of livelihood"
  • "Scheduled tribes": I'm not clear what this means. Is this a caste thing?
  • "with Kokborok-speaking Tripuri people forming the major tribe" see WP:PLUSING and rephrase.
  • "The mainstream Indian cultural elements led by Bengali culture coexists along with tribal traditional practices." I can't make sense of this. Indian culture led by Bengali culture? Is there a way to make this clearer? Can we say Manstream Indian and Bengali cultures coexist with traditional tribal practices?

Etymology

  • "several etymological root of the name" -> "roots"
  • "In ancient time" -> "ancient times"

History

  • "significantly longer and difficult" -> "significantly longer and more difficult"
  • "Reversal of demographics led to tribes becoming minority": not sure what this means. Is it "tribes becoming a minority"?
  • "and ebb and flows of insurgency spanning decades" -> "and an ebb and flow of insurgency spanning decades"
  • "the state—the state remains peaceful as of 2011." -> "the state. The state remains peaceful as of 2012."

Geography and climate

  • "Seven Sister State" -> "States"
  • "third smallest state" -> "third-smallest state"
  • "Indian states of Assam" -> "state"
  • "the rocks found in the state represent age from oligocene epoch" -> "date from the oligocene"
  • "to holocene epoch" -> "to the holocene epoch"
  • "Some flood plains located in the western and southern part of the state form the major part of agricultural land" -> "Flood plains in the western and southern parts of the state contain most of its agricultural land"
  • "Muhuri and Feni are the southwestward rivers" -> "the Muhuri and Feni flow southwestward"
  • "The state is overall subject to a tropical savanna climate that is designated Aw under the Köppen climate classification" -> The state has a tropical savanna climate designated Aw under the Köppen climate classification"
  • "undulating topography lead to local variations" -> "leads"
  • That covers it up to the Flora and fauna section. I think it's very close to ready for a GA review, though, which should pick up more of these issues with the prose. It's not a major amount of work. But you might consider adding sections before submitting if that's what you decide to do.--Batard0 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you for the detailed and thorough peer review (and I how you will read the rest of the article as well). I have made changes as suggested by you. I apologize for some of the rather silly mistakes (such as noun-verb disagreement); should have taken care of those before.
As you have pointed out (and we expected), there are many copy-edit and good prose issues (such as WP:PLUSING). I have tried to take care of those as suggested by you. The scheduled tribe has been wikilinked, and yes, it is a caste-related thing. We can explain that in demographics section, rather than explaining it in the lead. An appropriate wikilink may be sufficient, what do you think?
The problem with a climate box is Tripura being a state, the data from various cities differ. If it was an article on a city, climate box would have been easy (data from a single weather station would suffice). There are climate box for several state and country articles in wikipedia although many of those under-represent the climatic variety present in the particular state or country. I am not sure if climate data for the whole state of Tripura is available, I will try to find out. We did not make a separate "climate" section since that section would be quite small in size; we put geography and climate together in a single section.
Media might be added, but I wonder if there would be enough data as to make it a separate section. This article actually closely follows West Bengal article, which is a Indian state and a featured article. Gangtok being a city may not be an appropriate article to model.
Once again, thanks a lot for the peer review. The plan is to take it to the league of copyediors after peer review, and section addition/improvement is done. Thanks a ton, regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ayanosh edit

History

  • There are no dates mentioned before the 13th century.
I did not understand this. there is a whole paragraph and some more prior to the mention of 13th century. Mythological connections, and Pillar of Ashoka have been mentioned. Do you mean we should add approximate date to Ashoka? That can be done. But none of the other has any known dates. Rajmala was penned for the first tim ein the fifteenth century, that has been mentioned. And 186 kings of Twipra kingdom has been mentioned, to provide an idea of ancientness (although debatable).


Geography and climate

  • "avoid sandwiching text between two images" as per here.Also it would be better if both were not of water,especially the rural one would better have village people or houses or farms.
Correct. No sandwiching. Changed location. Unfortunately I could not find any other image. Of course will prefer any other image, if available and suitable.

Flora and fauna

  • Italicize the scientific names.
Done.
  • "Two types of Moist deciduous forest—moist deciduous mixed forest and Sal (Shorea robusta)-predominant forests—form major part of vegetation in the state." The use of dashes doesnt look great.
Changed the sentence structure. Please have a look.
  • "A survey in 1989–90" is a bit too old i think 22-23 years is too much for animals to become extinct or new species to be discovered.
I will try to find newer surveys. I thought this might be slightly old, so specifically mentioned the date.
  • Instead of a link for each of the three state symbols and leaving one of the four, it would be better to just have the one link at the top of the infobox.
Done.

Transport and communication

  • The total length of all the roads can be stated, i think you can get it here
This link actually gives old data (2000-2001). New data is available in this annual report @ Page 199, which has been used to reference length of national and state highways. I did not mention the total road length for no particular reason -- but ok, will mention now.

Demographics

  • "according to 2001 National Human Development Report, which was based on 1991 data."....again a bit old....Whatsay?
Unfortunately I could not find any more national Human Development Report after this. Are you aware of any newer one?
  • Also is it okay for the infobox on religion to go into culture.
No, it is not okay. I have moved it up. If this style concern persists, we can get rid of this chart, as the religious break up has been discussed in detail in the text.
  • For such a diverse ethnic society like Tripura, can there be one "Traditional dress of Tripura"?
Changed caption to Tripuri dress.
  • There are just too many dresses!!.
Yes :) A new editor added two new images to the article recently. Let's just keep all these images a few more days. Once the "culture" section is better developed, we'd choose one of the images (probably the couple; what do you think?)

Education

  • Some hard data on the status of literacy, schools, teachers, may be even some scheme (if any) in the state would help.
That's a great idea. Indeed we have good hard data on this. will add those soon.

P.S — My first peer review, so just ignore if you think there is any stupid suggestion.Cheers!!! Ayanosh (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ayanosh, it is indeed a very good review. I will reply to individual points later. And yes, too many dresses!! The latest two images were added just two days back!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to most of your comments above. Please have a look. Thanks for the wonderful review.Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's commets
  • Use consistent ref style: [10]:3 v/s [36], [38] (pages in References)
  • History is inclined more towards recent events. para 3, 4 covers last 60 years v/s para 1, 2 centuries

Redtigerxyz Talk 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point you told Redtiger, your first point. Is that really inconsistency? I don't know. The {{rp}} template is recommended to be used when different page numbers of the same publication is used to support different sentences, so that we don't have to re-write the same publication every time, with different page numbers. In case of the FN 36, 37 etc, the same page range has been used to support different sentences, that's why {{rp}} template was not used.
For your next point, I will try to add some more stories of the kings in paragraph 2 maybe? Whatever we try, the post-independence history will be more than the preceding 2,000 years, as little is documented before 15th century. Let's see... (sigh)--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Heber edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Not a name that evokes instant recognition today, though Heber was a force in his brief lifetime and is remembered for his hymns which are still sung in Anglican churches. He was a kind of forerunner of the Victorian school of missionaries (Livingstone, etc) that sought to evangelise the world, and his paternalistic attitudes make him a curiously outdated figure now, though he undoubtedly meant well. Any comments gratefully received. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

First, I looked at the images and all seems in order there.


Lede
  • " became staples in church hymnals for several generations." Perhaps "subsequently became staples in church hymnals". I'm imagining you're implying that they've fallen out of favour, but perhaps too much for the lede.
  • "large areas" I tentatively suggest "large portion". Can a pipe be done to British India or similar?
Early life
  • "quite in the accomplished manner of a theological controversialist" Perhaps so, but I'm not sure that this conveys meaning effectively to the reader.
  • "Thornton's decision to go to Cambridge was a matter for personal regret." Whose?
  • "Richard Heber was currently a fellow of the college, " Perhaps "then" for "currently"? And given that there are two Richards and two Reginalds, can any better method of disambiguation be found? I had to go back and study the family tree a bit before being sure I got this.
  • "He began to develop a reputation as a minor Romantic poet" There's something that bothers me about gaining a reputation (especially at his age) as a minor Romantic poet. Can an adjective be found to modify "reputation" and the word "minor" excised?
  • " were making " Made.
  • "in what was then the Swedish part of Finland and was the site of Europe's most northerly university." some slight ambiguity, in that it is unclear whether it implies whether Turku was the site of the university, or if, more generally, Swedish Finland.
  • "British Embassy they obtained access to most of the significant places, even visiting Tsar Alexander's private quarters in the Winter Palace." Were most significant places off limits then? I can understand Alex's rooms, but it kinda implies most things in St. Pete were not open to visitors.
  • "chaunt" consider a sic.
Rector
  • It would be interesting to know if Heber's collection received episcopal approval.
  • The sources don't unfortunately, provide this information Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather Watson's view is more believed, given that "Heber's tendency towards rather obvious sermonising" is stated as a fact rather than opinion.
Bishop
  • " early travels in west and southern Asia." I don't see a mention of these, but I am notorious for careless reading. They don't seem to have entered Asia during the Grand Tour.
  • " using a power newly provided to him by law" Perhaps "using a power newly granted to him by Parliament" (or whoever)
  • "untoward celebrations" Perhaps "excessive celebrations". Was his objection religious or financial, may I ask?
  • " her youngest daughter, Harriet." Given that the first daughter was dead, this leads to picky issues over "younger" vs. "youngest". Suggest avoiding the issue with "third" or "third and final".
  • You speak in the lede of the large areas of India which were part of Heber's diocese. You never actually say in the body what parts of India were in the diocese. I imagine his travels were to different parts of his diocese? Ceylon?
  • The sources are inexplicit here. I imagine that the diocese included all the parts of India under British rule, but I can't make this explicit. As for Ceylon, you will see from the last paragraph of the Travels section that it was included in his journeys. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant whether it was part of his diocese, but I would imagine so.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He was concerned that so few Indians were promoted to senior posts, " I would delete "so".
  • "His funeral was held the next day at St John's church, where he had preached his final sermon the previous day, and he was buried within the church, on the north side of the altar." The next day/previous day pairing may lead to some confusion; I would suggest deleting ", and" in favour of a semicolon.
Memorials
  • "St John's Church" In the previous section and in the image caption, it is "church". I would also throw an "initially" in the first part of the sentence.
  • " for permanent monuments." I'm not certain what "permanent" adds to this.
  • " in Trichinopoly a mission school founded by the German missionary Christian Friedrich Schwarz became the Heber Memorial School." Strike "mission".
That's all I have, interesting read, well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and comments. I will deal with them on Wednesday if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BB, A very interesting monograph indeed. There are only a few points, largely a question of style of punctuation. I've suggested my favoured approach, but these are possibly incorrect (heaven knows my work gets copy edited to within an inch of its life, so I must get most things wrong!) On that basis, please feel free to ignore or reject—especially those points relating to the use of commas. I've also suggested a couple of links to cover some of the more technical terminology that may confuse some. Feel free to ignore most or all of these, especially the stle ones.

Infobox

  • Spacing between MA and bracket for "MA(Oxon)" (Unless it is customary to run the two together)

Lead

  • After graduation comma he expanded… It may just be my personal use of them, so ignore if it's poor English.
  • I think this is a question of personal style. My habit is only to use the comma if there is a natural pause or a subordinate clause following. For example if I had written "After graduation, feeling the need for a change, he expanded his view..." etc, the comma would be there, but as it stands it is not needed.

Early life

  • "…inherited the estate and became rector of Hodnet in addition to the Malpas living." I'm not entirely sure what "the Malpas living" is. (You also refer to the "the family living" below) Is this something similar to the benefice? If so, perhaps either a footnote or a link might help.
  • At Bristow's comma Reginald met John Thornton, who became a lifelong friend. Again, probably just my personal choice.
See my comment above. Brianboulton (talk) 19
  • 09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Richard was currently a fellow of the college" I'd consider using [[Fellow#Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin|fellow]] to help out those who think a fellow is a chap, rather than an academic role.

Rector of Hodnet

  • On 9 April 1809 comma Heber married…" I tend to put in a comma after a full date.
  • Again, it's a matter of style. Americans always put commas after full dates; I only do it when a subordinate clause followa the date, e.g. "On 9 April 1809, when he was 26 years old, Heber married...". Not otherwise. The important thing is to be consistent through the article, and I still need to check for that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • noncommital is double t, I think?
  • Absolutely 19:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "which when it came was noncommital" to my ear, "which was noncommittal when it came" sounds a little easier.

Bishop of Calcutta

  • "together Australia and parts of southern Africa" should that be "together with"?
  • "On 15 June 1824 Heber" Again I'd comma after the date

Memorials and legacy

  • "training of local ordinands" – perhaps a piped link to Ordination?

All very minor points, really, as this is such a well-crafted article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making some very useful points, and for picking up a few mistakes. All these have been fixed, per the above responses. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from Cassianto

I have come into this somewhat late so some of the more obvious problems are now fixed. I am struggling to find any problems at all with this extremely tight and well written article. I wanted to offer a couple though so apologies if I might be clutching at straws but here goes:

Lead section
  • The trouble with "episcopate" is that the word has two meanings: either a bishop's term in office (the sense in which I have used it), or the collective body of bishops within a Church. Unfortunately, the WP link article was written on the basis of the second definition. However, I have amended that article slightly, to include the first definition, so the link is now justified, and done. I have also linked Shropshire. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "arrived at Moscow on 3 January" -- at or in?
Rector of Hodnet
  • As far as I can see there is no actual link to hymn.
  • That would, I think, verge on WP:OVERLINK. There can't be many people who understand English who don't know what a hymn is. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop of Calcutta
  • Whole section fine.
Memorials and legacy
  • Again, looks good to me.

Sorry for the brief set of comments but it's very difficult to improve any further. A very interesting read and one to be proud of. -- CassiantoTalk 09:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and the suggestions for improvement, mainly adopted. I am in no particular hurry to send this article forward for FAC, and will leave it for a few days, perhaps tinker with it a little. It's amazing what late improvements can be made, sometimes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystikal discography edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've extensively redeveloped it based on the other FLCs I've been involved in. Any criticism would be welcome if it improves the page.

Thanks, I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Put a period after "South Coast Music Group, Inc. and Big Boy" instead of a colon. The preceding material doesn't directly introduce what follows, and a period suffices.
  • Same goes for "number 13 on the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart": a period afterward, not a colon.
  • "with Jive distibuting the album rather then No Limit's parent label, Priority Records": "Jive distributed the album..." etc. is better. See WP:PLUSING
  • "peaked within the top 5" --> "peaked in the top 5" ("within" and "in" have different meanings; "within" implies a proximity to something or boundaries around something, so "in" is better here)
  • "Both of the albums featured only one single, "Ain't No Limit" and "That's the Nigga" respectively, both of which peaked within the top 65 of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart.": I recommend breaking this into two sentences, and removing "only" as follows: "Each of the albums featured one single, "Ain't No Limit" and "That's the Nigga", respectively. Both songs peaked in the top 65 of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart."
  • "Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom": Use a period after these words, not a colon.
  • "charted within the top 15": "within" to "in"
  • "and also achieved success in several overseas territories" --> "and achieved success in several other countries"
  • "released on December 18, 2001": Period, not a colon, after this.
  • ""Bouncin' Back (Bumpin' Me Against the Wall)" became Mystikal's third and final song as the lead artist to appear on the Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number 37, and also charted in the United Kingdom": This could be rephrased for clarity. I would suggest removing "as the lead artist" because that's implicit in saying it was his song. I would then recommend putting a period after "Billboard Hot 100". Start the next sentence, "It peaked at 37 and cherted in the United Kingdom."
  • "In 2004, following Mystikal's sending to prison on a charge of battery": This isn't completely grammatical. I would suggest saying something like: "After Mystikal began serving a prison term in 2004 on a battery charge"
  • " Following his release from prison": Please tell us when this is/was.
  • "will be released" --> "is to be released". We can't predict the future.
  • The rest of it looks in line with other discography FLs I looked at. No big issues there, I think. Fix these relatively minor prose issues, and as far as I can tell it's FL-ready. Hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with everything. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee Stadium edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made substantial additions in the last few weeks and I'd very much like to have a second (or third) opinion. Any constructive suggestions are welcome, but I'm especially looking for:

  • Suggestions regarding the structure of the article
  • Additional information that should or could be included. That said, since the stadium is very new, information resources are somewhat limited. I have looked at a number of featured articles for stadiums and fields, and I admire the level of detail in those, but that kind of detail isn't available yet for this venue.
  • International appeal. Can someone from outside the United States (perhaps unfamiliar with the silliness we call "football") follow the article easily?

Thanks, Runfellow (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "lost 48 to 23 against": Use an en dash here (–) to report the score. That appears to be standard across sports articles.
  • "It also utilizes": "uses" is better here.
  • "newly-built" doesn't need a hyphen, since "newly" is an adverb.
  • It's not entirely clear to me why the 2002 fee referendum is relevant to funding for the stadium. Was this necessary to finance the stadium?
  • " the Mean Green lost 48 to 23": Same as with the score above.
  • "Apogee Stadium utilizes various forms": "uses" instead of "utilizes"
  • This caption needs a period since it's a complete sentence: "A member of the UNT Talons, a school spirit group, fires Boomer the Cannon behind the south end zone"
  • The prose is generally very good.
  • As for your question about the article's structure, I don't see any issues with it. It flows in a logical way, I think.
  • I can't think of any additional information that's essential. Highlights from the team's performances in the stadium might be appropriate at some point, but it's so new that there's clearly not a lot of material to work with.
  • I doubt this will be very confusing to people who aren't familiar with football. You could put "American football" in the lead, perhaps: "college American football stadium". But that reads somewhat awkwardly. There isn't likely to be much confusion here, since it focuses on the stadium (as it should) and not the intricacies of play.--Batard0 (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback; I've made most of the changes you've suggested here. Regarding utilizes vs. uses, I thought that since utilize often means using something for an unintended purpose, and since this kind of environmental technology is not typically used for stadiums, it might be appropriate. But I'll toss it around and will probably change it in a day or two, just need to think about a better possible way to phrase it. Runfellow (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proper use for "utilize" is in medical contexts, i.e. "your body utilizes Vitamin C for digestion" (not true, just for illustration's sake). In other contexts like this one it's an unnecessarily long substitute for "use". "Utilize" is three syllables; "use" is one.--Batard0 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but what tells you the word is only used in medical contexts? Neither the Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster mention such a specification. I would typically use "use", but since the stadium makes unconventional (or the best possible) use of environmental technology, it is more specific (and thus more appropriate) than "use", regardless of its size. Runfellow (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Arsenikk (talk)
  • From an international perspective: nowhere does the article mention that it is in the US.
  • I know nothing about American football and I had no problems understanding the article. From a European perspective the "oddity" in the article is more related to athletics fees, which I was not even aware of existed before reading the article.
  • Does that sum up all the funding for the venue?
  • Although there is nothing as such wrong with the content in the oopening season section, the section header will cause problems; should there be similar section for each season?
  • Link Dallas Business Journal
  • A shame there isn't an image of the inside of the bowl
  • The article's structure is good. It varies widely how much information is available on the facilities of a given stadium, some have a lot and some have little. The article should reflect the sources, and no higher demands than that will be set, even at FA.
  • I havn't done an image review or controlled the sources, and I have mostly been focusing on content rather than prose, but I would say that this article should meet the good article criteria.

Overall most impressive. Arsenikk (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that the article is looking good for a FAN, I want the opinion of others to improve it further and give it finishing touches.Well ....looks like not just finishing touches but major touches, may be even a revamp. Ayanosh (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is one dab link I have tagged!

 YDone.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were some bare URLs, I have fixed.

I thought i had fixed all the bare urls but thanks.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are few dead links, I have tagged. YDone. --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abhisarika nayika, a painting by Mola Ram"– I think you can use quote/italic for the word Abhisarika nayika!

 YDone.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Education" section is not well written with some unclear terms like– ancient time (exact when?) it is believed (who believes?) More importantly, why you are placing this section at the bottom of the article? And why are you mentioning Mr. Bachcan and Rajiv Gandhi's name there? Bachchan is a graduate and Gandhi left Imperial College London without a degree!
  1.   DoneRemoved the not-so-well-written-and-cited lines.
  2. Now this is difficult i dont know what the correct format is.There is pretty much consensus that History and geography must be at the top but not about anything else.If you look at West Bengal education should be last as Uttarakhand doesn't have much of a media or sports.Also if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states and Delhi then also same pattern can be followed.But Karnataka has different format.So i dunno....whats the right format.
Is there any planning to create a separate article on "Education in Uttarakhand"? --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taken cognizance, will be there soon.Ayanosh (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is only written about their schooling in the state and not higher education.Have added links about their schooling though.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also is it wrong to make citations in the format dd-mm-yy and right in the format dd mm yy
as this is what you changed with all the references.Nevertheless I have made the two new references in the end for Rajiv Gandhi and Amitabh Bachchan in your format.Ayanosh (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was an automated edit! I can not understand the first line–is it a question or a comment? --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A question.Ayanosh (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you were using DMY dates, I used a script to change date formats, I did not change those dates manually! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the way i did it was wrong?Ayanosh (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something to fix section indent just before education section! You may try image resize, portion rewrite, or Template:Clear
Mmmmm....what? i dont see anything odd before education section.If you are talking about the space left after first para in the tourism section,it is because the template used there and i havent been able to remove that space.Ayanosh (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  DoneAyanosh (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK Dehradun, Nainital etc!
  • Remove those see also recommendations which are already linked in article body!
  DoneAyanosh (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brahmin– why not capital B?
  DoneAyanosh (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sumitranandan Pant museum, Kausani"– do you have a better image? That does not explain anything!
Actually if you can read hindi you can see the words sumitranandan pant sangrahalya.But i agree it can be better than this.But there isnt any other image of the museum and i thought something related to literature would add value,so i kept it.Ayanosh (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  DoneAyanosh (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1.   DoneAyanosh (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Not done Well...I have asked for a copyedit of the article.I can do major c/e changes like grammar, structure, and things like that but such nit-picking work would be difficult.But still i can do it if you tell the places where it needs to be done or the section headings.Ayanosh (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: A look at Karnataka, which is FA would also help undertstand the road ahead. Sections like, Language, Religion and Media can be added later on. Thanks! -Ekabhishektalk 03:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well i have seen the article and also West Bengal.
  2. I dont think there would be a need for separate sections for Religion and Language as they are covered in Demographics and also they are not mentioned here and are not part of FA West Bengal.As for the section on Media, I am not so sure about it.It is mentioned as optional here.Also Uttarakhand is almost 90% hilly and the population is dispersed in small remote villages, so there hasn't been much of a development in this area.But still if the consensus will be in its favour, i will write a small para about it but i dont see how it will add any value plus there wont be any image for it,already there are 3 sections without image and i feel not having images decreases the aesthetic value if not a FAC.Ayanosh (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The lead is full of WP:RECENTISM. I am removing some recentism, feel free to revert. Though the state of Uttarakhand is new, the history of the region spans centuries. See Karnataka as a guide for lead. Mention
    • rivers: Ganga, Yamuna
    • history of region (not state only): 1 para
    • tourism like hill stations
    • population: ethnicity of people
    • stats like area; no. of districts; Garhwal, Kumaon division names
  • No need of POVs in lead like controversial
  • IMO, Chipko is part of history, not Culture

--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.Have a look. Ayanosh (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion edit

No. Commercial site. Such sites often inflate facts as they selling product/tours of the place.

No. Commercial site

No. Commercial site

The author's reliability needs to be investigated further.

No. Commercial site

The author's reliability needs to be investigated further.

The author's reliability needs to be investigated further.

No. Commercial site

No. Commercial site

No. Commercial site Whats the opinion about these websites,can they be used as references?Ayanosh (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion given--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going for FAN edit

I think the article is looking pretty good.If someone doesn't come with any major problem in a few days I will go for FA.If someone reads this please have a final look at the article and see if there is any problem with it.Thanks Ayanosh (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you submit the article right now for FAC, it will be removed very soon. The references are not formatted properly. Many of them lack date and accessdate. And they are inconsistently formatted, that is, the references do not follow any uniform formatting. For example, the dates have been mentioned in different styles in different footnotes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have made some changes.Have a look.--Ayanosh (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comments
Since i'm not invited to leave suggestion but i would like to give little.
  • First of all focus on covering almost every topic related to state.
  • FA articles demands outstanding and line to line sources,despite sources used in it are poorly formed.
  • There is publisher issues also.

Eventually,visit West Bengal, Karnataka to know more.Uttrakhand gonna be need huge work in terms of FA. Thank You --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS for leaving a comment.There is no need for invitation here,I would be more than happy if more people would join in.
Regarding the article it would help if you could be more precise.I have already noted the problem regarding citations as pointed out by Dwaipayan and am working on it.As for the comprehensiveness of the article i have told my opinion in the previous sections in response to Ekabhishek.Cheers!!--Ayanosh (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the whole article, but the lead looks better. But still they is not ready for FA. You try for WP:GAN. Language is definitely below par for a FA.

  • the scenic Himalayas; Chota Char Dham, one of Hinduism's most spiritual and auspicious pilgrimage circuits; Some of the most famous hill stations: WP:PEACOCK term/view. Reads too much as like a tourist guide promoting state tourism. State facts, not opinions e.g
    • "Uttarakhand has a great diversity of flora and fauna." -> Uttarakhand has more than 500 (say) species of flora and fauna.
Toatally understand your concern and happy you made the point.Still, trying to justify why it was inclded Promoted FA version of WB and Promoted FA version of Karnataka and FA version of Karnataka on 2 August.Not saying it was right.Now trying to find the data or removing the line.--Ayanosh (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ganga: common name for the river is Ganges. Use it.
Don't like to use the anglicized version of the name .I know the wikipedia has rules and my wishes need not be followed.Will use if majority say.Ayanosh (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tibetan Buddhism has also made itself felt with the recent reconstruction of Mindroling Monastery and its Buddha Stupa, touted as the world's highest,southwest of Dehradun" The language does not seem encyclopaedic and seems wordy. tout is not right here, considering its connotation.
  Done
  • " including several that have not been recorded from elsewhere in Uttarakhand" wordy: including several indigenous /native to Uttarakhand.
Could not understand it ,so used the line from UNESCO site, whether it means native to valley or Uttarakhand.Ayanosh (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are locating at different altitudes varying from 800 to 5400 meters." located.
  Done
  • Quality of reference: Questionable WP:RS
    • Pande, B. D. (1993). History of Kumaun
    • Kala, C.P. 2004. The Valley of Flowers; Myth and Reality. International Book Distributors
  • page numbers missing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how to deal with it.I think not having the ISBN numbers will also be an issue.Don't have the books as they were already there when i started editing.Trying to find alternate online sources.Ayanosh (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in seeing it become a featured article. I plan to get it copyedited after the PR, so I am not too interested in prose comments. I would like to know what this article needs to become a FA.

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The image in the infobox needs expanding for its rationale. It has to have something to do with "Production", mentioned by critics. Currently, a violation of WP:NFCC. Please expand.
  • Unless you are creating anytime some, please cut down on the red links
    • There's only one red link; they are allowed and available on many FAs as they encourage readers to create articles. Besides, the red link is an episode which I will eventually create for the season six good topic. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moon and Moon", the quotes shouldn't be linked
  • Where is running time referenced?
  • "109th" write out in full words. Also, don't even think that's needed; not really needed
    • If the number is not between 1-9, it is an editor's choice to write it out in words or numbers. Also, it can be included per Over There (Fringe).
  • Where are the guests stars referenced?
  • Before in the episode, add "The show centers on ... In this episode, ..." See here
  • "It was written by Peter Nowalk and directed by Chandra Wilson. The episode was originally broadcast on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) in the United States on October 29, 2009. The episode was originally broadcast on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) in the United States on October 29, 2009." Two many short sentences. How about: "Written by Peter Nowalk and directed by Chandra Wilson, the episode was originally broadcast on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) in the United States on October 29, 2009.
  • "Give Peace a Chance" opens to Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital's chief of surgery, Dr. Richard Webber (James Pickens, Jr.)". We not its for the episode not need for "Give Peace a Chance" opens to
    • Mentioning the episode name in the first paragraph of the body text is not a violation of anything. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That image is in not way in the "Plot" section/or in the episode. Please remove the unneeded image; if needed, add something else, isn't talked about at all"
  • To many "episode", consider re-writing: "entry", "installment", "it", etc.
  • Same for "the" re-write: "this", various others
  • "Jenny Barak edited the episode's music and Donald Lee Harris served as production designer" need better source than the episode. How do we know your not faking? (Sure your not, but, you know)
    • A minimal use of rimary sources are allowed, especially when the claim is not extraordinary or controversial. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Featured music included Bat for Lashes' "Moon and Moon"" should be further expanding upon.
  • In "Production", may need to merge sentences. Some are too short
  • "television critics" television is not relevant. We know its television, just use "critics". (I have made that mistake before)
  • In "Reception", use the channel, then country, then the date of its airing
    •   Not done: It sounds awkward to say broadcasting twice right next to each other. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode received positive reviews among television critics" shouldn't be where it is. Nothing about critic reviews are there. They are in the second paragraph
  • Some details are very much not needed for the subject example: "The episode did not rank in the top three for viewership, but its 5.2/13 Nielsen rating ranked second in its 9:00 Eastern time-slot and the entire night, for both the rating and share percentages of the key 18–49 demographic, losing to the 2009 World Series, but beating out CSI, The Mentalist, Private Practice, and The Office, etc." Just have the original air date, channel of airing, country, the Nielsen rating/share, then the meaning of that.
  • Can a Nielsen rating be further explaining? See here.
  • Cinema Blend is a no-no, there is no way you will pass FA will a source/review like that. Is there an IGN, or The A.V. Club review that could be added?
  • FN1: Write full person name for credits
  • FN2: Is missing the author; there is an author at the url
  • FN3: Should use single quotes, rather than doubled quotes as per WP:MOS; this is for "Give Peace a Chance", which should be 'Give Peace a Chance'. I know, it sounds stupid, but its the rules
  • FN4: Should use single quotes, rather than doubled quotes as per WP:MOS; this is for "Give Peace a Chance", which should be 'Give Peace a Chance'. I know, it sounds stupid, but its the rules
  • FN5: Don't use italics in refs.
  • FN6: Don't use italics in refs.
  • FN7: After "Grey's Anatomy", it should be an en-dash, not a regular -, it should be –, as per WP:DASH
  • FN7: Just should be AOL, not AOL, Inc.
    • The corporate name is AOL, Inc.
  • FN8: Again, should use single quotes, rather than doubled quotes as per WP:MOS; this is for "Give Peace a Chance", which should be 'Give Peace a Chance'. I know, it sounds stupid, but its the rules
  • FN9: Again, should use single quotes, rather than doubled quotes as per WP:MOS; this is for "Give Peace a Chance", which should be 'Give Peace a Chance'. I know, it sounds stupid, but its the rules
  • FN10: Again, should use single quotes, rather than doubled quotes as per WP:MOS; this is for "Give Peace a Chance", which should be 'Give Peace a Chance'. I know, it sounds stupid, but its the rules
  • FN11: How is that (Cinema Blend) a high-quality source for FA
  • FN12: Again, should use single quotes, rather than doubled quotes as per WP:MOS; this is for "Give Peace a Chance", which should be 'Give Peace a Chance'. I know, it sounds stupid, but its the rules
  • FN12: Sepinwall Blogs? Should be The Star-Ledger, followed by its publisher (Advance Publications)
    • It is not called Sepinwall Blogs; it's What's Alan Watching?. Although he used to write for The Star-Ledger, now he writes for HitFix. During the time between his leaving of Star-Ledger, and his founding of HitFix, he posted his reviews at a personal blog site entitled What's Alan Watching?. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN13: After "Recap" it should be an en-dash, not a regular -, it should be –, as per WP:DASH
  • FN14: After "Recap" it should be an en-dash, not a regular -, it should be –, as per WP:DASH
  • FN14: Is missing the publisher
  • FN15: How is that (Zap2it) a high-quality source for FA. I know, it is normally a good source, but in this case, it isn't. On the page, it is noted that it is a blog. Please replace, I'm sure there's lots around.
    • There is literally no other more-reliable source that gives the necessary information. Zap2it is definitely an RS. It is published by the Tribune Company; a highly-renowned publisher that also publishes The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an "external link" for the Grey's Anatomy Wiki, for the episode
  • For the categories, do it in order. That said, 2009 television episodes should be the first category listed

Also, when nominated, please note in your lead, that TV Fanatic is a good source because of ... They will ask/say that it isn't good. TBrandley 04:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I'll address them ASAP. But also, do you think there is any missing information that would breach its comprehensiveness? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. You could add a bit more to "Production". But, not to "Reception", some needs to be removed from there! If you can find more (good source) information, add it. TBrandley 04:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that production is what would need (if any) expanding, but could you think of anything in specific? I don't think writing every crew member for the episode is a good idea, right? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't add every cast member. If you would like to, add "Writing", "Filming", "Filming locations", and some important guest actors. TBrandley 04:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image in the infobox is a clear violation of WP:NFCC. I believe that when you nominate for FA, it's going to be deleted right away. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reference 12 - a blog? WP:BLOGS. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't really a blog. Click on the web page. Its a news site, it was just wrote wrong. TBrandley 18:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation is given above. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icon player edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it still has a long way to WP:GA, but due to its scope, I believe that some tweaking can get it to there. I peer review would be highly helpful.

Thanks, :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Streetcar Disaster edit

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

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

Please check the article for readability, adherence to sources, and adherence to Wikipedia standards.

Thanks, Belchfire (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments
  • Suggest spelling out "WA" for the benefit of non-Americans
  • Don't wikilink dates
  • What timezone?
  • In general, the article is readable but a bit short - is any further information available?
  • How many were injured? How many were on board before the accident?
  • Try using the {{convert}} template for imperial measurements Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Kun Kaya Toast edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a Singaporean food business! Food and Asian culture are poorly covered on Wikipedia, so please support the quest to counter systemic bias by pointing out any and all issues that stand in the way of the goal of GA status! Hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of quick thoughts-

  • With "徐伏钢, "品牌就是对客户的承诺", Lianhe Zaobao, 14 May 2009", a transliteration of the name and a translation of the title wouldn't go amiss. Template:Cite news has parameters for this, if you're interested in using the templates.
    Clarification needed Should the transliteration/translation go immediately after the name/title or go after the date? As in, "徐伏钢 (Xu Fugang), "品牌就是对客户的承诺" ("Our brand identity comes from our commitment to our customers"), Lianhe Zaobao, 14 May 2009", or "徐伏钢, "品牌就是对客户的承诺", Lianhe Zaobao, 14 May 2009" (Xu Fugang, "Our brand identity comes from our commitment to our customers", Lianhe Zaobao, 14 May 2009")? If the latter, the Chinese version could also include the newspaper name in Chinese. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look how I've done it here. That's how I'd recommend doing it. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Transliteration and translation added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kaya in "her homemade kaya, which" and the secret recipe in "that only a few of the Loi family know." are dablinks.
    Partially done The link to kaya now points to kaya (jam), but I did not change the link to secret recipe as "a secret recipe is a recipe whose details are held under secrecy" is the intended meaning. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'd remove the link altogether. Linking to a disambiguation page is not good form. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Link removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Restaurants established in 1944? Also, if 1944 is correct, creating a new subcategory of Category:Establishments in Singapore by year would be good.
    Partially done Former category added, but latter category not added as "establishments" is too vague and Singapore is too small for that to be useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an incredibly well-established category tree. I'll add it myself. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Marking already done by you, with thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also played with the reference formatting a little- book and newspaper titles should be italicised. Hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review and helping with the reference formatting (while not using cite templates, which make page loading slower and make me feel dyslexic)! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invite to review the article, but I don't see any issues with copy-editing, and it appears well-referenced. It could use a photo, which may be difficult to come by unless you live in a host country, otherwise I'm not sure what else can be done to expand the page, unless you want to go more in-depth on the "sustainability" aspect. --Chimino (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber edit

Mainly some content issues, as in some more would be good.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • The first sentence of the History section is quite long. I'd split it in half.
    Considering Have to find a better way to express it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They launched their first overseas outlet, in Indonesia, two years later, - may as well add where in Indonesia if you can.
    Not done Could not find information. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and the Toastwich was introduced in 2010 - weird having this in the same sentence as Indonesia. Better to maybe find some more franchise start dates to add and shift this bit to another sentence, or move into next section.
    Done a different way, please check I decided to expand that sentence to include more information and awards, such as their incorporation, and mentioned the Toastwich as part of a menu expansion, removing the year as the source is vague. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on presentation - presumably they have a set logo?
    Clarification needed What do you mean by a "set logo"? The term is not used here and a Google search returned logos for a company named SET, which is probably not what you meant. If you mean the company logo, then yes, they have one, "Chinese calligraphy of the company name". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a toastwich anyway? Just a sandwich?
    Clarification Yes, but the bread is replaced with Ya Kun-style toast and the fillings are mainly from Asian, rather than Western, cuisine. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything on future expansion plans?
    Done Added that they intend to expand to Malaysia and Brunei, according to a Chinese source. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any stores closed?
    Clarification I used to eat at the Tampines Mall outlet, which no longer exists, but no sources mention this closure, so mentioning it would be original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Comments edit

This looks like a pretty good article. A few quick comments:

  • "Founded by Loi Ah Koon in 1944, Ya Kun remained a small family-run stall for decades, but have expanded rapidly since his youngest son headed the business in 1999." - to me, "his" is a bit ambiguous here. Maybe use Loi's name? I'm quite unfamiliar with Singarporean names (I apologize!), but what you say Loi Ah Koon would be referred after he's been referred to by his full name? What would his "last name" be?
    Clarification needed Most Chinese names comprise a one-character first name, followed by a one-character or two-character given name. Hence his surname is "Loi" and his name is "Ah Koon". The other two major groups in Singapore, Malays and Indians, use patronymics instead of surnames. "Loi's youngest son" would be ambiguous, since the youngest son also has the surname Loi, so are you proposing that I change "his youngest son" to "Ah Koon's youngest son"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it will be ambiguous because we do not find out Adrin's name until further down the article. It will be clear who "Loi" is. Another question, why wouldn't the son's name be Loi Adrin but instead Adrin Loi? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Some Chinese have both a Christian given name (Adrin) and Chinese given name (Boon Sim). They may be called by their Christian given name followed by their Chinese surname (per Western naming conventions) or by their Chinese surname followed by their Chinese given name. Their full name would be their Chinese surname, followed by their Chinese given name, followed by their Christian given name (or, for some, their Christian given name, followed by their Chinese surname, followed by their Chinese name). Changed "Adrin Loi" to his full name, "Loi Boon Sim Adrin", though the rest of the article uses his Christian given name because this is the English Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining and that's a good idea. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in subject verb agreements. Could you clarify?
    • "Ya Kun Kaya Toast (Chinese: 亚坤) is (singular) a Singapore-based chain of mass-market"
    • "Ya Kun remained a small family-run stall for decades, but have (plural) expanded rapidly since his youngest son headed the business in 1999. They have (plural) over fifty outlets, mostly franchised, across six countries, and are a Singaporean cultural icon, known for their traditional brand identity and conservative corporate culture."
    • "Although Ya Kun do (plural) not publicly disclose their financial figures"
    • Etc.
      Done, please check The "is" in the lead was the exception and has been changed to "are", but could you help check for any stray singular verbs? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The first sentence in Management looks troubling, though I may stand corrected. ("comprises", "oversees", etc.) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done Thanks for pointing that out! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says over 50, but the Products and services section says over 30. Which one?
    Clarification Over 30 outlets in Singapore and over 20 overseas outlets, so over 50 outlets in total. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah okay! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their staff are like a "close-knit family" and they have a policy of not firing or retrenching workers; the extensive training they give their personnel has prompted competitors to actively poach Ya Kun employees." - sounds just slighlt opinionated. According to whom?
    Noted, doing According to a book analysing business practices in the kaya toast industry, written by a professor at the National University of Singapore Business School. Several newspaper articles also mention these. However, I do realise that the sentence is too positively worded, perhaps due to its vagueness, and will examine how I can elaborate to focus on facts, thus making the sentence more NPOV. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks that would be great. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done with a different approach, please check I decided to shorten the Management section instead. Does it still sound opiniated? I hope not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks much better now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References look good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, any of these images can be uploaded as free-use. If any of these are indicative of the usual sort of food offered at the chain, they'd make a great lead image. (I can't tell, I don't really know what I'm looking at; the cuisine is a little alien to me.) J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of that collection of images, only two show their signature kaya toast with soft-boiled eggs and coffee (or teh tarik). I tend to not include images in my GAs, though. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think one of them would be a fantastic addition; that and a photo of the shop front (if we can find one) would help readers (especially readers not already familiar with the brand/cuisine) and add some visual interest to the page. A lot of Wikipedians are of the opinion that articles are next to useless without illustrations. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grey's Anatomy episodes edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in seeing it become a featured list in the near future.

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears good; will be ready after this. Good luck! If I find more, I'll add. TBrandley 05:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I'll get started right away! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most issues are resolved. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph B. Foraker edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning to take it to FAC as part of my endless series on the Gilded Age.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: First instalment, more to follow:

Lead
  • I have a problem with the opening sentence, which I found awkwardly phrased ("from Ohio from", etc). I've had a go at smoothing it, and have come up with: Joseph Benson Foraker (July 5, 1846 – May 10, 1917) was a Republican politician who was the 37th Governor of Ohio from 1886 to 1890, and served as Ohio's United States Senator from 1897 to 1909." Apart from anything else, that gives the proper chronology.
  • I also found this sentence difficult: "Foraker lost re-election in 1889, and ran for Senate in 1892, losing then, but was elected by the Ohio Legislature in 1896." My attempt: "Foraker lost re-election in 1889, but was elected to the United States Senate by the Ohio Legislature in 1896, after an unsuccessful Senate bid in 1892".
  • I suggest the sentence beginning "Foraker came to differ with President Theodore Roosevelt..." be split
  • The words in the last paragraph "and the senator left office in 1909" are redundant, as Foraker's term of service has already been stated.
Boyhood and Civil War
  • Is "a typical Ohio farm boy" different from a typical farm boy elsewhere?
  • In the next sentence "He received little formal education as a boy..." - the words "as a boy" are unnecessary in the context of the sentence
  • What is the nature of the office of "auditor" of Highland County?
Neither the memoirs nor Walters' biography is specific, but there is mention of making up the tax duplicates for the county treasurer. The name "auditor" implies that he made sure the books balanced.
  • "Joseph Foraker was a replacement for his older brother, Burch..." In what role was he a replacement for his brother? From what you say later it appears he filled a clerical post in his uncle's office, but this needs to be made more explicit.
  • "Foraker had as yet seen little actual fighting..." - prior to the relief of Fort Donelson, I take it. Perhaps, to make this clear: "Before this action, Foraker had seen little fighting..."
  • Do you mean "promoted to second lieutenant" or "commissioned as second lieutenant"? In the British army, the second would apply.
Foraker makes it clear in his memoirs that his promotion was to fill the place of an officer who had been promoted himself. I understand the distinction between commissioned rank and others, but in these state-organized regiments of the Civil War period, things were a bit looser, I gather.
  • The term "brevet" requires a link. Also perhaps aide de camp for the non-military among us.
Education and early career
  • "...graduated as part of Cornell's inaugural class, consisting of eight students." Suggest "...which consisted of"
  • I wonder if it might be thought overdetailing to mention the obviously brief and inconsequential partnership with Cole? (This is after all a long article.)
  • For what office was he supporting Alphonso Taft? This might be obvious to American readers but not, alas, to us foreigners.
  • "Foraker began to run for elective office as a Republican himself." Unnecessary intro; the rest of the paragraph gives all the necessary details
  • Any information on the nature of the illness that forced Foraker's resignation from his judgeship?
Foraker describes it as a temporary illness that gave him and his friends serious concern, and says it cleared up after some months of "rest and recreation". Walters says the same thing but for variations in language. I'm suspicious the illness may not have been purely physical.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next lot

Seeking the governorship (1883–1885)
  • Can we avoid "sought" repetition in first two lines?
  • Just a suggestion: "He had offended German-Americans over the issue, who were deemed likely to vote Democratic..." does not read smoothly. Perhaps: "His stand on this issue had offended German-Americans, who were deemed likely to vote Democratic..."
  • "though ill part of the campaign with malaria" needs comma after "malaria", and probably "for" before "part"
  • "to play an active role in Sherman's campaign" → "to play an active role in Sherman's presidential campaign". I would emphasise this a little later by saying: "Other candidates for the presidential nomination..."
  • It might be worth having a footnote to explain why President Arthur was a mere candidate—and unsuccessful—for his party's nomination. Just a brief note indicating how he came to be president, perhaps.
Policies as governor
  • "including the Poorman Law, requiring voter registration..." Better, I think, would be: "including the Poorman Law which required voter registration..."
  • The quote beginning ""I had a call from Major McKinley..." should be more specifically linked to Hanna.
  • Some confusion needs to be resolved around the question of the appointment of oil inspector and the appointment of deputies. What was the nature of McKinley's approach to Foraker after his re-election in 1887, and was George B. Cox apointed inspector or deputy? It might also be worth saying why the oil inspector appointment carried such esteem; were the fees large, were there perks etc? Did deputies get paid? Above all, what did oil inspectors or deputies actually do?
This gives a description. I gather from references that he did his work at refineries, and became less relevant as local refineries became rarer in favor of interstate pipelines which due to wide distribution are more likely to be of a given quality, or at least easier to check. I'm content to have the reader regard it as an archaic office sought after without the need for lengthy explanation.
1888 convention; defeat for third term
  • "deciding to push for Sherman's endorsement" → "and decided to push for Sherman's endorsement" (they decided at the meeting, rather than " met deciding")
  • Sometimes in the text it's not always clear who is meant by appellations such as "the congressman", "the governor". I got a bit confused in the first paragraph, and sometimes elsewhere.
  • "He felt relieved at the break..." Need to identify "he"
  • "Despite the factional opposition, Foraker sought a third term in 1889, hoping to be elected to the Senate as Sherman's junior colleague in the legislative election to be held in January 1890". It needs to be clearer that Foraker sought a third term as governor, hoping that at the end of which he would be elected to the Senate, and that his renomination in 1889 was for the governorship
Return to the law; first run for senator
  • "Hanna had made significant campaign contributions to legislative candidate" - should that be "candidates" (plural)?
  • Superfluous "instead" (third para, after "Sherman"
Election to the Senate; involvement in presidential race
  • Have we previously clarified, in this article, that at the time, US Senators were elected by legislatures rather than the popular vote? If not, we should do so here.

Will conclude later (today or tomorrow) Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I shall work through these also today or tomorrow. I will make it clearer why the oil inspectorship was prized, although the ability to hire deputies was part of it. But it did pay substantial cash, and paid by the oil companies, not the taxpayer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest

Rivalry with Hanna
  • "Bushnell (who would get to appoint a temporary replacement) and Foraker did not want to appoint Hanna..." This reads as though Foraker had a role in the appointment of the replacement. Surely, only Bushnell could appoint?
  • "...and the governor offered the seat..." For proper prose continuity, "and" should read "at which point", or something similar.
  • Dates: Bushnell announces Hanna's appointment on 21 February; Foraker is sworn in on 4 March. Yet: "Hanna adherents claimed that Bushnell had delayed the appointment of the industrialist until after Foraker took his seat..." That doesn't seem to tally with the dates as given. I understand, from reading on, that Hanna's appointment was not effective until Sherman resigned on 5 March, but that's a different matter from Bushnell's delaying the appointment.
I guess the idea was that they should have gotten Sherman to resign before March 4. I don't see that as likely. Sherman was not so far gone as to resign from the Senate without his next job assured, given that he knew there was substance to the rumors about him. McKinley could have withdrawn the nomination, or pressure could have been put on Sherman to avoid an embarrassing confirmation debate in the Senate. For some reason, I gather this fairly poor attack has stuck into history books, but as it has I have to cover it. I will attempt to clarify.
  • "With McKinley in the Executive Mansion (as the White House was still formally known) and Sherman expected to be senior senator, Foraker had known that he could expect limited patronage appointments for his supporters;" I'm not sure how to read this part of the sentence; is the sense "only limited patronage" (i.e a negative sense) or "a certain amount of patronage" (a more positive sense?
  • "...with Hanna instead in the Senate, Foraker was not excluded from appointments, but Hanna was able to exercise a veto over his candidates." Is the word "making" (or similar) missing before "appointments"? Also, it is not explained why Hanna had the power to exercise this veto.
  • The final sentence of this short paragraph jumps to a different topic and might be better placed in the next paragraph.
  • "This helped assure support..." I think "ensure"
  • "Roosevelt replied that his administration's supporters would vote for such a resolution..." Roosevelt could not state this as fact, only as expectation. He expected his administration's supporters to vote for the resolution.
  • Is "devolved" the right term to describe Dick's succession to Hanna's Senate seat?
I've changed it, but it can mean "inherit". Dick was close to Hanna.
War and territorial gain
  • "calling for supporting" is inelegant; why not just "supporting"?
  • It would be of help to the reader to know the gist of McKinley's "war message"
  • "...war quickly followed. Foraker followed..." Avoidable repetition
  • "US keeping Spanish colonies" → "US acquiring Spanish colonies"?
  • Unrequired comma after "passage of the legislation" - otherwise the sentence's meaning is lost
  • It "granted" the Puerto Ricans an American-appointed governor - I would have thought "imposed on" would be more appropriate, likewise in regard to the largely American-appointed legislature. A grant is a favour.
Opposition to Roosevelt/Brownsville case
  • " the power to set rates" - What rates are these?
  • Perhaps make it clearer that the "admisinstration-favoured bill" became the "Hepburn Act"
  • I had to use the link to find out what the Gridiron dinner was, and search hrough that article. It would save time if readers were given a few words of explanation in this article.
  • I imagine that "coon" was not considered (at least by white people) as a derogatory racial epithet in 1908, so although by today's standards inconceivable outside the KKK, the "All coons look alike to me" comment was probably not thought especially offensive then. Perhaps this should be clarified
It was certainly negative. I would have a hard time imagining them placing that in a programme book to be given to the present president.! I've linked to Wiktionary, much as I did for "colossal" in the Statue of Liberty article. The reader will know it is offensive, and that it was printed at a time when racial sensitivities were less than they are today. I would hesitate to say it was unacceptable then. It was acceptable among too many. I'd rather not dignify it with a footnote although I suppose I can if called upon. I knew this would be a touchy point but saw no alternatives. And a picture is certainly worth a thousand words.
  • "even though even though" - duplication
1908 race; defeat for re-election
  • "...left for after victory was gained" → "left until victory was obtained"
  • "Taft spoke in appreciation of Foraker for appointing him, twenty years previously, to the bench" - clarify that this was while Foraker was state governor, and also be a bit more explicit about the nature of the appointment.
  • "Foraker sent a letter by the hand of Senator Dick to Taft" - faintly old-fashioned phrasing.
Final years and death
  • Presumably Harding's 1910 gubanatorial bid was unsuccessful?
  • "Although Harding did not attack Foraker, his supporters, including Cleveland publisher Dan R. Hanna (son of the late senator), had no such scruples, and Harding was victorious in the primary with 88,540 votes to 76,817 for Foraker and 52,237 for Cole, and subsequently, the general election." Too much information foe one sentence. My suggestion: "Although Harding did not attack Foraker, his supporters, including Cleveland publisher Dan R. Hanna (son of the late senator), had no such scruples. Harding was victorious in the primary with 88,540 votes to 76,817 for Foraker and 52,237 for Cole, and subsequently won the general election."
  • Did Foraker take up Roosevelt's invitation to visit him?
No, it was less than a year before Foraker died, and he did not go east again before his death.
Assessment
  • Some citation issues:
  • You refer to Nevins' biography of Foraker, yet the book is not listed as a source. Thee quotations from the book are cited to a different book
Nevins wrote the foreword to Walters' book, but he was a reputable historian in his own right.
  • What was Murat Halstead editor of? And again, his opinion is cited to Walters.
Yes, it's quoted in Walters. The Cincinnati Commercial Tribune.
  • Gould quotation cited to Weaver
Yes, the quote is in another work.
  • I believe that when a source is being quoted verbatim from another work, the convention is to recognise this in the citation, e.g. "Gould, quoted in Weaver, p. xxi". That way, you are covered if the cited source misquotes or distorts the original. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. As with previous articles, an informative and engrossing account of old politics, starring someone who was a complete stranger to me before I began reading your articles. Now I seem to know him well, and feel almost a sense of warmth towards the old boy. I've not had time to look at images, but I'm sure you'll check these out before the FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. These have been taken care of or annotated why not. I'm glad you liked the old boy, he grew on me as well. Something more than a Gilded Age corporation senator. Maybe he had the vision to be president, given the opportunity ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 LinkedIn hack edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to reach a GA status. It's copyedited, it's a DYK, and now I want it to reach a GA.

Thanks, Dipankan (Have a chat?) 07:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Prose:

  • "change their passwords since the incident" --> "after the incident"
  Done
  • "Vicente Silveira" --> redlink this. Also, his official title is simply "director"?
  Done
  • "confirmed, on behalf of the company, that" --> "confirmed that" suffices. Also tell us when exactly he confirmed it. Two days later? A day later?
  • "would find their passwords are" --> "would find their passwords were"
  Done
  • "were first decrypted" --> "were decrypted"
  Done
  • " online, in plain text": No comma.
  Done
  • "security firm Sophos, warned": No comma.
  Done
  • "passwords could well be" --> "passwords could be"
  Done
  • "June 6, 2012" --> "June 6"

"  Done

  • "LinkedIn said that it would email all its members": If this was a statement, we should say "LinkedIn said in a statement that" or something of that nature.
  Done
  • "all its members detailing security instructions, and separate emails to explain how to reset their passwords" --> "all its members with security instructions and instructions on how to reset their passwords"
  Done
  • The "Reaction" section is a quotefarm. I recommend finding a source that summarizes the reaction, and then in your own words say how people responded to it, citing this source.
  • "Immediately after the data breach, LinkedIn apologized for what happened" --> "LinkedIn apologized immediately after the data breach"
  Done
  • "LinkedIn requested" --> "LinkedIn asked"

L  Done

  • "users whose passwords are compromised will be unable" --> "users whose passwords were compromised would be unable"
  Done
  • "LinkedIn account": Pluralize.
  Done
  • "old password": Pluralize.
  Done
  • "Reuters reported internet-security experts commenting that" --> "Internet security experts said"
  Done
  • "mobile calendar, without the user": No comma. And "user's"
  Done
  • "LinkedIn responded, claiming" --> "LinkedIn claimed"
  Done

Other thoughts:

  • The article would not pass a GA review in its current state for one reason: its layout doesn't comply with the MoS. The lead should be a concise summary of the body of the article. As it stands, it's an introduction to the article with a lot of information that's not repeated within the body. There shouldn't be any significant information in the lead that doesn't appear (cited) within the body. I would thus recommend creating new sections in the body of the article that flesh out the attack and the initial investigation before moving on to the sections you already have about the reaction, the response and the controversy. I would also recommend making the reaction section a synopsis of responses rather than a bunch of quotes strung together. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hall edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to make it a Good Article very soon, with great help from User:The JPS.

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Dream of the Rarebit Fiend edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last while greatly expanding, reorganizing and fully referencing it with the intention of submitting it for FA.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is fascinating stuff, and well-written too.
  • "24-year-old McCay had married 14-year-old wife": We'll have to say "a 14-year-old woman". It would be nice if we could name her and discuss, however briefly, how they met or the circumstances of their marriage, given that her youth makes it seemingly unusual.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally, McCay had conceived" --> "McCay originally conceived" works a little better, I think.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend putting a period after this bit where there's currently an em dash, separating it into two sentences.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the originally proposed strip, a "dope stick" fiend finds himself at the North Pole, unlike to secure a cigarette and a light.": Recommend removing "originally" to avoid repetition. Also I think "unlike" should be "unable".
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Typically, the strip would begin": Recommend converting this and what follows to the past instead of the past conditional, so "Typically, the strip began" ... "which progressively became" ... "Some situations were merely silly" ... "Other times, they were more disturbing" ... "characters found themselves" ... "a child's mother was planted and became a tree" ... "In some strips, the Fiend was spectator". Also, there's a period where one isn't needed after "dismembered or buried alive (from a first-person perspective)"
In these cases, "would" is not the conditional but the Imperfective aspect (describing something done habitually). —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1905, McCay would have the character" --> "had the character" etc.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with characters sometimes referring to McCay's alterego "Silas", and (more rarely) to the reader": Rephrase per WP:PLUSING. Easiest way would be to make it a separate sentence.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Background" section I think should include the number of strips McKay drew.
I'm not sure if there is a count for this—he did a lot of one-shot and other short-lived strips. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of it looks ok. Now some broader comments:
  • We don't discuss in too much depth how the strip was received at the time of its publication. It may be good, if possible, to get in some of that. We get that it was a success, but given its unusual themes I thought maybe there were some more detailed reactions to include. Was it shocking to audiences of the time?
  • I think it would be nice if the Overview section had a firmer chronological footing. Did the strips evolve and become more surreal/bizarre over the years? When were the strips discussed in this section published? Also, are any of the strips cited as McKay's best or most significant? If so, I think it would be useful to include a description of these.
  • I've seen a couple hundred of the strips (they're all out of copyright and are available online), and the strip seems to have been pretty bizarre from the get-go. I can't say that it got any weirder, and none of my sources say anything on the subject.
  • There are many sources that talk about specific strips, but (in the sources I have access to) none of them are really referred to as "best of"-type strips. McCay is typically seen as being prolifically full of ideas, producing multiple strips simultaneously as well as his animation and "chalk talks". It always seems to me that different strips are used to illustrate articles on Rarebit Fiend, so there don't seem to be any that are "canonical".
  • I'll see what I can do about some of the dates. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks to be in good shape. I think with some massaging it should be ready for a GA review and eventually FA. If you want to get to FA, I think it's going to have to be a bit more comprehensive, i.e. it should contain more granular detail about the history of the strip's publication and which of the strips were most important. I also think the "Legacy" section could go into more detail; it seems at the moment that its influence is mostly indirect. In other words, the producers of King Kong weren't directly inspired by the strip. But perhaps there were other cases where it was cited as an influence. I hope this helps.
The influence does appear to be mostly indirect. McCay's Little Nemo was a far greater success, appeared (in full colour!) in a newspaper with a far greater circulation, and has been comprehensively collected many times. Most people who are aware of Rarebit today found out about it through Nemo. As a result, it's something of a connoisseur's strip, for people already well familiar with McCay's other work. Of course, I'll include anything I can find, but Rarebit doesn't tend to receive quite as in-depth scholarship as Nemo does (with the exception of Merkl's $140 book, which I am unable to get my hands on. I've asked at WP:CMC about it, but have gotten no response). —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Batard0 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Cup edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Grey Cup is probably Canada's second most famous sporting trophy, and with the 100th Grey Cup coming in November, I am hoping it can reach FA status in time to appear as a potential TFA on the day of the game. As such, I am looking for feedback to guage how close to FA calibre the article is. A couple editors have already been kind enough to offer copy edits, but if there is more work to be done, please don't hold back! Thanks, Resolute 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "marks the 100th Grey Cup" seems a bit awkward. The game would mark the 100th anniversary, or would be the 100th Grey Cup, but I don't think it can mark the 100th cup. I don't know if that made any sense.
  • The sentence "The Grey Cup has been broken on several occasions, stolen twice, held for ransom and in 1947, survived a fire that destroyed numerous artifacts housed in the same building." is probably correct, grammatically speaking, but the syntax is a little strange. Since the first items in your serial list could begin with "has been" (has been broken, has been stolen, has been held for ransom) the final part seems out of place. Perhaps dividing the sentence might do the trick: "The Grey Cup has been broken on several occasions, stolen twice, and held for ransom. In 1947, survived a fire that destroyed numerous artifacts housed in the same building."
  • "Competition for the trophy has been exclusively within Canada" is a little ambiguous, since it implies that the game is only played in Canada, rather than only Canadian teams. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "Competition for the trophy has been exclusively between teams based in Canada,"
  • "The" should be capitalized in the phrase beginning "the University of Toronto Varsity Blues defeated" because it's a complete sentence following a colon.
    I must be blind, as I am not seeing either example. Resolute 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same thing for "the Saskatchewan Roughriders defeated the Hamilton Tiger-Cats"
  • "the Cup was forgotten" Forgotten or lost?
    The source I used specifically says "forgotten".
  • Not suggestion, just an observation: Why do sportsmen and athletes from 1890 to about 1930 have the funniest names?
  • "A push toward a more professional attitude" sort of implies that the players were not acting professional, personally speaking, but I don't think that's what you mean.
    No, I was intending to focus on the the sport from an organizational level, rather than the players. I will reword to clarify. !!!!

Otherwise I don't see any issues through a brief reading of the article. This clearly took plenty of time to put together, and the information is presented in a clear manner, without the jargon that often pervades sports articles. As an added bonus, it's an interesting subject to read about (or, um, aboot.) Runfellow (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, as well as the compliments on the article! I will look to address these comments tomorrow. Regards, Resolute 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And done. Everything should be addressed, specific comments left above as needed. Thanks again, Resolute 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Romance edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since the article's main contributor is no longer active, I plan on nominating the article to FA status. Some feedback on its current state and some points on how to improve it would be very appreciated.

Thanks —DAP388 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "sung lyrics that concern the situation of being in love with one's best friend" can be more concisely put as "sung lyrics about being in love with one's best friend"
  • "The song, containing elements of the music from the 1980s and the 1990s and influences of German house-techno music, has been described by Gaga as a pop experimental record.": Remove "the" from "the music". Also, we're describing a song, not a record, no? Perhaps it should be a "pop experimental track" or some other synonym for "song".
  • " the song has sold 9.7 million copies worldwide in 2010": Remove "has"
  • " ninth best song": "ninth-best song" (compound adjective)
  • "eventually winning seven of those": Remove "eventually"
  • "during which, she performed it": No comma needed here.
  • " followed by the song being released" --> " followed by the song's release" is better.
  • "The songs composed during that time are about the various": Recommend "were" instead of "are" here.
  • "Hence "Bad Romance" was the song that detailed whether she preferred such lonely relationships, or it was her wrong choice in men" is slightly awkward. I'd recommend something like ""Bad Romance" explored her preference for such lonely relationships and her poor choice in men"
  • "Gaga further detailed her inspiration": "Gaga discussed her inspiration further:" is better.
  • "praised the cover art saying,": Comma needed after "art"
  • " at Amsterdam" --> "in Amsterdam"
  • "the sound of drum beats and the sound of keyboards" --> "the sound of drum beats and keyboards"
  • "The Chorus hook have a similarity to the intro of The Offspring's song" --> "The chorus is similar to the intro ..." etc. is better.
  • "Bill Lamb writes that the music is well suited for playing at fashion designer": Put this in the past tense: "Bill Lamb wrote" and "was well suited"
  • "Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine said that the music consists": "consisted"
  • "a number of endless hooks" doesn't quite parse. How are the hooks "endless"? The song has an ending, no?
  • "Simon Price from The Independent felt that the chorus has influences of the music of Boney M": "chorus was influenced by the music ..." etc.
  • ""Bad Romance" received critical acclaim from critics" is redundant. Suggest: ""Bad Romance" received acclaim from critics"
  • "Gil Kaufman from MTV described the": I think we need to say "wrote that the" instead of "described the" (grammar)
  • "Michael Hubbard from MusicOMH felt that the chorus of the song is Gaga's best yet": "was", not "is".
  • "Paul Lester stated the song as "cheesy"": "described", not "stated".
  • "highest debuting song on the chart until then": "at that point" or "up to that point" instead of "until then"
  • "The movement was spurred by 49 percent digital gain, thus pushing the song to the top of the Hot Digital Songs chart selling 209,000 copies": This has some grammatical flaws. First, what does "digital gain" mean? A 49% rise in digital sales? And: "Hot Digital Songs chart, with 209,000 copies sold" is better.
  • "second highest peaking song": "second-highest" takes a hyphen (compound adjective)
  • "for shipment of a four million copies of the single": I'm not sure what this means. Are we saying 4 million copies were shipped? To whom? Does this not count digital sales?
  • "As of June 2012, "Bad Romance" has sold 5.2 million paid digital": I think "had sold" is better here (grammar).
  • "As of January 2011, Bad Romance has now sold": "had sold" instead of "has now sold". In this sentence, the period should come before the inline citation.
  • "debuted at number three and after two weeks, reached": No comma needed.
  • I'm not sure what this means: "(to be on top 50 for 65 weeks from late 2009 to early 2011)". Are we talking about Finland or the other countries? I recommend removal, perhaps. Also you need a "the" before "top" I think.
  • "the song has sold 9.7 million copies": Remove "has"
  • "a joint collaboration": Remove "joint" (redundant)
  • "activating fluorescent lighting, that shines through": No comma needed.
  • "After the video's release, the response": Remove "After the video's release" (critics couldn't respond to the video before its release)
  • There's a citation needed tag at the end of the Live performances section.
  • "the lead singer from the band Paramore": comma after "Paramore"
  • The article looks good, generally. It's pretty complete and comprehensive and is well-cited for the most part. The main issue, I think, is the quality of the prose. It's not bad, but it could use some improvement along the lines of the points raised above. Best of luck with it.

Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've built it up from four sentences to a good article in the last month, and I have considered trying to get it to featured status. I guess I'm wondering how close it is right now, since I think I've squeezed just about everything I can out of the Internet reference-wise.

Thanks, —Torchiest talkedits 16:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found and marked a dead link and a link that requires subscription (or login). Hyacinth (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few repeated links such as Kabbalah & Ark of the Covenant. Myst-clone redirects to Myst. Hyacinth (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did the game have any influence (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Essential content)? Hyacinth (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "the game, by traveling": No comma needed.
  • "and deciding a first person adventure game would be the best way to tell the story of the manuscript." --> "deciding a first-person adventure game would be the best way to tell the story of the manuscript."
  • "Drowned God received mixed to positive reviews, with its concept and visuals praised, while its gameplay, audio, and puzzles were both complimented and panned by different reviewers.": I suggest instead: "Drowned God received mixed to positive reviews. Critics praised its concept and visuals, while its gameplay, audio, and puzzles were given a mix of positive and negative reviews."
  • "The game's concept was initially created by Harry Horse" --> "The game was conceived by Harry Horse"
  • "The idea for the game was based on a phony manuscript Horse": Recommend rephrasing as "Horse got the idea for the game from a phony manuscript"
  • "decade, until he played Myst and 7th Guest, and decided": No commas needed here.
  • "conspiracy theory inspired" --> "conspiracy theory-inspired" (compound adjective)
  • "a chamber which contains the Bequest Globe": "that", not "which"
  • "The player initially must enter their name": "his" or "her", not "their", which is plural but often incorrectly used as a neutral pronoun.
  • "based on their name": "his" instead of "their"
  • "called Kether and Malchut respectively, and each of which" --> "called Kether and Malchut, respectively, each of which"
  • "about their next task": "about his next task"
  • "Both masks continually refer to the player by their assigned number.": "his", not "their". And is there a citation for this?
  • "and each of which is named after": Remove "and"
  • "finds and uses Tarot cards,[10] which are used to unlock new areas and gain more information about the true history of the world." --> "finds and uses Tarot cards,[10] to unlock new areas and gain more information about the true history of the world."
  • Period after "a nuclear warhead"
  • "and is able to choose one of three endings, depending on whether they decide to enter a final doorway in the chambers of one of the two opposing groups, or enter a new central room at the starting chamber." --> "The player can choose one of three endings, depending on whether he decides to enter a final doorway in the chambers of one of the two opposing groups, or enter a new central room at the starting chamber."
  • "with Kether's being a technological police state, and Malchut's being a society of genetic manipulation": See WP:PLUSINGand rephrase.
  • Any citations for the last two paragraphs of the "Story" section?
  • "mid to late 1990s" --> "mid- to late-1990s"
  • Any citation for the end of the "Gameplay" section?
  • "with his primary complaint being that the game tried to be too many things": WP:PLUSING; rephrase.
  • It's generally a good article. The "Reception" section is especially clean. I think if you can fix up some of the issues raised above, it'll be a decent improvement. If you want to go for FA, I would recommend making it more comprehensive by putting in a section about the game's influence on other games; where does it fit in the development of its genre, or on other types of games that followed? Was it influential or was it merely a footnote in the by-then-tired adventure-puzzle genre? I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the substantial comments. I'll see if I can find anything to build a legacy/influence section. —Torchiest talkedits 18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimiento (album) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get Sentimiento to GA status. I greatly appreciate any reviews.

Thanks, DivaKnockouts (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "songs that did not include Ivy Queen on them": Better to put a period after this sentence instead of a comma. Begin a new sentence with what follows.
  • "having guest artist": "artists" (plural)
  • "did not include herself on them": Remove "on them"
  • I don't get why having songs where she was not included told listeners "we have all loved at least once in our lives". This doesn't really follow for me. Perhaps we could put in some additional explanation.
  • "the platinum edition of Sentimiento, or as stylized by Ivy Queen Sentimiento Remix" --> "the platinum edition of Sentimiento, stylized by Ivy Queen as Sentimiento Remix"
  • "the Top Latin Album chart at number 4": "the" needs to be capitalized. And I'm not sure what this means...there's no verb.
  • "Becoming her fastest-selling album, Sentimiento received a platinum certification" --> "Sentimento became her fastest-selling album and received a platinum certification"
  • "and the title track": Period after this and a new sentence with what follows.
  • "and was only able to chart on the Bilboard Dance/Club Play Songs chart at No. 44.": "and" should be capitalized, because this is a new sentence, but there appears to be some mixed-up prose here. Might consider rephrasing.
  • " before switching" --> "before she switched"
  • The "Background" section is almost entirely uncited. It should have inline citations throughout; they're mandatory after the quotes.
  • "After the divorce from her husband" --> "After divorcing her husband"
  • "romantically."": Stray quotation mark here.
  • ""I want people to listen to my growth as an artist and as a woman, I want people listening to my album to feel this growth." Doesn't need to be a blockquote, and should be cited.
  • Same with the next blockquote: "They (men) also suffer. They also cry. I'm going through the feeling of growth. It's time to be myself. Sometimes women believe that we must always be with a man and forget about us. So we blame them if the relationship fails."
  • "She says it affected the Sentimiento": Remove "the"
  • There's a stray quotation mark in the final blockquote of the Background section. It also needs a citation and some sort of attribution.
  • The "Recording and production" section is entirely uncited.
  • "Release and promotion" also has no citations.
  • Not sure what "(Latin field)" means. Best explain this further.
  • "it marks the first time": "it marked ..." etc.
  • "Composition" also needs citations.
  • This is a good start, but I think you'll need to address some of the issues with the language and citations before it's ready for GA status. Fix these and you'll be well on the way. You might also consider including more information about its reception and background, which relies almost entirely on quotes from Queen. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Lord edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this fictional character is one of the few original characters on an American serial to be featured as a lead character for as long as it had been (from 1968 through 2012) and by an actor for so long (Erika Slezak, from 1971 through 2012). With such a distinction, I'd like to try and get the article up to GA quality.

Thanks, FrickFrack 18:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "the role was originated by Gillian Spencer": I recommend "Gillian Spencer was originally cast in the role"
  • " first-aired" --> "first aired"
  • " longest-serving serial actors in American media": I think "in American soap operas" would be more accurate here.
  • "After Steve is put on trial and exonerated for the murder of Banner secretary Marcy Wade (Francesca James), and he and Viki marry in 1972.": Remove "and"
  • "Joe returns in-time" --> "in time"
  • The "Storylines" section isn't cited. It's not clear to me where this information is coming from. Is there any way it could be better-referenced? The same goes for the "Alternate personalities" section. I'm not sure what the conventions are here, but it seems we ought to be able to cite these recaps to some sort of book/article about the history of the series or the character.
  • The article is well-written. I can't find many issues with the prose. So that's a good start. I think the only trouble you might encounter with the GA criteria might be with citations. I would also consider including a section on how audiences have reacted to the character. How is she viewed? As a hero or villain? Also, we learn about the awards she's one, but it might be useful to have more context around the specific performances and storylines that brought her these awards. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Bloody Valentine discography edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously nominated as a FLC and failed. A number of improvements have been made to the article and hopefully with a PR it can reach a FL standard.

Idiotchalk (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonics Arena Proposal edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want confirmation that the subject is notable and I would like comments and suggestions on the content from someone not familiar with the subject.

Thanks, Udeezy (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
You'll probably want a second opinion on this, because there are some debatable issues here. I'm going off your notability defense on Talk:Sonics Arena Proposal, so it seems you've already seen WP:BREAKING, WP:NOTE, and WP:RECENT. However, I'm surprised you didn't include WP:FUTURE, since that seems very relevant here:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

So it would appear that it is notable. That said, your article seems to be about the proposal for an athletics facility, not the facility itself. As such, it might need to be renamed "Proposed Sonics Arena" or something to that effect, especially if the proposal passes, because I would assume you intend to turn it into a stadium article at some point should that happen.

As for more general advice, the article will need some major work at some point, though that's probably not practical right now since it's a current event. The lead section will need to be larger and cover the basic elements of the article, much of the article will need to be sourced (in fact, do this now to the best of your ability, and remove everything else), and there are plenty of WP:MOS issues to work out, too many to cover here. The "See Also" section should definitely be changed to an external links section (placed after references) since see also only includes wikilinks. Runfellow (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian American edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article lately and I would like to hear other's comments on how to improve it.

Thanks, Yerevanci (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked! edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status, and I would like suggestions on further improving it, before I nominate it for Featured Article status.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "utilizing flashbacks" --> "using flashbacks" (fewer syllables)
  • "one week engagement" --> "one-week engagement" (compound adjective takes a hyphen)
  • "Hoodwinked! marks one of the earliest examples": "was one of the earliest" works better here.
  • "allowed the filmmakers greater creative control, however": "but" is better than "however" here.
    • I changed this, but could you explain why "however" should not be used? --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, "but" is shorter and accomplishes the same thing. Second, "but" is usually used to draw a contrast between adjacent phrases in the same sentence. "However" is usually used to strike a contrast with ideas in the previous sentence or sentences. Consider: "I went to the store, but I did not like what I found there." And: "I went to the store. I did not like what I found there, however." Not: "I went to the store, however I did not like what I found there". But (marginally acceptable): "I went to the store. But I did not like what I found there." And note that a semicolon is generally sufficient to separate two ideas enough for "however" to work. A mere comma won't work, but you don't need a full stop: "I went to the store; I did not like what I found there, however."--Batard0 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a less realistic design, inspired": No comma needed.
  • "while few changes were made to the film by the company, they had many of the roles recast with more famous actors": Reccomend: "while a few changes were made to the film by Weinstein, many of the roles were recast with more famous actors"
    • The sentence as written contrasts the recastings with the fact that The Weinstein Company only made a few changes to the film, but your suggested edit would contrast the recastings with the fact that The Weinstein Company made any changes at all. Recastings and changes go together, and as such shouldn't be contrasted. However the fact that only a few changes were made to the film can be contrasted with extensive recastings. If you believe that this sentence should be rewritten, how about "and while many of the roles were recast, the company otherwise made few changes to the film"? --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...I think your suggestion works. Here's another that also eliminates the use of the passive voice in case you want to use it: "while Weinstein made few changes to the film, the company recast many roles with more famous actors".
        • I decided to go with "and while the company had many of the film's roles recast, it otherwise made few changes to the film." Does that work? --Jpcase (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fractured fairy tale genre": Can we wikilink this or provide a further explanation of what this genre is?
    • Unfortunately this genre does not have a Wikipedia page yet, though it probably should. This is not necessarily an official name for the genre, though Rotten Tomatoes' consensus on the film refers to it as such. If "fractured fairy tale" is not clear enough, I can change it to "fairy tale parody genre". --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's odd that there's no wikipedia page for this if it's a legit genre. Is it a fairytale fantasy? It seems what we're looking for is something like fairy-tale satire or postmodern fairytales.--Batard0 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what qualifies a genre as being official, but with such recent releases as the Hoodwinked series, Shrek series, Happily N'Ever After, Enchanted, The Princess and the Frog, and Ella Enchanted, as well as older works such as the fractured fairy tale segments on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show (I think that this is where the "fractured fairy tale" term originated), and the popular children's book The True Story of the Three Little Pigs, it seems clear that fairy tale parodies are prominent enough to be considered their own genre. Fairytale fantasy seems to be a broader genre, encompassing all works having to do with fairy tales, both traditional and revisionsist. The "fractured fairy tale" genre would be a sub-genre within that genre. Again, it probably deserves its own Wikipedia page, but unfortunately one has not yet been created. I'll go ahead and change it to "fairy tale parody genre", since that is pretty self-explanatory. --Jpcase (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've gone ahead and created a bare bones Fairy tale parody article. Hopefully other editors will expand and improve it over time. --Jpcase (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concerns held by director Cory Edwards over the integrity of the genre.": This is a vague statement. I'm not sure what it means.
    • This is further explained in the Analysis section of the article. Does it need to be fully explained in the lead as well? --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should have a more precise explanation about what, specifically, the concerns were. Leaving it like this raises a lot of questions that aren't answered until later. The lead shouldn't be a tease for the rest of the article...I'd advise just coming out and saying what it is you're talking about (as concisely as possible, of course).--Batard0 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception to the film": "response" instead of "reception"
  • "with negative reviews criticizing its animation and considering it inferior to the Shrek series": See WP:PLUSING and rephrase.
  • "sneaks into his lair, however open conflict ensues": "but", not "however"
  • Comma needed after "Sue Bea Montgomery"
  • "Tony Leech who had worked with the Edwards brothers on Chillicothe was initially": Commas after "Leech" and "Chillicothe"
  • "beneficial changes to the story as well": Remove "as well"
    • Could you explain why? I feel that "as well" belongs here since the sentence is detailing two different types of rewrites. Would "either" be better? --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you're saying here. I'd suggest that the positioning of "as well" in the sentence is awkward, and if you want to emphasize the contrast between the benefits and drawbacks of independence, you might do it this way instead: "While they did not have to deal with rewrites imposed by a studio, their budget also kept them from making potentially beneficial changes to the story once production was underway."
        • It seems to me that adding the word "also" would cause the sentence to imply that the film's budget kept the filmmakers from having to deal with studio rewrites, but that is not necessarily true. The film's small budget was the reason that the filmmakers were unable to perform beneficial rewrites after the start of production, but their freedom from unwanted studio rewrites was simply due to the independent filmmaking process. I suppose that this might have also been implied by "as well", but since it was placed farther in the sentence from the word "budget", I thought that it would be less likely to. Maybe you were correct at first, and I should simply remove "as well" and not replace it with anything. --Jpcase (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Todd Edwards related that": "Todd Edwards said" suffices.
    • I'm willing to change this, but what is wrong with "related?" --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conciseness. "Related" is a three-syllable word that means exactly the same thing as "said" in this context. Readers will never tire of the use of "said" to describe someone's speech. It's what they expect. The following, for example, is fine: "Joe Smith said the movie was excellent, but Jenny Smith said it lacked focus. Jim Brown, a third critic, said the movie 'needed more meat'." The search for synonyms for "said" is a distraction for readers as it becomes obvious that you're only doing it to avoid using "said" repeatedly, for example: "Joe Smith said the movie was excellent, but Jenny Smith related that it lacked focus. Jim Brown, a third critic, commented that the movie 'needed more meat'." The first example is simple and concise. The second is less so.--Batard0 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So then, when should one use the word "related"? --Jpcase (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studio produced animated films": "studio-produced" (compound adjective takes hyphen)
  • "well known archetypes" --> "well-known archetypes"
  • "which led to the character's role being expanded" --> "which led to the expansion of the character's role"
  • "little known actors": "little-known"
  • "He utilized improvisation": "used"
  • "with Todd Edwards relating that": Recommend a new sentence with "Todd Edwards said" etc.
    • I feel that this works better as one sentence, but I have rewritten it to address the WP:PLUSING problem. --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Red, and": No comma needed.
  • "with Pro Tools being used to speed up the recording of his dialogue by 50%": WP:PLUSING and rephrase.
  • "a childhood friend of the Edwards": Apostrophe after Edwards.
  • "Emmy winning actress" --> "Emmy-winning"
  • ""it becomes an equation: “I have 10 things that I would like to change in this shot. I have the time and the budget to do three. Pick those three and then let’s move on.” And that was hard to do."": The internal quotation should be in single quotes (quote-within-a-quote)
  • "well written, likeable characters": "well-written"
  • "larger name actors" --> "bigger-name actors"
  • "high profile country singers" --> "high-profile country singers"
  • "considered for replacing" --> "considered to replace"
  • "Goat, however none of them were available": "but", not "however"
  • "Albert Brooks, however the role": "but", not "however"
  • "However he expressed disappointment with the amount of recasting that was done, saying": Recommend rephrasing this to: "He expressed disappointment about the amount of recasting, however, saying"
  • "wasn't available" --> "was not available"
  • "Both versions were written by Todd Edwards who called": Comma after "Edwards"
  • "Hoodwinked! received a one week, limited release" --> hyphenate "one-week"
  • "A nationwide U.S. release was scheduled for Christmas Day, 2005, however it": "but", not "however"
  • "maintained its number two spot": "number-two spot"
  • "“There are some cute surprises in the telling...but "Hoodwinked" never builds to a level of sustained comic mania": "Hoodwinked" should be in single quotes, since it's within a quote. Same for "Shrek" later.
  • "Nancy Churnin writing for the Dallas Morning News gave": Commas after "Churnin" and "News"
  • "Gleiberman wrote "I especially liked": Comma after "wrote"
  • "the highest selling DVD" --> "the best-selling DVD"
  • "Timothy Sexton writing for Associated Content": Comma after "Sexton" and "Content"
  • "“un-parodied?”" should be in single quotes, since it's within a quotation.
  • Generally the article looks good. The prose needs some massaging before it's FA-ready, but it's going in the right direction. The Reception section is a bit of a quotefarm, but I suppose that's to be expected with movies like this. It's a fairly comprehensive look at the movie. I hope these suggestions are helpful.--Batard0 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the time to review this article! I believe that I have addressed all issues, except for the ones that I have commented on. --Jpcase (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for two reasons. 1. This article's longterm goal is to reach featured status. Unfortunately, there is no work being done. Personally, I think it is due to the fact that there is no clear consensus on what to do to clean it up. 2. It has been 3 years since the last peer review. I think it is time for another.

Thanks, Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very doubtful whether the PR route is appropriate for the further development of this article. The last two peer reviews, in 2008 and 2009, were very short and completely bloody useless. Also, please note that articles do not have longterm goals, or goals of any description for that matter, being insentient blocks of print. If there is an editor that has as a goal the restoration of this article to featured status, than I advise him/her to make this a personal mission, get cracking, do something positive, rewrite the article or whatever parts need rewriting. Then ask for a peer review, maybe. That's the way that articles get improved. Waiting for "consensus" to point the way forward is a sure and certain formula for ensuring that nothing is ever done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It looks all right, generally. I don't see why it couldn't reach FA status, unless there are active edit wars.
  • One thing you notice right off the bat is that there's a citation needed tag in the History section. That's not going to fly in FA, for sure. I can't find an appropriate reference, going to leave that to another editor for a week before removing it. Cbrittain10

* I think more citation is needed in the "Editing" section; this shouldn't be difficult, since you can simply cite to Wikipedia policies. I'm referring specifically to the first to paras, as well as the last para.

  • New page patrol is "a process by which newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.": Doesn't seem to need quotation marks.

  • Could use more wikilinks in the Editing section -- things like "semi-protected" can link to Wikipedia:Protection policy, for example. You may be able to find links for other wiki-terms, too. Perhaps "consensus".
  • In the Organization section, "Categories" could be wikilinked to Wikipedia:Categorization.
  • Wikilink "stub", too. And full quotation marks, not apostrophes, around it.
  • Wikilink "featured article".
  • Wikilink "WikiProject".
  • Under "Vandalism", wikilink "spam".
  • Last part of the first para of "Vandalism" needs citation.
  • "One particular criticism": Remove "particular"
  • Last para of "Vandalism" needs citation for the last sentence.

  • I'd argue that there's too much nesting in the "Nature" section, and would recommend simply deleting it and making "Editing," "Organization", "Vandalism", etc. their own top-level sections. I will see what I can do. Cbrittain10
  • Cite NPOV under Content policies.
  • "Dispute resolution" needs a bunch more citation.
  • Can "edit war" be wikilinked?
  • Wikilink "Village Pump"
  • Wikilink "Request for Comment"
  • Wikilink "Wikiquette Assistance"
  • "somewhat of a battle" is blubbery. "a battle" is ok.
  • Wikilink "Wikipedia Watch"?
  • I'm not sure what this means, and it's not cited: "A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against their wishes." Are we saying it's problematic for people who are relatively insignificant but for whom there's a wikipedia page they don't want? Cite, in any case.
  • "The plaintiffs appealed to the Berlin state court, but were refused in May 2006." Cite.
  • Clarification needed tag under "Contributors". I'm frankly not sure why this is there, though.
  • There's a relevance tag at the end of the article.
  • I'd recommend going through the whole article and seeing what else should be wikilinked.
  • The "New users" section begins with "60%". Sentences shouldn't begin with raw numbers. Try to rephrase.
  • Move citation in the last para of "New users" to the end of the para.
  • Citation needed at the end of the third and fourth paras of the "Language editions" section.
  • "The Nature report also concluded that the structure of Wikipedia's articles was often poor." Cite.
  • The Explicit content section needs citations in the first couple paras.
  • "Sister projects - wikimedia" needs cites at the end, especially re: the "success" of Commons.
  • The "Satire" section is under-cited; most of Wikipedia's mentions on various shows are uncited.
  • "Related projects" could also use more citation at the end of the first and third paras.
  • I've read through this, and generally the quality of the prose seems pretty good; I would advise concentrating on fully citing the article, because there are clearly areas where it's lacking in that department. I'd also advise adding Wikilinks where appropriate, especially to Wikipedia policies described in the article. I don't see why it couldn't reach FA. It's quite comprehensive. But it needs some tweaking.--Batard0 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment Thanks Batard. I am currently editing the article to implement your suggestions. I will cross them out as I am going through it.Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 14:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep vein thrombosis edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it passed GA and I want it to meet FA standards.

Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm not a medical expert, but I'll take a stab. The article's in good condition (har, har), but here's what I'm noticing.
  • Is there any compelling reason we need to abbreviate PE, VTE, PTS, GCS and ITE in the lead? That's a lot of abbreviation going on in a section that ideally should be as accessible as possible. I count only two uses of PE in the lead, no uses of VTE, two uses of PTS, one of GCS and none of ITE. I would suggest spelling these all out in the lead; they can be abbreviated as necessary in the body, which doesn't need to be as accessible.
  • This appears to be written in American English. Hence "symptomatic DVTs which persist" -> "that persist"
  • Also, in the same sentence, is there any reason we say "has been applied" instead of "applies"? Is this something that has happened in the past but no longer does, or else only happened occasionally in the past? Could it be "is sometimes applied" if that's the case?
    • From memory, the source mentioned two different studies as using these cut-offs. I'm not sure how representative they are, so "applies" might be a little bit ORy. I'll see if I can find a clinical practice guideline cut-off. Biosthmors (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image caption: "The popliteal vein is at the top of the image" could this be marked more clearly? The "top of the image" is rather inspecific, I would suggest.
  • What does the following mean? "but most of those with suspected DVT do not have it after evaluation" Are we saying "are determined not to have it after evaluation"? Is the point that it's often suspected but rarely present?
    • Yes. Now it reads: "most of those with suspected DVT are found not to have it after evaluation". Biosthmors (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the following need to be in quotation marks: "cellulitis, Baker's cyst, musculoskeletal injury, [and] lymphedema"?
  • There's a lot of medical jargon in the Causes section. You might consider either including plain-English descriptions where they seem useful or else replacing medical terminology with more commonly understood wordings where possible. E.g. "deficiencies in the anticoagulation factors protein C, protein S, antithrombin, or mutations in the factor V and prothrombin genes". What do these things regulate/cause, in plain English?
    • Added some plainer expanatory text.
  • Same jargon issue with the following (is there an easy translation?): "the majority of venous thrombi form without any injured endothelium"
    • Reworded, thanks.
  • It would be nice if the remainder of the paragraph were made more accessible and less jargon-y. This isn't necessarily a requirement, but if it's doable without adding a ton of new text, I don't see why it shouldn't be done.
    • Made some changes.
  • The same goes for the rest of the section. I doubt if anyone lacking a medical background will be able to understand this completely.
    • I've reworded some things to make it more accessible. Maybe I can find other spots where the wording around the molecular biology info could be improved.
  • Under Probability, "binary"=two-way, "tertiary"=four-way, no?--Batard0 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'll add more later but in the meantime may I suggest that you replace the diagram of the coagulation cascade with this one File:Coagulation in vivo.png, which gives a better representation of what actually happens in vivo as opposed to in the laboratory. I have to own up to drawing this one, so there might be a perceived conflict of interest. I'll take a closer look at the Causes and D-Dimer sections later and add any, hopefully, constructive comments here. My first impression is that these sections are comprehensive, but the bulleted lists might work better as tables. I haven't looked yet, but I would ensure that there are no primary studies cited and that all sources are compliant with WP:MEDRS. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The overwhelming majority of sources are either marked as reviews in databases or are clinical practice guidelines. There might be a quibble over using doi:10.1177/1538574411432145, for example, in the text as I do but I tried to cite it as a secondary source despite it not being marked as a review in a database. It supports "In upper extremity DVT, central venous catheters are a dominant risk factor". I'll double check that. (now sourced to a review) As for the images (thank you for creating one) they both appear to contradict the text a bit by being biased towards arterial thromboi by either making platelets or endothelial damage (instead of endothelial activation {potential COI -- I created that one}, but maybe some authors would consider that "damage") a necessary precursor to tissue factor production. I could change the image but I think the emphasis on platelets may contradict the article text more than the other image. Any other opinions on the appropriateness of the images as they relate to venous thrombosis? Biosthmors (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Biosthmors (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with the current image is that it illustrates the artificial cascade in vitro and not what is thought to occur in vivo. Do activated platelets not play a role in DVT? (Ruggeri ZM (2007). "The role of von Willebrand factor in thrombus formation". Thrombosis Research. 120 Suppl 1: S5–9. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2007.03.011. PMC 2702526. PMID 17493665.) Graham Colm (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Great question. Research suggests they could (in humans perhaps).[5][6] I went ahead and changed the picture. If I find a source that says platelets don't play a role (which I doubt could be said) I'll revisit this. Biosthmors (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a way to incorporate protein C, S and antithrombin into the image you created I think that would be a plus for this article at least. Biosthmors (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has been on my to do list for a while (with regards to Coagulation). I need to find a way that doesn't cause too much clutter. I'll come up with something at the weekend. Graham Colm (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the modulators antithrombin and activated protein C (in green) to the diagram above the factors they regulate. Graham Colm (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that the lead section states "Other risk factors include older age (the strongest)". I have been trying to find a source that states relative risk/odds ratios for the risk factors. Here is one. The paper quotes "advancing age" as a weak risk factor. (Curiously, cancer is not quoted as a risk factor). Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this reference implies that aging is a major risk factor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after looking through a few more references, I concede that age is an important risk factor. However, which reference indicates that age is "the strongest"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. A useful chart can be found in Lijfering (with relative risks). It (oddly to me) gave the RR of aging as 1 to ∞. I made edits to make sure the lead didn't say anything the article did not. Biosthmors (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The epidemiology section also emphasizes this aspect. Biosthmors (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lijfering does not say that age is the strongest risk factor. Indeed it includes the caveat: "Another simplification is that 'increasing age' is used as a container concept here, that is a mix of unknown and known risk factors that either become stronger with age or become more prevalent with age." The table in Lijfering quotes a relative risk range of "1 to ∞" for age, compared to the general population. Lijfering refers to this article by Naess. Unfortunately I don't have full access to it. Naess describes incidence. An infinitely high increased risk of incidence would mean that the at-risk population (the oldest group) would all be continuously developing new DVTs. Part of the confusion about age as a risk factor is that it, unlike every other risk factor in Lijfering (with the possible exception of air pollution), is a continuous variable. Relative risk should only be applied to a discrete age group. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. I wrote this thinking I was just summarizing the ∞ sign (though it is illogical as you explain) and the epidemiology section which states incidence goes up by a factor of ~1000 during a normal life. A thousand is definitely higher than any other risk factor so I thought it was a safe summary. Biosthmors (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded a copy of Naess. I could email it to you. Biosthmors (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please! Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sending me the journal paper. Naess does not say that any population group has an infinitely high risk. It says "The incidence rates increased exponentially with age. Incidence rates in subjects aged 70 years or above were more than three times higher than those in subjects aged 45 to 69 years, which again were three times higher than the rates in subjects aged 20–44 years." Even if we take the statement "incidence rates increased exponentially with age" at face value, the "infinitely high risk" than Lijfering quotes would only be reached at infinitely old age. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Page 533 of Bovill (cited in Causes section) states "Aging is the strongest risk factor for VT: Thrombosis risk rises exponentially from an incidence of 1/10,000 in young individuals to an incidence of 9/1,000 by 80 years of age (44)." Reference 44 is doi:10.1182/blood-2007-06-096545. Biosthmors (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's the right link? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that source (the one Bovill cites) states: "Incidence rates of VTE (Figure 1A) increase dramatically at about age 55 and by age 80 are nearly 1 in 100 per year, approximately 1000-fold higher than for those aged 45 or younger." Biosthmors (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought that the link was supposed to be Bovill. I understand now. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement from Silverstein refers to a combination of DVT and PE. Figure 1A shows a steep ("exponential") rise in the combined risk with age. However the line for DVT alone is much more shallow. This is implied by Silverstein's next sentence: "Furthermore, rates of PE rise faster than DVT in the elderly (Figure 1B) so that the disease has greater fatal impact." [Actually there is an error in the statement; it should refer to Figure 1A, not 1B.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I don't see that as contradicting the idea that aging is the strongest risk factor. For the graph, Silverstein 2007 cites Silverstein 1998. Table 1 of Silverstein 1998 shows an incidence of about 1 per 100,000 for those of age 0 to 14 and around 300 per 100,000 for the elderly (though using DVT only figures would understate the risk). No other risk factor comes close to increasing risk by 300X. Lijfering cites surgery, trauma, and immobilization as only increasing the risk of venous thrombosis by 5 to 50, the next largest value given in Table 1 there. Biosthmors (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to quote values for combined VTE to justify your claim about DVT. The is inappropriate, especially when both of the papers that you refer to (Silverstein 2007 & Silverstein 1998) show much less impact when considering DVT alone. I don't have access to Silverstein's 1998 paper in full, but the abstract states "The incidence of venous thromboembolism rose markedly with increasing age for both sexes, with pulmonary embolism accounting for most of the increase... the incidence of deep vein thrombosis remained constant for males across all age strata, decreased for females younger than 55 years, and increased for women older than 60 years."
I had a closer look at Lijfering's paper. It uses the phrase "venous thrombosis". It isn't obvious whether this refers specifically to DVT, or if it is inclusive of VTE. I looked at some of the references from Lijfering's table. Simioni, Blom and Grainge all describe combined VTE. Also, Lijfering has a long discussion about PE after air travel. I believe that Lijfering's paper is actually about VTE, not DVT. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can email you Silverstein 1998. Lijering's table may well be for VTE, but the only way I see that mattering (for the statement that aging is the strongest risk factor for DVT) is if another risk factor simultaneously increases DVT risk while reducing PE risk. That seems impossible. But, because I haven't seen a source that specifically states aging is the strongest risk factor for DVT (just "venous thrombosis"), I don't have a problem removing it until a source says DVT. Biosthmors (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already demonstrated that Lijfering's quoted risk for aging ("1 to ∞") is flawed. Even if you find a source that shows that aging is the "strongest" risk factor for VTE, extrapolation of that statement to DVT alone would be original research. Indeed the fact that Lijfering is about VTE, not DVT, makes its use as a reference for this article highly questionable. As a work-around, it may be possible to change some of the statements to be explicitly about VTE. For example, the "Risk factors" subsection could be changed to "Risk factors for venous thromboembolism". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this issue. I will address it after I address some other comments first. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I've changed the title of the section to mention VTE but I've also copy-pasted the section at venous thrombosis so I'm not sure the entire risk factor list is needed at this article too. I will contemplate this further. Biosthmors (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.1182/blood-2012-02-407551 is good on this issue. Biosthmors (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Women have an increased risk during pregnancy (due to altered blood protein levels) and in the postnatal period, partially due to substances released by the placenta. However, some of those who develop DVT have no recognized risk factors." I don't understand why pregnancy is afforded so much detail when the preceding sentence contains a list of one-word risk factors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "If anticoagulation is not possible, management may involve inferior vena cava filter placement to presumably prevent pulmonary embolism." IVC filter placement is rare. I recommend deleting this sentence from the lead section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Biosthmors (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Classification", paragraph 1: "An incident DVT is an initial episode." Is that really true? Black's Medical Dictionary (41st ed.) doesn't have an entry for this. Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "incident" as "going towards; impinging upon, as incident rays". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm seeing. Here's another example:[7] Biosthmors (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And "incident (initial)" makes it more clear. Biosthmors (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Classification", paragraph 2: "Pain and swelling are symptoms of acute DVT." I'm not sure why this is in "Classification" rather than "Signs and symptoms". Perhaps it should read: "Acute DVT is characterized by pain and swelling"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. Biosthmors (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Classification", paragraph 2: "nonocclusive DVTs are more asymptomatic." Perhaps "nonocclusive DVTs are less symptomatic." Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Biosthmors (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Signs and symptoms", paragraph 1: "Approximately half of people with DVT have symptoms. They include pain and tenderness in the leg." It isn't clear that "They" refers to the symptoms rather than the people until we read further. How about "These" instead of "They"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

From "Signs and symptoms", paragraph 1: "They include pain and tenderness in the leg, swelling, warmth in the leg that is swollen or painful, redness or discoloration, and dilation of surface veins." How about "They include pain and tenderness in the leg, swelling, warmth in the affected leg, redness or discoloration, and distention of surface veins." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

From "Signs and symptoms", paragraph 1: "Most symptomatic individuals have another condition, and those possibilities include "cellulitis, Baker's cyst, musculoskeletal injury, [and] lymphedema"." I understand your concern about possible plagiarism, but I don't that is really applicable for a list of four items. The text would be better without the quotation marks and the bracketed conjunction. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks.

From "Causes", paragraph 1: "Venous thrombi are recognized to be caused mainly by a combination of venous stasis and hypercoagulability." How about "Venous thrombi are caused mainly by a combination of venous stasis and hypercoagulability." Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Biosthmors (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Causes", paragraph 2: "Acquired risk factors include the strongest risk factor—older age—due to changes in blood composition which favor clotting." Besides my concern about the first part of the sentence, the latter part implies that blood composition changes are the only cause of acquired risk factors. Venous stasis is actually an important feature of several acquired factors such as lower limb surgery, immobilization, pregnancy, abdominal cancer, etc. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "which alters blood composition to favor clotting". Biosthmors (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Causes", paragraph 3: "Genetic causes of increased VTE risk include... non-O blood type." How important is non-O blood type? (I don't have access to the reference.) Would it be more accurate to say that O blood type is protective? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look up prevalence figures (I think they should go in the epidemiology section) and see if the source addresses this specifically. I think both statements are of equal accuracy logically, but all the sources I've seen treat it as a risk factor. FYI, feel free to request any source by email. I do not mind being asked to do so. Biosthmors (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cited incidence figures in the Epi section and I reworded the Causes section to reflect its importance. The wording for text in the Epi section is general while the data is U.S. centric, but I think it is probably OK that way. Biosthmors (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Causes", paragraph 3: "Factor V Leiden, which prevents the Leiden variants of factor V from being inactivated by activated protein C." This doesn't make sense. The Leiden variant of Factor V is resistant to inactivation by APC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased and sourced a freely accessible review. Biosthmors (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 31 (Lee) is a primary source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Now replaced with a review. Biosthmors (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Pathophysiology", paragraph 1: "There is a strong tendency for DVT to develop in the left leg (about 70 to 90% of the time)." Is this really true? (I don't have immediate access to the New England Journal reference at the moment.) I haven't seen or heard of this before. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read this the first time, and I am still surprised by the statement considering I've only seen it in this one source. I'll report what I find. Biosthmors (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marik cited a 1992 study about pregnancy, so I don't think the statement applies broadly. Removed. Good catch. Biosthmors (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • I suggest you check the "which" and "that" usage, which is inconsistent. "Which" without a preceding comma or bracket, should be "that".
  • Same with "may", which should be "might".
  • I think according to this[8] I'm now OK (I only spotted one instance where I thought I fixed something) but let me know if I'm missing some rule of English please. Biosthmors (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "probability assessment" needs explaining a little more; it sounds like jargon.
  • Done.
  • I think "dominated" is not the best word here "Treatment for DVT is dominated by anticoagulation ". Perhaps this could be written more clearly such as "mainly by"?
  • Done.
  • I didn't like this "At least one of these five thrombophilias". Does this mean "At least one of these five causes of thrombophilia."?
  • What is "pospartum hemoconcentration"? Does it mean "bleeding".
  • A disproportionate loss of plasma. Clarified in text.
  • I wanted to dig further on this (to check the primary source that was cited), but I'm stopped by a lack of access to it. Biosthmors (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the paragraph on red blood cells in PMID 22345594 has prompted me to remove this. Biosthmors (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would check the singular and plural usage of DVT. This sounds wrong, "There is a strong tendency for DVT to develop in the left leg."
  • That sentence is now gone, but what do you think about this edit? I've asked someone with better English than me to look at that edit too. Biosthmors (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's better now. Biosthmors (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT D-Dimers, there isn't really a positive test, but raised levels. Also these assays vary in sensitivity and specificity and most labs will only use one method. D-Dimer assays have limited value in hospitalised patients owing to co-morbidity.
  • Contrast agents pose a risk too, such as renal impairment.
  • One thing the source says is that it is "contraindicated in patients with renal insufficiency and severe allergic reactions to contrast medium". It also talks about getting into the dorsal foot vein, imaging ambiguity, dizziness and nausea. I just don't think we can list them all and the source I'm using at the moment doesn't seem to mention renal impairment exactly. Should I mention the renal contraindication? Biosthmors (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, this is outside the scope of my practice. Is this reference useful? Nicholas BA, Vricella GJ, Smith M, Passalacqua M, Gulani V, Ponsky LE (February 2012). "Contrast-induced nephropathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: minimizing the risk". The Canadian Journal of Urology. 19 (1): 6074–80. PMID 22316507. Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked but I don't have access to it. I doubt any more detail is needed in the sentence, as it seems best to only summarize that it is a benchmark but not very useful in practice. Biosthmors (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Prevention section, I think it should say at the beginning that this depends on the level of risk.
  • I see later on we have "positive D-Dimer level", which is better. What is that level, ( I use >500 ng/ml).
  • On page e404S of Bates, in a note for a table about DD, in regards to the highly sensitive DD, it says, "Based on a specificity of 10.3% (95% CI, 6.6%-15.5%) and sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 74.7%-100%) for the VIDAS DD using the standard cut point of 0.5 m g FEU/mL." I assume this is the same thing and google indicates FEU means fibrinogen equivalent units. Maybe another source will be more helpful for describing the basic clinical chemistry of DD. Biosthmors (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source might be useful [9]. It is possible that some readers will look up the article for an interpretation of a D-dimer result (number), and will be disappointed. I think we need to address this difficulty. Graham Colm (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited that article and Mayo source that has the levels listed. I plan on adding a note to specify what a positive level is. Biosthmors (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article by the way. I might have more comments to add later. Graham Colm (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all these comments I hope to address them in the following week. Biosthmors (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Nitpicky comments about reference formatting for now. More later. Sasata (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • more consistency is needed with respect to:
  • periods in the abbreviated journal names (Ann Intern Med or J. Thromb. Haemost.?); consider using full journal names in this general-purpose encyclopedia with no space contraints (the lay reader may not know BMJ, CMAJ, or JAMA)
  • Periods used.
  • author name formatting: compare "John T. Owings" vs. "Nigel Key; Michael Makris; Denise O'Shaughnessy; David Lillicrap" (no et al. after 3 authors like most others) vs. "Esther S.H. Kim and John R. Bartholomew."
  • Probably not perfect, but it should be improved now. Biosthmors (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's a mixture of title case and sentence case used with journal article titles
  • is the page range format "192–3" (ref #95), "194–95" (#96), or "180–189" (#98)
  • The section called "Notes" only has a few notes, but has many references. Consider pulling out the notes into a separate section, with the other section called "References" containing subsection "Cited literature"
  • Comments

In general: very good article, no doubts you will be able to take it to FA level

  • Double quotes are used quite often, in most cases presumably to indicate the sentence is a direct quote from the article being referenced. For improved readability I would prefer getting rid of most of them, either by paraphrasing the article in question, or just leaving them out when just a few words are quoted.
  • I've removed a significant proportion of them by the methods you suggested. Biosthmors (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the appropriateness of the evidence strength grades that are included throughout the article. Although this format would work great in a review article, for an encyclopedic article it might be just a bit too much? Besides, this is not done in any other wikipedia article that I know of and it relies very heavily on one source. However it would be good to hear the opinion of others about this.
  • I understand the concern. I tend to like them as abbreviations to say "weak recommendation on decent evidence" or "weak recommendation on not so great evidence". I am also interested to hear other thoughts. I did add this to give the grades more context and meaning, and I will see if there are opportunities to remove specific recommendations and grades without removing information. Biosthmors (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diagnosis section could use an introduction explaining the difficulty in diagnosing DVT and how the wells score, d-dimer and imaging are used in combination to come to a diagnosis.

--WS (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be OK now. Biosthmors (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all these comments I hope to address them in the following week. Biosthmors (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's Laboratory edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the article to GA status or above. It has not been reviewed in a few years and is overdue for one because it has undergone much change since the last one.

Thanks, Paper Luigi T • C 02:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The sentence "52 episodes and a television movie" starts with a bare number. You should avoid this by either rephrasing (preferable) or spelling out the number (less preferable)
    •   Done
  • "Responsible for a change in direction for Cartoon Network, Dexter's Laboratory became the channel's most popular and successful original animated series, receiving high ratings and positive reception.": I suggest turning this around to make it more direct: "Dexter's Laboratory became the Cartoon Network's most popular and successful original animated series, and led to a change in direction for Cartoon Network. The show achieved high ratings and had a positive reception."
    •   Done
  • "(often by pushing the wrong button on an invention)": This includes the second appearance of "often" in the sentence. I'd suggest perhaps using "for example" instead: "(by pushing the wrong button on an invention, for example)"
    •   Done
  • "Dexter's arch-nemesis, a boy from his school named Mandark who lives down the block from Dexter and has a secret laboratory of his own.": this sentence doesn't have a verb. I think you want to say "Dexter's arch-nemesis is a boy..."
    •   Done
  • "Dexter's Laboratory was responsible for Cartoon Network's change in direction because of the way the show was designed and directed.": This is too vague when first introduced. We need to say how the show was responsible for the network's change in direction, and what, precisely, that change was.
  • UPA should be spelled out on first reference.
    •   Done
  • "The show was also notable in its unique sense of design and space and for the sharp timing.": This leaves numerous questions unanswered. I advise being more specific about what this "sense of design and space" was (are we referring to the discussion from the previous sentences?) Also, "sharp timing" doesn't mean much. Comedic timing? Timing of what? And I suggest removing "unique" since it doesn't add anything to the meaning.
  • "In terms of design it made very little attempt to recreate reality.": This does not mean much to me. It's a cartoon. Nobody expects it to recreate reality.
    •   Done
  • "Genndy said the character design for Dexter was made to be more of an icon.": More of an icon than what? And an "icon" in what sense? Like Elvis is an icon or a small picture on your computer's desktop is an icon?
  • "Genndy, in terms of style for the show,": Remove "in terms of style for the show"
    •   Done
  • "Tartakovsky noted that he tried to make Dexter and Dee Dee, as well as other characters, move in their own stylized animation.": What does "move in their own stylized animation" mean? It reads like gibberish to me.
    •   Done
  • "original run from 1996 to 1998, and was followed by the television movie" --> "which was followed by" etc.
    •   Done
  • "The segment "Dial M for Monkey: Barbequor", aired during the first season, was banned shortly after its first broadcast in the United States, due to featuring a character called the Silver Spooner": First, who banned it? The U.S. does not generally ban things of this sort. And it should be "because it featured a character..." etc.
    •   Done
  • "the middle segment would have centered around characters" --> "the middle segment centered around characters"
    •   Done
  • The "Recurring segments" section needs more citation. It looks like there's some WP:OR in there, i.e. "The segment's title likely derives from the DC Comics superhero organization The Justice League" (who says so?)
  • The article has no huge issues, and it shouldn't be much trouble getting it up to GA standards. It's almost there. All you need to do, I think, is make some improvements to the language here and there and explain better how the show caused the Cartoon Network to change direction -- and what that direction was. Don't make vague statements that aren't supported by an ensuing explanation. The citation issues need to be addressed, too. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed some things. Will work on some of the harder stuff in a bit :) Paper Luigi T • C 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows v. Blacksmith edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article about an 1857 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning Native American land rights in upstate New York. It was decided the day before the more famous Dred Scott case. What makes it so remarkable is that an indigenous party actually prevailed in the Supreme Court for the first time. The article is based on a comprehensive review of (1) the reported decisions in this case and its sister cases, both in the various New York courts and the Supreme Court; (2) contemporary newspaper coverage; and (3) legal and academic commentary from books and law reviews. It has formerly been on DYK and has been a GA for quite some time. This article has had two disappointing FACs. (FAC 1; FAC 2) Neither generated any supporrts or opposes, or any substantial substantive comments. I would be extremely grateful if one or more reviewers could read the article and give feedback.

Thanks, Savidan 03:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I can't promise a full review, as I'm not very familiar with the Supreme Court or law in general. Nevertheless, I'll make some suggestions in case they're helpful.
  • I would suggest using the FA United States v. Wong Kim Ark as a model. That article may not be perfect, but it's the only FA Supreme Court case.
    • Thanks. I am familiar with that article, having participated in the FAC. These two cases are rather different in many ways, but I think the overall structure of both is consistent with that advocated by WP:SCOTUS. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence strikes me as somewhat vague. All we learn is that it was a case involving Native American law; I think the most important thing to get across is what the decision meant instead of who it involved or how the case evolved. You might try a slight rephrasing, like "is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court held a company could not evict a Native American from his land despite that his tribe had signed a removal treaty and the Congress had granted the company rights to the property." Or I think you could use something from the second para, something like, "is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court held that Native American removal treaties could only be enforced against the tribes by the federal government, not private parties (whether on their own or through the courts)."
    • I have mixed views about this suggestion. On one hand, I think the intro currently includes all the things you have mentioned. On the other hand, I don't think either aspect—whether (1) the hyper-specific holding in terms of the parties, or (2) the precedential effect of the case for Indian treaties—has a indisputable claim to be "the most important thing to get across." I am open to more suggestions about the first sentence, but I think both of these suggestions go too far in the other direction. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem I have with the first sentence is that it's inspecific. That the case "is a decision involving Native American law" does not really define the case, I would argue, per WP:Lead#First sentence. It would be nice if we had some sort of more detailed definition. I'm not saying you should use the suggestions above, however.
  • Following the United States v. Wong Kim Ark model, I'd then consider using the second sentence to explain the significance of the case. You could perhaps use a sentence from later down: "It was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States in the Court by an indigenous plaintiff since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)." Or better, explain what precedent it set. What bearing did the decision have on later cases or on the evolution of Native American law?
    • This case is somewhat different from WKA in that there were multiple issues litigated before the Court. Thus, I don't think it is desirable to slavishly copy the WKA article's structure on this point. in terms of later cases on Native American law, the article includes that with reference to the specific issue of Native American treaties. I open to more specific suggestions on that point, but I am hesitant to add much from sources that do not mention this case. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To increase accessibility, I would advise piping the self-help link in: "(whether through self-help or through the courts)" to something like "on their own" or "on their own volition" or something like that.
    • Self-help is somewhat of a term-of-art. I don't think either "on their own" or "on their own volition" really captures its meaning. Do you? I'm all for more accessibility, but not at the cost sacrificing meaning. Moreover, I think "self-help" is a term that non-lawyers use for the same concept. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pre-emption right": I suggest piping the link to a plain-English equivalent. Perhaps "rights".
    • Good suggestion. I have piped to "exclusive right to purchase." Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enrolled treaties are conclusively valid" could use some simplification or at minimum, a wikilink. I'm not sure what an "enrolled" treaty is, as opposed to one that, say, isn't enrolled.
    • Fair enough. I have added a wikilink to enrolled bill. An enrolled treaty is simply one that has been ratified by Congress and officially published as such. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "New York Attorney General" in the lead.
  • "that state nonintercourse acts are not preempted by the Indian Commerce Clause, the federal Nonintercourse Act, or federal treaties" could use a little clarification/conversion to plain English.
    • I have added a wikilink to federal preemption, added a parenthetical summary of what a state nonintercourse act is, and changed the link simply to "Commerce Clause." I an open to some more specific suggestions about this sentence. I am hesitant to have to add too much here, as the purpose of this sentence is simply to summarize the holding of the companion SCOTUS case, which is not the central focus of the article. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Precedent", the first paragraph is uncited.
    • I have added cites. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming to hold unalienated aboriginal title" could be phrased more clearly. I'm not a legal expert, however, so I'm not sure what it actually means.
    • I have tweaked the wording. I hope this helps. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could not be obtained by against the holder of aboriginal": "obtained by against" doesn't parse for me.
    • Thanks for catching this. I removed the extra word. Savidan 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In dicta at the end of his opinion": could this be more simply "At the end of his opinion"? "Dicta" is confusing to the lay reader, and the wikilink doesn't provide much assistance.
    • Very well. I have removed this word. Savidan 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cherokee Nation had been cited for the proposition": I'm unclear about what "cited" means in this context, or what the entire parenthetical means in this context.
    • I have split this sentence into two sentences and tweaked the wording. I hope this makes the meaning clear. "Cited" means about the same thing in the legal context as in any context where sources are cited. In other words, the litigant made the argument stated, and cited Cherokee Nation as the authority for that argument. Savidan 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment on "Precedent": I think this could be written more clearly and accessibly. I don't think it's necessary to eliminate legalese, but there seems to be more of it than is necessary. I would recommend following a strict chronology. I think we may also need an expansion on the history of Native American rights and treaties (not just in New York or the eastern U.S., but in general), since this is the contextual frame in which the case was considered. I'm not suggesting a huge addition: only enough for readers to fully grasp the background.
    • I have addressed your more specific comments about this section, and I hope those changes go some way towards resolving this comment. Could you be more specific about what you would like to see added? In my view, the purpose of this section is to summarize the Supreme Court cases prior to Fellows on the subject of aboriginal title. Thus, more on Native Americna right and treaties (a huge topic!), other than in the context of Supreme Court cases on aboriginal title, could get somewhat off topic. A more thorough summary can be found in aboriginal title in the Marshall Court, the "main" article for this section. Savidan 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both the sovereignty over and land title to modern-day western New York was disputed between (the colonies, and then states, of) New York and Massachusetts, both claiming the lands by virtue of their colonial charters": When did this dispute arise, and why? Also, the info in parentheses could probably be taken out of parentheses.
    • I have not seen a source that puts a precise date on the start of the dispute. Nor have I seen one that ascribes any particular motive to NY or MA other than the obvious: if the text of your charter arguably gives you a claim to a potentially valuable stretch of land, there's no reason not to assert that claim. I have removed the parentheses as you suggest. Savidan 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "part of the territory of New York, but Massachusetts would retain (and have the right to sell or assign) the right of pre-emption (the right of purchasing lands from Indians) to the lands" contains two parentheticals. I think one should be removed on clarity grounds or else the sentence should be split into two.
    • I have eliminated both. Savidan 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, precisely, does "the lands in question" refer to? This isn't entirely clear to me.
    • The lands at issue in Fellows v. Blacksmith. I have fixed. Savidan 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit is convoluted and probably should be broken up into multiple sentences, with some sort of explanation of the motivations behind the transfers, if possible: "Phelps and Gorham defaulted on their payments to Massachusetts in 1790, and the pre-emption rights reverted to the state, which re-conveyed them to Samuel Ogden on behalf of Robert Morris on May 12, 1791"
    • I have split into two sentences, changed some wordings, and added a wikilink. Savidan 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had trouble parsing the "Dispute" section. I felt the phrasing was convoluted at times, and it was hard to work out who was doing what and why. I would recommend attempting to simplify this as much as possible, while explaining clearly, with all the necessary context, how and why the Seneca were relocated and the historical context surrounding Native American relocations in general; were relocation treaties a federal policy priority at the time?
    • I have addressed your more specific comments about this section, and I hope that remedies this general concern. As for "why the Senecas were relocated," that's somewhat of a "big" question to ask. In general, one would suspect: greed for their land; a general dislike and distrust of non-assimilated Indian communities by non-Indians; etc. I don't know that it's possible or helpful for the purposes of this article to try to explain "why." Nor do I know if it is possible to generalize about the federal treaty policy (and certainly not with sources that mention this case). By there very nature, Indian treaties are an ad hoc affair. Savidan 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can "forcibly refused" be more precise? I'm not sure how one goes about using force to refuse something. Did he assault the appraisers?
    • I have included an exact quote from the New York Court of Appeals in the footnote: "...refused to let them perform their duty in this respect, and removed them by force..." In my view, forcibly refused is a fair summary/paraphrase of this quote, but I would be open to an alternate suggestion. I am unable to say if his actions amounted to assault because the court's opinion is the only source for this point. Savidan 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agents of the company "expelled and dispossessed" Blacksmith "with force of arms." I think this needs to be attributed within the text instead of merely cited.
    • I have added more of the original text in the footnote. Savidan 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the opinion of the court is good.
  • I'm going to stop here, at least for now. I think the main issues with the article are clarity and legalese. The main elements are there, but I think it would be better if you looked at it afresh and approached it as more of a narrative -- a story simply and plainly told -- than a technically correct legal description. What's most important is the context of the case, the full proceedings in the case and what bearing the case had on future aboriginal rights decisions.--Batard0 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments! Due to the impending bar exam, I will address them after the 25th. Savidan 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again for your comments. I have made a variety of edits to the article on your suggestions and responded above. As for the general comment about "legalese," I can only say that I have taken pains to avoid it. I am certainly willing to make the article as clear and accessible as possible, and will address every specific instance that is brought to my attention. But, I hope that is it possible to be both clear and "correct." I have used legal terms of art only where their meaning appears to me to be irreducible. Savidan 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hughes (fighter) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that the article has a lot of references and images and easily could be a Featured Article. To accomplish that, we need to improve its prose.

Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is (according to most people I saw reviewing the article) almost there to the Good Article Status, and I want to help take the article to that status. Being one of the most read articles, it would only help if the article gets selected to the GA status.

Since I personally lack the expertise to figure out what is wrong with the article, I would like to ask for the help of other Reviewers so that the article can be bettered.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead could use an expansion. There's nothing in there about his early life, for example. I think after the first paragraph it would make sense to put in a second one detailing his activities in Afghanistan, the formation of Al Qaeda, etc. before moving on to the final paragraph. Generally speaking, the lead should be a brief synopsis of the entire article; at the moment, it only covers part of it.   Done
  • Paragraph beginning "Years later, on October 10, 2001" lacks citations entirely.
  • "They hate us for what we do, not who we are." needs inline citation.
  • Resolve full citation needed tag in the 9/11 section.
  • "In June 2006 FBI's chief of investigative publicity" -> "In June 2006, the FBI's chief of investigative publicity" Also, it seems odd that an FBI publicity man would be an authority on whether bin Laden had a hand in 9/11 -- was he trumpeting the FBI view?
  • "Afghanistan in late 2001, and according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge, failure by the United States to commit enough U.S. ground troops to hunt him led to his escape and was the gravest failure by the United States in the war against al-Qaeda." needs citation.
  • "Main article: Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden" should be moved under "See also" or else you should create a new section.
  • "Pakistani government "baseless speculation"." needs citation.
  • "He was indicted on terrorism charges by law enforcement agencies in Madrid, New York City, and Tripoli." - I don't see why this is relevant to his beliefs and ideology.   Not done
  • "bin Laden and others on August 20, 1988, indicate" No comma needed after "1988".   Done
  • "due to increasing pressure on Sudan, from Saudi Arabia" No comma needed here.   Done
  • "Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)" "Pakistani ISI" sufficies.   Done
  • "Khalil al-Deek, was arrested in Jordan" No comma necessary.   Done
  • "the subsequent destruction of those planes and the World Trade Center in New York City" needs to be more precise. We need to say the hijackers flew the planes into the two World Trade Center towers, destroying them.   Done
  • "Osama bin Laden was first indicted by the United States on June 8, 1998, when a grand jury indicted" Redundant "indicted" and later "Osama bin Laden". Rephrase.   Done
  • "prosecutors further charged that bin Laden is the head of" -> "was the head of"   Done
  • "non-Muslim courts lacked standing to try Muslims" needs a period at the end of the sentence.   Done
  • "when he was added to the list on" -> "when he was added on" ("list" is used previously)   Done
  • "the CIA unit composed of their special operations paramilitary forces" -> "the CIA unit composed of special operations paramilitary forces"   Done
  • "Abbottabad, Pakistan" needs wikilink.   Done
  • "President George W. Bush stated, "I want justice. There is an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted dead or alive'" Needs a double-quotation (") at the end.   Done
  • "Author, Rohan Gunaratna," Remove commas.   Done
  • "Afghan president, Hamid Karzai" Remove comma.  Done
  • "the Kuwaiti newspaper, Al Siyassa" Remove comma.  Done
  • This needs to be fixed: " The Australian News,online edition published the claim on June 9.[183] On June 9, The Australian News, online edition repeated the claim." Probably: "On June 9, The Australian News's online edition repeated the claim."   Done
  • "Google Earth maps show that the compound was not present in 2001, but was present on images taken in 2005.[original research?]" This is indeed OR if there's no citation. Find a citation or remove.   Done

Now a few general comments-

  • The article is very good. It should pass GA almost as-is. It's nearly ready for an FA review.
  • You might want to use webcitation.org to archive the links in the references.
  • It would be nice if more of this were sourced to books instead of news articles. If you want to bring it to FA, I imagine reviewers there will want to see more of this coming from books, given that books tend to be a little more reliable than newspaper and magazine articles.--Batard0 (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm afraid the article is not GA standard and I would warn you off going to FA until this is achieved. There are plenty of references needed:

  • The decapitalization of bin is based on the convention of leaving short prepositions and articles uncapitalized in surnames; however, bin means "son of" and is not, strictly speaking, a preposition or article. The spellings with o and e come from a Persian-influenced pronunciation also used in Afghanistan, where bin Laden spent many years.
  • Osama bin Laden's full name, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Awad, son of Laden". "Mohammed" refers to bin Laden's father Mohammed bin Laden; "Awad" refers to his grandfather, Awad bin Aboud bin Laden, a Kindite Hadhrami tribesman; "Laden" refers not to bin Laden's great-grandfather, who was named Aboud, but to a more distant ancestor.
  • condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are."
  • Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.
  • Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and later admitted guilt for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City on November 5, 1990.
  • By now bin Laden was being linked with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), which made up the core of al-Qaeda. In 1995 the EIJ attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The attempt failed, and the EIJ was expelled from Sudan.
  • Saudi Arabia is sometimes called "The Land of the Two Holy Mosques" in reference to Mecca and Medina, the two holiest places in Islam. The reference to 'occupation' in the fatwā referred to US forces based in Saudi Arabia for the purpose of controlling air space in Iraq, known as Operation Southern Watch.
  • In the 1990s bin Laden's al-Qaeda assisted jihadis financially and sometimes militarily in Algeria, Egypt and Afghanistan. In 1992 or 1993 bin Laden sent an emissary, Qari el-Said, with $40,000 to Algeria to aid the Islamists and urge war rather than negotiation with the government. Their advice was heeded but the war that followed killed 150,000–200,000 Algerians and ended with Islamist surrender to the government.
  • The 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings were a series of attacks that occurred on August 7, 1998, in which hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous truck bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the major East African cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. The attacks were linked to local members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, brought Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to the attention of the United States public for the first time, and resulted in the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation placing bin Laden on its Ten Most Wanted list.
  • In 1997, Rzeczpospolita, one of the largest Polish daily newspapers, reported that intelligence services of the Nordic-Polish SFOR Brigade suspected that a center for training terrorists from Islamic countries was located in the Bocina Donja village near Maglaj in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1992, hundreds of volunteers joined an "all-mujahedeen unit" called El Moujahed in an abandoned hillside factory, a compound with a hospital and prayer hall.
  • In 1998 it was reported that bin Laden was operating his al-Qaeda network out of Albania. The Charleston Gazette quoted Fatos Klosi, the head of the Albanian intelligence service, as saying a network run by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden sent units to fight in the Serbian province of Kosovo. Confirmation of these activities came from Claude Kader, a French national who said he was a member of bin Laden's Albanian network.
  • Identified motivations of the September 11 attacks include the support of Israel by the United States, presence of the U.S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. enforcement of sanctions against Iraq.
  • Years later, on October 10, 2001, bin Laden appeared as well on the initial list of the top 22 FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, which was released to the public by the President of the United States George W. Bush, in direct response to the September 11 attacks, but which was again based on the indictment for the 1998 embassy attack. Bin Laden was among a group of thirteen fugitive terrorists wanted on that latter list for questioning about the 1998 embassy bombings. Bin Laden remains the only fugitive ever to be listed on both FBI fugitive lists.
  • Google Earth maps show that the compound was not present in 2001, but was present on images taken in 2005 (mostly OR)
  • and called any supposed support for bin Laden by the Pakistani government "baseless speculation".

Sourcing needs a closer look - "Interview with Robert Fisk, 22/3/97, 'The Great War For Civilisation', 2005" is never properly cited with enough information, and the style is messy - if you look at the later one it isn't obvious where to look for the full citations. Similar thing with "A Capitol Idea Donald E. Abelson p. 208." and "Osama: The Making of a Terrorist John Randal I B Tauris & Co Ltd (October 4, 2005)." more information with the latter, but the styles are inconsistent to the point of making them confusing to the reader. I strongly recommend either a liberal use of the shortened format used for some, or proper {{cite book}} (etc) templates. You know about the dead links, and things like "Wall street Journal." and " pp. 52" are messy. References like Bin Laden not in Pakistan, PM says. Retrieved May 20, 2010. and "Death of Bin Laden: Live report". Yahoo!. need more information and the latter really replacing because a live report is rather like a primary source.

Layout-wise I'm worried by the section Pursuit by the United States – as the article makes clear, it wasn't just the US after this man. Tying the search from him to the US is a bit like tying the timeline of the Second World War to the US. You get a decent picture, but the full one. Of course the US story is likely to feature heavily in the "Pursuit" section, but it isn't pigeonholed. Also I think the bullet points are unnecessary; if the prose seems suited to it it's because, I feel, it comes across a bit like an indiscriminate list of things lacking a narrative or commentary. Finding some sources which look at the pursuit as a whole would help there.

I think the bigger picture can be examined once these issues have been resolved; there's a fair bit to do here. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Evans edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked much on it. At first it was somewhat of a listing of the albums he recorded in prose. I've added references, photos, removed subjectivity and added details of Evans's personal life and how they influenced his output.

Well, my request of review is for the following things:

  1. I've some doubts about the structure of the article. I mean, at first it was only about albums and collaborations. Now I've added along other personal details and such (marriages, drug addiction...). So, should both professional and personal life be fused in a section named simply "biography" or create a separate one named "personal life"?
  2. Check ortography (I'm somewhat dyslexic XD).
  3. The text may be somewhat patchy and disconnected, since it has been modyfied a lot with small contributions. Also, I'm not a native English speaker. Thus, could somebody suggest improvements on the writing style? (but without removing stuff).
  4. The section about his musical style should of course be expanded, but has anybody sourced material for this?

(Also, check the conversation I had with Dr. Blofeld).

Thanks, Fauban 12:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches of F.C. Porto edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to trim out the majority of any potential issues with this page before submitting it to the ultimate scrutiny of a featured-level reviewing process. On a side note, I'd like to have some input on whether this page is more suited as an article with a comprehensive list rather than a stand-alone list with a big chunk of prose.

Thanks, Parutakupiu (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several featured lists of this type exist, all of which are for English clubs. The one exception is England national football team manager, a featured article. The difference with that one is that it discusses the wider cultural significance of the role, not just a history of who has been in the role. So based on that, I'd say list (though you may get a wider, more representative response if you ask the question at WT:FLC). The difference between this and the lists for English clubs is that in comparison Porto have changed coach as often as someone changes their socks. This probably makes it harder to write, but I don't think it prevents it from being a list type article. I'll endeavour to do a full review when I have a little more time. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The difference between this and the lists for English clubs is that in comparison Porto have changed coach as often as someone changes their socks." – Haha, true! That and perhaps some overwriting from my part are the main reasons why this page probably doesn't look like more of a regular list. I've requested this review exactly for that, so I appreciate your opinion and future comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Oldelpaso

More detailed comments as promised:

  • The lead and body should be able to be read independently of one another, so the revival mentioned at the start of the body should be explained.
  • While it wouldn't be a dealbreaker, reviewers at FLC like to see as few redlinks as possible in a list, and about a third of the coaches currently have no article. If you have sufficient material, it'd be worth starting articles on some of them. But there's no need to make little substubs just for the sake of turning a link blue.
  • Reading through, the balance of which coaches are covered in more depth and which are given only a brief mention seems reasonable. There is room to cut some of it though, as there are parts which are more about the history of the club than the achievements/actions of the coaches. Maybe there is room for a slightly rewritten version of some of the material in the main Porto article, in which the history section is only brief.
  • Some of the recent coaches seem to have an undue weight. The achievements of Mourinho and Villas Boas were remarkable and deserve attention, but the last ten years account for a good third of the article. As much as I like highlighting the achievements of my beloved Manchester City, there's no need to mention last season's Europa League exit, for example.
  • I think a copyedit by a native English speaker might help tighten up some lengthy sentences. To pick a random example from near the start of the article, The latter was the Frenchman's last silverware with Porto as he left the club and was replaced by Akös Teszler, the first professional football coach in Portugal. This could be written without changing the meaning as The latter was the Frenchman's last silverware with Porto. His replacement, Akös Teszler, was Portugal's first professional football coach. The best writing advice on Wikipedia is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. The section titled "Eliminating redundancy" may be particularly useful.
  • Is there any particular reason why Porto have had so many Hungarian coaches, or for that matter why there were so few Portuguese coaches until the 1960s?
  • Without knowing anything about the range of sources available, there seems to be an over-reliance on Tovar's book.
  • This article refers to coaches, the template at the bottom of it to managers. One of them should change, presumably the template.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, sure they help. In fact, the term 'manager' is not of common use in Portugal (or other southern European countries) as it is in the UK or US, because it implies a list of responsibilities that are not usually taken by the team's staff leader. The template doesn't account for that, so there's no option for changing 'managers' to 'coaches', unless I change the source code. As for the references, I admit that if it wasn't for Tovar's book (and the fact I actually bought it for this purpose), there wouldn't be much more than a list. Online sources are very few and very poor, and not even the club's website is helpful, shamefully. There might be other printed sources, but I'm not able to get them that easily. So, for now, this is the main (and sole) source. I'll see what I can do about your other points. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learie Constantine edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take this to FAC. As usual, any comments on the prose and comprehensibility to non-cricketers would be much appreciated. Also, any thoughts on whether the balance between cricket/other is right.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts: I would like to do Learie; a very interesting character with a range well beyond the cricket field. A couple of things bother me, though:

  • The article is formidably long and I might lack the stamina for a detailed review.
  • Maybe you would benefit from the views of someone other than me? I don't think there are many cricket editors about at present, but you could ask The Rambling Man. He did the featured article on Agnew, and has been very active peer-reviewing recently.

If no one else picks it up in the next couple of days, I'll give it a try. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment: I haven't finished reading it yet, but I do get a distinct impression of wordiness and overdetailing, and am inclined to think the text could be reduced by perhaps 25 to 30 percent without loss of quality. As an experiment I have redrafted the lead, here, reducing it from 590 to 360 words. The present lead is somewhat overdetailed and repetitive, and I think my reduced version fulfils WP:LEAD in providing a fully adequate summary. See what you think. I will provide futher suggestions for cuts over the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unashamedly copied the lead from your sandbox, and I'm very open to further suggestions of cuts. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing to do what I started with the lead, and have now copyedited and trimmed the "Early life" section and the whole of "Cricket career". I have not been so free with the blue pencil as I was with the lead, but have still lost around 700 words. The slimmed down version of these sections is in my sandbox. Please look these over; you may want to put a few things back, or rephrase here and there - it's up to you. I'll give you a day or two consider, before tackling the rest. It's a rattling good article, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All these changes look good, and there doesn't seem to be anything important missing so I've stolen them from your sandbox again. Sorry for my slow rate of progress! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have copyedited the "Life in England" section, reducing it by around 400 words. This time I posted it into the article rather than leaving it in the sandbox, but you can always change bits you don't like. I have a couple of specific points:

  • "five guineas": You need to add a footnote explaining that this is a sum slightly in excess of £5, and that it was the legal custom of the time to announce such awards in the obsolete currency of guineas.
  • The only problem is that this requires a source, and I've not got anything which gives this information. Any suggestions? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done as suggested on Brianboulton's talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In later years, Constantine was remembered as much for this case as for his cricketing achievements." No, he wasn't; the source is talking rubbish, or at least a gross overstatement of realities. I strongly advise dropping this sentence.

I will tackle the remainder in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks pretty good to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited the remaining sections and I think my work is done. You'd better check it for typos, though. The wordcount is down to about 8800 which, although still long, is probably OK for a character who was rather more than a cricketer. Ping me if you have any comments/queries. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, looking good. I'll give it a last once over myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat (The X-Files episode) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FA within the year. I've modelled it on a previous FA of mine, Squeeze (The X-Files), and feel it's in good shape. My main concerns are about the depth to which it's appropriate to discuss the character Deep Throat (this was his introduction), and how the scope of each heading works out. Any prose niggles are also worth pointing out but after a GOCE copyedit I'm confident that it's already to a high standard. Any input at all would be greatly appreciated; thanks in advance. GRAPPLE X 11:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Aurora Project is a dab link
  • "FBI special agents". Isn't "The show" missing. Should be "The show centers on FBI special agents"
  • "Deep Throat" premiered on the Fox network on September 17, 1993 and in the United Kingdom on BBC Two on September 24, 1994". How about: "Deep Throat" premiered on the Fox network on September 17, 1993, and was first broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Two on September 24, 1994
  • "the pilot" only "pilot" should be linked
  • "pictured in 2011" should just be "pictured". in 2011 is unneeded
  • Explain what a Nielsen rating is, and the share as in "Squeeze"
  • Did it mainly get positive reviews, mixed, negative?
  • FN5: Is missing publisher (Condé Nast)
  • FN7: Fox Home Entertainment should be 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
  • FN8: Fox Home Entertainment should be 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
  • FN12: Is missing publisher (The Onion)
  • FN16: Fox Home Entertainment should be 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
  • FN18: Fox Home Entertainment should be 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
  • FN19: IGN is missing publisher (News Corporation)
  • FN20: Is missing publisher (Time, Inc)
  • FN21: Is missing publisher (Austin Chronicle Corporation)
  • FN23: Is missing publisher (Star Media Group)
  • FN25: doubled quote marks per WP:MOS. Change to single marks
  • FN26: Is missing publisher (Dennis Publishing)
  • FN30: Is missing publisher (Time, Inc)
  • FN30: Don't think EW.com is needed. It already states that Entertainment Weekly is the work/publisher of it
  • "The X-Files Wiki" The X-Files needs italicization as its a wiki based on this show The X-Files
  • Per "Squeeze", the Wikiquote box should say The X-Files

TBrandley 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review on behalf of the main editor (User:Adamdaley) per this request on my talk page [10]. The article has recently passed a Military history project A-Class review (found here) and Adam is looking for further feedback on the article, possibly with a view to nominating for FA sometime in the future. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Management Lucknow edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am the only major contributor for this article. I would like to get a review on how the article looks from some one else's perspective. Also, please suggest what things should be improved to reach GA Status.

Thanks, Anbu121 (talk me) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kahaani edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I would like to open a peer review to expand and improve this article and also to clean up any problems and issues within the article before we go for a possible FAR. Several editors have worked on this article close to 4 months and almost all of them have noted that the article is potentially a strong possible FAC. The main contributors towards the article include Myself, Karthikndr and Dwaipayanc. Thanks, ...Msrag talk2me 05:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this is a tough problem. We'll give it a try. Perhaps will make a draft of the section, and discuss that in the talk page. We'll try to do it soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The article generally looks pretty good. Here are a few comments on language.
  • "Kahaani released worldwide on 9 March 2012 to major critical acclaim with praise directed to the screenplay, the cinematography and the performances of the lead actors": I'd recommend splitting this into two sentences as follows: "Kahaani released worldwide on 9 March 2012 to major critical acclaim. Critics praised the screenplay, the cinematography and the performances of the lead actors."   Done
  • "Word of mouth publicity" --> "Word-of-mouth publicity" (compound adjective takes hyphens)   Done
  • "paved the way for Kahaani to emerge as a major commercial success" --> "paved the way for Kahaani's commercial success" (more succinct, says the same thing)   Done
  • "arrives in Kolkata around Durga Puja festivities": Shouldn't this be "during" the festivities?   Done
  • "Before Agnes could obtain Damji's records" --> "can obtain" (tense agreement)   Done
  • "Bob, also looking for the documents" --> "Bob, who is also looking for the documents"   Done
  • "flees in the crowd": Should this be "flees into the crowd outside" or "flees into the streets"? It's not clear where this crowd is.   Done
  • "leaving a thank you note" --> "leaving a thank-you note" (compound adjective takes hyphen)   Done
  • "It is she who has been using the police and IB for her motive": this is a bit vague. Could we delete "for her motive" or be more specific about it?   Done
  • "some top IB officials": "top IB officials" suffices here.   Done
  • "with a nascent idea of the film": Should be "for the film" but you might consider simply saying "with the idea for the film".   Done
  • "Kala developed the story resembling a memoir on the city of Kolkata, where she had followed the footsteps of her boyfriend in 1999, quite akin to the protagonist in the film.": There's a lack of clarity here. Did Kala change the story into a memoir about Kolkata? I'd also consider finding a better description than "memoir," as this generally refers to a book. And "the footsteps of" can be removed without losing any meeting. So can "quite".
  • "finished it up": "finished it" suffices.   Done
  • "Kala started writing the story in 2009 and finished it up by February 2010, the effort culminating in a 185-page work" can be simplified to "Kala started writing the story in 2009 and finished the 185-page script by February 2010."   Done
  • "later in that year": Remove "in".   Done
  • "Ghosh began to work on the screenplay of the film while he was waiting for the release of his previous film Aladin (2009),": It's not entirely clear to me where this fits. Did Ghosh pick up wher Kala left off? Did he make his revisions to the screenplay in early 2010? Are we treating the script and screenplay as two separate things?
  • "three major factors": Put a colon after this rather than an em dash. Remove "major". You wouldn't be mentioning them if they weren't important (I hope).   Done
  • "He finally resumed work in 2010": I think "finally" can be removed.   Done
  • I don't understand this bit: "According to the director, Yashraj Films nearly agreed to produce the film. However, Ghosh was asked to sign an agreement to direct three films which he eventually declined." So Ghosh nearly agreed with Yashraj to produce the film, but he was asked to sign an agreement to direct three films and declined? Are we saying he didn't want to commit to doing three films so he backed out? If so, best to say this plainly and directly.
  • "who insisted upon Ghosh to shoot in the city" --> "who insisted that Ghosh shoot in the city"   Done
  • "Ghosh finalized Kolkata as the background due to several reasons" --> "Ghosh selected Kolkata for several reasons"   Done
  • "the mix of modernity and old world charm that the city presents" --> "its mix of modernity and old-world charm"   Done
  • "and the budget constraints as making cinema in Kolkata is cheaper than Mumbai or Delhi, the usual shooting location of the majority of Bollywood films": I recommend breaking this up into separate sentences and making it more concise as follows: "and budget constraints. Making movies in Kolkata is cheaper than Mumbai or Delhi, the shooting locations of most Bollywood films"   Done
  • "He related the skeleton of the story" --> "He described" etc.   Done
  • "one of his friends" --> "a friend"   Done
  • "during the development of the story" --> "during its development"   Done
  • "That friend called him back a few days later, and just asked him about how his film was going." --> "The friend called him back a few days later and asked how his film was going."   Done
  • "The friend mistakenly imagined some sequences which he assumed to be parts of the plot.": remove "some".   Done
  • "Ghosh got the idea of the twist from these assumed sections of the plot" --> "The idea for the twist ending came from these imagined sequences."   Done
  • "Ghosh planned to work with Balan since long" --> "Ghosh had planned for a long time to work with Balan"   Done
  • "When Ghosh narrated her the brief initial outline of the plot, Balan turned the offer down." --> "When Ghosh described to her the brief initial outline of the plot, Balan turned the offer down."   Done
  • "he couldn't fit that into his schedule due to other commitments" --> "he could not take the part due to other commitments"   Done
  • "He claimed that Ghosh knew him since childhood": "said" not "claimed"   Done
  • "and impressed with his acting" --> "and was impressed with his acting"   Done
  • "Several characters were thought about in minute detail.": Consider removal. It's a vague statement.   Done
  • "during stand up acting": What is "stand up acting"?
  • "Parambrata Chatterjee mentioned" --> "Parambrata Chatterjee said"   Done
  • "ruthless expletive spewing" --> "ruthless, expletive-spewing"   Done
  • "with lean physical built, and full of mental strength, loyalty and patriotism" --> "with lean physical build and full of mental strength, loyalty and patriotism."   Done
  • "barring the music composers Vishal-Shekhar as he thought the presence of a fresh crew would always keep him on his toes" --> "barring the music composers Vishal-Shekhar because he thought the presence of a fresh crew would keep him on his toes"   Done
  • This is confusing: "He thought people who he knew too well from before might influence him to overlook mistakes in film making". You can remove "from before", but it's not clear why people he knew would tell him to overlook his mistakes.   Done
  • "shot continuously in a schedule of 64 days" --> "shot continuously in 64 days"   Done
  • "was actually shot" --> "was shot"   Done
  • "goddess Durga to slay the demon—"Durga Puja": use a colon, not a dash. And it's not clear who's saying this quote.   Done
  • "Kahaani's first look poster": "first-look"   Done
  • "explained to them of not including": Should this be "explained to them that they were not including"?   Done
  • That's about it for now. It looks quite comprehensive, but I think the prose needs a good deal of work. In general, I'd recommend going through and trying to find passages that can be shortened and made more simple. Sometimes there's an excess of verbiage where only one or two words will do. I don't think it's ready for an FA review yet, but it could get there with more refinement. The other concerns mentioned by previous reviewers are also valid ones. Best of luck with it.--Batard0 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norman conquest of England edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've revamped it extensively and would like to take it to FAC. I'd love to have it extensively reviewed and all deficiencies brought up so that I can bring it to FAC before the end of the year. It probably could use some looks for comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I will do a section-by-section review, which I'll post gradually, if you don't mind.

Lead:
  • "He then consolidated his control over England and settled many of his followers in England, introducing a number of governmental and societal changes to medieval England". Too many Englands in one sentence.
  • "Hardrada invaded northern England in September 1066, winning a victory at the Battle of Fulford...". Winning a victory? Is that common to say?
  • "On 14 October Harold's army confronted William's invaders near Hastings and after an all day battle, was defeated and killed.". Careful with the subject: Harold's army may have been defeated, but it was Harold who was killed. Also, link 'all day' with a hyphen and put a comma after 'October'.
    • Malleus tells me I don't need commas after an introduction like "on date" - so I've avoided that, I believe it's a Brit thing. The later part now reads "and after an all-day battle, was defeated and Harold was killed." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "English resistance led to a number of the English elite...". Again, 'English' repetition.
  • "... went into exile abroad.". Redundancy: exile = abroad.
  • "In order to control his new kingdom...". Since you use 'control' further on, I'd change this expression to something like "In order to reinforce his sovereignty...", for instance.
    • Changed the second "control" to "command" Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other changes included the introduction of French as the language...". Language of what? National?
    • "introduction of French as the language of the elites and government" now... oops, incomplete thought there! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary to link common nouns like 'castles' and 'slavery', if they are not vital to understand the article.
    • I don't think I linked them, honestly. Suspect a driveby, although castle is probably not a bad idea to link to. I've delinked slavery though. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not too important but I noticed in the map that the date format of the Fulford battle is different from the others. Also, the caption could be improved to something like "Location of major events during the Norman conquest of England in 1066". Parutakupiu (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed... I'll get to the rest later. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Origins:
  • "... allowed a group of Vikings under their leader Rollo...". I'd change to 'led by Rollo' considering that you use again 'under Rollo' further on.
  • "They also used the territory granted them as a base to extend the frontiers of the duchy to the west, annexing territory...". Replace 'They' with 'The Normans' to avoid a series of sentences beginning in the same way. Also replace one of the 'territory' instances.
  • "In 1002 King Æthelred II of England..." Add comma after 1002.
  • "... powerful Norman interest... ". More 'influence' than 'interest', maybe?
  • "... formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex...". Reads as WP:PEACOCK.
  • The sentence starting with "Edward's immediate successor was..." reads too long. Also, you could state that Harold Godwinson was the son of the previous Earl of Wessex, Godwin, so that readers do not get confused by reading two different named Earls of Wessex so quickly in succesion.
  • Don't start the image caption with a number ('13th-century' → 'Thirteenth-century') as per WP:ORDINAL.
Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion:
  • "... recruited in Flanders, and was later joined by other ships from Orkney."
  • "... but he was driven back to his ships..."
  • "King Harald III of Norway invaded northern England...". I think that you can refer to him as Harald Hardrada (vide lead image and previous section).
  • "... 300 ships carrying perhaps about 15,000 men."
  • "Learning of the Norwegian invasion, he rushed north, gathering forces as he went along the way, and took the Norwegians invaders by surprise, defeating them at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September."
  • "Harald of Norway and Tostig were killed...". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Norman invasion:
  • "Meanwhile William assembled...". Comma after 'Meanwhile'.
  • "The army was ready to cross the Channel by about 12 August.". Link to English Channel. Plus, you can merge this (short) sentence with the following.
  • "The Normans did not in fact cross to England...". Move 'in fact' to the beginning.
  • "... threatened Norman invasion". Shouldn't it be 'threathning'? Anyway, I'd drop the adjective altogether or replace with 'Norman threat'.
  • "... the exact events are obscured by contradictory accounts in the sources.". This expression is repeated within a short segment of prose. Avoid it by rephrasing.
  • "Twice more the Normans fled, these times feigned,...". I know what you mean but it reads awkward.
  • Link William of Jumièges (so one can understand who is the claimer), Bayeux Tapestry, and Gytha (to Gytha Thorkelsdóttir).
  • I would anchor the tapestry image to the previous paragraph (which speaks about it) to avoid it crossing into the next section.
English resistance:
  • "Despite this submission,...". Which submission? Imagine that I did not read the previous section...
  • "In 1067 rebels in Kent...". Comma after 1067. Try to fix similar occurrences along the article.
  • Link Dover Castle.
  • You no longer need to link Gytha in this paragraph if you did it in the previous section.
  • Robert fitzRichard → Robert Fitz Richard
  • "In the south-west rebels from Devon and Cornwall..." Comma before 'rebels'.
Control of England:
  • "Henceforth, all land was 'held' from the King". From or by?
  • "... and redistributed part of these lands them." Parutakupiu (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consequences:
  • "tiny residue"→ replace 'residue' with 'fraction'.
  • "... high governmental and ecclesiastical office.". Pluralise 'office'.
  • "... fled the country.[56] Many chose to flee to Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia.". Merge these two sentences.
  • "... a group of Anglo-Saxons in a fleet of 235 ships sailed for the Byzantine Empire." Move 'in a fleet of 235 ships' to the end.
  • Remove the period from the Varangian Guard image caption.
  • In fact, I noticed that you force most images to have a bigger size than the default one. The MoS clearly prefers the default one to be used, unless details are important and merit a zoomed image. Most images don't require this, and their increased size is disrupting some sections or require blank space-adding tags to be added to prevent it. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the royal court was the centre of government and royal courts existed which worked to secure the rights of free men.". Confusing.
  • "... which was built on the English system of taxation, which included a land tax, or the geld.". Which... which...
  • "... to most of the other currency in use in northwestern Europe...". Shouldn't it be plural? Currencies?
  • "... were Normans, not English."
  • "The language of official documents also changed, from Old English to Latin.". This could go to the 'Language' sub-section, no?
  • "continental persons". Although the plural should be 'people', this expression is strange to read and be heard, imo. How about 'continental Europeans'?
  • "... but in the extent of this practice..."
  • "... during the years before 1100, but these marriages were not common, with as most Normans"
  • "... had become common. By the early 1160s, Ailred of Rievaulx was writing that intermarriage was common among all levels of society.". These last two sentences speak about the same, so you can merge them.
  • "There were about 28,000 of them...". 'Them' who?
  • "... for the 20 years.". I reckon 'the' should not be there?
Notes:
  • Where is the source for this?
Citations:
  • I'm not an expert of this matter, but the citation format you use shouldn't it be 'Author surname (Year of publication), page(s)'?
    • Nope, this is a fine citation method - I've used it on approximately 50 or so FAs. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I helped. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly you helped! Thank you for such a thorough review... I'll be working on these over the next few weeks or so... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a Featured list article on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poquita Ropa edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i has been copyedited, reached GA status and i think i will be nominating it for FA after the PR is done and other issues are fixed.

Thanks, —Hahc21 05:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. PS: If I may get interrupted in real life: so if I forget about this, please notify me on my Talk page! --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Recording date in infobox: says "2009-10" -- is that October 2009? or two years? If two years, that is rather vague: can you supply the start & end months, if available?
  • Wording: "The other two singles released were ..." - Delete word "released".
  • Plainer: "Arjona produced an eponymous film which was broadcast .." - Most readers won't know what eponymous means: use plainer words.
  • Film detail: "On 12 February 2011, HBO premiered the film Poquita Ropa – Una .." - Can you add words here telling the reader if the film is a fictional story with the musician supported by actors? Or a fictional story featuring musicians only? Or is it mostly a non-fiction documentary-style film of them simply performing the pieces?
  • Wording: "Arjona also said that ..." - The word "also" is not quite right here. Rarely need the word "also" in any article.
  • When? - "A deluxe edition was released .." - Prior sentences include dates, so this event should also have a date.
  • Pic from film? - The article would be much better with a still photo (screenshot) from the film. That is copyrighted, of course, so instructions at WP:NFCI have to be followed.
  • Wording: "broadcasted" -> "broadcast" (past tense same as present)
  • English translation: " Arjona commented, "Although many believe is a threshed topic, .." - word "threshed" is not right. Perhaps "exhausted" or "drained" or "worn out" or "overused"?
  • "Puente" is one of Arjona's least successful lead singles. .." - was that song 8 minutes? That is rather long for a song on the radio, no? Was there a shorter version for the radio? If not, did the length contribute to the ranking?
  • That is all for now. I suggest that you implement the above suggestions, then take it to WP:FAC and see how it goes. There are very strict standards there, and I'm sure you'll get lots more feedback at that point. The good news is that the article is very focused, with relatively few sources, so that makes it very feasible to get to FAC status. Good luck!

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development (TV series) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Requesting feedback on former featured article, looking for some outside perspective before further steps (GA review, etc.). -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altes Stadthaus, Berlin edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish for it to reach the featured article standard, which I believe it can achieve. Article is a translation of the at the German Wikipedia. Currently the article is a good article and was a DYK on the main page on 22 July 2012.

Thanks, Thine Antique Pen 17:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record edit

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

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

This is the sister article to the main subject, Peter Sellers. It was created relatively recently following a re-write of the main article, during which it was decided to move out the lists into one descrete article. The ultimate aim would be to go for FL, and on that basis I would like to hear any criticisms. comments and suggestions that people may have. Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 19:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allahabad edit

The following is an archived discussion of a Allahabad. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because article has been completely rewritten in past few days and i would like to nominate the article at FAC GA. Thanks, 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 07:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a peer review (and FA nomination) is very premature here. I will however consider it as a way to offer some pointers on how to promote to a Good article. The article is still B class. I can help you towards getting it to GA, FA is a long long way off in all honesty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ,Waiting --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 08:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Eugene (1987) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a GA of mine that I want to improve. Thanks for any comments. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments -

  • "Eight tropical cyclone" → "Eighth tropical cyclone"
  • "As it was rurning northwestward" - what do you mean?
  • "The highest rain was..." should probably be better worded as "Rainfall peaked at..."

TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This BLP may be unique in the fact that Ms. Hilton has so many things going on past and present that the body sections are hard to name and organize. Once we get that done then we can improve the article more. I put this in the general category as I felt article format may fit best there. Feel free to move it if it belongs elsewhere.

Thanks, Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Where to start? First, any editor should first check out WP:BLP and see if the article lives up to the proper standards established by people who know more than me.

  • Writing style says "Avoid understatement and overstatement."
    • This includes silly verbs like "hailed", "landed", "parlayed", "made headlines", ad nauseum.
    • ...and adjectives like "phenomenal".
  • The line described as "feminine, flirtatious and glamorous" and sourced to People magazine? As anyone could assume, the article is simply quoting a press release.
  • "Some in the media" see WP:Weasel
  • "it was speculated that the pair fell out due to Nicole showing one of Paris' homemade sex tapes to a group of their friends. They relinked their friendship in October 2006." Source? Anything? Not even one of the many gossip pages used as sources on this article?
  • Wikipedia uses summary style; a complete guide to every endorsement and product that Hilton has associated with is not necessary.
  • "The show did quite well;" Just list the ratings. There's no need to insert a comment before every ratings number to tell us whether the author thinks it did well or not.
  • The "Charity" section is pretty much a joke. An unspecified amount to a children's hospital, becoming a spokeswoman for a USO program, and running a 5K, combined with endless quotes from her Twitter (!?) account make up the vast majority of the section. Most notably, receiving an award is not an act of charity.
  • It seems downright absurd to have an article about Paris Hilton and not include at least a paragraph or two about the sex tape that clearly made her a star. The article is a constant state of trying to convince us that her "breakout" roles and successes happened to be around the same time as the publication of the tape. If nothing else, there should be a section that includes information about the legal issues surrounding the tape and her compensation from it.
  • There's really no need to include examples of the words she allegedly used.
  • There are so many quotes in the article from Hilton herself. It isn't necessary to include everything she's ever said about herself, the promotions she's participated in, or the media she stars in. Why would her comments be any more notable than anyone else's?
Sources

Any information from unsourced or poorly-sourced information in a BLP should be removed immediately, regardless of whether it makes the person look good, bad, or neutral. There are quite a few issues with sources. These are only a select few:

  • Sources should be standardized in some way. Some have much more information than others.
  • Many links are dead. This will require significant clean-up.
  • The "New York's leading 'it' girl" comment needs to be sourced inline, since it's an arbitrary opinion anyway. Or removed.
  • Speaking of inline sources, they should be "X, writing for Publication Y, wrote "blah blah" about the performance." not "Publication Y said "blah blah" about the performance." The opinion of one writer is not the same as the opinion of a publication's editorial board.
  • "The film did well in sales." Source?
  • Generally speaking, IMDB should not be used as a source, especially if it is user-written, as the biography here is. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. The awards page alone is cited a whopping 15 times.
  • World Net Daily (WND) is absolutely not a legitimate source.
  • "Now Smell This" is a blog about perfume. Is there no better source for this information?
  • The "Imnotobsessed.com" link is merely a sentence with four dead-linked pictures.
  • ParisHiltonSite.net... I'm thinking not so much.
  • The link labeled as "Variety" is not only 404, but it's ParisHilton.com. There are a number of other references to self-published sources.
  • Need I say anything about Perez Hilton?
  • Anything called "The Hollywood Gossip" is probably going to fail WP:BLPGOSSIP.

These are just the very basic things I noticed on first reading. I couldn't even begin to point out every problem, and there are hundreds. Almost every sentence has one or more issues that need to be worked out. The article reads like a publicity release, with a few notes of criticism thrown in for good measure. Ms. Hilton really doesn't have "so many things" going on at once; rather, everything she does has been publicisized to death. Countless other celebrities do the same things she does, but she's just better at publicizing it. Runfellow (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article has improved a lot recently, especially with citations and Manuel of style. Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 16:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of films of the Dutch East Indies edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's more or less ready for FLC but would like some ideas on how to clean up the table (perhaps combine the years, for example) and prose critiques.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • What do you mean by "combine the years"? – Lionel (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this:
Title Year Director Cast Synopsis Ref(s).
Shoo 1925 1Lorem ipsum 1Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
Foo 1926 2Lorem ipsum 2Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
Bar 3Lorem ipsum 3Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
Roo 1927 4Lorem ipsum 4Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum

Instead of:

Title Year Director Cast Synopsis Ref(s).
Foo 1926 Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
Bar 1927 Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
  • When I merge the year in the list proper, it colours the wrong column. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should fix the years. I suspect that the bolding of the column names is part of "wikitable." You could always use wiki markup
    {| ... |}. But I'd ask at the technical pump to make sure. If I recall correctly, sorting doesn't work when you combine cells in this manner. – Lionel (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • The word "recorded" is a bit confusing in the 1st sentence ... at first I thought it meant filmed or captured. If you are trying to say that the number 95 is just a guesstimate by the authorities, I would simply omit the word in the 1st sentence ("... 95 films were produced...") because it goes without saying in historical articles that new discoveries may cause data to get updated. If you want to emphasize the estimate-ness, maybe reword to "95 films are known to have been produced ...".
    • Like the rewording, done.
  • Likewise " produced and released" seems a bit redundant. Why not just say "produced" in the lead. If some were produced by not released, that kind of distinction can be explained later.
    • Done
  • "Over the next seven years ..." - That seems to be based on the 1926 year from the prior paragraph: I'd suggest not spanning paragraphs like that. Just say "From 1926 to 1933" or similar.
    • Alright.
  • Gender issue? "Although Dutchmen like Heuveldorp ..." - Is there a more gender neutral term? Maybe just say Dutch filmmakers?
    • They were all men. Heuveldorp, Krugers, Balink, and Franken.
  • Date: " that all films from before 1950 are .." - Since the article is covering only up to 1945, that is a bit of a non-sequitur. But I cannot think of a way to improve it  :-)
    • Well, having "all films from before 1945" would be misrepresenting the source. I think it's okay as "before 1950" is inclusive, allowing 1945 and lower.
  • Included? " Biran writes that several Japanese propaganda films .." - Are these propaganda films in the list below? The way it is worded, it sounds like they are not in the list. If not in the list, why are they mentioned in the prose?
    • That ties in with "The majority of films produced during the occupation, until the country's independence in 1945, were short propaganda pieces.", which are so far not included as they were not feature films. Including it would be a piece of cake, however, if the question arises.
  • Bibliography: Is any author information available? It would be best if each bibliographic item started with the author .. or at least the author's organization. For instance, if all these synopses were written by an employee of the National Library, I would expect to see National Library as the author. The web site title/name should follow the authors name.
  • Purple: If the only purpose of that color is to indicate that the year is approximate: I would eliminate the color (and the cross) and just change the year column, e.g. "circa 1933" or "1933 or 1934". If you want to keep the purple, maybe duplicate the key down at the bottom of the table, because that is where I looked for a key.
    • Considering the size of the table, that's a good idea.
  • Wording: "However, this production declined .." - (1) The word "However" can be eliminated: this sentence does not contradict the prior sentence. (2) "this production declined" should probably be "the rate of production declined .."
    • Done.
  • Overall, it looks fine. The table layout is okay, except for the purple issue.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review!
  • Comments': If you just want the year fields to be merged, you should be able to use "rowspan" easily enough; I tried it for 1929 and 1930 in this edit and it didn't appear to break anything, just have a look at that relevant oldid to see if it looks right to you too and you should then be able to apply it across the rest of the table if it does. 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's the sorting with other rows that breaks it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, hadn't seen that the first time. I had seen sortable tables only working with one column given rowspan properties; I had to stick to unsortable tables on a prior FLC to skirt that. I'm not sure what's at fault here though as there doesn't seem to be any other rowspan in use. You could apply rowspans and leave it as an unsortable table; or it might work to force just one of the problematic columns to be unsortable (like the refs column already is). Other than that, bashing the computer with a rock is the best I've got. GRAPPLE X 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Force Regiment edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. I have been working on this article for long. Previously had requested User:EyeSerene for copy editing/improving, that couldn't be completed, back in 2008. Requesting review to further improve the article. Thanks, --SMS Talk 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Suggestions:

  • I had a go at copy editing some of it, but I think it would be best to have someone from the Guild of Copy Editors have a go before going to GAN;
  • there is a large amount of whitespace between the lead and the body of the article. This could be reduced by using a table of contents limiter, e.g. {{TOC limit}}, which could be set to display only second level headings in the TOC by placing a "|2" in the template call;
  • per the Featured article tools ([11]), many of the urls in the article are now deadlinks - if possible you should provide a link to an archived version. I have found this site useful: [12];
  • before moving on to GA, the "citation needed" tags will need to be dealt with (for instance there is one in both the Composition and Siachen Conflict sections);
  • in the Battle honours section, you have listed in the individual awards, but I wonder if you should include the actual "battle honours" that the regiment has received. Within the militaries of the Commonwealth "battle honours" have a specific definition which goes beyond individual decorations. For instance see this link: battle honour. Does the regiment hold any of these such battle honours?
  • the date format should be consistent. Mostly you appear to use "month day, year" (e.g. "July 4, 1999"), but I found at least one instance of "day month year" (e.g. "23 October 1924");
  • citations are probably needed for the Hilal-e-Jurat, Sitara-e-Jurat, Legion d'Honneur, Legion of Merit, and MBE recipients sections;
  • the Footnotes section currently uses a mixture of citation styles. These should be made consistent if you are looking to take this article towards higher levels of assessment (particularly Milhist A class and FA);
  • where possible, in the References and Further reading section, full bibliographic details should be added, including places of publication, and ISBNs or OCLC numbers. These can usually be found via worldcat.org;
  • the Further reading section should probably be listed by authors surname. Additionally, it is uncommon to display ranks of authors like this in modern civilian publications;
  • you might consider using the {{cite book}} to make the format in the References and Further reading sections consistent;
  • I recommend removing the "In media" section, as it doesn't seem to serve much purpose, IMO;
  • The licences used for the images in the article will probably need to be reviewed. For example, "File:Indian pows 1965 war.jpg" has conflicting licencing information. "File:Jinnah with Piffers.JPG" needs to be confirmed to have been PD in Pakistan prior to 1 January 1996, otherwise it falls afoul of the URAA/US copyright issue. "File:FFReg Pakistan Somalia.jpg" probably needs more information about why it isn't replaceable with non-free media to be considered a valid use of non-free media. There are probably images of Pakistani troops in Somalia that were taken by US personnel. If so, you should replace the non free image with one of those, because photos taken by US service personnel are undeniably in the public domain;
  • Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far and good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • the bold should be removed from internally in the article (italics are used for emphasis), unless there's something I'm missing.
  • you're missing some references for the battle honours, such as the legion d'honneur
  • I can't help but think maybe the "Battle honours" section is a little overwhelming. Obviously the content is good, it's just the excessive number of headings. Not quite sure on the solution though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just noting that the article isn't "stable" (as the word is used at GAN and FAC), so I think it's probably premature to copyedit this one. See the edit history, and User_talk:The_ed17#Clarification regarding RSN closure and the discussion at RSN.[13] - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you AustralianRupert and Grandiose for taking out time to review this article, I will start working on your suggestions in a day or two. About Dank's concern, I will like to mention here that the editor who removed a number of sources from the article saying that they are from "www.pakdef.info" is probably not checking the sources before removal, there is not a single source in the article from this site (which was declared a non-reliable source at RSN). One of the source is actually a book "Sons of John Company: the Indian and Pakistan Armies 1903-91" by "John Gaylor", published by "Spellmount". Now the issue is that as the GBooks only show a snippet view of this book so a full view of the book available at "www.pakdef.info" was added in the url field of Cite book template. --SMS Talk 09:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First SMS needs to stop accusing others of Bad faith immediately, I am not going to tolerate it indefinitely. What makes you think I have not looked at the source ? The article contents simply cannot be relied upon any content (mirror or essay or details) from pakdef.info even if pakdef.info says its from other sources, simply because pakdef.info has a history of tweaking facts and producing essays that are often factually wrong. There was a reason pakdef.info was declared WP:SPS at RSN[14] and some people here not only fail to WP:HEAR but also don't mind indulging in blatant WP:AOBFs against community consensus.--DBigXray 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Secord edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because next year will be the 200th anniversary of Laura Secord's historic walk, and I think the article should be brought up to GA before then—I think the article could be an FA if given the right attention, and it would be awesome if it could make it for the anniversary.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 10:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Natchez Massacre edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers the massacre by Natchez Indians on French colonists in the colony of Louisiana in 1729. It was a significant event that shaped much of the history of France's colonization of North America, as well as that of the continent's indigenous peoples. I would like some suggestions on how to further improve this article in the wake of its very smooth GA review, and I want to know whether or not it could have a shot at FAC after a few improvements.

Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Generally, this is a concise, well written article, so I see no major issues. Here are a few thoughts and suggestions, mostly regarding the structure:

  • Although "massacre" would obviously imply that the vast majority of the people killed were French, the phrase "More than 240 people were killed in the subsequent revolt" in the lead section seems just a bit vague, mostly because it's a passive sentence. Perhaps something like "During the subsequent revolt, the Natchez killed more than 240 people, most of them French males," but if you can clarify who they killed specifically (were they all colonists? Did they kill any other native persons?) that would be even better.
  • To form a more chronological narrative of the events, the sentence beginning with "On the morning of" would probably best fit after the sentence ending with "voiced the warnings".
  • Along those same lines, although you've clearly tried to stick to the subject at hand (always a good idea), I think this would very much benefit from some kind of background section. Your lead section mentions a few things not included in the body of the article. Remember that the lead should summarize the main points of the article, not provide the background for the event. So the article itself should include the background, which would include:
    • That the groups had lived alongside each other for ten years peacefully.
    • That Chépart demanded land for his plantation, which allegedly influenced the Natchez to attack.
    • Any history of prior violence between the two groups, and how this might have factored in the style and preparation of the attack, including your information about the Natchez borrowing guns.
  • Whatever section it ends up in, the information about Marie Baron Roussin should probably be included next to the information about Dumont's portrayal of the events.
  • The "Conspiracy" section, I think, is misnamed. It implies that there actually was a conspiracy, when the text suggests that the idea of a conspiracy was probably fabricated by Périer anyway. I would probably merge this section with the "French response" section below it, since much of it indeed is the French response to the massacre. Alternatively, you could merge some of the information about the depiction or portrayal of the events with the "Legacy" section.

So basically, the information you have is perfectly fine, but you might need a bit more to fill in some background, and a few of the sentences could probably be shifted around to create a clearer structure. To clarify, here's how I might structure the article to best fit the information and content that you have:

  • Lead
  • Background
  • Attack
  • French response
  • Legacy

Otherwise, good article, best of luck with it down the line. Runfellow (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating the article to FA status very soon. I'd like some feedback on the current state of the article.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Constable edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been expanded and updated. It also has received an excellent copy edit from WP:LOCE. Currently, the article is still rated as start class, but it seems that classification no longer applies.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per WP:JOBTITLES, I don't think "lawyer" or "judge" should be capitalized, unless you were saying something like "Judge Charles H. Constable".
  • Not sure what the MOS says on it, but the Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition, 8.84) says that academic fields (such as law) aren't capitalized either.
  • Mentioning Thomas S. Hinde twice in two successive sentences seems redundant. You can probably eliminate the second interjection after "father-in-law" and it would be fine.
  • "This anger was unfounded, since there was legal precedent that supported his decision, and all charges were dropped in Federal Court." This seems like an NPOV issue to me. If you want to say they were angry despite the fact that he was cleared of all charges, that might be better, but let the reader decide if it was unfounded or not.
  • If the overdose idea is only from one source and/or is in doubt, that source needs to be named, rather than saying "one source".
  • Capitalize "Illinois constitutional convention" the first time, especially since it's capitalized the second time.
  • Same thing about the "one source" thing in the "Attempted government appointments" section
  • There are a number of things here that you could wikilink here if you wanted: Zachary Taylor is a prime example. Not mandatory.
  • In Lincoln's quote, "democratic party" would be capitalized.
  • "Lincoln was President" <- "president" not capitalized here.
  • "their was little to no" <- "there"
  • There are a number of references that you need to put a space after, so that the next sentence doesn't abut the reference number. Let me know if you don't see what I'm talking about.
  • The "Additional information" section should be merged with another section, or more probably renamed to something like "Legacy" and then expanded. This is a good opportunity to talk about the effect of his case on modern law or the effects he had on his own court.

These are just a few brief notes, but they're a place to start. I would probably review the copy edit, based on some of the errors I saw that were still in the article, and go through it with a fine-toothed comb. It's definitely better than a start class article, though, so clearly you've put some work into it. Runfellow (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season edit

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

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

  1. Need an accurate assesmant of what class level (ie B, C etc) this page is at.
  2. Same editors tend to edit the page. So a fresh outlook on how this page could be written.
  3. Check for grammer, punctuation etc.
  4. Is there an appropriate structure?
  5. How comprehensive is the article and what is missing?
  6. Is the lead section good?
  7. Is there a general critique that you would like to add to the peer review?

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
  • I would recommend 1997–98 Arsenal F.C. season (a good article) as a well-written template article.
  • The lead much be much longer, it should summarize achievements in all three tournaments, mention notable transfers in and out, top scorer, individual awards etc.
  • I do not intuitively understand what the section "Review and events" is about. I would instead recommend "background" or similar, and summarize very quickly the previous season (relevant mostly for European qualification) and any major changes during the summer, such as important transfers, managerial changes or even important staff changes.
  • I would recommend that the list of transfers be placed here, where the issue is discussed, rather than close to the bottom.
  • The rest of the article seems to be a series of tables. Although many of these are very good, there needs to be prose to explain the context.
  • Especially the Bundesliga section could do with a good deal of prose, and also a "snapshot" of the top classification.
  • The squad information takes up too much place and repeats too much information. The main table should be sortable and the nationality of players needs to be specified with words in addition to flags. A sortable table makes the goal scorers tables redundant. Personally (and this is my opinion) I find overviews of assists, penalties and bookings rather redundant, although mentioning who takes penalties in general and red cards overview might be okay. But generally anything that cannot be incorporated into the main players table I would leave out. The final "players" in the next section is utterly redundant.
  • Starting XI is problematic as it is an opinion, rather than a fact. The team would start with varying XIs throughout the season and even if all the players were available, this might vary somewhat. Further, which match should be chosen as "representative". Although the intentions of such an overview is highly appreciated, it ends up being non-encyclopaedic.
  • Reserve team mentioning seems fine.
  • Consider an "awards" section for any notable awards received by the club, its staff and players, beyond winning tournaments.

Hope these comments are helpful. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso
  • My main comment about the article would have to be "Where is the prose?" It is almost all tables with little to no explanation. If assessing it this would lead me to call it Start class. With Bayern coming second in everything, Leverkusen-style, ending with a Champions League final in the club's own stadium, there is a significant story to be told. But this article does not tell it at the moment. It doesn't even mention the Champions League final beyond bare statistics.
  • A number of football season articles are listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation. A number of different styles are used, but any of them should be able to give good examples of structure.
  • The majority of sections of the article are unreferenced.
  • Having sections for bookings, assists and playing minutes seems excessive.
  • Agree with the above comment about the Starting XI section.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Scandal in Bohemia edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article can go for GA and will need improvement.

Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment: A detailed peer review is very premature at this stage; the article is barely started, beyond the plot summary. I suggest you go to WP:GA and check out some of the existing GA literature articles. In particular, look at the kinds of section that need to be written: Creation, Publishing history, Characters, Critical reception, etc. The object of Peer review is not to get articles written, but to provide a critical assessment of work in the later stages of its development. There is not enough here, yet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Reach edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking forward to comments related to getting this article ready for FAC. All reviewers get one IOU, redeemable on any future peer review of their own :)

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I reckon it has potential to become a GA again. It is difficult to find any flaws in this article. But since the article is huge, a few edits here and there and this will be a GA again in no time.

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some general comments, based on a surface-level reading of the article, so I've skimmed over quite a few aspects here:

Lede
  • I'm not sure I understand the term "progressively enhanced". Is this different from simple enhancement? Perhaps it's a term I'm not familiar with, but I also don't see how the two remakes can "enhance" the original game. Since further information about the expansions and remakes are in the third paragraph in the lede, I think this clause is somewhat redundant anyway.
  • The two sentences beginning with "Techmo specifically targeted..." are an honest attempt at summary style, but the sentences simply cover too many points, and the linking words don't work in this case. In order, the two sentences cover:
    • target audience
    • struggles with content ratings
    • critical reception
    • U.S. game sales
    • censorship in some countries
    • Japanese sales
All of this information is important and relevant, so it should still be included in the summary, but you might want to find a way to restructure it to match the structure of the article more closely. Group similar subjects together (content ratings and censorship, U.S. and Japanese game sales, etc.) Along these same lines, to give a more accurate comparison between sales in different countries, it might be a good idea to compare the same time periods (i.e. one month or four). For more information, I recommend Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, #19: "Express coordinate ideas in similar form."
Gameplay
  • no comma after "progresses"
  • "Inspired by the mechanics of the The Legend of Zelda video games, access to these regions are obtained..." I get what it's saying here, but I don't think this works in terms of subject/verb agreement. As written, the sentence says that the access was inspired by the mechanics of the Legend of Zelda games.
  • I don't think "story mode" or "mission mode" should be capitalized, but maybe I'm wrong.
  • Since it pertains exclusively to the remakes, the final paragraph of this section should be in the "Re-releases and merchandise" section.
  • "fluid and responsive" Direct quotes, however short they may be, should be attributed in the text. If numerous critics used the same or similar words to describe the control, you can simply remove the quotes (but of course keep the references).
  • "These include one-handed swords, such as the Dragon Sword and Kitetsu, which grant quick attacks and a move called the "Flying Swallow", that allows Ryu to leap and slash through enemies." Some awkward syntax here. A comma after "quick attacks" would probably help. There's a lot of debate about "that" vs. "which", and it would appear the person writing the sentence meant to avoid awkward word repetition here, but it feels strange here.
  • "sequences of attacks, and to engage distant" Since these are separate ideas, split this with a period instead: "sequences of attacks. To engage distant..."
Plot and setting
  • "Ryu's quest for vengeance spans sixteen chapters" Since we can't assume that the reader has gone through the lede, this should probably begin with "Ninja Gaiden's story spans sixteen chapters,..." and then move on to explaining the vengeance back story.
  • "Two successive boss fights must be completed to destroy the Emperor" The rest of this plot summary is told through the perspective of the narrative, not the gameplay. Also, emperor is not capitalized unless used as part of a title (i.e. "Emperor Bob" but not "the emperor of Bobville")
Development
  • "was exclusive to the Xbox." Probably should be "would be released exclusively on the Xbox gaming console."
  • "Tecmo released Ninja Gaiden" In the United States, Japan, or internationally?
  • I'd combine the paragraphs related to the expansion packs, since all three are fairly brief anyway and they regard the same subject. More on this below.
  • Since the censorship and ratings battles occurred prior to the game's release, this sub-section should come before "Post-release"
  • The table for beheadings versus no beheadings seems very superfluous to me.
Re-releases and merchandise
  • Re-releases should probably have their own section, which does not need to be subdivided as it is now. Since some sections only have one or two sentences, integrate them all into on section.
Reception
  • Avoid biased words commonly used in movie trailers: "declared that", "hailed it as", etc. See WP:PEA
  • "halls of fame" are not capitalized, but "Hall of Fame" would be if referring to a specific one.
General notes
  • There are about a dozen sentences that begin with the word "However", and it is used a few more times throughout the article.
  • Consider moving some things around to make the article more chronological.
  • A few sections come very close to violating WP:VGSCOPE #6, "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts."
  • Overall, there are no major structural issues or anything like that, but you'll want to go through this a few times with people who are not familiar with the game to make sure it flows well to the average person. With some general work, I think this could be upgraded once again to GA status, but think in terms of the layman reading an encyclopedia when writing, not necessarily as a video game enthusiast writing an official record of the game.

Runfellow (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pushin' Too Hard edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach GA status. I would greatly appreciate another set of eyes to check for issues related to grammar and formatting.

Thanks,  Gongshow Talk 23:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College, Dublin edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is mostly complete with no obvious sections omitted, but the article attracts few editors, so it would be good to get the opinion of outsiders regarding further changes towards GA and eventually FA status.

Thanks, Kwekubo (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Let me take a general stab at this. I think that the article is quite thorough, but a considerable amount of work would be needed to get it to GA status. The first and most obvious problem is clear from just looking at the Contents: There are too many sections and sub-sections. Some of these are mere lists, and should be removed altogether or re-worked into readable paragraphs. All in all, the way the article is organized makes it is pretty difficult for an ordinary reader to make it all the way through the end.
The lead shows some evident problems. In the second sentence, I initially interpreted the phrase "from Queen Elizabeth I as the mother of the university" to mean that Elizabeth was the mother of the University of Dublin / Trinity College, though much later in the article it appears that Trinity was founded as the "mother" of the University of Dublin. In the same sentence, the phrase "unlike these only one college was established" is ungrammatical.
In the subsection on the "18th and 19th centuries", there is a citation-needed tag that needs attention (there are a few others later in the article). The picture of Bram Stoker should probably carry a caption informing us of his connection to Trinity College. A substantive issue is that the last paragraph says that the case of Denis Caulfield Heron was adjudicated by the "Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of Ireland", where the latter title links to the article on the Archbishop of Armagh. There is some confusion here. The Anglican Archbishop of Dublin is ex officio the "Primate of Ireland", whereas the Archbishop of Armagh is the "Primate of All Ireland".
In the subsection on the "20th centuries", the relation between the "remains of the Catholic University of Ireland", the "National University of Ireland", and the proposed reconstitution of the University of Dublin, is insufficiently clear. In the subsection on the "21st century", the "four research themes" identified as priorities are not even named.
Further line-by-line commentary is probably not useful at this stage, since a significant reorganization and rewriting is needed before taking this to GA status becomes a real possibility. My first suggestion would be to start by looking at articles on major universities that have achieved FA status, such as the one for Georgetown University, and to take away some general lessons on how to structure the material. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally, if you thought my input on this was useful --or even if you didn't, but are feeling community-spirited-- may I suggest taking a look at the review of the article on Willard Gibbs that I opened on 31 July, which has so far failed to attract any comments? Thanks. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)) My request for peer review has been answered, thanks. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuderqui Contreras edit

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

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

Thanks, Osplace 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NK Maribor edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been a GA for quite a while now and I feel this one could go all the way and became a FA. However, before I (and others) start improving the article I would first like to recieve a feedback to see what is missing and what would have to be done to achieve FA status. This is the second PR for this article. Ratipok (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grey's Anatomy cast members edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a recent development, I would like to see it become a featured list.

Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than its good; nominate after all of those concerns are done. Good work. TBrandley 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been done on the content, citations and NPOV issues in the article, recently. I would like to iron out any more issues before this is taken to GAR.

Thanks, CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tito Dutta
  • Some refs need to be expanded, add ISBN publisher etc. We can use Harvnb or sfn ref style!  Y Done
  • Ref 39 ref format should be corrected  Y Done

--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. So, what do you think? Is the article up to the GAR mark yet? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is good enough for FAR. :) Yeah, to me it looks good enough for a GA status. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead then! I hope someone'll pick the article quickly before my Wikibreak so that I can join the GA discussion! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the GAN template in Talk:Bhagavad Gita. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be greatly surprised if the article makes it to the GA status. It's a good try, but, IMHO, it still requires a great deal of work on its content, structure, style, and even punctuation, to become eligible as a GAN. If I were you I would not rush it to the nomination yet. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind, the use of images is a little messy; they are all bunched up on the right hand side and near the top. Could they be redistributed in a more elegant manner ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Thank you for pointing that out. I have moved the images so that they appear to be evenly distributed across the page. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 04:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red-footed tortoise edit

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

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

Thanks, Madkins007 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments but not a full review
  • The lead section is very short. It should summarise the main topics included in the article.
  • Part of the first paragraph of the lead is about the tortoise (singular) and other parts are about tortoises (plural). This confusion of "it" and "they" is also found elsewhere in the article.
  • You should wikilink or explain words with which the reader may be unfamiliar (scute, plastron, carapace etc.)
  • There are some awkward sentences that need rephrasing such as "It is unknown if the 'giants' represent diet availability, genetic issues, longevity, or other possibilities."
  • Another is "When they find a fruiting tree, they will remain close until it stops falling." Taken literally, this implies a flattened tortoise!
  • In several places you list several things followed by "etc." I believe this is frowned on.
  • The number of sources is rather small.
  • Book references should have ISBN numbers and page numbers where possible.
  • Journal references should have a doi, jstor or similar number or an url if available online.
  • Species names appearing in references should be italicised.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- lead section edited (but I need to go over it for 'it/they' issues- forgot about that), eliminated some 'etc.', and some other cleaning. I need to do an overhaul on the citations and am learning about how to do that.Madkins007 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigues Rail edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if could become a Good Article, and seewhat improvement it would need for this. There is very little info about this bird available, since it is very badly known. I expanded the description and created a taxonomy section, added an intro and the only known contemporary descriptions of the bird. The extinction and behaviour sections are left much as they were (apart from citations I added), since they're basically just summaries of the old accounts.

Thanks, FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Rodrigues Rail or Leguat's Gelinote (Erythromachus leguati) is an extinct flightlessrail." What is a rail? Please define. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is mottling or vermiculations? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is a wikilink not enough? I'll rephrase the colour sentence. Do you think there is enough info here for a GA? Not much more in the sources, it is a very obscure bird. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good for the casual reader to understand what they are without looking at other articles. Yes there is plenty enough for a GA, just not an FA. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seated Liberty dollar edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA and I'd like some feedback. Nominated on my own behalf and that of RHM22.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is the first half of my review. This looks like a fairly typical article of its genre, complete of course with the obligatory demise of a Mint engraver. Mostly minor prose and presentation issues:

Lead
  • I think there should be mention in the first paragraph of the coin's metal composition. It can be inferred from the second paragraph that it is silver, though this is not immediately explicit.
Background
  • " one or the other precious metal would likely be overvalued in terms of the other" - perhaps: "either precious metal would likely be overvalued in terms of the other" to avoid repetition?
  • "Despite the approval to strike the coins, no silver dollars were minted until 1836"? Any reason for the delay?
Probably busy with more urgent matters. I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gobrecht dollar
  • " William Kneass prepared a sketch based on Patterson's conception, but soon suffered a stroke..." Here we go, I thought, the curse of the US Mint. And, sure enough...but I would remove the word "soon", as unnecessary.
As they apparently lacked a retirement plan for Engravers, every one until Gilroy Roberts (1948-1964) hung on until the bitter end.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was allowed to commence" seems a bit verbose; why not "commenced"
  • You have redlinked the Coinage Act of 1837, yet not the Act of 1853 mentioned in the lead and elsewhere.
  • Tense confusion: "Beginning in 1837, an adaptation of the obverse of the Gobrecht dollar, depicting a seated Liberty, had been used..." The "had been" reads wrongly in context; I'm sure it should be "was".
  • " Except on the half dime and dollar (both abolished in 1873)..." The dollar was abolished? Sensational news indeed! I think a little rephrasing for clarity is advisable.
Design
  • Consider swapping the images in this and the previous section. The Gobrecht portrait logically belongs to either, but the Gobrecht dollar design would probably be better in that section.
Release
  • "in order to", rather than just "to", is verbose
  • "to circulation" or "into circulation"?
  • "a fund which allowed the Mint a "float", allowing it to give..." Suggest rephrase to avoid the repetition.
  • "The Act lowered the silver weight of the coins from the half dime to half dollar by 6.9%" I think the meaning would be clearer if the word "ranging" was inserted between "coins" and "from", and "the" before "half dollar".
  • "According to the Senate report on the bill " - which bill? Do you mean the 1853 Act?
  • "Sources vary why Congress chose..." Not quite right as its stands. The sources themselves don't vary; they give different reasons or explanations. Thus: "Sources give various explanaations as to why..." etc (or similar)
  • I was confused to read ""the silver dollar ... continued to be exported and was never seen in domestic circulation" when, earlier in the section: "The process of bringing the new coin to circulation was made easier by a congressional authorization...", and later: " The silver dollar continued to circulate little..."

I'll return and finish later, but for the moment, duty with Mitt Romney calls. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to show up in Tampa until Tuesday. Thanks for the work. I have been slightly delayed with Rite, but hope to get to it today.

Here's the rest (Tuesday has been postponed until Wednesday)

Later years
  • "little to do with the trade with the Orient" - "with ... with" jars. Parhaps "with Oriental trade"?
  • "it used them only once before 1870" - the identity of "it" is not clear from the present wording
  • Riding one of my regular hobby-horses, I query the need for a 200-word verbatim quote on the religious motto issue. Surely the gist of Mr Pollock's plea could be given with a few choice quotes and a brief paraphrase? (I don't expect you to agree, but I must make the point)
  • "though the mintage in 1871 also exceeded a million". Suggest a "had" before "also"
Abolition and aftermath
  • Perhaps link "lode"?
  • The sentence beginning "Abolition and aftermath..." is somewhat overlong; consider splitting
  • ...and the sentence following is even longer.
  • "(by then about $.80). I had to check the edit window to be sure that the figure is £0.80 of a dollar, not $80. Maybe use the 0.80 format.
  • "to receive back standard silver dollars for their metal". The "back" makes the sentence read awkwardly. Either remove, or perhaps reword "to receive standard silver dollars in return for their metal"
  • It's a pity that the deployment of two images in the section creates a vast white area. No doubt you are very reluctant to lose either of these highly relevant images. I tried one thing: put both images on "upright", and bring the Bryan image up one paragraph. That eliminates the white, at the cost of a few lines of squeezed text and, of course, two rather small images. Anyway, try it, see what you think. Maybe just the Bryan on upright? There are a few options.
Collecting
  • "a large quantity which had accumulated at the New York Sub-Treasury was sent to Philadelphia in 1861 and 1862" - better: "large quantities" (since it's over two years)
  • I find it odd that, since "there is no record of any 1870-dated obverse dies for the dollar being sent to San Francisco", the next sentence reads: "Breen, writing in 1988, lists twelve examples known...". If no record, how known? Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the sending of an 1870 die was not recorded. The coins exist and are genuine. I have sent back the Assay Commission records DVDs to the ANA library in Colorado Springs, but I think if they were reflected on the 1871 Assay Commission report, Breen would have said. Unfortunately, only a few years of Coin World and The Numismatist are online, but I'll see if I can find anything. Thank you for a thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy from rape edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because…This article addresses a wide range of topics from science, to history, to culture and to politics. I think it is an interesting article. However, getting outside looks would be a good means to continue to improve it. I would like to see if this can't become a FA. Casprings (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Peer review inappropriate, with current deletion tags, empty sections etc. Please do not resubmit until the article is stable and properly drafted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nightswimming (Awake) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this article up to FA status ASAP.

Thanks, TBrandley 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRLIJC19

  • Lead
    • "Written by Leonard Chang and co-executive producer Davey Holmes and directed by executive producer Jeffrey Reiner, "Nightswimming" was watched by 2.80 million viewers and earned a 0.9 rating in the 18–49 demographic upon its initial broadcast in the United States." -- Sounds weird to have two "and"s in such close sequence. Would read better as: "Written by Leonard Chang and co-executive producer Davey Holmes, while directed by executive producer Jeffrey Reiner, "Nightswimming" was watched by 2.80 million viewers and earned a 0.9 rating in the 18–49 demographic upon its initial broadcast in the United States.
      •   Done
    • "Meanwhile, in the "red reality", Michael and Hannah prepare for a new life in Oregon after deciding to move there." -- Link Oregon (states can be linked per MOS).
      •   Done
    • "The music featured in this episode is "Pain in My Heart" by Otis Redding, which was played during a scene in which Michael is seen shirtless, though he is also seen shirtless in another scene in the episode, which commended filming at an actual campus swimming pool." -- Run-on. Would read better: "The music featured in this episode was "Pain in My Heart" by Otis Redding, which was played during a scene in which Michael is seen shirtless. He is also seen shirtless in another scene of the episode, which commended filming at an actual campus swimming pool."
      •   Done
    • "Several of the episode's themes have been critically examined; it was filmed in Los Angeles, California, and featured eight guest performances." -- Awkward joining of two unrelated topics due to the improper use of the semicolon. Would be better as: "Several of the episode's themes have been critically examined, and it was filmed in Los Angeles, California, featuring eight guest performances.
      •   Done
  • Plot
    • Per WP:TVPLOT, "summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words". That said, this article's plot section is 778 words, and needs some serious condensing.
      • Okay. I'll remove some details that can go right now, etc.
        •   Done. How's it look now? I've tried to match the style to Triangle (The X-Files), a new FA.
          • Still 622 words. Can you match it to the plot summary of "Say Hello to My Little Friend"; that article is actually an Awake article, unlike "Triangle".
            • They are both FAs, so it doesn't really matter. I try to shorten a bit more.
              • If a FA episode article exists of the same show, it is a much better model than an unrelated show, so actually, it does matter.
    • I'll add more comments here after the condensing is complete.
      • K.
        • It's done now, as seen above. Think it should be ready for more comments here.
  • Production
    • "Alexander, Zurer, Melendez, Blackman, Holden and Todorov also marked their first and only appearances as Marcus, Alina, Hollander, Vasily, Shapiro and Alexander." -- This sentence is ungrammatically correct. It should read: "Alexander, Zurer, Melendez, Blackman, Holden and Todorov made their first and only appearances as Marcus, Alina, Hollander, Vasily, Shapiro and Alexander, respectively."
      •   Done
  • This is a pretty good article, but the prose is not yet of featured quality. Some examples follow, but this needs a copyedit.
    • "When the last scene was filmed that day, when he ran up the stairs, his material fell off." -- Double usage of "when", in close succession.
      •   Done
    • "He claimed that it fell of due to it being held only by a piece of Scotch Tape." -- It's "fell off" not "of".
      •   Done
    • "Isaacs thought that the "[team of Awake] were going to have to withdrawal the footage", but was happy to see that part of that scene "ended up in the episode". -- Ungrammatical (ie. the "team of Awake was ..." not "were".) Also, "withdraw" not "withdrawal".
      •   Done
    • "Writing for HitFix, Alan Sepinwall opined that Michael is "coming to grips with Hannah's desire to move to Oregon because he loves her that much",[7] thought the Brittens later decided not to move to Oregon in "Slack Water", the series' tenth episode, due to personal concerns." -- Run-on and typos (It should say "though the Brittens..." not "thought the Brittens...").
      •   Done
    • "He claimed that the installment opens to "introduce us to what makes Hannah and Michael so special", and that "for [sic] most of the series, there hasn't been much chemistry between the two" throughout the program's episodes." -- "Throughout the program's episodes" is redundant of the quoted material directly before.
      •   Done
    • "Sepinwall was disappointed with the overall storyline of the "green reality"; he claimed that if the episode was only based on the "red reality", the entry would have been "perfectly fine".[7] Handlen thought that if the "red reality" storyline was not featured in this installment, it would not work as an episode." -- No lead-in to Handlen's contrast. (ie. "Contrasting with Sepinwall's opinion, Handlen..." would be better.)
      •   Done
    • There's also a few weasel words, an inconsistency with the usage of the serial comma (ie. A, B, and C -- or A, B and C), and an excessive improper use of [sic].
      •   Partly done. Where are some weasel words?
        • The automatic PR flagged "apparently".
          •   Done. I've just removed that word. TBrandley 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed all of the above concerns. How's the article looking now? TBrandley 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks pretty good. You have a copyeditor, right? I would ask him to really do a really good run-through. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The user just completed his copy-edit. He said it was good. I'll try to look also. TBrandley 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly he missed things; I listed numerous typos and grammatical errors above, that he should have picked up. Either ask someone else, or ask him to run through it again. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'll try to fix the typos with AWB. TBrandley 18:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think you're understanding. The prose in this article is not of "brilliant" quality, as required for FAs. This needs a copyedit by a good copyeditor, not just typo fixes from AWB. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand that. I'm saying that I might as well fix some typos with AWB, to get started. I understand that. TBrandley 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative identity disorder edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be sure about the balance in an article about a medical diagnosis over which there is controversy and disagreement. The article is presented as two "sides" when the addition of more nuance may help.

Really need more "eyes" on this article. Any feedback is welcomed. (I'll look for an article to peer review myself.)

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Post-Modern Prometheus edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it be promoted to FA one of these days. I've poured quite a bit of energy into it, and any suggestions would be great.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro The main issue to work on with regard to FA would be prose; a few examples of redundancy, but generally pretty good. May be worth a last copy-edit and polish.

  • "The episode generally received positive reviews, with critics calling it a classic, and by others as the most striking stand-alone episode of that season.": Something not quite right here: "by others as" bears no relation to the rest of the sentence.
  • "Later, Dr. Pollidori's wife Elizabeth becomes unconscious…": Presumably "is knocked unconscious"?
  • "Old Man Pollidori": "Old Man"? And maybe not quite clear that this is a different Pollidori to the one mentioned earlier.
  • "In a fanciful, if not imagined, scene…": Who says it is fanciful, and why might it be imagined?
  • "Carter had long wanted to write a Frankenstein-inspired episode, but had found it difficult to reconcile Mary Shelley's unbelievable tale with the stories being told on the show.": Redundancy: "[Previously], Carter had long wanted to write a Frankenstein-inspired episode, but had found it difficult to reconcile Mary Shelley's unbelievable tale with the stories being told on [style of] the show."
  • "To achieve his vision, he chose to write[wrote] a script that blurred the real world with the X-Files reality and that had a distinct fantasy element."
  • "Carter sought to evoke elements": Maybe "Carter sought to echo…" Rather than evoke. Or invoke.
  • "Following the episode's premiere, there was much fan speculation on the internet on[fans speculated] whether nor not Cher actually appeared in the episode"
  • "that Carter often frequented": "often frequented by Carter"
  • "Initial versions of the costume were deemed "too human looking" and so a newer design was settled upon.": "…was chosen"?
  • "Lindala was happy that the episode was filmed in black and white because it helped "the prosthetic [because] it is difficult to work in a foam piece that long and not recognize it as a painted, opaque, false translucency."": Repetition of because.
  • "where she picks him out of the crowd to dance with her."
  • "Despite her physical absence from the episode, Cher's presence can be felt throughout the narrative.[15] In the episode…": Episode…episode. Maybe cut "In the episode".
  • "In the episode, Cher's "flamboyant and self-authored body" is used as a metaphor for "the possibility of self-transformation".[15][6]": Ref order?
  • "In the episode, Cher's "flamboyant and self-authored body" is used as a metaphor for "the possibility of self-transformation".[15][6] In addition, her voice, heard via songs like "Walking in Memphis", is associated with the idea of "circumvent[ing] patriarchy."[6]": All of this needs in-text attribution, or it looks a little like editorial voice.
  • "Negra notes that Cher's music is used in scenes during the Great Mutato's sexual encounters with woman, usually under the shroud of the pesticide tenting.": A little odd; to what does the "usually under the shroud of the pesticide tenting" refer? The music or the sexual encounter? Not really necessary either way.
  • "but rather the fanciful and elaborate happy ending that was concocted by the writer": What writer? And this seems a little odd, to be honest. Was it suggested in the episode, or is it just an off-the-wall suggestion?
  • In "Ratings and accolades", we have a rather long, uncomfortable list of people and awards that makes for hard reading.
  • "Eric Mink gave the episode a rating of four stars and praised it as an outstanding episode in a weak early fifth season of the show. He said that the two stars acted": Repetition of stars makes for a little misunderstanding. Maybe replace latter with "leads"?
  • Some of the reviews seem to come from low-key places. Is there nothing more heavyweight?
  • "Go ahead and watch it; you'll have a good time": Is this needed in the quote?
  • For me, the retrospect section is a little long, and begins to drag. Do we need so many reviews and viewpoints?
  • I have not spot-checked sources or considered images. Also, I am not an X-Files expert at all, although I occasionally watched it.

I do not watch peer reviews, so please ping me with any problems or questions. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some value judgements in article and they are not supported by inline citations. It is unacceptable for featured articles. One should provide a citations on the high-quality reliable sources in every such a case or make text more neutral, in my opinion. --Heller2007 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all the issues. As for the "value judgements", where exactly? I tried to add references to everything that seems disputable. If you're referring to the "fanciful ending", I added references.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that every bit of information that contains any assessment should be provided with a citations on the high-quality reliable sources. For example, the article contains the following statements without any citations: "The Post-Modern Prometheus" received mostly positive reviews...(how was this estimate obtained?), Many reviews even called the entry a classic... (what is "many"?), and some other. There are two ways to fix this problem. One can provide a citations or rewrite text in more neutral form. For example, "The Post-Modern Prometheus" received a positive review by Mike Duffy... instead of "The Post-Modern Prometheus" received mostly positive reviews... or something like that. --Heller2007 (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I'll try to neutralize it. I used a similar style for "Triangle (The X-Files)", but it passes just fine.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Norman edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to take this to FAC soon. I think it's in decent shape, but I'd like to get some more feedback before taking it there. Is there anything that reads awkwards/doesn't make sense (well, I guess very little of it makes sense, but you know what I mean)/is likely to concern FAC reviewers. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro
Looks good overall, even if the content is ... different. Nothing looks like a huge issue, but several minor points which shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Lead

  • "She developed an interest in psychic phenomena and past-life regression in the 1940s; these pursuits led to her 1954 introduction to Ernest Norman, who stated that he channeled historical figures, received communications from extraterrestrials, and told of people's past lives.": This may be a slightly long sentence; I'd be inclined to break it up, maybe through the next point.
  • these pursuits led to her 1954 introduction to Ernest Norman, who stated…": Maybe "through these pursuits, she was introduced to Ernest Norman in 1954. He stated that…"
  • "…and increase her channeling": To be pedantic, this is the first time it mentions that she was "channeling".
  • "Norman attributed her prophecy's failure to the effects of her past-life trauma": Not too sure what this means.
  • "Her writings were regarded as scripture by her disciples, and they showed her deep reverence, ostracizing those who questioned her leadership": Is "they" the scriptures or the disciples? If the latter, maybe use "who" rather than "and".
  • I think the latter half of the second paragraph of the lead is a little choppy, and reads as a series of facts that do not necessarily flow together. Maybe a little smoothing would help?

Early life and marriages:

  • The referencing is a little odd here, with repetitions of the same references throughout the first paragraph. Personally, I prefer to keep such references to a minimum, and would not have consecutive sentences with the same references; I am of the "not every sentence needs a cite" opinion. But I know that this is occasionally an issue for others, who like lots of citations, so I would not insist on altering this.
    • Yeah, it was odd, I've changed it a bit, I can always revert if someone complains. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea why she became interested in the spiritual stuff?
    • On one website it said that she was trying to contact a dead husband, but I haven't seen an detailed explanation in any of the reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know more about her marriage to Marian?

Fourth marriage

  • "Unarius' tradition holds that…": This is the first time that Unarius is mentioned in the main body, so a little more explanation may be helpful. Also, not everyone may be familiar with the meaning of "tradition" in this sense.
  • "Their account is doubted by Diana Tumminia of California State University, Sacramento, who notes in her 2005 study of the group that Ruth was likely still…" Is a little uncomfortable. Maybe "However, Diana Tummina of California State University, Sacramento, notes in her 2005 study of the group that Ruth was likely still…"
  • Probably outside the scope of this article, but surely there should be some records which indicate when they were really married?
    • I would have thought so, but it doesn't look like any have been unearthed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Together, they believed that humans could spiritually travel to other planets…" Maybe cut "together" as redundant.
  • "this contact was said to hold the potential to educate and heal humanity": Said by who?
  • "Ernest and Ruth formed an organization": called? The main body never actually gives the group a name, although it mentions the name without definition.
    • One would think the sources would be clear about this, but they're frustratingly vague. I think it was just called "Unarius" until the mid-70s. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they gained several followers": How many are we talking. The fact that only a few people are mentioned after this implies that the numbers were small, but some more precision would be good.
  • "Ernest and Ruth taught about their purported spiritual visits to other planets, relating elaborate details about these journeys.": Maybe "Ernest and Ruth related elaborate details about their purported spiritual visits to other planets".
  • Is it worth adding a little detail of one of their mythical stories of past lives?
  • The chronology of this section is slightly confusing. A lot of things seem to have happened in 1954 which are spread throughout the paragraphs, but the rest is a little vague on dates (I suspect a limitation of the sources) If possible, some firmer dates would be helpful. It may also be worth moving the formation of the group in 1954 before the publication of the books in 1956. Also, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs seem slightly jumbled, and there is a little repetition of the "journeys". Maybe make the 2nd paragraph factual, about the formation of the group, and some of the followers, and the 3rd paragraph about their beliefs/teachings?
  • Was there any contemporary reaction/criticism of their beliefs? And were there other similar movements at the time, or were they completely off the wall? Perhaps a little context would be helpful, if possible.
    • Added a little, I'm hesitant to do too much, since that seems more relevant to the group than its founder. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ernest and leadership

  • The title could maybe be altered a little, as it could read as meaning the death of leadership as well!
  • "She had also stated that Ioshanna was her spiritual name.": Why "had also stated" rather than "also stated"?
  • "He helped convince her that she was a being from the "fourth dimension"": How did he "help"? Were others involved, or did she already believe this? Presumably this belief came after her husband's death.
  • Maybe a word on who Tesla was. And why him, of all people??
  • "reenacted": I always assumed "re-enacted", but I may be mistaken.
  • A few times, the followers are referred to as "trainees". Was the organisation one where there were followers, like other religions, or where the members were being taught/prepared for … whatever. I'm not sure this comes across clearly.

Prophecy and therapy

  • A bit of a general point, but where and how were all these writings published?
  • "In November 1974, assisted by some of her students, Norman purchased a 67-acre (0.27 km2) property near Jamul, California, to serve as a landing site for extraterrestrials, whom Norman referred to as the "Space Brothers".": Why does this need four references?
  • "Norman revised the date at which she expected extraterrestrials to land…": When? Before or after her first given date?
    • The source doesn't give an exact date, but it was at some point between April and December 1974, rephrased a little for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How widely publicised was all this? It says she went to the Enquirer, but was it publicised any other times? Did the press pick it up? Again, was there any reaction?
  • "and explained to her followers that she was reliving the trauma of a past life—in which she was Isis—when she was assassinated shortly before extraterrestrials were to land." As an explanation, this does not quite make sense in that it does not say why this would make her get the dates wrong. But that may be due to the sources. Or the original explanation.
  • "Several students doubted Norman's explanation; some of them left the group." Again, numbers are a little vague here. And the note about 40 followers may be better in the main text.
  • "Around that time, she announced…" Announced where and how?
    • Rephrased a bit, but the source is pretty vague. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Kirkpatrick and Tumminia": I think we need to know who they are.
  • "Brad Steiger": Again, I think say who he is.
  • "coverage that she preferred over academic writings about her group": Not too clear what this means.

1980s and 1990s:

  • "Kirkpatrick and Tumminia state that the Unarian canon appears to be impenetrable but is possible to appreciate after sufficient study.": Again, not too sure what this means.
  • "In 1992, some members argued in favor of a focus on Ernest Norman's teachings and a shift towards science.[61] Criticism of Norman was not tolerated by the group": These are two slightly bald statements, which kind of contradict each other. A little expansion may help.

Legacy

  • "…and was replaced by a board of directors who led the group and channeled": Too many ands? Possibly "and a board of directors assumed leadership of the group, taking over channeling at the same time."
  • This section is a little too much fact, fact, fact. Maybe it could flow a little better.

General

  • I noticed that there is a liberal use of semi colons in the article. I love them myself, but maybe a few of them could come out so that there aren't too many? Not a big issue either way.
  • The one thing that I am not sure about having read the article is how widely known and reported her and her group were. Aside from her writings, and Steiger's writing, what kind of publicity did they get? Were they a small, little-known group or a widely known one? And again, what sort of reaction did they get from the media and non-members? As the article is necessarily giving the group's view of things, it would be nice to hear someone write "but this is preposterous!!!"
  • Was there any academic explanation/analysis of Norman, or the group? Some of this is suggested in the article, but maybe a little more would be good?
  • Throughout, numbers are a little vague: "a few", "some". This may be unavoidable, but a little more precision, if possible, would also help.
  • Did she become rich as a result of all this?
  • It may be worth looking at paragraph openings: many paragraphs seem to open in similar or identical style, and a little variety would help.
  • "Students" comes up quite frequently, and maybe some more word variety is needed. Similar, but less so, for "followers".
  • I noticed that an issue in the GA review was over-reliance on Tumminia. This may be an issue, but not an overwhelming one. But I agree that it may be necessary to give a little broader context here, for example similar groups or the background to such movements. The only way it may become an issue is if other reviewers feel that we are getting too much of the Unarius POV here. On the other hand, the bibliography looks very good, and has a good range of sources. Maybe use some of these a little more to offset the use of Tumminia?
  • For the lead image, which is fair use, would it be preferable to have one solely of Ruth Norman? But not a big deal.
  • I don't watch peer reviews, but ping me if there are any questions or issues here. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez al-Assad edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach GA status. Also I need few advices on how to organize the article. The "Presidency" section seems messy.

Thanks, Wustenfuchs 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Wustenfuchs, I've given your article a read through, and have a few comments that I hope may be of benefit. Firstly, it's certainly a good and balanced article, for which you deserve to be congratulated. I personally think that there are a few changes that would improve it, and would give it a better chance at GA status review, but that's not to denigrate it as it currently stands. If I may be so bold, I'd like to highlight the ongoing work I've been doing over at Vladimir Lenin and – perhaps more relevantly – Fidel Castro, that you might like to look over, which might offer some examples for potential improvement here.
While I applaud your use of referencing, I think that you could make greater use of sources; for instance, for most statements, you only link to one reference, but it would strengthen the article if you often referenced to two of more sources instead, as I have done over at the Lenin and Castro articles. Are there any key sources – such as biographies about Assad – that you could have used but haven't, particularly in fleshing out sections such as that about his early life? If so, I really suggest that you obtain a copy and flesh out the article in this manner, which could certainly do with expansion in certain sections, such as that dealing with his early life and death.
I think that the introduction could also do with a rewrite, or at least a re-organize, along the same lines as the Castro article. On a slightly pedantic note, you also refer to "Great Britain" when the correct term would be "United Kingdom." I hope that these tips are of some use, as otherwise you have a pretty good article on your hands. Best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, it's useful. I'll add more sources where ever possible and try to find a book dealing with his biography. I also think that the Fidel Castro article is a very good model for this one. --Wustenfuchs 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If I can ever be of help again, don't hesitate to contact me on my user page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One somewhat important detail missing is that one of the reasons Hafez Assad was accepted as president was that Musa Sadr recognised Alawites as true Muslims in a fatwa, apparently on request from Hafez Assad himself. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Willard Gibbs edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was promoted to GA status a month ago, and I would like to submit it for FA status in the near future. Before and during the GA review, I put in a lot of work into improving the discussion of Gibbs's life and work, and providing adequate references. Since it was promoted to GA status, I have done some more minor work, especially on improving the images.

Thanks, Eb.hoop (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lisbon Appointment edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've spent the last month or so writing this article in my userspace, and now I'm bringing it here as a precursor to ultimately taking it to FAC. It's a prose-heavy diplomatic piece on the rather controversial subject of Rhodesia, with a little bit of Perfidious Albion and the Portuguese Estado Novo thrown in, but I think I have managed to remain neutral. Any input is welcome, but comments I would find particularly useful would pertain to perceived bias. I am fairly confident in the prose, but commentary on this would always be helpful. In any case, if you choose to have a look, I hope you find this interesting. Please review this as if it were at FAC. Thanks and all the best, —Cliftonian (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A few suggestions:

  • "propelled it towards Portugal, which, through its overseas territories in Angola and Mozambique, was a neighbour.": propelled it to reach out to Portugal, which governed Angola and Mozambique, two territories west of Rhodesia.
  • Mozambique's to the east, but I've implemented your suggestion while adapting it appropriately ("... governed Angola and Mozambique, territories respectively west and east of Rhodesia"). —Cliftonian (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pretoria, South Africa": Pretoria, South Africa,
  • "directly-administrated": no hyphen per WP:HYPHEN. That back-formation from administration is more common in BritEng than AmEng; would "administered" work for you?
  • I think administered actually sounds better, okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intended to cater for previously unqualified black voters": I'm not sure. Maybe: intended to enfranchise previously disqualified black voters.

Note for all: I am being called up by the army early tomorrow morning (26 August), so I will not be able to see any further comments for a while. Please bear this in mind if you leave comments for me in this peer review. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/August_2012&oldid=516090707"